HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 REIMBURSE PMT FEES 07-19-99 LAW OFFICES OF
~VOODRUFF~ SPRADLIN &: S~ .... RT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
AGENDA
NO. 13
7-19-99
DIRECT DIAL: (714) 564-2607
DIRECT FAX: (714) 565-2507
E-MAIL: LEJ@WSS-L&W.COM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM'
DATE:
RE:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Tustin
City Attorney
July 12, 1999
Request by Sycamore Glen Condominium Association for Reimbursement of
Permit Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the request.
DISCUSSION:
A member of the Board of Directors of the Sycamore Glen Condominium
Association on behalf of the Association addressed the City Council earlier this year and
requested reimbursement for permit fees recently charged the Association by the City
for the repair of firewalls and reroofing. The total amount of reimbursement sought is
$25,305.52. These costs are detailed in the attached letter dated April 15, 1999. The
basis for the request was the allegation that City inspectors had failed to note
construction defects.
1. There is no evidence that City failed to inspect or negligently inspected.
The Community Development Department has reviewed the City's files regarding
the inspection of the original construction. There is nothing in those files that would
indicate that the City failed to do an inspection or negligently performed any inspection.
The City requested the Association's expert's report of deficiencies in the firewall, but
the Association declined to provide this information to the City. In summary, the City
has no information that would indicate that it failed to detect deficiencies in the roofing
and firewall construction that would have been detectable by any reasonable building
official.
107418\1
Honorable Mayor and Members' of the City Council
City of Tustin
July 12, 1999
Page 2
It should be noted that after a building official inspects a project, the contractor
can do things to the project construction that causes it to be defective and the building
official will not know about it. For example, the key to keeping a roof from leaking is to
have a secure felt (also known as "paper") under the roofing tile. The contractor could
have torn the roofing felt when putting on the roofing tiles. Building officials do not
routinely monitor the installation of the roofing tiles. In addition, modifications could
have been made to the firewall construction by the contractor that caused it to be
defective, after the City inspected the construction. Since the City has not been
permitted to review the Association's expert's report on deficiencies in the firewall, the
City does not know if the defects in the firewalls would have been apparent to an
inspector.
.
The Association's documents indicate that defects in desiqn contributed to
the roof defects.
Contrary to the Association's claim that construction defects that should have
been spotted by the City were to blame for the damage, the Association's own
documents indicate that design defects contributed to the roofing problems observed.
In the attached JWC Executive Summary provided to the City by the Association, the
"inappropriate design of chimney flashings" and the "inappropriate design of cricket
flashings" were cited as "deficient" under "Roof Defects."
.
It is unfair now to attribute liability to the City when the City was not
presented with a claim earlier or named in the litiqation.
If the City was somehow culpable for the defects alleged, it would seem logiCal
that a demand or claim would have been made when the defects were noticed. If such
a timely demand or claim would have been made, the City would have been in a better
position to investigate the matter. For example, the City inspector no longer works for
the City. As another example, the City has not had the opportunity to question the
contractor and project designer. It is unfair, in our opinion, to presume City liability on a
stale claim that was never presented so that the City could timely investigate and
question all involved.
.
The Association received a settlement of $6,251,000.00 and either
anticipated or should have anticipated buildinq inspection fees for the
repairs.
The attached JMC Executive Summary indicates a potential estimated repair
budget of $2,510,271, but the settlement amount received was $6,251,000.00. In our
opinion, the building inspection fees for the repairs should come out of this settlement
107418\1
(u~t~o.') ~u-ums:'1 .qq I.
s:),ouapuap asaq~ m pa~elaJ uo!,lvttuo.}ut, no/~ puos a,~ letil patsonbaJ st:q plno0 'Jl,fl 'sl.~oo
·
l~u~;)d asaRl .raj luo(uosJnqtm, aJ fi'u!l~onb;u [?uno'.') '(:!,.3 u!l.~n.I. ~o ,(1!~ :~ql FO'~c:3dPPe s.m:n:u!p
fi3 pJ~oq 'uo!le!:)ossv tun!u!tuopuo.") uaio ajotueo,(.~ aql jo joqtuatu e 'plnoD .o.',olg
:~ugoo~t owMaO
,(q auop aq o~ ~Jo,.e, jo.] Sl!tLu:~d ~uljOo~ joj u.t~s11.i. ~o ~11..') ol
66/~1[0 powp 810t
£['[09'8 $
!11~ ~o?.~J~d~S L'OJV .tOJ s.~apt!n13 X:~IIeA oq3ue'~ ol tuamasJttqu~.;:r~
66/60/£0 pa~.p
06'EII
' to3.i'oJd tlO !l.'tru 3.~ u o:",3J
un~:)q .(l~U:~.aJ J!:~q3 u! uo!lepossv aql paR~,13 s~o~ l~uad aql jo Iuatu:)sJnqu.q.:)J Joj lsanhaJ
s,uo!le!:)ossv tun!u!tuopuO:) uoiD :)jotueoX5 aqt ol pa3~l:)J ao!leUUOjU! pu~ 11~.,~ noX p:)tt:)ellV
:.,lnaSu!t4 's I,q Jt;OC'l
s~jaCI }o uoBmuamnooc]
s~so~ lt. tudoc[ lleA~ uo!]e.mda,~ ~.;uV ~,joo~!
og£;6 ¥.'") 'uBs nj.
3uotulJedac] :3u[.pi!n~[ ugsn.! jo
066[ '~1 I!Jdv
r i .u:(; v;) -.,,n.t,,q 't ~t; -wi!aN ',"~'am&V tl-t1~" t.t txff~ !
uoBe!-3ossv mn!m. mopuoD UOlD aoumoKS
q3tm tqlsnl
g'O' d VTO: I'[ 66-9g-~C~1,1... ,
JO~,OeJ!CJ luewdoleAea/~l!unwwoo '~lOeSU!8 'V 41eqez!13
Jel~euelAI/~!0 'uolsnH 'V We!ll!M
:OO
sluewqoel~V
· U!lSn/jo/~1!0 eql jo suez!l!o eql lOU 'SlSOO J!edeJ eql §u!pnlou!
'sel~eLu~p eql Joj/~ed Plnoqs se!lJed esoql '.uo!lel~!l!l eql u! peLueu se!lJed el~A!Jd eq~
/~q pesneo-eJeM sloejep eseq_L 'ueeq eAeq Plnoqs/~eql 'peled!o!lue 1, ueJeM/~eql J! pue
~; el~ed
666 ~ '~ ~ ~lnr
u!lsn_L jo
I!ounoo/~1!0 eql jo sJequJeiAi pue Jo/~elAI elqeJOUOH
M~y-26-99 11:02A P-O~
l~As such. I am includin.~ at l~nal disclosure ~,tcment from the A.,~so¢i:~don's legal counsc.! in
[{6~a~ion a~ain~ C~i~mi~ PadlOc Homes as well ~ ~ ~ccut, ive su~~ rcpon ~rom ~on
Wa~3c Const~c~ion. zhc Constmcfi(m (:onsu[tan~Proj~t Mana~cr hired by the Association
quantify and {ni~iatc repai~. The~c dc~ument~ ident~ thc roof and area separation
deRci~mies.
,!
Thc Association is hopeful thai this information will allow thc City to provide r~imburseme~
the $25,305.52 itt costs incurred in thc pcrmittin~ or' the~ repairs duc to the ~ct that they were
costs originally collected by the City durin~ initial construction and Ibc City insp¢czions did not
idcnti~' 1he dcficlcncie.~.
If'you have any queraiorts, please contact
Cordially,
ON BEHALF OF 'I'HI..: ROARD OF DIRECTORS
SYCAMORE GLEN CONDOMINIIJ%i ASSOCIATION
Scott i). Smith, Ex~ut~ve Manascr
i'.¢), lien I').S.NI Ir,~mc. (.:ali~,,'-i- ')2623 · ig'l')T ?.'i2.Z2Z~. · T~,.'~ (,",.1'))"/~j.'~..t~.~G'/
J~n-28-99 11:12A P.02
TUSTIN RANCH SYCAMORE GLEN
ROOF DESIGN/STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY/
A REA SEPARATION WALLS
.IWC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
October 13, 1998
Jori Wayne Construction and our Comult,xnts have completed the investigation of roof ri:pairs,
preliminary stracturel enalysis. Nd area separation wails. We have developed several e.ltemativc
repzix op6ons offering different levels of mitig~ion in m cffon to allow thc Boesd of Dirc~to~
to d~terminc, a prudent course of action m~ximizing available funding. The following is ~
summazy of our findings:
TYPICAL ROOF DEFECTS'
Destructive testing was performed on (2) building types in each pkase totaling (20) buildings
over.-tll, which provided the foundation of our tlndings. Many areas of the roofs are susce~
to water intrusion, which .,,.'as consistent on all buildings. These deficient a~s
undcrla~?ment (paper). unsealed vent flashing penetrations, improperly inst~lled p~tal
' ~hings, sh°rt ~'alle¥ flashings, impm~ installed skylight flashings, i~nappmpriate~..eszgn~)of
clzL'nncy fl~shinss, Nd ~.~a~pr_opriatffc~csign'pf cricket fl=shings.
Note: The original Roof Design Details for Sycamore Glen seem to be gencr~lly consistent per
Cod'--~ mud industry standards, however, c~ain areas will require some modifications. Pursuant
Io the Board's request, preliminary design rice,ils have beers comptcted.
ROOF RI[PAIR OPTIONS:
Option 1 A:
Estimated Cost: $1,347,43~f:
Repair known documented roof leaks with like kind, implementing new plar~ ~ud
specifications per property management report (see Site Plm. with "yellow"
buildings).. Represents (66) buildings. Some buildings, though not report~, could
still be leaking wiihout visible detection.
Option I B:
Estimated Cost: 51,$91~366
Same aa Option IA, utilizing'lightweight roof'mg tile due to thc significant value
realized in thc Structural Analysis provided by Accutech Engineering.
Option 2:
Estimated Cost: $1,510,881
~Omple:¢ replacement of roof tile on all buildings with like kind, implemcntinff
~:c'.~' i~.l:.m:; :nd spccific:uions.
Note: Re-usc of existing titc was cons[dcred, howevcr, an analysis of thc cost associated with
such an ~deavor proved to be cosily arid rime consuming.
,.~L~n- 28: 99 11: 13A P-03.
·
TUSTIN RANCH SYCAMORE GLEN
ROOF DESIGN/STRUCTUIt. AL ANALYSIS SUMMARY/AREA SEP-a,IC~T[ON WALLS
Octobcr 13, 1998
ROOF REPAIR OPTIONS,: (Con't)
Option 3;
Estimated Cost: SI,843,398
Same as Option No. 2, utilizing lightweight roofing tile duc to the significant
value realized in the S~uctucal Analysis pr0vided by Accutech Engineering.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS:
This report summarizes thc findings of AccuteCh Engineering. The purpose of this evaluation
was to explore available documentation presented by the Plaintiff's structural expert, conduct on-
site evaluations, evaluate the structural integrity of the buildings as they currently exist, and
develop repair options in order to potentially create a more ·'seismically sa.f? Pro.~ect. (Refer to
gTaph by Accut~ch Engtneeru~g.)
Our study indicates there are various features lacking in the existing lateral resistant structural
components of thc buildings. In layman's tcrms, thc ability for the buildings to resist front to
rear, side lo side. and up ~d down motions from aa earthqua~cc. Thc buS]dings have fared
relatively well overall since their construction. Thc site has been subjected to a variety of
earthquakes. The performance to date is an indication that the buildings, whil~ not up to Code,
are well constructed. However. we believe there are deficiencies at the front shear wing wails of
the ga'age, rea: wall of' the garage, and shear transfer at the shed roof above the garage, that
could subject the buildings to serious damage it' subjected to high ground accelerations in the
longitudinal direction of the buildings.
D.__ue ~o thc inconsistency of thc d¢ficicncir, s in each plan and building typ_.e, we have attempt~ to.
provide (4) generic repair option.s, each one offering a lower or higher degree of improving thc
buildings performance ir subjectr, d to high ~round accelerations in thc longitudinal direction of
the buildings.
STRUCTURAL REPAIR OPTIONS:
Option 1:
Estimated Cost: $0
Leave in present condition; no rcpairs. Could cause serious damage to the
buildings if subjected to high ~otmd accelerations in the 'lon~itudi. na[ direction of
the buildings.
Option 2:
Estimated (':u~t' S731.982
~dd shear to (3) walls in the garage. Provides ~ almost safe building condition if
subjected to high ground accelerations in tl~e longitudinal cLirection of
buildings.
Jdn-28'-99 11:14A P.05
·
TUSTI~ RANCH S¥CAJ~IOILE GLEN
ROOF DESIGN/STRUCTURAL r~'qALYSIS SUMM~Y/AKEA SEPARATION WALLS
October 13, [998
STRUCTURAL REPAIR OPTION_S: (Cea't)
Option 3:
Estimated Cost: ~S918,247
Includes Option 2, with additional shear at thc both'eom wing walls directly above
the garage. At Plan 2. add she~ to kc wall ,~djaccnt to thc fireplace. Provides a
higher level of safety than. that of Option 2. if subjected to high ground
accelerations in the Ion$itudinal direction elr the buildings.
Option 4: Estimtted Cost: S2,$13.$62
Ail repair 'reCommendations per $oscph Werdowatz report. Would meet full 100%
Building C~c compiling. ,
~A SEP~TION WALLS:
i.e., ~s~g ~i~a~e~zanml fire ~toppiag, impmpe~ thic~ess af
l~pp~g e[ ~z~tie~ j~Jn~, ~gre ~pp~ ~ b~ ~ ~ d~e ~ d~ci~n~ie~ (90%) Or hi~er,
whcrc in~vc [nvestigltion ~vas pedaled by ~e Plainti~s cxpe~.
Opfiou 1:
Estimlted Cost: S553.905
Insulstop blow-in [ire ~toppin8 for kc vertical and horizontal rite stopping
deficiencir, s, and painting of the de/icicnt fire rated walls with FF88 fire rctardant
paint. 100% mitigation of deficicncies; tess intrusion to resident- CPlcasc note
these costs include an allowance o/' $114.000, for removal and reinstaLlallon o/'
wall fixtures, i.e., mirrors, wallpaper.)
Option 2:
Estimtted Cost: S1.060.93!
_
Thc conventional method would be to remove drywall, install fire blocking, re-
install new drywall, fir~ tape, texture and paint. Most intrusive to resident and
takes longer. 100% mitigation olr deficiencies.
· ~n-2B'-99 ll:13A P.04
·
TUS'ITN RANCll SYCA~ORIi GLEN
ROOF DESIG/STRUCTUR,AL ANALYSIS SUMMARY/AREA SEPARATION WALLS
Octobcr 13, lPg8
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:
It is our undmr~ding that it is thc B0~rct's desire to. mitigate the threat to life and s~¢v/and to
crthan¢¢ thc cluality oflif¢ at Sycamor~ Glen. Realiz~-the current budget constraints and uking
~-nto consideration certain assumptions, it {~ our rccommend*tion that thc Board consider thc
following option scquence in order to maximize the repair plan. This is not to say that any other
options should not be considered, but ra~cr it is our belief that the repair plan outlined below
could offer the highest level ol~ safety while utilizing available £und~.
Roof Repair Option IB: Estimated Cost: $I,891.396.
Partial roof replacement utilizing lightweight tile. Budget and provide work plan for (9)
remaining builctings utilizinlt lishtweight tile·
Structurni Repair Option 2: Estimated Cost: $731.98~
Shear panel (3) §oragc walls. We bclicvc ~s repair gready {ncrc~s ~c pc~om~cc of ~c
buildings.
Arez Separation Wall Repair Option 1; Estimated Cost: S553.905
Install Insulstop in thc walls for vertical and horizontal fire stoppir~g, paint thc walls with. FFSg
to maintain (2) hour fire rang.
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR ABOVE RECO)IbrENDATIONS: $2,877r153
·
..
DEDUCTION CONSIDERATION FOR OI~FION 2 STRUCTURAL REPAIRS: ~
POTENTIAL ESTIMATED BUDGET: $2.510,271
JQn-28-gg 11: 14A 'P-06
27. 1~
A. 'A,TUS OF LrriGA O
This ~ was ~cd on December 22, l!~95 3tnd n~ed ~r a0 pu~S
· c ~ ~e Or~r assigned John O~ths, Esq~ os Spe~ ~er/~mtor. ~ ac case
was ~ncluded on ~rch 19, 1~8.
~ part of ~ s~ttl~mant, the A~s~atinn ~lt pr~d~ the D~c~p~r ~ a
rel~a~, including a r~te~e ol a~ ~d all clai~ ~at may arise ia ~e future, tn ~tur~
~o~6on will receive S6,~1,~.~ on or a~ut ~g130, 1~8..~e se~ement ~.
~oult [0r m~R co~mo~ a~ca rcpai~ ~d rcplc~~ r~c~cL ~c icnlcm~t
arc for thc behest o~ thc ~~n~on, =nd no ~n~ ~1 be d~cctiy~burscd to
members.
~c ~ocia~on ~ed a ~m~ctiun dcfcct a~nn ~ thc Or~gc Co~W Supe~or
Co~t aS~mt thc ~c~Ia~rs of thc S~nmo~ Glen project ~e cl~ ~ ~o~ come, on
~[c~ ~d ~ bas~ upon thc I~ th~nHcs of: ~rcach of Implied W~ti~; S~ct
~a~U~ NeW,once: Brach ~f ~p~ed W~ran~ of Merchnntabili~ ~nd Breach of
w~an~ ~ Fitncs~
e.s lo the &ctton. CaJii'orn~ .
hi n~Lm Products, Inc., Centu~/M~rble, Clmrk
~Banuer Concrete, Inc., Basco. A z_tm ............ ,. ......
~, lnc 5~ ln~~tcd, D P. Wg~t Cons~o~, ~ Dnn's Davy
" ' ' . · ' ' ~ ~e Ev~rettReid~m ~,
tccd Pr~ucts Co a~uon, He,co Industn~ ~c, Klein ~lopmcnt
~c, ~vcaon Brokers, Inc., ~mer Rnofing Comp~, Inc,, O~en & ~d~son dba
Beach Gantt Door So,ce, M&M Wcath~rs~ip, Inc. M~ncll ~bincu, I~., Merit
El~ic, ~c., Mc~on ],d~tg~ ~orat~, Yrcfc~c~ Sh~t M~tal, Inc., Reliable
~te~rs, ~c., ~cs~dcn~zt ~c~nc lflco~oratc~ Shamrock ~htinK, [~c.. Sie~ Fireplace
~nd~cnpe .
~smb~tors. ~c., Sou~and Ins~tion, S~ct~ ~re, and l~g~gon
~so~ of (~alifo~n. Ttlc Trends, Inc., 'l'ri~o Finch. lac.. War0robe Sj~d~i~s, Ltd.,
~C. W~ndt Paining, Inc., ~nd Western b~suladon, Inc.
· .:
80 'd