The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2310 ALTISMA WAY; SLAB REP; CB022543; 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: CB022543 2310 ALTISMA WY CBAD RESDNTL SubType: RAD Status: ISSUED 2152402826 Lot #: 0 Applied: 08/28/2002 $0.00 Construction Type: NEW Entered By: RMA Reference #: Plan Approved: 09/20/2002 0 Structure Type: Issued: 09/20/2002 0 Bathrooms: 0 Inspect Area: LA COSTA VIEW-REPAIR Orig PC#: SLAB& STRUCTURE-UNITS 125,127,130,227&230 Plan Check#: Applicant: NAUTILUS GENERAL CONTRACTORS SUITE H 9823 PACIFIC HEIGHTS BLVD SD CA 92121 Owner: LAPORTE ROBERT J 2310 ALTISMA WAY b126 CARLSBAD CA 92009 858-457-031 6 Total Fees: $120.00 Total Payments To Date: $120.00 Balance Due: $0.00 Building Permit $0.00 Meter Size Addl Building Permit Fee $0.00 Addl Red. Water Con. Fee $0.00 Plan Check $0.00 Meter Fee $0.00 Addl Plan Check Fee $120.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 Plan Check Discount $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $0.00 Strong Motion Fee $0.00 PFF $0.00 Park in Lieu Fee $0.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 Park Fee $0.00 License Tax $0.00 LFM Fee $0.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Bridge Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $0.00 Other Bridge Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 BTD #2 Fee $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Addl Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Addl Pot. Water Con. Fee Recl. Water Con. Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 $0.00 Housing InLieu Fee $0.00 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 $0.00 Sewer Fee $0.00 $0.00 Additional Fees $0.00 TOTAL PERMIT FEES $120.00 lnspecto Clearance: hOTCE Pease meh0TlCE Inalapprovalolyo.rpro.efl.ncludestne’mposlOn‘oflees, oedcalons resenaiom. o~olner~~actons nereatlercolectre~ relerrea 10 as ieesiexacions.’ Yo, nave 43 days lrom tne dale ln s permn Has IsS~eo 10 prolesl mpos.1 on 01 lneSe leeseranons. I YOJ protee them, yo. musl lo 106 lh8 proiesl procedures sal lorn n Government Coae Secion 66020(a), ana f e the prolesl ana any olnel req. rea nlormadon n in Ihe C t) Manager lor process.ng n amraance xiln Cailsbaa M.nsipa Coae Sect on 3.32.030 Fa lure to !.me ) lo ON mal procea-re &,I oar any s.oseq.enl legal acl on to anacll, review. sei as ae. r0.d. or ann. !ne I imposti on You are hereby FLRThER hOTlF ED inat y0.r nghi to protest Ine spec I ed leesexactions DOES hOT APPLY 10 water and sewer WnnecI on lees ana capachl FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ERMlT APPLICATION PLAN CHECK N0.(5?/3225y3 EST. VAL. Plan Ck. Deposit Validated By Date- CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 X of Bedrooms '' #of Bathrooms' " Telephone # Fax # .. .. Name Address City StatelZip Name Address City StatelZip Telephone # usmeso and Professions iss~ance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Codel or that he is exempt therefrom, end the basis for the alleged tion 7031.5 by my applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil Penalty of not more than fi 5 9- WD,~ &+-DtatOCk Address City StatelZip State License # W~.SSZ Designer Name Address City StatelZip Telephone St W oft e work for which this permit is issued. issued. My worker's compensation insurance Carrisi and policy number are: ~nsurmce Company ~-G+TX %-JU Policy NO. I&= 23w 2 Expiration Date .T- ria? (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS It1001 OR LESS) 0 CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which thio permit is issued. I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become Subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' comwnaafion coverage is mlmvfd, and shall subject an employer to crlminsl penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollan 16100.0001. in sddltlon to the cost of compensation. damages aa moddad for in Sectlon 3706 of the Labor code. Interest and anomev's fees. License Class A, B; Mrc City Business License X '& I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Cod% for the pevformance I have and will maintain workers' compmsation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit io 62 SiGNATLRE DATE i heraoy aft.," that I am exempt fmm tne Contractor's License Law for the 10 low ng reason 7. OWNER-BIJILCIER mcmnow I, 8s owner of the pmpsrty or my employees with wages as their sole compensation. will do the work and the Structure is not intended or Offered for sale (Sec. 7044. Business and Professions Code: The Comrsctor'r License Law doer not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such imPIoYBments are not intended or offerad for sale. If. however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sdd. i, 8s owner of the property, am exclusiveiy Contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project iSsc. 7044. Business and ProfeSSions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner Of property who builds or improver thereon. and contracts for such projects with contractoils1 licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). 0 1. 2. 3. I am exempt under Section I per~onally plan to provide the major labor and materials for Construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES ON0 I (have I have not) signed an application for a building permit for the PlOP08ed work. I have contracted with the following person lfirml to provide the propossd construction (include name I address I phone number I contractors license number): Busine.5 and Professions Code for this reason: 4. number I contractors license number): 5. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name I address I phone I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted [hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name I address I phone number 1 type 1s the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan. acutely hazardous mBteiia1s registration form or risk management and Prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Preslsy-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? YES 0 NO Is the applicant or future building wwpant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district7 YES 0 NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet Of the Outer boundary Of a school site? 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 AN0 THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. YES ,, ,,,. ,, , . ,, , ,.. . . ,.. ,, ,,,. , ,, ,, I hereby affirm that there is B construction lending egency for the performance Of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 30971il Civil Cadel .. LENDERS NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS I certify that I haw read the BppliCation and 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 representatives of the CitV of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AN0 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 excavations over SO" deep and demolition or Construction Of 6tlUCtUreS over 3 Stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Onicial under the Provisions of this Code shaii expire by limitation and become null and void a the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work Buthorized by Such permit is suspended 01 abandoned at any time alter the work is APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE 8-Zs-Oz WHITE: File YELLOW Applicant PINK: Finance Inspection List Permit# CB022543 Type: RESDNTL RAD LA COSTA VIEW-REPAIR SLAB& STRUCTURE-UNITS 125,127,130,2 Date lnspectlon Item Inspector Act Comments 06/24/2003 89 Final Combo PD AP FINAL 01/28/2003 18 Exterior LatWDrywall JM AP 01/06/2003 14 Frarne/SteeVBolting/Weldin JM AP EXTERIOR GARAGE ONLY OK TO LATH la1 6/2002 11 FtglFoundationlPiers PD AP 1211 612002 14 FramelSteellBoltingMeldin PD wc Wednesday, June 25.2003 Page 1 of 1 CODE DESCRPTION 6dkL ACT COMMENTS EX Corporation DATE: September 5,2002 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-2543 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2310 Altisma Way 0 FILE SET: I 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 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 .. VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-2543 ball Plan Review Fee PREPARED BY: Kurt Culver BUILDING ADDRESS: 2310 Altisma Way BUILDING OCCUPANCY: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: DATE: September 5,2002 $144.00l $1 80.00 I Type of Review: 0 Complete Review Stluctural Only a - L I * on htiy rate Comments: Review of report for compaction grouting. Esgil fee = 1.5 hrs. @ $96.00/hr. Sheet1 of 1 macvalue.doc JLy .-. I L' , SEP 2 0 2002 City of CARLSBAD -@ BUILDING DEPT. A NTH 0 NY -TAY LO R C 0 N S U LTA NT S 104 Entcrpru. Snen kond~do. CA 92029 (760) 710.88(10 (760) 730-8132 fan San Dicgu. CA Sun F~ncuco, CA Howon. TX El h Q I 0 ALICANTE PRODUCER 'Cavignac h Aaaociates 1230 Columbia St., Suite 850 San Diego CA 92101-3547 Phone:619-234-6848 Pax:619-234-8601 ~ DATE(MMIDDI*I) LI AB I LlTY I N S U RA N C D{ 06/13/02 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 AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURED Nautilus General Con r., znc Stefen E. petafson FstacseDim San Diego C!i 92103 4323 Rando h Street , I INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE I INSURERA Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co INSURER8 State Compensation Ins. Fund INSURERC Steadfast Ineurance Company INSURER 0 INSURERE 0 5/ 01/0 3 NPE OF INSURANCE INSRl GENERAL LIABILITY I s s ! ?2%!iKSl I"&? E.L. EACH ACCIOEM s1000000 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE I 1000000 E.L.OISEASE-POLICYLIMIT S1000000 ALL OWNED AUTOS ANY AUTO i OCCUR 0 CLAIMS MADE I OEOUCTIBLE ~ ~ X RETEMION SO ' 1 VIORPERSCOI?PEUSATION AND I 1 EMPLOYERS LIABILKV I I , OTHER j A Property Section I DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSn California POLICY NUMBEY 7RD80782200 7RD80782200 7RD80782200 168823802 7RD80782200 CLESEXCLUSIONS ADDED BV ENDORSEU 05/01/02 05/01/02 05/01/02 05/01/02 05/01/02 SPECIAL PROVISH s BODILY INJURY [Pal acsamt) PROPERTY DAMAGE (PErXCldeal s S AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIOEM OTHERTHAN I AUTO ONLY AGG 1 I 05/01/03 Ea Claim 1000000 , Aggregate 1000000 ~ CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1 N I ADDITIONAL INSURED INSURERLETTER. - SPEC1 - 1 SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE ~ I ACORD 25-S (7l97) CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE OESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREM. THE ISSUING INSURER WLL ENDEAVOR TO MAL NOTICE TOTHE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMEDTOTHE LER, BUT FAILURE TOW SO SHALL - DAYS WRITTEN IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILIIYOF ANI K~~THE INSURER. ITS AGENTSO+ 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 .................................................... 1.0 SCOPEOFWOW 1 2.0 VATI IONS ..................................................... 2 2.1 Compacm ............................................ .3 ................................ 4 SLum Fillme/Lense @olltine 2.2 2.3 ....................................... 9 2.5 ................................................... 10 2.6 ................................................ 11 2.7 J&ht-Ww ..................................... 11 2.8 .. 2.4 Grade. ............................................. 9 SpliceRepait. .......................................... 12 3 .O k .......... 12 4.0 INGS AM> CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 18 5.0 RECOMMENDAT IONS ............................................... 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 APPENDICES: A References Figure Ia Figure It, Figure IC Figure Id Figure Ie Figure If Figure Ig Figure Ih Figure Ii - 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 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 2308-2310 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California 92009 References: See Appendix A 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 observationdinspections were performed on an on-call basis between October 17, 2002, and February 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 Site Repair Observations Selectsd Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 2 Project No. 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 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 readiiy accessible portions of the residences Preparation of this report presenting a general summary of our site following compaction grouting and releveling. . grade-beam and slab replacement steel reinforcing; . . . following compaction grouting, structural, and foundation and slab repairs; . observations. 2.0 DBSERVA- 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 repair/reconstruction items were observed: Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 IO Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 3 Project No. 00-1800 2.1 Cpmpaction Grout ing As recommended in project reports (See Appendiv 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 lii 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 of the injection pipes was locally obmed 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 office 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 and/or 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-slurry 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 UNta-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 IO Altisma 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 groutinglre-leveling program. 2.2 -maw of Grout Ouant ities/Du units 1ylUs Grout Po int #I 9 #2 12 #3 12 #4 I2 #5 I2 #6 7 #7 7 #8 9 #9 9 # IO 9 # II 9 # 12 9 # 13 9 # 14 9 Total Devih flketl .~ # 17 7 # 18 7 # 19 9 # 20 9 # 21 9 # 22 9 # 23 9 # 24 9 # 2s 9 # 26 IO # 27 9 # 28 IO # 29 10 # 30 9 # 31 10 # 32 10 Total Grout Vol. kwbic &et1 9 11 10.5 19 29 9.5 5.25 12 6.5 38 7 10 21 12 IO 7 9 0 31 12 8 8 IO 8 9 5 8 7 1 12.5 17 5 GM GMIGS GM SM GS COISM GM co GM GM GM GM GM GM SWGM GM SMIGM SMiWM SMMrM SMiWM WM SM WM WM * t HP SWGM SM SM Site Repair Observations Selmted Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 5 YnitS 117/118 (Continued) Grout Point TmtIfrer) # 33 8 # 34 # 35 # 36 # 37 Y 38 # 39 # 40 # 41 Units 117/118 Litling Points # A-I # A-IB # A-2 # A-ZB # A-3 # A4 # A-5 # A-6 # A4B # A-7 # A-8 # A-8B # A-9 # A-9B # A-IO # A-IOB #A-I1 #A-I1B # A-I2 # A-12B # A-I3 # A-I4 # A-15 # A-I6 # A-16B #A-I7 # A-29 # A-36 # A-37 9 13 9 9 9 9 9 6 IO 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 T- 5 16 20 14 IO 10 6 4 8 IO 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 ,900 Code fl * * u GM GM GWSM SM SM Total Grout Volume Units 117/118 (cubic-feet) = 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 IO Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 6 units 1- &mi Paint Toial Devih /feet1 #I #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 # 10 # I1 # I2 U 13 U 14 # 15 # 16 U 17 # 18 U 19 # 20 # 21 # 22 # 23 # 24 U 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 IO 12 12 12 12 8 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 I2 I2 12 I2 12 Toial Grout Val. /cubic &&I 16 21 26 25 19 18 14 13 IO 10 10 9 IO 13.5 IO IO 10 10 33 33.5 26 13.75 27.5 14 14 27.5 26 22 12 21 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 $ion Code PI COISM co COISM COISM COIGM COIGM COIGM COIGM co COIGM SMIGM COIGM COIGM COIGM COIGM COISM COIGS COISM GSISM COISM COISM SM COISM SM SM COISM co co COIGS co co co COiSM COISM co COISM COISM COISM COISM SM COISM COISM SM COISM Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 7 units )19/120 (Continued) Grout Point Total Deoth /feetl LiAing Points # A-5 12 # A-5B 8 # Ad 12 # A-7 12 # A-9 12 # A-10 12 # A-I2 9 # A-14 12 # A-15 12 # A-16 12 # A-18 12 # A-20 12 # A-22 12 # A-27 12 # A-30 7 # A-31 I2 # A-32 12 # A-35 7 Total Grout Vol. Icubiw 15 8 10.5 13 13.5 20 13.5 13.5 30 33 34 33.5 27.5 26 19 15.5 17 7.5 Project No. 00-1800 ari e COISM GM COISM COISM COISM COISM SMIGM SMIGM co COISM co COIGM COISM COISM SM SM SM SM Total Grout Vo lume units 119!120 fcubic.feeQ = 1217.5 (45.1 cubic yards) ynitS 123/124 Grout Poi% #I 12 #2 13 #3 13 #4 13 #5 13 #6 13 #7 13 #8 13 #9 13 # IO 10 # I1 13 # 12 13 # 13 13 # 14 I3 # 15 13 # 16 13 # 17 12 # 18 13 # 19 13 # 20 13 # 21 13 - Total Deurh /feet! Total Grout Vol. (cubic ketl 9.5 11.25 13.75 13 14.5 12 13 13 13 12 13 13.5 9.5 14 I5 16 5.5 12 12 23.5 14.5 Stou Code Pi COIGM COIGM COIGM COIGM COIGM COIGM COISM COISM COISM COIGM SM COISM COISM SMIGM SWGM COISM COISM COISM COISM COISM COISM Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Cadsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 8 units 123/124 (Continued) Grout Point Total DeoIh /fief, #22 13 # 23 13 X 24 13 # 25 13 # 26 13 # 21 12 # 28 12 # 29 12 # 30 # 31 12 13 # 32 13 # 33 13 # 34 12 # 35 13 # 36 12 # 37 13 # 38 13 Litling Points # A-I 9 # A-2 9 # A-IO 12 Total Gmut Val. /cubic &et1 37 32 22 26 22.25 IO II II 9 9 12.5 13 7.25 9 5.5 11.5 11.25 22 9 15 Project No. 00-1800 S~OD Code Pl COISM COISM COISM COISM COISM co COISM COISM SM COISM HPISM COISM COISM SMJGM GM COIGM * Total Grout Volume Units 123/124 fcubicfeetl= 578.75 (21.4 cubic yards) units 130/230 Grout Point #I #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 # IO # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 Toiai Deoth IfieQ 15 15 15 15 1s 15 16 15 1s I5 15 15 15 18 15 Total Grout Vol. /cubic fie@ 14.5 9.5 13.5 20 17 19 I6 9.5 9.5 19 22 11.25 24 31 21 S~OD Code PJ SM SM SM GMJSM SMJGM COISM SMJGS SM SM CO/SM SMJGM SMJGS COISM 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 130/230 (Continued) Gmut Point Total Deoth (Teeti Total Grout Vol. (cubic fi Stov Code P) # 16 16 22 COISM # 17 15 23.5 COISM ~~ .. -. # 18 15 20 SM # 19 15 21 COISM -e I U nits 130/230 fcubic feet) = 343.25 (12.7 cubic yards) (*) 1. Note: Summary of Stop Code Abbreviations: SM=Slab Movement, WM=Wall Movement, GM=Ground Movement, GS= Ground Surface, HP=High Pressures, CO=Volume Cut OK. 2. Additional lifting point numbers may not match previous point number locations. 2.3 Slurrv Fillindense Grouting Following the re-leveling process, exposed or encountered ground fractures resulting from the re-leveling process in the areas of Units 1 17, and 11 8, were filled with a fluid mixture of cement slurry injected under low pressure. The purpose ofthe slurry injection was to locally fill 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 slurry placement was performed in'these areas. 2.4 Grade Ba ReDairs As recommended within the referenced project reports, a concrete grade beam was installed beneath footing cracks where cracks approximately 1/4-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 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 10 ProjectNo. 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 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 Uqits 118, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, and 227. The largest slab cracks and areas of frequent cracking exposed during the building repairs @e. 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 ofice. 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. Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condodums 2308 and 23 10 Allisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Pa86 11 Project No. 00-1800 2.6 Following the compact.ion groutinglre-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 lifted 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 of the 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 7 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 desire 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 Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 IO Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 12 Project No. 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 Solicc RW 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 < -A D F R ELEV 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 lll0-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 23 IO Altisma Way, Carisbad, 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 118) 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 of the 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 1 17. The results ofthe post-re-leveling floor survey are shown on the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey. Figure Ia. mts 119 md 1 20 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 corner 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 of the 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 of the master bedroom in Unit 1 19, 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. Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 IO Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 14 Project No. 00-1800 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 perfoimed. 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. lLnits 125 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 comer of the master bedroom. Following the hydraulic litling 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 corner 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. Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 15 Project No. 00-1800 The findmgs of our initial survey indicated that Unit 127 displayed approximately 1.1- inches of elevation 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 fireplace), and the low points ofthe survey were located in the southeasterly comer 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. units 129 The findings of our initial survey indicated that Unit 129 displayed approximately 1.5- inches of elevation 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 23 10 Altisma 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 corners of the dining nook, and the southeasterly corner of the master bedroom. 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 2.0-inches of elevation difference was measured across the living area floor in Unit 130. The survey measured the high point ofthe 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 of the 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. Ynit 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 Altism Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 17 Project No. 00-1800 Following floor Wing 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 measurcments 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 tindings of our initial survey indicated that Unit 230 displayed approximately 2.8- inches of elevation difference across the unit. The floorsurvey indicated that survey high points were measured to be located in the northeasterly comer 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 fueplace), 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 Obsenations 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 rn- 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 full 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 1 IS if not specifically required; and a desire 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-lifted during a previous localized grouting performed by others. Site Repair Observations Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 10 Altisma Way, Cadsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 19 Project No. 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 buildmg 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 RECOMMENDATIONS 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 hnctioning 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 cotlfrm 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, and/or 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 framing 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 Altisms Way, Cdsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 20 Project No. 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 2310, 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 gcneral 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, tinless 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. 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 Units-La Costa View Condominiums 2308 and 23 IO Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. May 19,2003 Page 2 1 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 soils, 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 future 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 23 IO Altisma Way, Carlsbad, C:a. 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-Taylor Company C.E.GNo. 1960 I Gregory d. K&en Project Engineering Geologist Distribution: (2 Originals, 2 Copy to Addressee) APPENDIX A REFERENCES “Project Memc-La Costa View Repairs- 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 11,2002. “Project Memometail-La Costa View Column Base Repair,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated December 10,2002. “Project MemeLa 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. ‘‘Projecl 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, 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated March 21,2002. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. “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. “Repart of Distress Observations and Survey Fin-, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated October 24,200 1. “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 23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated June 5,2001. “Project Memo-La Costa View Condominiums-Prop& Floor Repair,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated May 16,2001. “ReportofLimitedGeotechnicalandStructuralInvestigation,Units 117, 118, 123, 124, 125,and 130, 2308,23 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated April 27,200 1. “Supplemental Observations and Findings-Drain Pipe Exposures West of 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated February 26,2001. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. APPENDIX A REFERENCES “Supplemental Observations and Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308, 23 10 Ntisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated February 5,2001. “Summary Discussion-Scope of Authorized Investigation-Selected Units-La Costa View Condominiums, 2308 and 2310 Altisma Way, Carlsbad California, 92009,” prepared by Anthony- Taylor Consultants, dated February 7,2001. “Report of Distress Observations and Survey Findings, Selected Units-La Costa View Condominium, 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 Cotdombiums Consultation, 2308 Altisma Way, Carlsbad Californi6” 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. m t f 5 in € 5 * t w t 4 0 0 W " a 0 J J Q z 0 4 . .. . .. RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY LEGEND , -2 D . -20 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LDW IN INCHES) SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) ---12- CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) -1.5". - 1 .O"- IOTE: ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS s*.t h"O ,CO.F7m", so4 m,.Tllin 9e.u nr-ro. 0 sw11 ,,so, m,-m.M JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308 2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JW 5/16/03 Id DATE: FIG. NO. N;MBER: By: UNIT 125 POST - RELEVELING SURVEY -1 5" I -1 9" A EXT PATIO Ao -0 5" . ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. !. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR COVERING. i. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING AND JOIST CHANNEL PLACEMENT, AND PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELING (IF PERFORMED). OWNER HAD COMPLETED NEW FLOOR SCALE: 1" = 10' TILE IN PORTIONS OF UNIT AT TIME OF SURVEY. !. NO FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS. DATE OF SURVEY: 5/13/03 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY LEGEND A -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) --12- CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) 127 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS S." Du.* ,c-n.,., IOI mu- $I".< I-- 0 .mz. ,,lo, 7S~.*~OO JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1800 GMK/JW 5/ 16/03 le POST - RELEVELING SURVEY I -0.5" -0.5" 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR COVFRINC, .. - - 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LlFllNG AND JOIST CHANNEL PLACEMENT. AND PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELING ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ (IF PERFORMED). 4. NO FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS. SCALE: 1" = 10' DATE OF SURVEY: 05/13/03 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY -- ADJACENT UNIT (NOT SURVEYED) -0.: -_-- NOTE: 1. ALL ON UNIT #129 POST - RELEVELING -0.5" - 1 .O" - 1 .O" EXT. PATIO vl AF 1 .IS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. ALL ELEVP 3NS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING AND JOIST CHANNEL COVERING. PLACEMENT, AND PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELING (IF PERFORMED). 4. No FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS I ADJACENT UNIT ---I (NOT SURVEYED) - 1 .O" 1 .O" -1 SCALE: 1" = 10' DATE OF SURVEY: 01/03/03 2 I LEGEND AD. A-1.2 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/ LOW IN INCHES) -- 1.2 - CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) $1 *-1.4" SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) (n 21 - -. 0 CARPETING. APPARENT FLOOR CRACK BENEATH RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY 0 L 9 0 NOTF. LEGEND ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS sm" mw ,r.R-,., IO. Id- Et".!. #.d* u **0.1 (%a, ,Sd...OO A-2.0" SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW (IN INCHES) UNIT #130 RELEVELING 8-2.0" SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) GROUT INJECTION POINT \ JOE NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS. 1 1 .O" U I G -l.l -1.C lg JOE NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. --1,5'L- CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) 00-1800 GMK/JW 05/16/03 _. 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). 4. NO FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS. SCALE: 1" = 10' DATE OF SURVEY: 12/27/02 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY 2 9 h POS' ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS LEGEND ,-p 0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY S*" n..o (ea-#., 304 In-. SI".' #.e&*. C" azo11 (,.a, 731-6100 HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) \ UNIT #227 - RELEVELING NOTE: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AN0 LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING AND JOIST CHANNEL COVERING. PLACEMENT, AND PRIOR TO ANY SURFACE RELEVELINGC (IF PERFORMED). 4. No FLOOR COVERINGS WERE REMOVED DURING REPAIRS. SCALE: 1" = 10' DATE OF SURVEY: 01/03/03 4 VIEW CONDOMINIUMS ?I ~ -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) nnrrr RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY LEGEND SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY A0 HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) : 9 c UNIT #230 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS Ian hlo (Cm7nrUJ -4 hlnr”.. Sm.L ,.em- 0 SZO*# IWOJ 788-81W POST - RELEVELING \ - 1.5” - 1.5” NOTE: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CORRECTED FOR FLOOR 3. SURVEY PERFORMED AFTER LIFTING. JOIST CHANNEL COVERING. PLACEMENT, SURFACE RELEVELING, AND NEW TILE BY OWNER. SCALE: 1” = 10’ DATE OF SURVEY 5/15/03 Report of Limited Geotechnical and Structural Investigation Units 119, 120,127,227, & 230 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: March 21. 2002 BY Project No. 00-1800 SEP 2 0 2002 City of CARLSBAD PREPARED BY: BUILDING DEPT. Anthony-Taylor Consultants 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, California 92029 (760) 738-8800 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF WO RK ................................... ............. 1 PURPOSE ................................................... INTRODUC ...... ... SW BESCRP'ITO N ... ... .............................. 2 SUMMAR Y OF FLOOR LE VEL SURVEYS c :...... ..... ....................................... .... ........ 7 ............................. 8 REVIEW 0 F STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ................................ FINDINGS AND CONC LUSIONS ....... .. c I. 11. 111. IV. V. VI. VI1 VIII. Ix. X. XI. XI. RECOMME NDATIONS .................... Comoaction Groutme Rem 'r s Grade Beam Foundation Rem irs G ImnF i StruChl ral Wood Floor Reoai rs RemovaVRe leveline of Liehhve ieht Conc rete Floors General RecommendationsReoairs Mitieative Drainaee ReoairS meation Leak Detectio n Testing 11 LIMITATIO NS .................................................................. 20 FIGURES: Site Plan: Relative Floor Elevation Surveys: 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 RemovaVReleveling of Lightweight Concrete Floor Figure I Figures IIa-IId Figure IIIb Figure IIIc Figures IIId and IIIe Figure IVa Figure IVb 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 A NTH 0 NY -TAY L 0 R C 0 N S U LTA NT S 304 Enterprise Srreet Esconciicio. CA 92029 (760) 738-8800 (760) 738-8232 $ax March 21,2002 La Costa View Homeowners Association c/o S.H.E. Manages Properties 3990 Old Town Road, Suite 105-C San Diego, California 92 110 Attention: Mr. Lenny Kanarvogel Subject: Report of Limited Geotechnical 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 geotechnid 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 suveys, discussions with the homeowners, which have been summarized within this investigative report, with recommendations for repairs, where and as considered appropriate. The findings of our Phase 11 scope of work as outlined below is presented herein. L SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of services was performed as p;ut of our evaluation: . Review ofvarious documents (see References, Appendix A) pertinent to the site, provided Relative floor elevation surveys performed across a majority of the readily accessible living Site reconnaissance observations of distress features, and surface drainage conditions, as by the Associations management company; . area floor of the Units authorized (Unit Nos. 119, 120, 127,227, and 230); . evident within the readily visible portions of the site; Site reconnaissance observations of exposed building exterior conditions, and general site drainage; . A limited geotechnid and structural investigation in areas of building distress and/or floor 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 brings through them. March 21.2002 Page 2 - V. . Preparation of this summary revort of EEU~~I iical am Project No 00-1800 tmctural conditions noted during theminvestigation and documenireview: The report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations relative to the observed distress, site conditions, and related repairs. PURPOSE 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 2310 Altisma Way. We understand that the purpose of the investigations was to assess general conditions of building damagddistress, and provide reasonable and practical mommendations for cost effective mitigative building repairs considered appropriate based on the observed areas of site distress notedheported todate. INTRODUC nON As quested, 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 DESC RIPTION The pmjeadevelopment 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 1500 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 structnre (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 FLOO R 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 damagehilt observed has been summarized below. Reporl of Limited Cwtechnirrl urd Strvdunl InMgaUon SIlrrtrd Unh (119, 120, 127,227, and 230) la CON View Homeomera Auociation March 2I,ZQOZ p.ge 3 Pmirrt No 00-1800 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 acIoss Unit 119, and approximately 2.8-inches across Unit 120. In the case of Unit 119, the swvey 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 corner 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 of exterior compaction grouting was previously performed within the projea site to apparently address issues of possible building movement as well as exterior flatwork. In the case ofunit 120, the survey measured approximately 2.8-inches of floor elevation dfierence 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 Ira. 2310-Unit 127 A review of the snrvey findings, as measured across Unit 127, found a total of approximately 1.1 inches of elevation Werence. 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 acm6s approximately 8-feet horizontally, concentrated within the area of the master bedroom 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 ditference. 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. 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. Fwther, the floor elevation difference measured equals approximately 2.8 inches across 34-feet horizontal, trending downward towards the east-southeast from the high point (lcatd along the easterly wall of the second bedroom), towards the low point (located within the central porfion of the dining area). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure Ild. CONDITIONS OF OBSERVEDIIUCPOR TED 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 andor 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 1/8-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 backups 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: VI. A few approximately hairline to 1116-inch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slab, adjacent to the front entry am; Very few hairline cracks located within the exterior stucco; Evidence of previously patched and repaired ceiling and dyall cracks, especially within the living room and secondary bedroom; Apparent moisture damage to the drywall adjacent to the showerbath tub . Slight binding of the rear sliding door from the master bedroom to the halcony/patio; Report orLidkd Gemtechdd md Strvdud Inrrrtgatim Selected Units (119, 120,127,221, and 230) La Cart. View Hamromen Assodation Much 21,2002 Page 5 Pmjecl 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 comer of the residence. 2308 Altisma Way, Unit 120 Reposed 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 been 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 pressurized 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 bathmom were flooded. After 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 significant 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 ReportedDistress: 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 room, radiating from the comers of the windows to the floor; A hairline to 1/32-inch wide crack and separation in the interior drywall and comer bead 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 ; Project No 00-1800 Further, our observations noted what appeared to be several locations 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 obsewed condition appears to correspond to a location of concentrated floor tilt as measured within the floor elevation survey. 2310 Altisma Way, Unit 227 Repotted Distress: Based on the reports of Ms. Linda Wilson, she purchased the unit approximately 4 years ago. Since owning the property, there have been very few changes, but she reports having added marble 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 patiohalcony. 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 1/32-inch wide crack in the exterior lightweight concrete surface at the entry balcony, radiating from the staircase comer; . A hairline to 1/32-inch wide crack in the interior drywail adjacent to the window next to the fireplace; . Some hairline ceiling cracks in the master bedroom near the master bathroom Further, our observalions 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. Since 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 wmer 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 featnres: A hairline to 118-inch wide crack in the exterior stucco radiating from the corner 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 A hairlime to U32-inch wide crack in the ceiling, between the master bedmom and master Some minor binding of the master bathroom door; balcony, radiating from the living room; . bathroom; . 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 . spacdgap at the lower left hand comer of the door, when closed. Further, 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. w. SUBSURF ACE EXPLORA TION Based on the observed distress, we performed two exploratory subsurface soil brings to evaluate the underlying soil materials. Our subsnrface exploration included the excavation, logging and sampling of two exploratory test borings consisting of 4-inch diameter hand excavated brings, 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: 5-112" Concrete with no steel reinforcement encountered, on subgrade soils (no visqueen 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 (DD) = 105.2 pd, 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 (DD) = 101.8 pcf, equaling a relative compaction of 82 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pcf @ 6.0' Becomes soft to firm. Pm]rd No 00-1800 @ 6.5' Becomes light olive to Ian, silty clayey sand, very moist to wet, loose to medium dense, Moisture Content: = 19.1 V% Dry Density (DD) = 101.2 pcf, equaling a relative compaction of 82 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pd. Saturation = 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.o'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 @D) = 107.7 pd, equaling a relative compaction of 87 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pd. 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 pd, eqnabng a relative compaction of 82 percent, using a maximum density of 123.8 pcf. Saturation = 64 %. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 7.0 feet. VIIL LABORATORYT ESTING Selected laboratory testing was performed on representative soils obtained from the test boring 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 characteristics and engineering propelties. The following tests were conducted on the soils sampled: 1) Moisture Content 2) Density Evaluations ASTM D2216-71 ASTMD1557,MethodAandothers The relationship between the moisture and density of undistnrbed 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. Project No 00-1800 IX 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 Senices Inc. to open several areas of the exterior stucco and expose portions of the floor system framing accessible fmm 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 wey, and accessible from the exterior balcony, in order to limit interior building damage. Upon opening of the stucco, our Structural Engineer reviewed and documented the exposed framing conditions, and evaluated the general structural configuration of the supporting floorjoists fiaming. Upon review, the stluctural 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 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 infomtion 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 previcus exylontions 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 slab-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 backfill. 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 hy 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 All soils to a depth of approximately 13-feet. Additionally, our site observations noted that at some previous time, a Report orLimited Caolethchnicll and Strudunl Invdigatian Saleded Units (119. 120, 127,227, vld 230) L. Cor& Vim Homeomem Association kh 21. lOQ2 P.ge 10 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 flahvork, driveway, parking and sidewalk. Further, our review of the earlier project documents suggests that flahvork 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 espenally 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 appears that the unit has sustained some previous strnctural floor movement. Conditions related to building designlconstruction 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 and/or movement. However, our survey measured approximately 0.7-inch of defection within the floor near the corner of the dining mom nwk. This delldon corresponds to the locatian 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 floor joists have been overdeflected 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 bas 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 - Report orLlrnitrd Crrotrrhninl and StmCtYnl InmllpIIon Selected Units (119. 120, 127,227, and 230) La Costa View Hom~awncn AsariaIion - M.rch 21.2002 Page I1 long term load conditions. Additiody, 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 suppt columns, located beneath the main north-south support beam located beneath the unit within the carport. This unit shares foundation and strnctural 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 mmed within the central and rear cenlral (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 structural floor movement, compounded hy 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 wthin Units 130 and 230, have resulted from previous settlement of the column footings supporting the main beam located beneath Unit 130. - XI. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the results of our site evaluation, it is our opinion that previous soil movement has contributed 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 ofthe 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 fonndation/slab 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 ling of the cantilever and the installation of the steel joists below Unit 130, that a signifcant 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 re-evaluated 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 floor/framing repairs to include, but not necessarily be limited to, localized removalheleveling of the lightweight concrete floor, as was recommend for Unit 227. - i L Report orLlmited Gootechnical md SvUdunl InvesUgaUan Selected Unitr (119,120, 127,227, and 230) L. C& Vlm H0lnwmen Auadatlo” Much 21.2002 Page 12 - Pmjd No 00-1800 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 structnre performance will help to reveal if this is, or is not the case). At the time the compaction groutingreleveling is performed, we recommend that the stn~ctures 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 masomy stemwall desigq it may not be feasible to attain the desired magnitude of releveling of the foundation and slab. Should this condition arise, it may be necessaly to implement other releveling methods (i.e., mechanical jackingfoundation 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. -ion Grouting Reoairs The proposed soUfoundation repairs consist of a limited program of compaction groutingreleveling in the area of the greatest differential floor tilt within the individual building structures (Units 119 and 120), as well as releveling of the column footings and beam supporting the rear of Unit 130 and 230. 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 affected area. The pro@ grouting program is based on our findings, and the observed damage which has apparently been caused by the settlement of the fill/bac!&ll 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 119 and 120 be releveled by compaction grouting of the fill soils underlpg 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 densify 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 compaction ofthe 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 1-foot vertical increment will be required in the prim 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. Report of Limltrd Gmtarhnlnl and StlUdunl InvnUgation SelrNd Unlts (119,110.127.127, and 230) L. costa View Holnmmcn AS.orlrtion March lI.1001 Page 13 Compaetion Grouting/Releveling-Units 119 and 120 Pmja No 00-1800 Basedupon 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 dens@ 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 tom 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 be obtained, these estimates are to be 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 diffcr. a. b. AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 13 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE= 1027 TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 79 LINEAL FEET. ESTIMATFD 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 evaluation, 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 dens@ 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 aetual grout quantity may differ. r I Report of LhHd Geotechdnl and Stnrctunl InveaUgation Selected Units (119, 120, 127,227. and SO) La Costa View Hornroman Assorialion Murh 21,2002 Pqe 14 a. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 19 b. AVERAGE PIPE DEF" = 20 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE = 380 LINEAL FEET. ESTIMATELI TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 969 CUBIC FEET/36 CUBIC YARDS (assumes no grout take within the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCI'URE LIFT = between 0.2 and 0.8 inch. The proposed repairs are dimsd in the attached Appendix B, "General Notes And Instructions to OwnerdGeneral Contractor & Supplemental Notes Instructions To Prospective Compaction- Grouting Contractors", Appendix C, "Recommended Specifications For Compaction Grouling/Fonndation Releveling", and shown on the *bed "Proposed Grout Point Location Map", Figures IIIa, 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. C. d. . Grade-Beam Foundation Reoairs Upon the completion of the fonndation 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 &e Wdeepened footing. The deepened footing shall be a minimwn 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) 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 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. . SLat, Re0.W 'rs 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 ofthe floor slab can be observed. Following flooring covering removals and slab inspectioh we recommend that all interior concrete slab cracks and separations between 1/8 and 1/4-inch wide be structurally repaired with epoxy grout, filed to the MI thickness. Alternately, where the cracking is less than 118-incb wide, and no vertical sepmtion is pmnt across the crack surface, the crack may alternately be filled with an suitable elastomeric sealant to reduce the potential of moisture infiltration into the ~rpd orurnlied cm&nird urd strvdurd InvutigaUon Selected UniU (119,120, 127,227. and 230) La Costa Vim HornPomen hodation Much 21,2002 Page IS PmJd No 00-1800 underlying site soils. Slab cracks greater than Il4-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 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 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 pmposedlreqnired, new interior concrete slabs shall be constructed to be a minimum of 5-inches thick (interior floor slabs) and reinforced with N0.4 rebar positioned at 18-inches on-center each way. The new slab areas shall be underlain by dense, properly moisture conditioned and compacted filUor natural soils, as well as 6-inches ofclean sand and a IO-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 Rwirs At Column Footineg Following the releveling of the isolated column footings and the main support beam located beneath Units 130 and 230, we recommend that the existing column footings be retro-fitted with an new concrete gmde-beam, which connects the three column footings together, and increases the load bearing capacity. The new concrete grade beam shall be 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 if possible, extend below the bottom edge of the existing column footings. The new concrete grade beam shall be reinforced with four # 5 rehars (two top and two bottom), wrapped with # 3 rehar ties positioned at 12-inches on-center. The rebar shall be properly configured and securely wired in-place, and supported on concrete dobies or chairs so as to positioned with a minimnm 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 rehar cage. All rebar dowels shall be set with Simpson high sttength strum epoxy (or approved equivalent) specifically formulated for the placement of structural anchors andor dowels. Report of Umited Geotrchninl and Structunl InvnUgation Sdeded Unha (119, 120, 127,227, and 230) la CON Vlw HO~IWWIIET. hdation Mwch 21.2002 P* 16 It is estimated that the new grade beam shall be approximately &feet in length. Dowels and steel reinforcement shall lap a minimum of 24-inches unless indicated otherwise. See attached Column Footing Retro-Fit Repairs and Grade Beam Detail, Figure IVc. 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, with a maximum of 5-inch slump at the time of placement. Crushed gravel mix designs are preferred over similar pea gravel mix designs. StNChl rd Wood Floo r Reoairg In order to address the observed conditions of excessive floor deflection as was measured within the wood floor system ofunits 125 and 130, we recommended that the existing floor joists to fitted with supplemental steel joist members in accordance with ow previously prepared ligu~~s (April 27,2001 report) titled Proposed Structural Repairs, Figures Va and Vb, as well as the atixhedFloor Joist Retro-Fit Repair Plan, Figure VI. In the case of the floorjoist repairs to Unit 127, we recommend the installation of 2 (tw0)-12FJlOO steel joists 14-feet in length to the floor joist located on the balcony side of the dining room nwk 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 woll 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. . RemovallReleveline Of Liehtweieht Co ncrete Floors In order to address the ObSeNd conditions of excessive floor deflection as measured within localized portions of the wood floor within Units 227, we recommend that the arms of the existing flooring be stripped 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 floorjoist 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 ldizedtloor sag/deflection within the living roam 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 removalheleveling process for this units is shown on the attached detail titled RemovalReleveling of Lightweight Concrete Floor Surfaces, Figure Ne. r i In the case ofunit 230, it is anticipated that following the column and beam releveling, the installation of shoring, limited liRing ofthe 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 mmmend that the condition and magnitude offloor tilt present across Unit 230, be reevaluated, by resurveying 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 further repair measures, including but not limited to the removaVreleveling of localized floor elevation ditferences (as recommend for Unit 227) as site conditions may warrant. . General_Refommendations/R~ i All compaction grouting operations, foundatiodslab releveling, slab repairs, wood floor system repairs, as weell 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 lnspeaed by a qualified architecturallstructl 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 I-inch should be stripped of the covering to expose framing members and refitted, realigned, andor 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/S-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 or Limited Geotehnlcd and Structural Inv~sugation SeIoEted Unlb (119, 120, 127.221. and 230) La Cosb view Homeomem Asrociauon Murh 11,1801 Page IS Project No 00-1800 The new slab areas shall be underlain by dense, properly moisture conditioned and compaaed Wor ~hual 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 tap (if appropriate); and resurfacinglrepainting the repaired surface. Areas where the stucco wall has buckled or bowed, shall be stripped of Ihe covering to expose framing members and refitted, realigned or replaced as deemed necessq. Within those areas where the stucco is severely damaged (Le. spalling of stucco, cracks larger than 3B-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 edent 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 heen 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(s), and provide appropriate recommendations, as warranted. Mitigative Drainage Reoairs In order to address and mitigate the existing conditions of locally poor surface drainage, and to reduce the potential for intiltration 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 orLimIted Gedoehnical and Structural lnvsugrtion Selected Units (119, 120. 127,227, and 230) L. Coat. View Hommrmrn Auorialion - Murh 21,1002 Pqr 19 PmjRt No 00-1800 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 be performed: We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade 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 15 feet from the building for soillsubgrade surfaces, and I-percent minimum gradient for a minimum distance of 10 feet for hard finish surfaces (pavement, ways 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 consist 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 smcture, 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 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 andlor reverse sloping concrete flatwork directing swface water into doonvays 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-perforat@ non-corrugated drain pipe placed at a minimum 1% gradient sloped to the existing concrete swales or confirmed operational drain systems. In planter arcas, new drain systems should be provided with drain inlels spaced at approximately 10 feet on center. r i Repan OTLimited Geoldmirai and Strueturd InvnCigatian Selretnl UniU (119, 120. 127.227, and 230) La cmt. view Hmnemmln Asmciation Much 21,2002 Fkge 20 Pmied No 00-1800 Additionally, the existing system of mf drains and downspouts shall be connected into the existing drain system where confirmed adequate, or into a new surface drainage system All new drain 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 be directed to an approved existing concrete drainage swale or other suitable structure. IrriPation Our site observations confirmed generally poor site irrigation practices immediately adjacent tothe 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 $e minimum amount of water necessilIy mainIain proper plant health Where landscape damage occnrs 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 stn~ctures 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. Xn. LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis. Of necessity, we mnst assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is therefore necessary that all obsetvations, conclusions and recommendations be verified at the time mitigative repairs begin. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued (if required). Report oflimited Geokhninl and Structunl Invesliytiota Sddd Units (119,120, 127.227, and 230) La Cost. Vim Homeomen blrodation March 21.2002 P*e 21 Project No 00-1800 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 specitidly 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 discovered and accwnted for during OUT investigation or subsequent repairs. Past soil-related or moisture-rehted damage may have been repaid and therefore were not available for our observation and evaluation. In addition, latent defects in such non-geotecbnical items as structural design, materials quality and type, or workmanship could result in future distress; analysis of such items is outside OUT 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 OUT 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 incorporated into the project repairs and construction. and that the neceswy steps are taken to ensure that the Contractors and subcontractors cany 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. Report arLinlled Geotffhninl md Strvrlunl Invallgation Selected Unlb (119, UO, 127,227. md 230) L. Cast. View Hon~o*mm haciation L M.reh21.2002 Page 22 We appreciate this opportunity to be of senice. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, you may contact the undersigned. Referencing ow 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 Gregory h& €&fen Project Engineering Geologist Distribution: (2 Orig~~Is, 1 Copy to Addressee) \ j I 1 Ir I I I I I m a I B e "? N 3 a I2 a a 4 V LL 0 r 3 i Y c 6 x I F2 a a 6 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY . -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) (IN INCHES) ---1.z- CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION I L JOB NAME: -SITE LA ADDRESS: COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS . 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. Ilb JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 03/13/02 -0.4 -- -0.4 -0.4. . SCALE: 1" = 10' ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIUATE UNIT 127 -oq -oiGL EXT. PATlC NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 03/13/02 I 1 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY 2 9 UNIT #227 LEGEND 0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) 9- hrw 1Coi-l.J 30, Inl-. Scrd Imbulo CA 1202s lrro) ma-dam SCALE: 1” = 10’ Mi DIMENSIONS AND LOChTIONS *RE APPROXIMATE h hl I 5 I * 2 \ JOB NAME: -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION . LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS AREA OF WOOD FRAMING EXPOSURE (FROM BUiiDiNG EXTERIOR) -l.*- (IN INCHES) SITE ADDRESS: /- 2308 N,jMBER: 2310 ALTISMA REV,EWED By: WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 03/13/02 Ilc DATE: FIG. NO. \ \ \ DATE OF SURVEY: 10/03/01 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY SCALE: 1" = 10' ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS *RE APPROXIMATE \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ UNIT #230 DATE OF SURVEY: 10/03/01 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS LEGEND sa" rn..' fc~o~c., 30. Z"l"p.I.. I*.,. E.*4<dO, c, 9mII (,GO, lJd-*MO Ir -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY 2 HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) 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 UNIT# 127 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS L" c-6 4". ,loo "..lD..~, %I. xo my.(." 7" 11m. IU ,...-"lo I/, l..m."l ., ,,. 110 I- e,*"<,,'* 9.105 I." m.,. ,".-*, 30. r"l.lll... ll...I e.c*"d,#*, n sm2. ,le01 naawo JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,231 ALTiSMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 03/13/02 lllb SCALE: 1" = 10' ALL O~MENS~ONS IWD wcirloNs ARE APPROXIMATE. RETROFIT 5 EXISTING FLOOR JOIST WITH 2 METAL JOISTS (14'-12FJlOO) EACH JOIST, SEE FIG. IVd REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT WEIGHT CONC. FLOOR AND PLYWOOD, REINFORCE AND RELEVEL AREA OF EXPOSED FLOOR JOIST WITH NEW 2 X 6 GLUED AND NAILED IN PLACE. PROVIDE BLOCKING, NEW 3/4" PLYWOOD, AND RE-POUR NEW LIGHTWEIGHT CONC. SEE ATTACHE0 DETAIL OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE FLOOR FIG. IV 0.4 ) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 03/13/02 COLUMN RETRO-FIT REPAIRS AND GROUTING . PROPOSED LOCATION OF GROUT INJECTION POINTS - -,,2- CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) PROPOSED APPROXIMATE LIFT (IN INCHES) AT COLUMN LOCATIONS (0.8) \ JOE NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOE NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 03/13/02 lllc UNIT #130 SCALE: 1" = 10' &L DlMENSlONS AND LOCATlONS ARE APPROX<UAITE 7 * SEE NOTE FOR ADDITIONAL REPAIRS -2.0 -2.0 -1.6 GRADE BEAM TO CONNECT TO EXISTING COLUMN FOOTINGS SEE FIG. IVc \ -1.2 - EXISTING STEEL- COLUMNS WITH CONCRETE FOOTIN \ -0.8 . -0.4 - - GROUT INJECTION POINT (TYP.) EXISTING 8" X 12" EXISTING MASONRY BLOCK FOUNDATION WALL ALSO SEE ANTHONY-TAYLOR REPORT DATED 4/27 01 FOR STRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS RELATIVE * TO NoTEi U IT 130. VOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11/14/00 .EGEND ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS Ian h.90 (con-t.J 304 huv'rr. It".' Errondldo. c* S~IS (7soJ ~~d-mbw A -2 0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) PROPOSED FLOOR REPAIRS UNIT #227 \ ADfk:NT \ SCALE: 1” = 10’ ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS AM APPROXIMATE. \ / i I \ \ \ -0.5 1, DATE OF SURVEY: 10/03/01 PROPOSED FLOOR REPAIRS UNIT #230 DATE OF SURVEY: 10/03/01 GRADE BEAM DETAIL BETWEEN SOIL & STEEL \ EXIST. STEM WALL I EXIST. WALL FOOTING AND SLAB + c n Q - x EXIST. FOOTING OR STEMWALL 24” MIN. 1 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS 3.“ h.,. ,c-.(.* so1 I”,- sm.t ,mmNI N ww, ,’IO, ,a,.um SLAB REPLACEMENT DETAIL NO. 4 REBAR @ 18" O.C. EACH WAY. STAGGER ALL REBAR SPLICES AND PROVIDE 16" MINIMUM LAP. -SAW CUT // SAW CUT NEW 5" SLAB MIN. 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 I" 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 @ 28 DAY MIX, WITH 5-INCH MAX SLUMP. SCALE: NOT TO SCALE / LNO. 4 REBAR POWEL EPOXY SET 18' O.C. PROPOSED COLUMN FOOTING RETRO-FIT REPAIR 0 t 9 2 I u z UNIT # 130 JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. IVC 00-1 800 GMK/JLM 03/13/02 BOTTOM EDGE OF EXISTING WOOD BEAM (8” X 12”) FOUR #5 REBAR DOWELS EXPOXY SET 12 INCHES INTO EXISTING FOOTING AND EXTENDING 24 INCHES INTO GRADE BEAM #3 TIES 0 12 INCHES EW 24” WIDE, 18” DEEP ONCRETE GRADE BEAM EINFORCED W/ FOUR EXISTING COLUMN 5 (2 TOP, 2 BOT.) FOOTING I' n w c 0 W --1 LL W n n w -lc APPENDIX A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 REFERENCES “Repor& 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. “ReportofLimitedGeoteChnicaland Structuralhvestigation, Units 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, and 130, 2308, 2310 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 GENERAL NQES AND INSTRUCTIONS a N- R R 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 ofgrout reqwed. In order for comparable bids to be obtained, these estimates are to be used in calculating unit costs and estimates of total work days. Compaction Groutinfleleveling-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 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. 3. a. b. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 79 AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 13 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE= 1027 LINEAL FEET. ESTMATED 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 Groutinfleleveling-Units 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 costs and estimates. The total estimated grout quantity listed assumes 3.0 cubic 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. ESTMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 969 CUBIC FEET/36 CUBIC YARDS (assumes no grout take within the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT =between 0.2 and 0.8 inch. C. d. Page 1 of 2 4. AU prospective 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, Fwther, the contractor should also confirm that adequate measures have been undertaken to limit &amage to underground seMce lines and pipes. Such measures could consist of performing their own utility mark out with the proper equipment, retaining a experienced and licensed mark-out contractor, or insuring that the property owner has retained an experienced underground markout contractorkompany to locate any anticipated underground service piping which would be expected within the work area. All prospective contractors must obtain and review copies of all applicable building plans prior to preparing or submitting bids. AU prospective contractors must include in their bid dacuments all information necessary to show conformance of their equipment and personnel with all applicable speciftcations and requirements. 5. 6. Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX B GENERAL NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE OWNEWGENERAL CONTRACTOR 1. It is the responsibility ofthe owner to hrnish 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. 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 sluny injection, the contractor will not be able to determine during grout injection whether unacceptable cracking or sluny 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 RECO MMENDE D SPECIFIC ATIONS 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 .O 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. IL GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. b: Provide all labor, materials and equipment to accomplish compaction grouting in the area@) and zone(s) shown on the drawings and shall include all necessruy drilling, grout pipes and grouting. MountiOg: 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 ofbeing 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 of Utilities: 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 &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 R& : 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 fum. 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 Con tractors: 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 performinghpervising 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 m. MATERIALS 1. 2. Portland Cement shall be Type I or 11. 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 fiction 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 ofthe 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. 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 andlor 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 ofgrout 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 of400 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 successfid 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. III 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 owdriven to a depth designated by the quality- control fum (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 117, 118,123,124,125, & 130 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: April 27, 2001 BY Project No. SEP 2 0 2002 00-1800 City of CAKL:jL-+;) BUILDING DEPT. PREPARED BY: Anthony-Taylor Consultants 304 Enterprise Street Escondido, California 92029 (760) 738-8800 1. 11. 111. IV. V. VI. VI1 VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................... SCOPE OF WORK ............ 1 PURPOSE ................................................ ........ 2 INTRODUCTION ... ................................... SITE DESCRIPTION ... ............................... SUMMARY OF FLOOR LEVEL SURVEYS CONDITIONS OF OBSERVEDREPORTED DISTRESS .................... SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION. .................. LABORATORY TESTING ............... REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS.. ............... FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .................... 17 RECOMMENDATIONS . . ....... ............................... 19 ....... ................... 3 ComDaction Groutine Repairs Slab ReDairs Grade Beam Foundation Repairs Structural Wood Floor Reuairs General RecommendationdReDairs Mitigative Drainage Repairs Irrigation Leak Detection Testing LIMITATIONS .................................... ......... 27 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 Photogaphs C Laboratory Tests Results D Grouting Specifications Figures IIa-IId Figures IIIa, IIIb Figures Va, Vb Figure VI Report of Limited Geatcehnied and Stru~turd lnvutigstian S~Iected Units (117,118. 123,124, I2Cmd 130) La Casta View Homeowners Auoeiation April 27, 2W1 Page 2 Project No OO-lSW 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 23 IO 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, 200 I. 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 1500 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 23 IO 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 Graterhnieal and Struclurd Investigation Selected Units (117,118,123, 114,125, sod 130) La Casta View Homeowners Amoeialion April 27,lWl Page 3 Project No Wl8W V. SUMMARY OF FLOOR LEVEL SURVEYS 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 of the 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 11 7 & 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 1 IS. 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 I IS, 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 of the master bedroom and second bedroom). See the attached Relative Floor Elevation Survey, Figure IIa. 2308-Units 123 & 124 A review of the survey findings as measured across these units notes that with respect to Units 123 & 124 combined, a total of approximately 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 I .S-inches across Unit 123, and approximately 1.2-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 within 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 I .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 ktshaicd and Structural lnvuligstion SelcctcdUnits(117,118,123, 124, 125,nnd 130) La Costa View Homeowner* Alsociation April 27.2001 Page 4 Proieel No 00-1800 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 fueplace), 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 andlor site changes. The following represents a general summary of site distress observed to-date, supplemented hy 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 reports 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 within 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 ll4-inch wide stairstep crack located within the northerly masonry block foundation wall, near the northwesterly comer of the building; An apparent lil6-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 Glotcchnicml and Structural Invrrtigatian Selected Units (117,118, 123.124.125,and 130) La Costa View Aomrownrn Association April 27.2001 Page 5 Project No W18w Various hairline to 1/16-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 1/32-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 1/16-inch wide crack in the interior drywall ceiling, located nver 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 IW-inch wide cracks in the exterior stucco, generally located near the juncture of the balconies and the building exterior walls; A few hairline to U32-inch wide cracks in the surface of the exterior balcony; A few hairline to 1/8-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 I 17. 2308 Altiima Way, Unit 118 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of Mr. Bill McTear, he purchased the unit approximately I -1n 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, Mr. 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: Report of Limited (iroteehniesl and Str~ct~raI Inwstigslion Select~Unitr(117,118,123,124,125,snd 130) Ln Costa View Homeowners Assmiation April 27,ZWl Page 6 Project NO 00-18W A hairline to U16-inch wide crack in the interior drywall, located near the living room and entry. The crack appears to extend as a hairline to I/S-inch wide crack within the ceiling over the entry hallway extending into the living room; . A few hairline to IW-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 comers of 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 tums 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 112-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 survey. nrprl of Limiled Geolrhnieal and Sbu~lunl Inrestigation SclrelrdUnilr(l17,119,123, 124,125,md 130) La Coan View Homeownera Auaeislion April 27, 2001 Page 7 Projcrl NoMMW 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 1132-inch wide cracks in the exterior stucco, generally radiating from the comers of windows; An approximately hairline to 3116-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 Altismn Way, Unit 125 Reported Distress: Based on the reports of Ms. Pamela Carlson, she purchased the unit approximately 1 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 concern 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 lil6-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 corners of windows. Report of Limited Geotrchnied and Slru~t~ral Invntigalion Selected UniIs(l0. 118.123, 124, 125,and 130) La Costa View Homeowners Asiocialim April 27,ZWL Pabe 8 Project No W18W 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 of the 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 andor 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 board 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 1/16-inch wide cracks in the concrete exterior walkway slabs, adjacent to the front entry 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. ~eprt or Limited Geotecboiesl and Structural Iovntigatian sclrtedUoitl(lll,114123,124,125,~nd 130) La Gosh View Homeawnen Asmciilim Aplil 21.2W1 PS$C 9 Project No WI8W VII. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Based on the observed distress, we performed three exploratory subsurface soil borings and twelve exploratory test pits to evaluate the underlying soil materials. Many ofthe 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 consultant/manager on several previous site drainage repair operations at the project site. The excavation of the surface drain system was performed by OLeary 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 I 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 El (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: 1.0 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. I& 4.0 Moisture Content: = 20.5 %. @ 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. @ 10.0'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.o'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. Repit of Limited Gcotcehniesl and StruCtumI Invntiplion Selected Unib (117, 118, 12% 124,125, and 130) La Cmta View Homeownen Associstion April 27.2W1 Page 10 Project NoW18W Boring B-3 (Between Units 118 and 119) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Olive tan, very moist, soft, tine 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 .O' 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 = 21.1 %, 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 YO. Excavation terminated due to dense formational material. No water seepage or caving encountered. Total Depth: 7.25 feet. Report or Limited Geotechniul snd Structtursl Invescis%tbn SclcctedUniL1(117,118, 113, 114, I15,md 130) La Costa View Hameownerr Association April 11,ZWl Page 1 I Project No WlSW Test Pit TP-2 (Northeast of Unit 117) Soil Conditions Encountered: Fill: Tan and gray, very moist, soft, fme sandy silty clay with chunks of claystone. Encountered cement sluny grout bulb from previous compaction grouting operation, beneath wall footing. @ 1.0' Moisture Content = 20.0 %. @ 2.0' Becomes wet. @ 3.0' Becomes fm. @ 6.0' Moisture Content = 22.0 %, Dry Density (DD) = 94.9 pcf. @ 6.5' Dark brownish gray, vay moist, stiff, silty clay. f& 7.0' Formation: Olive light gray, moist, very stiff, tine 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, tine sandy silty clay. @ 3.0'Gray and tan, moist, medium dense, clayey fine sandy silt. @ 3.0' Moisture Content = 18.4 %, Dry 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. Report af Limited Ceotechnifal nod Strueturd Invrrtigalion Selected Unils(117.llS. 123,124,125.md 130) La Costa View Hom~wners Amciation April 27. 2WI Page 12 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. @ 3.0Gray, 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 %. @ 5.0 Becomes very moist and medium dense. @ 6.0' Moisture Content = 16.7 %. @ 7.O'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 IS-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, tine 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, fine 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. Report ofLimited Gloteehnied and Structural Investigation Selected Unila (117, 118, 123, 124, 125, and 130) La Con. Vim Homeowners Associstion April 17,2001 Page 13 Project No W-IIIW 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 ofunit 117) Soil Conditions Encountered: Slab: 3" - 4" Concrete with welded wire mesh. Fill: Olive brown, moist, medium stiff, tine 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, tine 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. Report alLimited Geotrehnird arid Structural Investigation Selected Units (117,118,123,124, 125, sod 130) L. Costa View Hommmers hmiilim April 27,2001 Page 14 Project NoOhlSW 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 .0' 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, tine sandy silt. @ 2.0' Moisture Content = 22.5 %. @ 2.5' Olive, 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 Sample Location B-1 @Z B-1 05' L Moisture Degree of Dry Max. Dry Relative Content Saturation Density Density Compact. (Yo) (%) (pc0 (pc0 1%) 21.8 88 100.3 118.2 85 21.7 91 101.8 118.2 86 .- 8-3 @ 4.5' B-3 @ 8' Report of Limild &technical and Slruetural Invuligation Selected Units (117,118, 123,124,125, snd 130) L. Costa Vier Harnmwncn Associatiom Aoril27.2001 20.3 91 104.9 123.9 85 17.2 85 108.4 123.9 87 TP-I @ 2.5' TP-I @ 3.5' TP-I @ 5.5' TP-2 @ 5.5' TP-3 @ 3' B-I (98' I 20.3 I 99 I 108.1 I 118.2 I 91 21.0 82 99.4 120.9 82 21.1 75 95.5 120.9 79 22.8 90 99.6 120.9 82 22.0 75 94.9 120.9 78 18.4 94 109.5 120.9 91 B-3@ 2.5' I 21.3 I 90 I 102.2 I 123.9 I 82 TP-5 @ 5' TP-5 @ 8' 20.9 95 105.0 120.9 87 17.6 86 108.1 -__ __ - - Report of Limited Geatrehnicd and Structural Invutigrtioa Selected Units (117, 118,123,124,125, and 130) L. Costa View Homrowvncrs Asraeiation April 27, 2001 Page 16 Test TP-I @, 2-3’ TP-3 @ 0.5’ Project No 00.1800 Dry Density Initial Moisture Expansion Index Expansion 99.1 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 50 percent. Expansive soils are classified as follows (by the Expansion Index Test): 0 to 20 Very Low 21 to 50 Low 51 to90 Medium 91 to 130 High Above 13 1 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 ofthe exterior stucco and expose the selected areas of the floor system framiig accessible from the carport 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 andor 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. r i Report of Limited Geotwhnieal and Slrvetursl Investigation Selected Unita(ll7.118,123,124,125, and 130) La Costa View Homwwnen Association April 27,2001 Page 17 Project No 00-1800 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 nod 118: Unit 117 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 soillfoundation 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 of the 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 shucture where no evidence of grouting was revealed. It is possible that this previous grouting was performed, in part, to reduce the potential for settlement withm 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 of the site. Unit 11 8 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 1 I8 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. Repart or Limited Ceolechnieal and Slruelursl In~c.ligstion Selected Uniu(ll7,118.1U. 124. 115, and 130) L. Cmla View Homeowners Amxialion April 27.2001 Page 18 Project No WI8W 2308 Altisma Way, Units 123 and 124: Unit 123 displays evidence of minor 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 conditions/distress 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 3/16-inch wide crack in the foundation located east of the fireplace. The observed foundation crack noted within the southerly stemwall may also correspond 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 of minor 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 design/construction, 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 floorjoists, as well as the northerly most portion of the cantilevered rear floor area. However, based on the magnitude ofthe 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. Regart of Lirniled Ceolerhniral and Strurlvrnl lnvatigation SclrtedUniU(117,118.123.114, 125,and 130) la Costa View Hameowners Asaoeincion April 11,2001 Pabe 19 Project No W-lSOO 2310 Altismn 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 designiconstruction 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 of the unit may have been caused by some previous settlement of the 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 structure. XI. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the results of ow site evaluation, it is our 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 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. 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 groutingheleveling 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 necessary to implement other releveling methods (Le., mechanical jackmg/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. - Rcprl of Limited Gmtcehaiul .ad Slructvrsl Invuligation SeIwld Units (117,118,123,124,125, and 130) La Coau View Homeownen Anocialion - April 27,1001 Page 20 - ComDaction Groutine Revain The proposed soillfoundation repairs consist of a limited program of compaction grouting/releveling in the area of the greatest differential floor tilt within the individual building sbuctures (Units 11 7 and 118, and Units 123 and 124). The compaction grouting process is intended to improve the bearing characteristics of the 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 of the 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 IIIh. 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 he 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 and/or wall footing which remain following the lifting process by filled with fluid mixture of cement grout injected in-place. Units 117 and 118 Based upon the results of OUT 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 of 4 feet between grout points. This spacing assumes that all the grout points will be located immediately 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 io calculating unit costs and estimates. a. b. AVERAGE PIPE DEPTH = 10 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE= 287 LINEAL FEET, (assumes no grout take within the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 41 - Rcporl of Limited Gmtcchmicd sod Strueturd lnvrstiylion Selected UniIs(117,118,1D,124,125.~nd 130) La Costa View Homeowners A%mciation April 17,1001 - Page 21 Projeel No W1800 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 11 to 13 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 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 siab 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 = 12 FEET. TOTAL LENGTH OF PIPE = 456 LINEAL FEET, (assumes no grout take within- the upper 3-feet of the ground surface). TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 38 C. ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUME OF GROUT TO BE INJECTED = 1026 CUBIC FEET. TOTAL AMOUNT OF DESIGN STRUCTURE LIFT = I .2 inches. d. The proposed repairs are discussed in the attached Appendix D, "General Notes And Instructions to OwnerdGeneral Contractor & Supplemental Notes Instructions To Prospective Compaction-Grouting Contractors", Appendix E, "Recommended Specifications For Compaction GroutingRoundation Releveling", and shown on the attached "Proposed Grout Point Location Map", Figures IIIa, 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. Report of Limiled Ccatahaical and Slrueturd Invntigstion Selected Uoitr(117, 11% ID. 124,125.and 130) L. Cosla Vim Homeowners Association April 21,2W1 Page 22 Project No 00.18W . Slab ReDairs Following the compaction grouting and releveling repairs outlined above, we recommend that the interior floor slabs he repaired. Prior to slab repairs, readily removable floor coverings such as carpeting and padding should he 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 he shucturally repaired with epoxy grout, filled to the full thickness. Alternately, where the cracking is less than Il8-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 infiltration into the underlying site soils. Slab cracks greater than I/4-inches wide should he 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 h. Where cracks greater than M-inch in width or where exhibit vertical offset may he 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 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 he 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 he a minimum of 5-inches thick (interior floor slabs) and reinforced with No.4 rebar positioned at IS-inches on-center each way. The new slab areas shall be underlain by dense, properly moisture conditioned and compacted filllor natural soils, as well as 6-inches of clean sand and a IO-mil visqueen moisture harrier. New concrete slabs shall have the rehar positioned mid-slah, supported on concrete chairs. A minimum rebar lap of 16- inches shall be used. Grade-Beam Foundation ReDairs Upon the completion of the foundation and slab releveling, any exposed footing cracks greater than l/4-inch wide may instead he supported using a minimum 6-foot long grade heanddeepened footing. The deepened footing shall he a minimum of 18-inches wide by 24-inches deep (bottoming at least 30-inches below the adjacent ground surface). The new Rep011 of Limited Goolech.icsl and Struelurd 1nvc.ligsIion Selecled Uniu(ll7,118,123,124,1ZS, and 130) La Costs View Homeowners Asroeialion April 27.2001 Page 23 Project NO Wl8W 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 IVa. 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 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 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 Reno-Fit Repair Plan, Figure VI. The purpose floor joist repair involves the installation of 2 (two)-12FJ100 steel joist 14-feet in length to the floor joist located on either 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, while on the mmter 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 RecommendationslReoairs 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 architecturaVstructural 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, andlor replaced as deemed necessary. Reporl of Limited Gcotechniul and Struelur*l lnverligstion Selecled Unitr (117,118,123,114,125, and 130) L. Costa View Hamconmerr Asmisfion Projael No WlSW - April 27.2W1 P.gc 24 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 fluor coverings, and realignment and attachment of flooring shall take place after all repairs have been completed. We recommend that exterior concrete flatworMslab cracks, and cracks and separations along exterior joints between 1/16 and 318-inch wide be shucturally 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 3l8-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 No.3 rebar positioned at 18-inches on-center each way. The new slab areas shall be underlain by dense, properly moisture conditioned and compacted filllor 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 resurfacinglrepainting 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 3lS-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 wt 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. Repit of Limited Gwtrehnieal and Struelural Invrafigation Selected Unit. (117,118,123,124,125. and 130) La Cwta View Homeowners Association April 27, 2001 enge 25 Project No 00.1800 It should be noted that the following 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(s), and provide appropriate recommendations. as warranted. Mitigative Drainage 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 confirmed 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 be performed: We recommend that measures be 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 15 feet from the building for soiysubgrade 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 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 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 15-feet of the building foundation may be required Report of Limited Grotcehniul and Structursl Investigation Selected Units (117,118, 123, 124,125,md 130) La Costa View Homoow*nrrr Asmistion April 27, tW1 Page 26 Project No o(c18W 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 of roof 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 be directed to an approved existing concrete drainage swale or other suitable structure. Irrieation Our site observations confnned 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 ofthe 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 andlor the use of another suitable leak detection method to used to check for of the presencelabsence of a leakage within the pressurized water lines which service the building. - Report af Limited Geotechnie.1 md Slruelural Invuligalion Selected Unils (117,118.123,124, 125, and 130) L. Costa View Homeownen Asocialion April 27, 2001 - PP*e 27 XII. LIMITATIONS Project No W18W 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 andor 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 of our authorized work. Our frm did not pcrform 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. ANTH 0 NY -TAYLOR C 0 N S ULTANTS 304 Enterprise Stwct Escmdidu. CA 92029 (760) 738-8800 (760) 738-8232 hx 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 hvo 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 Mer 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 of the 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; Repit of Limited Cwtshniul and Strv~t~rd InvIStigalion SelstedUniu(117, 118,123,124,125.md 130) La Costa View Hameownen Assmiation April 27,ZWI Psge 28 Project No 00-18W 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. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony-Taylor Consultants An Anthony-Taylor Company President C.E.G No. 1960 Distribution: (2 Originals, 1 Copy to Addressee) RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY ' UNIT 125 ANTHONY-TAYLOR C ONSULTANT S %.%Sm%' .-.- ,,, r,-m .I .I. 2s %.% n-. I. "W LEGEND +--%T EY I.(-.. Y .IM ,7.0a 7s- A -2 0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) 1 INCH = 10 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE . -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) (IN INCHES) SLAB CRACK (WIDTH IN INCHES) --1.z- CONTOUR OF EOUAL ELEVATION X ~~-1/16" FOOTING CRACK (HL=HAIRLINE) -3/16" -2.0 -1.6-1.2 -1.2-1.2 -1.6 -1.6 , EXT. PATIO -2.0' JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 5,TE ADDRES~: 2308 2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 Ilc DATE: FIG. NO. N;MBER: REV,EWED By: -1.6 -0.8 -0.8 NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11 /14/00 RELATIVE FLOOR ELEVATION SURVEY LEGEND A -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY 0 -20 HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION --"- (IN INCHES) X HL-1/16" FOOTING CRACK (HL=HAIRLINE) -3/16" SLAB CRACK (WIDTH IN INCHES) L ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANT S 37, :Zr% *m %.%"L%zJ m%Z I" .,OD, *I re- I. "W r- r. Mn 11.0, .sRno JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS 2308 2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 , LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS Ild DATE: FIG. NO. NU(MBER: By: -1.2- -0.8 . -0.4 - 0 5 10 1 INCH = 10 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE UNIT 130 -1.6 -2.0 -2.0 -1.6 1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 1 4OTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11/14/00 U . . . . . . *M . . . .. C. - I GRADE BEAM DETAIL JOB NUMBER: 00-1800 \ EXIST. STEM WALL IVa REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. GMK/JLM 4/16/0 1 EXIST. WALL FOOTING AND SLAB 4- Ll A Q z 1 EXIST. FOOTING OR STEMWALL #4 REBAR DOWELS @ 10” O.C., 24” MIN. EPOXY SET (6 DOWELS MIN.) #3 TIE @ 12” O.C. 3” MIN. SEPARATION BETWEEN SOIL & STEEL t 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 ANTHONY-TAYLOR C ONSULTA NTS -.I 1-h Y .u*u - hyL Y mnm, m-w SLAB REPLACEMENT DETAIL JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOE NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1 800 GMK/JLM 4/25/01 . LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS IVb EXISTING SLAB 32" WIDE TYP. I 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 VISPUEEN. [NO. 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 -EGEND , -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) - -2.0 <POT FI FVATlllN (IN INrHFS) UNIT 125 4 N N- ON U T S =-%z KF %*"!Em' a- I" s" 11-1 1,-*1. .I_ =. .* YO, 2m I...".., 0 MI ,I_ .Yam0 WITH 2 METAL JOISTS tl4 RETROFIT 6 EXISTING F OQR JOISTS EACH JOIST I, - , -_ - . . . . , -. . , , . . . , . -. . --, 1 --1.z- CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION (IN INCHES) LIMITS OF PROPOSE0 Ez2a SEE FLOOR JOIST RETRO-FIT STRUCTURAL REPAIRS REPAIR. DETAIL, FIG. VI -2.0 -1.6 JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS JOB NUMBER: REVIEW D BY: DATE: FIG. NO. -LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308.231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK JLM 4/16/01 Va 0 w 1 INCH = 10 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE RETROFIT 5 EXISTING F OQR JOISTS EACH JOIST /-WITH 2 METAL JOISTS b4 -12FJlOO) -0.8 -1.2 rl I U -0.8 -0.8 NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11/14/00 PROPOSED STRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS LEGEND A -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (SURVEY HIGH/LOW IN INCHES) UNIT 130 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONS ULTANTS m s.a rm..., n.!z.'. ". .. IS. "1), m %+.%%T%' -- Y!sY 2- I.._ c. Mn 11~17z- RETROFIT 6 EXISTING WITH 2 METAL JOISTS EACH JOIST \ . -2.0 SPOT ELEVATION (IN INCHES) (IN INCHES) LIMITS OF PROPOSED m SEE FLOOR JOIST RETRO-FIT STRUCTURAL REPAIRS REPAIR, DETAIL. FIG. VI --1.z- CONTOUR OF EQUAL ELEVATION -1.2 - -0.8 - -0.4 . NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308.2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 vb 1 INCH = 10 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE /-WITH RETROFIT 2 METAL 5 EXISTING JOISTS F [14'-12FJlOO) OOR JOISTS EACH JOIST -0.4 -0.4 -0:4 , -0.8 -o'8 I- - NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE DATE OF SURVEY: 11 /t 4/00 APPENDIX A REFERENCES I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I. 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 IO 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 # IO # 11 # 12 Northerly side of Building 23 IO, 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 ofthe 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 ofunit 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 11 7, 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 10 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, Ca. (Project No. 00-1800) Captions for attached Photographs 1 thorough 20, are presented below: Photograph No. Description: # 13 Close-up view ofthe same foundation crack as that shown in Photograph # 12, above. # 14 Close-up view of the foundation test pit excavated along the easterly side of Unit 124, near the front entry walkway. # 15 # 16 # 17 # 18 # 19 # 20 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 nver the drain pipe situated along the westerly side of the Building 2308, near Unit 123. PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS I^ .... ,-A * - - Y 0 _.. "", .-- #1 .. JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: FIG. NO. LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. B-1 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 #2 PHOTOGRAPHS #3 #4 JOE NUMBER: 00-1800 PHOTOGRAPHS I "O'B-3 REVIEWED BY: DATE: GMK/JLM 4/16/01 PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS *.“..*A ,,.-I- - Y - w> ,-- #5 JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD. CA. ADDRESS: I FIG “0-4 00-1 800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY. DATE. ! PHOTOGRAPHS #6 I JOB NAME: PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS - - I-, I - - ,- c, -. r-, .".- #7 JOE NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. ' ADDRESS; I FIG. N0'B-6 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: #8 PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS ,- ,." ,-, * n__ I..., ,- " u.. ,I"> 7s~- JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. I FIG. "O.B-7 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 PHOTOGRAPHS - - ,_, -_I r.." _L CoNSULTANTS Y -. ""l .YI #10 JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 00-1 800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 I "OB-8 - t PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS *- .-,. <_I = - - .L u YU. ,".> 1Y.I #11 JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOE NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: I LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS IF'" No.B-9 00- 1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 #12 ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULT- PHOTOGRAPHS JOB NAME: SITE ADDRESS: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS #13 I PHOTOGRAPHS -CONSULTANTS *- ,... ,-I - - ...., .- ""* (-3 7"- #15 JOB NAME LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 ' SITE ADDRESS: B-11 JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY DATE: FIG NO #14 PHOTOGRAPHS JOB NUMBER: 00-1 800 #16 REVIEWED BY: DATE: 1 FIG. NOB-~~ GMK/JLM 4/16/01 #17 I ,nu hlhUT. PHOTOGRAPHS 3- c-,. 1-1 ,e. n__ -L .- Y -. ,.w -I #18 JOE NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,231 0 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 00-1 800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 I "'8-13 #19 PHOTOGRAPHS ANTHONY-TAYLOR CONSULTANTS I_ - ,<+, ,'. _c - .Y Y -8 w> r-- - #20 JOB NAME: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS SITE ADDRESS: 2308,2310 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA. I N0B-14 00-1800 GMK/JLM 4/16/01 JOB NUMBER: REVIEWED BY: DATE: APPENDIX C LAB TESTING RESULTS LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY I TAN TO WHITE, SlLN SAND TAN SILTY SAND WITH SOME ORGAN ICs * WITH SOME ROCK. 3 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SPECIFIC GRAVITY ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES 1 MOISTURE CONTENT (%)I I I I 80 0 10 20 30 40 - 8Fr - 2Fr 8-5 TP-, I I TRENCH I SOIL CLASSIFICATION NO NO I SOIL CLASSIFICATION TYPE JOB NUMBER: REVIEW D BY: 00-1800 GMK JLM I 0 TO 5 FT. I E-2 I - I I 1 * /TAN SILTY SANDY CLAY c-1 DATE: FIG. NO. 4/ 1 6/0 1 ANT HONY - TAYLOR CONSULTANTS h ..c ,r.v....A Y h.rrr - Dy c. uw 1-1 I)- 00000 1 I- LL 0 lA q 0000 1 m 09LS 1 I W lA lA W (L 5 0882 ow 1 n 000 1 OZL 09s 00 1 NWY~UlWbQUIOI- .-- 0- lN3383d - N011V0llOSN03 00000 I 0 vl -I q 0000 1 m I 09LS W vl vr W a 5 0881 OPP I 000 I OZL a 09E 00 1 El 00000 + L 0 s O0OC m I 09L W v) v) W E P 5 088 OW 000 02 09 00 Nr))bU7WPc9)010- c- 0- lN33kl3d - N011V'0llOSN03 APPENDIX D L GENERAL NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO PROSPECTIVE GROUTING CONTRACTORS GENERAL NOTES AND INSTKUCI'IONS TO PROSPECTIVE COMPACTION-GROUTING CONTRACTORS 1. 2. Provide estimated costs and total job time for the specified grouting program Provide information on the type(s) 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. TOTAL NUMBER OF INJECTION PIPES = 41 b. 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 = I026 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 OWh'EWGENERAL CONl'KAC'l~ 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. 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. 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 E L 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. 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. 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 and/or dial gauges to monitor rotational movement. 2. Page 1 of 6 3. Protection of Utilities: 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 11. Fine aggregate shall be a silty sand ideally about 20 to 30 percent passing a No. 200 sieve (ASTM 117-go), 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 .O inch, or less. Higher slump grout is acceptable only for releveling or void-filling procedures, after densification procedures. 3. 4. 5. 6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 primaIy 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 5 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. I11 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. Contractor shall exercise due care to minimize damage to larger trees and shrubs that cannot be removed prior to his operation. 3. Page 6 of 6