The URL can be used to link to this page

Alta report- Building Envelope Evaluation San Marco Division • Hiram A.Carrasquillo,M.D. Jacksonville Foot and Ankle Surgery;General Orthopaedic Surgery Orthopaedic Steven M.Crenshaw,M.D. • Institute General Orthopaedics;Sports Medicine; September 8, 2015 Adult Reconstructive Surgery David A.Doward,M.D. Physical Medicine&Rehabilitation; Dan Arlington Interventional Spine&Sports Medicine Philip R.Hardy,M.D. Chief Building Department Arthroscopic&Joint Replacement City of Atlantic Beach Surgery Building and Zoning Department Kevin M.Kaplan,M.D. Sports Medicine&General Orthopedics; 800 Seminole Road Advanced Arthroscopic Joint Surgery Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Gregory C.Keller,M.D. Adult&Adolescent Spine Surgery; General Orthopaedic Surgery RE: Townhouse Units 88 & 90 Ocean Boulevard Garry S.Kitay,M.D. Hand,Elbow&Shoulder Minimally Invasive&Joint Replacement Dear Mr. Arlington, Surgery;Microvascular Surgery R.Stephen Lucie,M.D. Sports Medicine;Joint Replacement As the owner of 88 Ocean Boulevard, I request that the City of Surgery Atlantic Beach Building Department investigate the structural William G.Pujadas,M.D. General Orthopaedics&Sports condition of the abutting property, 90 Ocean Boulevard. Medicine;Total Joint Surgery; Reconstructive Surgery Specifically, I am requesting the City to verify that repairs have Robert G.Savarese,D.O. been made to Unit #90 as set forth below and as outlined in the Physical Medicine&Rehabilitation; Alta Engineering Company report titled "Building Envelope Non-Surgical Spine Rehabilitation Michael S.Scharf,M.D.,F.A.C.S. Evaluation", dated August 27, 2012 ("Alta Report"). The Alta Adult Spine Surgery;Hip Reconstruction Report was commissioned by the Ferrignos (from whom I Bruce Steinberg,M.D. purchased Unit #88) and by Saswata and Anja Roy, who are the Hand,Elbow,&Shoulder Minimally Invasive&Joint Replacement Surgery; owners of Unit #90. If the required repairs have not been made, Microvascular Surgery the deficiencies and building code violations would reduce the Carlos R.Tandron,M.D. Sports Medicine;General Orthopaedics; overall structural integrity of the property and could be an Joint Replacement Surgery;Knee& immediate threat to the health, safety, and welfare of those living in Shoulder Arthroscopic Surgery the area. Official Sports By way of background, after purchasing Unit #88 in April 19, 2013, I Medicine Partner hired Bosco Custom Homes ("Bosco") in July, 2013 to renovate my JRCKSONUILIE )IIIGURRS„ unit and repair the water intrusion problems that the overall building was experiencing. The owners of Unit #90, had already hired Bosco to perform remediation work on their unit. At this time, I was 1325 San Marco Boulevard, Suite 200,Jacksonville, FL 32207 (904)346-3465 Fax: (904)396-0388 www.joionline.net unaware of the existence of the Alta Report, but have since found out that Bosco was in possession of it. Despite knowing that the Alta Report stated that the original construction was structurally unsound and major repairs were required, including the complete removal of the stucco system, Bosco apparently advised the Roys to the contrary. To date, the Roys have ignored the repair recommendations of the engineer they hired (Alta Engineering) and only performed limited repairs to Unit #90. Significantly, the Roys did not remove all of the stucco as recommended by the Alta Report, which would be necessary to remediate the deficient structural elements and underlying damage. I would like to bring to your attention that while renovating my property, Bosco — like he had done to the Roys - suggested that the repairs were relatively minor and that all the stucco did not have to be removed. In fact, even after discovering rotten and deteriorating wooden framing and sheathing in my unit, Bosco did not recommend removing the stucco. After hiring numerous engineers and an architect to advise me on the renovation work, I learned that there were serious construction deficiencies and Bosco's recommended scope of repair was insufficient. For instance, after parting ways with Bosco, I continued to remove drywall only to discover that the entire building had extensive water damage, mold and structural deficiencies. In short, the construction experts I retained independently confirmed the deficiencies with the stucco system, windows, doors, and roof as described in the Alta Report. The experts also independently confirmed the necessity of performing the repairs as recommended in the Alta Report, with the exception that siding, not stucco, be used as an exterior cladding. During the course of my renovation work, in addition to the items identified in the Alta Report other items were also discovered to be deficient. The additional deficiencies include: 1. The sprinkler system had never been hooked up. 2. Improper stucco installation by Bosco as identified in • Loefgren & Associates, Inc.'s "Report of Observations of Stucco Lath and Accessories" dated February 4, 2014. This item is of concern since Bosco also made stucco repairs to the front balcony of Unit #90. 3. Improper roofing installation by Bosco as identified in Loefgren & Associates, Inc.'s "Preliminary Report of Limited Roof Condition Survey and Assessment", dated December 27 2013. This item is of concern since the roof repair to my unit was performed by Bosco in conjunction with the repairs made to the roof of Unit # 90. Based upon the deficiencies outlined in the referenced report, I had re-install a new roof. 4. Lack of hurricane straps and full height tie rods in my unit. As mentioned above, the foregoing structural and water intrusion deficiencies could affect the health, safety and welfare of me and those living in the area, as well as, affect the valuation of our properties. With the amount of investment that I've put into my property, I feel that I must request the Atlantic Beach Building Department to evaluate the deficiencies of the adjacent Unit # 90 to determine if repairs are required. Both units were part of a lawsuit to recover damages from the original builder to make repairs. I have used the money I have received to help pay for the proper remediation of the deficiencies and feel that the Roys should do so as well. While we have so far been fortunate to avoid damage during the hurricane season, if the Roys do not perform repairs, if required, the condition of Unit #90 will continue to deteriorate. Unit #90 will also constitute an immediate hazard that could result in death, serious bodily injury, or significant property damage to me and others living in Atlantic Beach in the event of high winds. In conclusion, please contact me with any questions and let me know if you need copies of the Alta Report or any other report identified in this letter. Thank you for considering my request and I e look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely Dr. Davi ward cc: Code Enforcement Department Christopher J. Iseley, Esq. W. Ronald Woods, P.E. Carolyn R. Woods, Mayor of Atlantic Beach Maria D. Mark, City Commissioner Mark E. Beckenbach, City Commissioner James "Jimmy" Hill, City Commissioner Jonathan Daugherty, City Commissioner John Stinson, City Commissioner John Markee, Code Enforcement . p 4';;:`, ,';‘,'''-`),,:;‘,..,,';'-':;,''.,5.,.,';..,:., A V L b kY �x,D m '.+. i A. r Y : # 5 �, ' ACA r fi� Y � 1 t '� i -. .,s ":":'M5';•`!,'%:,1,'6")....,,,.' '. 1 +�. »nano . - tt •,- r . , a gg . 1 tE`. ..y ;.a r , i,i n14-'art _,,• �� :IVr !�✓m .,, , -, ice, § }! .fb! y� s /f1 " ' 1,, ' . l ;ah, "-i, r '4.t .',:,4';:,;.:' a ' z :*e3° b . l, i " a °3 ,' ' c;e ' ,.a<a c• a4.-..,— ix-�{�a t a 15 it , �y�y. . t Y.'.' 0 . [ a!i l tb J,yy TIi.y.ryL. t lY hu ii V fl 2 Y i f itti i;,ti: 4 1 :‘,);:".• ,,r'., .?.4,..,'.. ,,,.,„ ,,!..,,-,xt, ' *•'.‘ ' --...-.. - . ' - aii , _,-. - .. • iw �...:., `Y`�2�es&°".�.. � .. 7"*r.n..'"�PR7A�, ro ..__.. —__,-. Building Envelope Evaluation Ferrigno & Roy Residence 88 & 90 Ocean Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32233 August 27, 2012 ci I -I- Ci engineering company www,altaengineeringco.corn t t CA I t CI engineering company www.attaenglneeringco.com August 27,2012 Mr.Saswata Roy Mr.Vincent Ferrigno C/o: Christopher M.Cobb,Esq. via electronic mall: ccobb @jimersoncobb.com Jimerson&Cobb,P.A. 701 Riverside Park Place Suite 302 Jacksonville,Florida 32204 Visual Building Envelope Evaluation Report Ferrigno&Roy Residence 88&90 Ocean Boulevard Jacksonville,Florida 32233 As requested, we have completed a building envelope evaluation of the subject residence In Jacksonville,Florida. The purpose of our evaluation was to visually and destructively Identify con- struction related defects which may result in premature material failure or water or air Intrusion and related microbial growth. The Intent of the evaluation was not to identify every existing defect,but rather to identify apparently systemic, globally occurring Issues and provide general recommen- dations for repair or further Investigation,where warranted. This report includes a summary of the project Information,our observations and subsequent general recommendations for repair. This report is Intended for the exclusive use of Alta Engineering Company(Ma),Jimerson&Cobb, P.A.,Saswata Roy and Vincent Ferrigno, Use of this report or reliance upon Information contained In this report by any other party acts as an agreement by that party to the terms and conditions of the contract under which the work was performed.Any use of this report by a party for purposes beyond those Intended by Alta,Jimerson &Cobb,P.A.,Saswata Roy and Vincent Ferrigno will be at that party's sole risk. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services.Please contact us If there are any questions concerning this report. Sincerely, alto engineering company Florida Board of Professional Engineers Certificate of Authorization No.29095 Brett D. Newkirk,P,E. Ucensed,Florida 62476 Principal alto engineering company 6223 cherry lake drive north Jacksonville,florid°32258 904-880-0301 t • Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&fealpno Residence Pogo 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Poge 1 Cover Letter 2 Table of Contents 3 Summary of Scope 4 Limitations 4 Manifest of Documents Reviewed 4 Building Construction Overview 6 Building Envelope Design Discussion 5 Observations 7 A.Stucco 8 B.Fenestrations 18 C.Balconies 21 D.Roofs 23 E.Structure 25 F.Interior 28 Repair Recommendations 30 Building Envelops Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Ferrigno Residence Page 4 GENERAL Summary of Scope: Alta Engineering Company has been contracted to perform a visual and destructive condi- tion evaluation of the building envelope systems at the subject residence in general accord- ance with applicable portions of ASTM E 2128 The Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leak- age of Building Walls. Systems included in our evaluation are as follows: Visually accessible exterior wall finishes, roofs,and fenestrations. Our services have been completed in general accordance with our proposal to you dated April 23,2012 and its attached terms and condi- tions, Limitations: Generally, we have performed visual observations of accessible and readily visible building exteriors from the ground level, roof surface, ladders and interior areas. Observations were completed by trained professionals, however, deficiencies may be present which were not readily accessible,visible,or otherwise Inadvertently overlooked. It was not the Intent of this study to perform an exhaustive survey to document every existing defect or to create a punch list of all defective or distressed items. Furthermore, this evaluation does not include commentary regarding cosmetic or aesthetic Issues. The findings In this report are relevant to the time of our site visits and should not be relied upon to represent conditions at substantially later dates, Manifest of Documents Reviewed: The following documents pertaining to the subject site were provided or obtained for our re- view: 1. Report of Findings prepared by Rimkus Consulting Group,inc.,titled Report of Finings— Atlas Construction Group, LLC Moisture intrusion Evaluation Claim No: GLP00 1 1 7 1 127, dated April 12,2012. 2. Report prepared by House Authority Inspection Service, LLC, titled Property Inspection Report 88-90 Ocean Boulevard,dated February 28,2011. 3. Permitted architectural drawings on record at the Atlantic Beach Building Department prepared by MJ Thiele Architect, titled Two Unit Townhouse Building 88 & 90 Ocean Boulevard,dated February 22,2006. 4. Permitted structural drawings on record at the Atlantic Beach Building Department prepared by Lou Pontigo and Associates,Inc.,titled Fasaneiil 88-90 Ocean,dated May 15,2006. WNdinp Envelope Evaluation August 27,71314 Roy&Fengno Residence Page 6 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW A review of the provided documents in conjunction with our site observations Identified the following building construction Information: The provided drawings were dated February 22,2006. Accordingly,the design and construc- tion of the buildings would have been governed under the 2004 Rorida Building Code,with 2005 Additions(2004 FBC). The subject residential building Is a 3-story duplex. The building is supported by a convention- ally reinforced concrete shallow strip foundation. The first floor structural building walls are constructed of reinforced concrete masonry units (CMU),while the walls above the second floor line are wood framed with oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing. The flrewall separa- tion between units is constructed with CMU.The roof and floor structures are framed with pre- engineered open-web wood trusses and decked with oriented strand board (OSB) sheath- ing. Exterior walls are clad with portland cement plaster (stucco) with a worm-groove textured acrylic modified(synthetic)finish coat. Stucco Is directly clad to the CMU wails,while It Is ap- plied over a synthetic weather resistant barrier(WRB) and adhered to paper backed metal lath over the wood framed wails.Windows are Series 500 single-hung vinyl frames with double -pane insulated glass Rtes manufactured by PGT according to the American Architectural Manufacturer's Association institute(AAMA) label affixed to the window frame. Windows are Installed In both Independent and mulled arrangements. Sliding doors are also vinyl frames with Insulated glass Rtes. The roofs are clad with a liquid applied polyurethane deck coating applied over a sloped cement board substrate. Wood framed,stucco clad parapet walls surround the roof perime- ter. Drainage is provided by through-wall metal scuppers on the north and south walls and the east roof edge. The front exterior balcony decks are waterproofed with a liquid applied polyurethane deck coating and clad with ceramic tile. Rear balconies are cantilevered with exposed wood framing projecting from the rear wall. The balconies are constructed with open jointed pre- servative treated wood boards. 4 Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Fenigno Residence Page 6 BUILDING ENVELOPE DESIGN DISCUSSION A cursory discussion of the function of the building wall envelope system Is prudent for the sa- ke of understanding the following list of deficiencies. Generally, the building walls were de- signed as a veneered water management system.This system Is designed such that the exte- rior surface of the wall cladding (stucco) acts as a rain screen, whereby most of the water that impacts its surface is Immediately shed to the base of the wail and onto the pervious ground area beyond. However, the system assumes that some water will enter behind the cladding through cracks,separations,penetrations and fenestrations In the veneer. Penetrat- ing moisture Is prevented from contacting the structure by a weather resistive barrier(WRB), which is Installed between the veneer and the exterior wood sheathing. Grade D paper is placed atop the WRB in stucco assemblies to create a separation (or capillary break) be- tween the backside of the stucco and the front side of the WRB. This space essentially elimi- nates the capacity for water to saturate and absorb through the WRB. The gap between the stucco and the WRB also facilitates the unencumbered flow of penetrating water down the back surface of the stucco to the base of the wall. Once penetrating moisture travels down the face of the WRB, it is directed to the exterior via flashing, strategically positioned over penetrations by weeps at the base of the wail. The veneered water management system re- quires that the WRB be properly shingled and flashed or effectively sealed at all openings to promote efficient drainage and to force moisture to the exterior, thus preventing contact with the wall sheathing. Conversely,the stucco applied to the CMU wall is Intended to function as a barrier system. The theory behind such systems is that all water is stopped at the exposed exterior surfaces of the building. Based on this theory,there are no provisions for drainage of water that might en- ter behind the exterior paint,sealants or fenestrations. Consequently,It is critical that all pene- trations,cracks,voids or dissimilar material separations in the building shell be sealed to pre- vent any water from breaching the exterior surface. It should be noted that concrete ma- sonry unit (CMU) walls have a fairly significant absorbent capacity, Accordingly, CMU walls may provide some reservoir capacity for water which breaches the external barrier.The CMU must not become saturated and must be permitted to adequately dry between wettings to prevent moisture problems and associated microbial growth on the back side of the Interior finishes. Barrier systems with reservoir capacity are typically not recommended for climate zones in which annual rainfall typically exceeds 40-Inches. The average annual rainfall in Du- val County is approximately 50-inches. Building Envelope Evalualon August 27.2012 Roy&Fenlpno Residence Page 7 OBSERVATIONS The following pages contain narratives describing and photographs depicting the visually ob- served deficiencies, The discussion is itemized by building component. Within each compo- nent,specific defects are Identified and compared to the applicable code or Industry stand- ard requirements. If in conflict with the referenced plans,the drawing detail and sheet refer- ence numbers are noted, Where Identified In this report, deficient conditions were generally observed or apparently present at many building locations,unless otherwise indicated. Similarly,photographs Includ- ed In this report are Intended to depict representative typical conditions, unless otherwise noted. We performed our observations on May 31,2012 and July 13,2012. ,, Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Ferrlgno Residence Page 8 A. STUCCO 1. PARAPET WALL: The parapet wall enclosing the perimeter of the roof area is clad with stucco over PBL wtthout a WRB and without rubberized asphalt flashing protection over the horizontal portion of The wall below the stucco cap. (Photographs Al-A3) Water which migrates through cracks In the stucco parapet wall cap comes Into contact with the wood wall sheathing and framing by saturation of the Grade D paper underlayment or bypassing Its open,unsealed laps. Because the WRB presumably begins at the 3rd floor line,water which migrates Through the parapet's stucco wall cladding may be conduct- ed behind the open top edge of the WRB thus prompting water intrusion and subsequent damage to the entire height of the wail. The omission of a WRB constitutes a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1404.2.1 which states: Where cement plaster(stucco)Is to be applied to lath over frame construction, measures shall be take to prevent bonding be ,,� ,' . y tween the cement plaster and the wa- ," ter resistive banter. A bond break shall ; k - ,'. be provided between the water resistive Alp, i V, . barrier and the cement plaster(stucco) "� } ; consisting of one of the following: (1) • Two layers of an approved water re- sistant barrier... Photograph Al:Wood framed paropet walls above Unit 88. r;_ ° 1 ,� F 3 ro' ;rd+ ,t- c +cd+^` ':e1 :4 3 uS -, "..1 .':'''''''''.*z �" 4 r fly ;y 'y y w. - �. yid is,,,--,,--twa, ', .;!, > -, ,,,,,;,,,iyap,-,„,;?-,:e.:1,cti*„. s ,', 4 ., .,,...),, - A' s r C 11. + j, - Photograph A2:Removal of stucco from atop the Photograph A3:A WRB is not provided on the exterior cap reveals only PBL is provided to protect the wood side of the parapet wall.The OSB wall sheathing has framing. experienced full section loss due to decay. • Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Perrigno Residence Page 9 A. STUCCO 2. ELEVATED WALL BASES: Stucco walls are terminated at the second and third floor lines along the front balconies. (Photograph A4) The elevated wall bases do not have any provision for drainage of the WRB, Evidence of cracking, efflorescent and "tea" colored staining noted at the wall base are symptoms of water attempting to escape from within the wail system. (Photograph A5) The lack of a drain provision at the base of the elevat- ed wall terminations causes water to become trapped against the framing and sheathing components at Its base and subsequently results In their deterioration. The obstruction of drainage from the WRB is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1403.2, which states (in part)...The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water resis- tive barrier behind the exterior veneer, as described in Section 7404,2 and a means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior of the veneer... The lack of a drain In this location Is a violation of ASTM C 926-98a—Standard Specification for Application of Portland Cement Based Plaster, Section A2.2.2, which states: At the bottom of exterior wails, where the wall Is supported by a floor or foundation, a drip screed and through wall flashing or weep holes or other effective means to drain away any water that may be be- hind the plaster shall be provided.The lack of a drain is also a violation of ASTM C926-98a A2.2.3, which states: Where vertical and horizontal exterior piaster surfaces meet, both surfaces shall be terminated with casing beads with the vertical surface extending at least 1/4-Inch below the intersecting horizontal plastered surface, thus providing a drip edge. The casing bead for the horizontal surface shall be terminated not less than 1/4-inch from the back of the vertical surface to provide drainage. 11 / r rid ,,.:4, q. .,..:, , ,,,,,,,.,,...;:: a et I,1, .,..:-.: ,.'4,1';' ---- ,, /• ' • 1.441,-i ` 4..:44, _v.; , li-e},,,rV:,,',' - , Photograph A4:Elevated wall base. Photograph A5:Staining at underside of elevated wall base between Units 88&90. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy I Fenlgno Residence Page 10 A. STUCCO il # _ r r '�,, illy r.): . Ai fir � ' i�.-( 8f q �. t r' ��...r°'x { n-t{ t do ♦s "rr -t----=-. Photograph A6:The walls are wood framed above Photograph A7:Stucco removed from transition at the red line and CMU below the red line. the second floor line reveals that the WRB has no mechanism to drain to the exterior, 3. CMU TO FRAMED WALL TRANSITION: The framed walls above the second floor line have a weather barrier behind the stucco cladding. The base of the WRB (at the second floor line)does not have a provision for water draining on Its surface to escape, (Photographs A6-A8) The lack of a drain provision at this location forces water draining on the WRB to saturate the CMU, decay the lower portion of the wood wail sheathing and/or migrate inside the building. Evidence of water Intrusion at the walls and window heads of the first floor are indicative of this distress. The obstruction of drainage from the WRB is a vidation of 2004 FBC Section 1403,2,which states (in part).,.The exterior wall envelope shall be de- signed and constructed In such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water resistive barrier behind the exterior veneer, as de- scribed In Section 1404.2 and a means for draining water that enters the assem w- ''''' ' 3;`'';`'°'1 4:."1: biy to the exterior of the veneer... The }t,, = w lack of a drain In this location Is a viola- „, , , we "': lion of the Intent of ASTM C926-98a— .° ° � �` Standard Specification for Application of _ ' =4 tr . Portland Cement Based Plaster, Section ,=4' * ,N,,N;:A2.2.2,which states; At the bottom of ex- ',1 a ie'',1 tenor walls, where the wall Is supported ,,-7;�'1�' �U - ,;1 by a floor or foundation, a drip screed t1 Vt '`; ' and through wall flashing or weep holes 1^---: P ` ' � " '�. or other effective means to drain away Photograph A8:Removal of the control Joint and any water that may be behind the plas- WRB reveals full section loss of the OSB due to decay. ter shall be provided. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Fertigno Residence Page 11 A. STUCCO y rk �- ,a A wt.l,? \ 'lam y "',. , i r . ti I' . . `v x . y i Y ,„,':',;4.. . . 1 tt. 4.7. .,.14' .rrpl r•i nn`k M4vi}f v� s s 1 Lg _ i . g ,.,;,t, ILN. ..,... - - . -- , ........,), ,,4., X . ' Photograph A9:Wall terminations at the balcony sur- Photograph A10:Balcony waterproofing Is sealed to face. the face of the PBL forward of the WRB. r ,i x. �*, �°"'�,; ��``f``r 4, WALL TERMINATION AT BALCONY: Draln- I.. ..,. age of the WRB at the base of the walls over fir" �, g " �. '. - the second floor balconies Is completely ob- r-;:-.4,7-4.,"-; .' - ,,. „ �.� structed by the application of liquid applied 1:+$4:., IN�t4' ` . ,,..-,/, ; , balcony waterproofing material onto the � l - -, -wr�kk 4,r, " face of the PBL. (Photographs A9-A11) The �4 ' ,.,- �„ `tip - �•4• lack of a drain provision at this location forces �� rte_ ,*i `' 0 water draining on the WRB to migrate inside t >X ,g e $ 't' - • Yt the building. Also, the stucco wall base was . .` .• �. `4 ---,•,.. ;• '. ° terminated without incorporation of a drain- Photograph A11:Full Section loss of the OSB due to age accessory. The obstruction of drainage decay where water was trapped at the base of the from the WRB Is a violation of 2004 FBC Sec- wall. Lion 1403.2,which states(In part)...The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and construct- ed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water resistive border behind the exterior veneer, as described In Section 1404.2 and a means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior of the ve- neer...The lack of a drain In this location Is a violation of the Intent of ASTM C926-98a- Standard Specification for Application of Portland Cement Based Piaster, Section A2.2.2, which states: At the bottom of exterior walls, where the wall is supported by a floor or foundation, a drip screed and through wall flashing or weep holes or other effective means to drain away any water that may be behind the plaster shall be provided. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Fern!gno Residence Page 12 A. STUCCO t,' .1''i . ' ' i 11 I I. .' ;'''',.::::fr::::./4 ;,-. L � PF�•srl r ..,.-- ---- - -- -.------'- .„.> -Aiiir . .•. - .-_.. -.....,t,..:::,- -..A !,, ,9..;?1,-,7:8=;:13.14.—Ft '�.'. ,7, .�. / �. _ '�.. -II. of `57 flf, , , i R I N r i Photograph Al2:Location of omitted head flashing. Photograph A13:view of top of window frame.Note the open hole at the mullion between window frames. 5. HEAD FLASHING OMISSION: Head flashing is not provided over the windows. (Photograph Al2) The lack of head flashing allows water draining on the WRB to enter the cavity be- tween mulled windows. (Photograph A13) The lack of head flashing is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1405.3,which states: Flashing shall be Installed in such a manner so as to pre- vent moisture from entering the wall or to redirect It to the exterior. Flashing shall be In- stalled at the perimeters of....penetrations and terminations of exterior wall assemblies.... 6. HORIZONTAL STUCCO: A horizontal stucco - -- ; m,I',``; r f. , surface Is present atop the front balcony ., I,, s,; ' .fir:, guard wall and the demising wall between \ti } 4 balconies of adjacent units. (Photograph k 1.-� '.�-- 1-'4- =:, ��. p l , 1 I 1_ X15 A14) Horizontal surfaces tend to accumu- ' ' ` ` ha, r' ' 11_1_1 ∎._i � ._�� late water, allow permiance of water �® '� `✓ ,,� I 1 r. trapped on Its surface and subsequently ,_1i 7 1 -: `t :^f"'``^` ' ' ' P� cause decay of the supporting framing. A ;� , 6-11% '_ a flat stucco surface Is a violation of ASTM C ' ` .. `L -11— -- -_..._-'-'--' ` = 926 Section A2.1.1 which states: Sufficient `.' .. 7 . � slope on faces of plastered surfaces shall be Photograph A14:Some locations of horizontal stucco provided to prevent water,snow or Ice from atop the demising wall between east balconies and accumulating or standing... the east balcony guard walls. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Ferrigno Residence Page 13 A. STUCCO 7. PARAPET CRACKING: Stucco applied to the parapet wall extension of the firewall be- tween units contains cracking approximately 4-Inches above the roof surface. (Photograph A15) This crack is due to the transition of stucco directly applied to CMU to application over the metal base flashing to which It cannot adhere. The application of stucco across a substrate transition without the use of lath or a transition joint is a violation of ASTM C 926 Section A2.3.3,which states: Where dissimilar base materials abut and are to receive a continuous coat of plaster: (1) a two-piece expansion Joint, casing beads back-to-back, or premanufactured control expansion Joint member shall be Installed; or (2)the Juncture shall be covered with a 6-In, (152-mm) wide strip of galvanized,self-furring metal plaster base extending 3 in. (76 mm)on either side of the juncture;or(3)where one of the bases Is metal plaster base, self-furring metal plaster base shall be extended 4 In. (102 mm)onto the abutting base. yA•i,<rod '4 }§a far ,,. ✓R ,-, , .. 4 - w d ,, � �� ' 01:/ - 't , , ';` ^n f t 1• I , ,' y,111,4 '1 , - A'.... 1 JL. t p b(l' e 3�' : , b Photograph A15:Cracking at the base of the para- Photograph A16:Red line Indicates location of omit- pet extension of the demising wall. ted control joint on the south wall. 8, CONTROL JOINT OMISSION: Vertical control Joints were omitted from the west portion of the north and south side walls and the front(east)wall. (Photograph A16)The lack of con- trol joints may prompt the stucco to crack in an un-controlled,less easily sealed and aes- thetically desirable configuration. Per ASTM C 1063 Section 7.11,4, control joints are re- quired to be Installed to partition stucco panels exceeding 144 SF and at a maximum dis- tance of 18-feet apart. The rear walls contain stucco panels that exceed this area allow- ance and therefore constitute a violation of this requirement, Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Fenlgno Residence Page 14 A. STUCCO • K � ' tdd7"d . t /(2 Photograph A17:Control Joint Is stapled to the wall. Photograph A18:Full section loss of loth due to corro- sion below 2nd floor hall window of Unit 88. 9. CONTROL JOINT INSTALLATION: The one-piece "W' shape control joint accessories were attached to the OSB substrate with staples, (Photograph A17) Attachment In this manner precludes the Joint from expanding and contracting with the abutting stucco panel in "accordion' style as Intended. Subsequently, thermal strains in the stucco panels cause cracks to occur alongside the Joints rather than the control Joint absorbing the imparted strains. ASTM C1063 Section 7.101.4 states: Lath shall not be continuous through control Joints but shall be stopped and tied at each side.The purpose of tying the lath Is to permit the plastic accessory to move. Further,the PBL was Installed atop the control Joint acces- sory,thus precluding the stucco from bonding to the accessory's perforated flanges. This condition prevents the control Joint accessory from performing as Intended and consti- tutes a violation of ASTM C 1063 Section 7.8.3.1 which states,..,On walls, the backing shall be lapped so water will flow to the exterior. Backing shall not be placed between the plaster base(lath)and the flanges of the accessories... 10. LATH: The metal lath supporting the stucco veneer has become corroded and experi- enced section loss due to the severe and chronic Introduction of water behind the stucco cladding. (Photograph A18) The lath is no longer structurally adequate to support the stucco in some of the areas observed. As a result, the stucco may become detached from the wall. • 4 Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Fertlgne Residence Page 15 A. STUCCO 11,FENESTRATION PERIMETER SEAL:A durable perimeter sealant was not installed between the windows/doors and their perimeter stucco bands. (Photographs A19-A21) Sealant was either entirely omitted or was installed as a pencil-thin detail bead. This condition has re- sulted in crack separations that have allowed water entry behind the stucco cladding. The cohesive and adhesive sealant failures observed are a result of inadequate bond face and ineffective Joint profile, Most sealant manufacturers require a minimum Joint width of 1/4-Inch and minimum depth of 1/4-Inch, The as-built Joints are not compliant with this requirement. Further,the sealant Joint profile Is not compliant with ASTM C 1193— The Standard Guide for Use of Joint Sealants, which provides an Industry standard guide for sealant Installation,and ASTM E2112- The Standard Practice for the Installation of Win- dows, Doors and Skylights,which provides a Industry standard guide for fenestration instal- lation. 1: n te'e r 3 i ' �'i .r ,: lg' "L ' 2:., key ` Z .. 1 . i I rA a k),w. ,law >s _ t t.41 Photograph A19:Crack separation the second floor Photograph A20:Sealant was not installed between hallway window at Unit 88. the stucco bond and the rear sliding door of Unit 88. Photograph A21:Crack separation of sealant at a second floor window of Unit 90. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Ray&Ferrigno Residence Page 16 A. STUCCO ,•j0.....„.,, &"°• P5.�a n.`.4 i rI ? � $ •cy , $„d; .� _" ,a? 1 l'1 r '� a �y s• .e.c . r s x t•�t, %4 j a L �r fi f67 ., x d.:. t $. ry }. � #., aF It 4, M � o ' ., ,,• I ;; _' a � f ,7 »,. -,1p::',..„::,..-.; q '^+. d R ♦c wa rtt• e., e. 9.=9 q * `R.' € ,. . . :....,„ . . i. 5 a It n -' 7L4, :s . - 1'. b+ "..k. = Photograph A22:Rear balcony beam penetration Photograph A23:Copper pocket flashing is face through stucco. mounted to the PBL and not integrated with the P8L. p�+ F t � '�r y"R.'' „"" :"`"J.:::40:0 j -br ••.!Air""r- r •F 5 j `'• l a1 -.4 .. g q/��"7 r t S .b.ei -9 - -t �� .{I 00 •` 10 b a ,.' , k ' L.ar ''.-j.•��'�?'+ r m• ` ,. ..yn,. �(Y"Y I / .. e ^ate 1 r #�t ' d a r` - 4. . � �r a k r x' r +, ,1,* ;e 9: l R i. sv�r l r d r Photograph A24:Unsealed beam penetration Photograph A25:Scupper is face sealed to the PBL. through the WRB and white VSM on OSB. The surrounding OSB contains full section toss due to decay" 12.WALL PENETRATIONS: Penetrations through the stucco clad walls, including the cantlie- vered support for the rear wood balconies and balcony and roof scuppers, are not irate- grated with the WRB. The copper pocket flashing provided at the rear balcony penetra- tions is situated on the face of the PBL,thus allowing any water draining on the WRB to en- ter directly Into these wall penetrations. (Photographs A22-A23) Significant air leakage and mold was noted at the excavated location. (Photograph A24)fie through-wall scup- pers were face sealed to the PBL similarly encumbering the WRB'sl ability to drain. (Photograph A25) The lack of appropriately configured flashing Is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1405.3, which states: Flashing shall be Installed In such a manner so os to prevent moisture from entering the wall or to redirect it to the exterior. Flashing shall be Installed at the perimeters of...penetrations and terminations of exterior wall assemblies.... August 27,2012 Building Envelope Evaluation Roy&Ferrigno Residence Page 17 A. STUCCO 13.WALL TO ROOF ABUTMENTS: Sealant was not provided between the fascia and soffit to wall abutments or at some light fixtures. (Photographs A26-A27)These abutments are vul- nerable points of water entry. The lack of sealant at this location is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 13-406.1.ABC.1.2 which requires sealing of Junctions between .,.walls and roof or wall panels.... �� a i. ,47 �� iw.�Iii � r', ,. •• 4 , -�,' - v.."o'-o ,,,,,, ,,,,,,4„----, ' t,..„ � j Photograph A26:Rear light fixture is not sealed to the Photograph A27:Fascia to wall abutment Is not wall surface. sealed. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Ferrlgno Residence Page 113 B. FENESTRATIONS 1. WINDOW FRAME LEAKS:A total of(4)windows((2)within each unit)were sill dam tested to determine If the window frame might be a source of water infiltration, Sill darn testing is conducted in accordance with AAMA Test Standard 511-08—Voluntary Guideline for Fo- rensic Water Penetration Testing of Fenestration Products. The "Optional SIII Dam Test" is conducted by creating a false wall and blocking drainage of the weeps along the front of the sill, The enclosed area is then filled with water to a height equating to the water test pressure, For the 4-PSF field water test pressure derived from the windows' 60 PSF de- sign pressure rating, the equivalent static water head equates to 1.152-inches. As such, the enclosed sill was filled with water to a height of approximately 1-Inch and observed for leakage. The test revealed that the Internal Jamb to sill joints of the window frames leaked at less than the windows' rated water infiltration pressure at (2) of the (4) locations. (Photographs 31-83) Further,leakage through the window frames at less than the design pressure constitutes a violation of the re- quirements of AAMA 101 Section 2.1.3. , p' i a `4A . crt. '9' �S •a r Photograph B1:Hydrion paper Indicates a leak be- low east Jamb of first floor window at Unit 88 during sill dam testing. rx _' , �� 9 is .�....-.-.... ,�,..--,f"e" i s ` i • `t 3, +�r5r, ii k I \ �....ri xr yfr: � W"~Ry"a �....i• ,. I, A 47-ice'Rr 3 irk ..M�.,.� s a:Ow Photograph B3:Hydrion paper Indicates leak through Photograph B2:SIII dam test at 2nd floor window window frame at the second floor window of Unit 88. of Unit 88. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Fenlgno Residence Page 19 B. FENESTRATIONS 2. SILL FLASHING COMPONENTS: Sill flashing at the window openings was completed with straight foil-faced self-adhesive rub- \ berized asphalt flashing tape. This tape X ,r t► , must be cut to wrap onto the face of the ,� ' .-- • wall at the lower corners of a window rough opening. The requirement for '" '` ° stretching and cuffing the flashing tape often results In breaches in the sill flashing ,m''e .Y l• corners, For this reason, a diagonally ori- 74"416 s ` ented segment of tape Is typically applied _-..J � to mask this cut. No such diagonal tape Photograph 84:Exposed sill flashing tape below Unit was observed at the excavated area. 88 second floor hallway window. Note the lack of (Photograph B4) These vulnerable corners diagonally configured tape. were concealed by the window fin at the locations observed. Subsequently, we could not observe if a void was actually present. However,the substantial decay of the OSB be- low the corner suggests this defect may be present. Most manufacturers recommend the use of a flexible flashing tape or pre-molded 3-dimensional plastic corner pieces to pro- tect the sill flashing corners,precluding this vulnerability. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Feniano Residence Page 20 B. FENESTRATIONS 3. SILL FLASHING INSTALLATION: The self adhesive rubberized asphalt flashing tape was ob- served to be displaced and stretched at(2)of the (4)windows exposed for water testing. (Photographs B5-B6) The displacement of the flashing compromises its integrity and will allow water intrusion Into the wall cavity when the window frame leaks. The defective flashing installation Is a violation of the WRB manufacturer's installation Instructions. To the extent that this defect Is allowing water penetration Into the wall cavity,It Is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1403.2,which states: Flashing shall be provided as necessary to prevent the entrance of water at openings In or projection through veneered walls.,.;;;;1::::::::,,,,('',, ', ' b. --,,„ ' ''.''.'.7„ ,,,,....,,,,,.:,%.1,,,,, 40.1.0000rit'- - '' ' . rol ' ' '' y r .., d, W. �p`w Is° x a�a- Photograph 65:Sill flashing tape Is stretched at the Photograph B6:Flashing tape is displaced at the west corner of Unit 90 second floor hallway window, west corner of Unit 88 second floor hallway window, 4. SLIDING DOOR PAN FLASHING: Pan flash- ,- , Ing did not appear to be installed at any f of the observed door openings. , (Photograph B7) Pan flashing Is a second- k;{: , ' ‘',.\t ary means of protection against water S\,' '"` �, ,• . intrusion at the window openings. Such -: .k t: flashing is even more critical In barrier- g ' / " type wall systems, as no leaks at the fen- 4' r / ' "^ :." estration openings can be tolerated. This r:"'" ,1_ „ omission reduces the capacity of the Sys- Photograph B7:Rear sliding door threshold of Unit 88 tern to resist water penetration over the does not have an exposed sill pan. long term. Pan flashings are recommend- ed by ASTM E 2112, Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Ferrlgno Residence Page 21 C. BALCONIES 1. BASE FLASHING: As mentioned In Item A4,the liquid applied deck coating was Improperly applied over the PBL at the walls,thus creating a reverse shingled condition with the WRB. In addition, the metal base flashing used along the balcony to wall termination is only 2- inches above the tile surface,which is less than that recommended by most deck coating manufacturers. (Photograph Cl) The "short` flashing height has resulted In an open void between the top of the flashing and the base of the bands at the sliding doors,as well as the doors themselves. This condition Is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1403.2 and the in- dustry standard practice established by The Construction Waterproofing Handbook. � r , 00111111P- .-;:;r7"?' yp a wy, Photograph Cl:Bose flashing height is Indicated Photograph C2:Location of omitted diverter by probe locatlon.Note the open crock separa- flashing. tion between the base flashing and door. 2. DIVERTER FLASHINGS: "Kick our or dlverter fleshings were not provided at the front balco- ny edge to wall Interfaces. (Photograph C2)The lack of a diverter flashing will allow water draining off of the horizontal waterproofing to discharge into the wall cavity below,rather than direct It to the exterior. Integration of the WRB below balcony corners Is difficult and therefore susceptible to errant Installation. if Imperfect,water will contact and deteriorate the wood sheathing and framing beyond. The lack of flashing and sealant at this location has resulted In exposed wood framing and sheathing at this transition. (Photograph C3) To the extent that the lack of dlverter flashings allow water Intrusion behind the WRB,their omission constitutes a violation of Building Code Section 1403.2,which states: Flashing shall be Installed In such a manner so as to prevent moisture from entering the wall or to redi- rect It to the exterior. Flashing shall be Installed at....exterlor wall Intersections with... porches, decks and balconies..., The lack of WRB coverage of the exposed wood struc- ture Is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1404.2 which states: Water-resistive barrier...shall be attached in such a manner as to provide a continuous water resistive barrier behind the exterior wall veneer. , Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Fenigno Residence Page 22 C. BALCONIES ; r r-La, / `'A L _ } 7 V fir P J : i x s d Photograph C3:Exposed OSB at void between Photograph C4:Coating failure on spiral stair balcony and stucco wall. steps. 3. SPIRAL STAIR COATING: The paint applied to the spiral stairs has delaminated from the sub- strate in several locations. (Photograph C4) The coating failure is due to the lack of ap- propriate priming and coating product selection for the subject salt-air environment, Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy•Fenigno Residence Page 23 D. ROOFS 1. SCUPPERS: The through-wall scuppers do not contain mounting flanges which could be Integrated with the veneered wall system, (Photographs D1-D2) Instead,the rectangular scupper penetration was sealed to the face of the WRB.This reverse lapped configuration results in water penetration at the scupper penetration. Further, sealant has adhesively failed along the side walls of the scupper due to Improper surface preparation and seal- ant application, , y4p' e w ':-.1"-t..=.-A.1,:, -4 Y T Ct R. L : ,q, S .A •! 4 'f a3 x ' �,•4h kr.k&� Z' ::;:h;%...;':-.., Photograph Dl:Typical roof scupper. Photograph D2:Scupper wall is sealed to the face of the PBL,Also,sealant has adhesively failed along the side wall of the scupper. 2. MEMBRANE FAILURE: The liquid applied roof membrane has experienced laminar failure between Its base and finish coats in areas of ponding between roof crickets. (Photograph D3) The membrane has also cohesively failed across numerous butt Joints In the cement board substrate. (Photographs D4-D5) The failures indicate Installation that Is not In ac- cordance with the manufacturer's require- ments. The failures are also a result of the short life span of the selected roof cover- ing material. Polyurethane deck coatings ,.._ are typically less than 40 mils thick and are "* ,;,,t..-1'.1".-" vulnerable to UV degradation. Further,the > `,�: -; w .°`tn 1„,-„ �v".s•coatings are completely reliant on single ., 1' s ,. sealant Joint transitions and lack reinforce- � f ` ' ment across substrate transitions and Joints. " , _ -: • ' These coatings typically require top coat- i ;r� M ,, In every five to seven ears,when proper- c'...-,,7 rK i " " i' ly applied. Photograph D3:Close view of laminor failure of membrane. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy A Ferrlgno Residence Page 24 D. ROOFS �. 9 - _ iy. 2s ,� t r .'fA� ,7',5- , ;,...:L' ..4 lggg J 4 x d y- S # r,R a r f e ,a Stv �� --.. ,,...'",,,z''''" r #,��t ! n" i4 F ro. te r k��`.}�'#�f y3 a '' j '. € 'z a ,¢a �' `f al 9w -4. +. rx*�.e x a �. g s s a , ,� { - k^ "^�-',w, n4 ' i.d s^, '.'r r 4'm' i t# lu r�a : °' a' �s I red ., rah b A7 . .„.arm a p:� z. "� w 4. s �@,�"y.w s� ^:y r r� : g., .4" `' rz �1 .•• ,,P z9 A,Ag'1414 V‘ £ .'. may`�, sk i v°£,` •: . f �£ '7 �"�'.x c>;�r.� fi wi.�,,,. x c..14 ,� z a..may., � s a., 6 �+ rui ham. 9�, '',.:41-*.-y .-a y.4::,,;s-,� e,�yt,-,,3 4 ; :4,,,� >, R i) g,,,,.;,,;P �M -3'99 .,i , +, rX; �qc �� t'S"°9a'.i 'e ( t9..,til.d4° " - pp "�.4 ,;: ...x,, ;t,. ..,. �a� +5 ` `.s3:2r9 n, a"'. '-L S. {" •3. a :v'as4tas Photograph Dd:Substrate panel butt Joints ore re Photograph D5:Close view of reflective cracking In fleeted through deck coating, deck coating atop a substrate panel butt Joint. 3. SLOPE: The roof was inadequately sloped to the scuppers resulting In ponding water on the roof membrane which accelerates Its deterioration. (Photographs D6-D7) fie lack of slope is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1507.15 which requires a 1/4-inch to 1-foot slope for liquid applied roof coatings. W'. e 1, e° d 41. ' ` ' -49�,r1 '""" S�y�y 7-:- - ' 1 c + ',k`. ..�1II�� '' 1 t f� � get..�� , ' ail' , 4y rb Y ''‘' .'-'2,.''''14',:MR Ykv '.1 �:,.r�. 'f I { , - 44F70.".:‘�. Photograph D6:Area of ponding water over Unit 90. Photograph D7:Areas of ponding over Unit 88. , Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Ferrigno Residence Page 25 E. STRUCTURE 1. WATER DAMAGED FRAMING&SHEATHING: Water Intrusion through the building envelope has resulted In substantial decay to the structural framing and sheathing. Full section loss due to decay of the OSB sheathing was observed at each of the (10) locations from which we removed small areas of stucco, Decay and subsequent strength loss of the wood framing was also noted In some of the destructively observed locations. The severi- ty of damage observed constitutes `Substantial Structural Damage" as defined by the 2010 Florida Building Code for Existing Buildings and has compromised both the structure's vertical and lateral load carrying capacities. 2. REAR BALCONIES: The rear balconies are cantilevered. (Photograph El) Framing details for balconies are not depicted on the structural drawings. However, the drawings do show concrete foundation below the balcony footprint Implying that the engineer ex- pected columns to support the exterior edge of the conventionally framed balconies. The lack of structural drawings raises concern as to the stability of the structure. Further, the lower cantilevered balcony supports a spiral stair case which provides access to the roof. (Photograph E2) The deck structure is insufficient to support the load of the spiral stair case's center column, The Installed condition of the stairs represents a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1604.2 which states: Buildings and other structures and part thereof, shall be designed and constructed to support safely the factored loads In load combinations de- fined In this code without exceeding the appropriate strength limit states for the materials of construction.... it mv.e ti ! v /- e ..t 1 d a ` ` ue, _. L- Ill// hf �+ .i (iy i It �,t� t Li iii----,.:.'4.-1-711.t . .. - . . -:=4,,i ..,,,:,,,u-'_3W„_ Photograph El:Rear cantilevered balcony with Photograph E2:Support column bearing on spiral stair support In center of balcony. wood deck for rear spiral stairs. e , Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy i Fertigno Residence Page 26 E. STRUCTURE 3. ENTRY CANOPIES: The eyebrow roof structures over the front entries are detaching from the face of the building due to Inadequacies in the originally Installed attachment. (Photographs E3-E4) The framing and connection of the roof structures to the building was not contemplated in the structural design for the building. A drawing prepared by Lou PontIgo &Associates for the remedial attachment of the structure was generated on March 8,2012 to address this defect. The roofs are currently supported with shoring posts to prevent collapse. The Installed condition of the roof represents a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1604.2 which states: Buildings and other structures and part thereof, shall be de- signed and constructed to support safely the factored loads In load combinations de- fined in this code without exceeding the appropriate strength limit states for the materials of construction.... 4 fir. it441" :771 Z,t r y^ w ctiz "77, ti < z,r t r a Rte, 5 J� 5 11 , j!' ,{6 �j f�R Y h. S ; 'f.. 1" �."fi 5 {ya"�A �1 Y }� yJ.7`.{ ' �(Y It N R�TSp y /,� r �-'•a y�t�(ry, :.+ai� ,_, a� s ', Sr i fa 1. �� v y P °1 1 '!)7 d t. J,� �t' psi' ! :.` Sn 1 !J{s i • E' r' s, # sc, 111.y e'f ', y�'°o f C:.. t '.-" .._ r r....., #'• ,'�I..1, Photograph E3:Front entry canopy. Photograph E4:View of canopy roof framing which has no substantial connection to the building wall. 4. UPLIFT STRAPS: light gage metal uplift straps are Installed at the subject building to resist uplift and overturning forces im- r . parted on the building structure by wind events. These straps were positioned out- ; 4 board of the WRB at the subject site f ` '' (Photograph E5) This configuration ren- ders the straps vulnerable to corrosion "itw`"• 'O, from contact with liquid water and vapor expected to be present on the exterior side of the WRB.Straps should have been Installed prior to the WRB. The OS- Photograph ES:Steel uplift straps are installed out- board of the WRB. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Ferrigno Residence Page 27 E. STRUCTURE constructed condition is contrary to Industry standard practices and will render the struc- ture less stable over the long-term. Further, the straps Induce a myriad of nail holes through the WRB,thus detrimentally affecting its performance. 5. PERGOLA: The wood pergola located over the second floor east balconies contain trellis members that are insufficiently secured to withstand code required wind loads and may result in detochment of the components during a wind storm. (Photograph E6) As con- structed,the pergola cannot resist the minimum design loads required by 2004 FBC Sec- tion 1609, j k ,_y_j I I 1 L S s?s. 1 1 1 1 1 1 m II i •I I I I 1 O. .. 1' .. ,. 61 �� 1 ► 1 f' 171 1...i.-1-1----1--1--, 1 _i_L- ice. 't ,° Jai i'`- MIMI Photograph E6:Wood pergola over east balco- nies. Building Envelope Evaluation Aug page 27,2012 Roy &Ferrlgno Resldonco page 48 F. INTERIOR 1. The Interiors of both units contain significant and pervasive evidence of chronic water In- trusion In the form of stains on In gypsum wall board finishes, base board separation and visual mold growth tVSM). (58) individual locations of water staining on the Interior• finishes were observed. Mold growth is both visible and palatable In the air. Because of the water Intrusion and related mold growth, the buildings may not be suitable for occu- pancy for Individuals with sensitivity to mold spores, Examples of evidence of Interior water penetration are depicted in Photographs F1-F10. I:"---y., ,,, ,,, ,.‘. . ,,.„. ,...... „. , .,. -q0.1,..,i',- i,.:t4r,' „„- "- :.'-'4'ttd,F1.7.7.4'-:',w, =t� f 'f E s� f Photograph Fl:Efflorescent water stains Indicating Photograph F2:Mold behind removed baseboard at sKr water entry Into the elevator shaft of Unit 88. the first floor south wall of Unit 88. ( 9 "1-,..'q,1 3 ' r1 xay 1 Yt d ry a 1f�'1'. i - [:III 'y F t ra H' P '4-'5' 1 pbr:, ,z � 1 �j ; -.-,, ''''7 r ' .'"' t '^ '.- Y ` t y'-, 1 ' 1 ? ‘, V. Photograph F3:Water stain at head of rear first floor Photograph F4:Rust colored staining and decay of window of U n it 88. Inferior lrim around the rear second floor sliding door of Unit 88, p ' a fEo August 27,2012 Roy building!Fertigno Envelope Residence vluatlon page 29 .it;�' r F. INTERIOR sn�x ,� a'� �t^4i . Vj` .Y "'F ! s rxa �; z x r r R. �, . 1 Photograph F5:Stain(n ceiling below roof of Unit 88. Photograph Fb:Mold and water staining on the first floor south wall of Unit 88. M °� s' v }px Mfg„�t,"?,,.Z s,� 4 fi r • a" .. z T k� ,"41'.th ,-1,c 4- ,3f,-..:47,7,3,u,-..,2J,,:•,,,' r x * fi F,. f +µi $ A S k m 4 W yr ; 1 ts^ Photograph F7:Water stain on ceiling of Unit 88. Photograph F8:Cracking and staining above rear first floor windows of Unit 90. ,� :',. .....e ..'.05,-.Z..`-..4'",,‘s' Y ' , yH ` „r '�Q Y4 "" by '� .^'y is�� .,,,,,,........,.:....-.,-,,,,,,,,..4,,.- \-- ..i Photograph F9:Water stain at head of window In Unit Photograph Ft 0:Ceiling stain below roof of Unit CO. 90. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Fer►igno Residence Page 30 REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS The following general repair recommendations should be Implemented to address the con- cerns raised in this report, Please note that these recommendations are Intended to be a general guideline and are not Intended to serve as specification for the repair or for use In obtaining building permits. A. EXTERIOR WALL CLADDING 1. Remove entirety of stucco from all wood framed exterior surfaces. Install new WRB, properly Integrated at all openings and with drainage at the wall base. Apply stucco In accordance with ASTM C926 and ASTM C1063 and per NWWCB details. Provide through-wall flashing over all penetrations and atop the CMU at the second floor line. 2. Replace all exterior wall insulation with un-faced baits. 3. Seal all penetrations In exterior walls. 4. Paint exterior walls so that the new and existing stucco surfaces will match. B.FENSTRATIONS 1. Remove and replace all windows and sliding doors with kind vinyl assemblies manu- factured by WinDor or approved equivalent. 2. Install new sliding doors over sill pans. C. BALCONIES 1. Remove all balcony tile and existing membrane. 2. Install appropriate base flashing extension along all wall abutments and diverter flash- ings at all edge terminations. 3. Replace scuppers with stainless steel assemblies with flanges. Install new polyurethane deck coating and cover with Schluter Ditra or equivalent uncoupling membrane and equivalent ceramic tile. 4 Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy Si Fenigno Residence Page 31 REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS D. ROOFS 1. Remove and replace existing scuppers with new stainless steel assemblies inclusive of mounting flanges. 2. Remove existing roof covering. Install new modified bitumen built-up roof membrane. 3, Instdl new synthetic deck boards over wood sleepers on new roof deck. E. STRUCTURE 1. Replace ail damaged wall and floor sheathing In kind. Minimum repair width shall be 32". 2. Replace all damaged wood framing with full length members. 3. Re-attach uplift straps per the original structural drawings. Increase nail length to ac- commodate the thickness of the OSB sheathing. 4. Install pipe column support and foundation below the spiral stair. 5. Evaluate the cantilevered wood deck members and connections and Improve as necessary,or Install foundation and support the cantilevered balconies with wood col- umns. 6. Secure the entry eyebrow roofs per the drawing prepared by Lou Pontigo. 7. Install stainless steel uplift straps at each trellis member. Building Envelope Evaluation August 27,2012 Roy&Ferrigno Residence Page 32 REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS F. INTERIOR 1. Remove and replace and store all interior contents from units. 2. Temporarily displace all interior cabinetry and other appurtenances mounted to the interior face of exterior walls. 3. Remove all interior gypsum wall board and wood trim elements that are common with exterior walls and roof. Contain per IICRC S-520 Guidelines, using containments with negative air machines and air scrubbers. 4. Replace all tack strips common with exterior walls. Clean all interior floor coverings with HEPA filter vacuum. Replace carpet pads as required. 5. Clean HVAC air handling unit to clear all VSM. 6. Perform clearance air testing for mold upon completion of the abatement. 7. Paint entirety of Interior walls. 8. Reinstall all removed appurtenances and contents. Please note that there may be defects associated with other building systems,such as electri- cal, plumbing and mechanical systems, which were not observed or reported, The evalua- tion of any components aside from the building envelope are expressly excluded from our scope of services,