You are on page 1of 18

rT.

IPil
October 20, 2009

MORRISON HERSHFIELD

MH Ret: 5105001.00

The Owners, Strata Corp. BCS 2982 do Derrin Geisheimer, Property Manager Crosby Property Management Ltd. 600-777 Hornby Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 1 S4 Re: 15 Month Common Area and Two Year Warranty Review ‘Raffles’ 821 Cambie Street, Vancouver, BC

-

Morrison Hershfield (MH) was retained by the Owners of Raffles (Strata Plan BCS 2982) to undertake a building envelope warranty review of their building complex located at 821 Cambie St., Vancouver, BC. The review was performed to precede the end of the 15 months and twoyear warranty. This letter report documents the results of our review. The results reported herein are based on information provided by the strata and on-site visual review of the complex. Building Description and Background The complex consists of a concrete framed 23.-storey high-rise and five 2-storey townhouses. The exterior walls at Raffles are primarily glazed window wall, with areas of steel stud infill, painted concrete and brick/slate veneer at the lower levels. There are five levels of underground parkade. The windows are thermally broken aluminum framed, double-glazed units. Roofs are flat with inverted assemblies. Units are provided with balconies and/or decks. The followina table provides additional backaround information of the comolex: Building Name and Strata Number: Building Address: Number of Stories Age of Building: Property Manager: Date of Occupancy: HPO Building Envelope Warranty Provider: (Original) Envelope Consultant: Developer: Raffles

BCS 2982

821 Cambie St., Vancouver 23 1 year Crosby Property Management Completion, June 2008 Willis Canada Inc. Morrison Hershtield Ltd. Peak Performance Ent. Canada Ltd.

Morrison Hershfield Limited

I

Suite 610, 3585 Graveley Street,Vancouver, BC V5K SiS Canada

I

Tel: 604 454 0402 Fax: 604 454 0403

morrisonhershfield.com

2

Architect: Contractor: Limitations

IBl/HB Architects ITC Construction Group

This review is based on a review of available documents and visual inspection of accessible areas. Our review did not include an exploratory investigation, in terms of removing sections of cladding, drywall, roofing or landscaping for evaluation of the hidden systems beneath. This report primarily documents a list of observed deficiencies relating to the building envelope and of common areas. The deficiency listing does not include all locations with deficiencies nor do they imply all similar locations or items to be deficient. Any comments or conclusions within this report represent our opinion, which is based upon our field review of physical conditions and our past experience. This review is limited to technical, construction and performance items. Some of the findings herein are based on a random sampling and others are based on a visual review of the surface conditions. Deficiencies, which may exist but were not observed and recorded in this report, were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. Owners, prospective purchasers, tenants or others who use or rely on the contents of this report do so with the understanding as to the limitations of the documents reviewed, the general visual inspection undertaken and understand that MH cannot be held liable for damages which may be suffered with respect to the purchase, ownership or use of the subject property. Field Review Work The review was completed by Darienne Deans of Morrison Hershfield on October 8, 2009. We reviewed the building from the parking garage, ground level, common roof decks and main roof level. We also accessed Suites 802, 810, 1203, 2103, TH Unit 829 and a sampling of underground storage/bike/mechanical rooms. We have summarized our observations in Table 1 below, and have provided recommendations for addressing deficiencies under the “Corrective Action” column. Each item has been categorized according to the type of problem as follows: • Category D A construction deficiency exists, in our opinion, when the observed conditions in the building complex differ from the intent of the documentation provided for review or from good construction practice. Such deficiencies are warranty items and should be brought to the attention of the appropriate company for correction.

Category M A maintenance deficiency exists, in our opinion, when the observed conditions in the building complex are caused by general wear and tear

3

on building components and equipment, or when they concern an item that has not received routine service, adjustments and/or cleaning. Such maintenance deficiencies should be corrected as part of the maintenance program.

Category I A deficiency exists, in our opinion, where no clear decision can be made as to whether the problem is a design, construction or maintenance deficiency. Repairs to correct the deficiency or further investigation, e.g., test openings or material/component testing, is generally required.

Note that we are not privy to all warranty agreements and hence, some items listed as warranty items may not be included as part of the warranty agreements for Raffles. We have included in Appendix A, sample photographs taken during our review. Table 1: Summary of Observations

Photo! Item

Sample Location
Suite 810

Deficiency Description
The exhaust vent at balcony soff it is clogged and drips during use. The resident reported water dripping from joint between window wall frame and balcony soffit at the exterior. Staining on the window wall was noted,

Category

Corrective Action
All vents should be cleaned regularly to prevent blockage and condensation. At this location, a roof drain from the deck above is concealed by the balcony soff it. The water noted by the resident is likely due to either a plumbing leak, a deficiency in the roof membrane, or conden sation forming on the outside of the drain pipe. Further investigation is required to determine the source of the moisture and an appropriate corrective action.

M

2

Suite 810

I
.

4

Photo! Item
3a 3b

Sample Location
Suite 810

Deficiency Description
Staining indicating some minor ponding on the balcony was noted.

Category

Corrective Action
The ponding appears to be a result of the scupper not being quite flush with the concrete deck. This is primarily an aesthetic and operational issue, however proper drainage should be provided. One solution would be to lower the scupper to allow water to drain freely. Install exterior sealant around penetration and secure the cover plate.

D

4

Suite 802

The penetration of the sprinkler pipe for the balcony through the window wall spandrel panel is not sealed at the exterior and the cover plate is loose. Coating is missing at the eyebrow below the bedroom window (west elevation) and at eyebrow below roof deck (east elevation). Additionally, some bug-holes were noted and the coating did not appear to be the appropriate thickness in these areas.

5a 5b

Suite 802 Level 4 Roof Deck

D

Due to difficulties with accessing the areas, we could not confirm whether the eyebrow was missing the liquid membrane as well as the paint. However, due to the noted bug-holes, etc., the affected eyebrows should be addressed by filling bug-holes, recoating and repainting. Secure all loose flashing.

6

Suite 702

Flashing appeared loose at window wall (as viewed from 802 balcony). A cover plate for a large joint is missing at the window wall jamb on level 5 east elevation. Interior door frame was reportedly damaged during construction and not repaired.

D Install missing cover plate. D Repair door frame. D

7

Level 5 East Elevation Level 2 Corridor

8

5

Photo! Item
9a 9b

Sample Location
Level 4 Amenity Area

Deficiency Description
Cracked tiles were noted in the amenity area spa.

Category

Corrective Action
Cracked tiles could be the result of inadequate movement joints in the tile or lack of facture resistant substrate. Remove sealant, prepare substrate and reseal.

l/D

10

Level 4 Roof Deck

Sealant adhesion was failing at Level 4 roof deck flashing (interior corner between amenity area and commercial space). Discoloured paint above roof membrane upturn where membrane extends above termination.

D

11

Level 4 Roof Deck Ground Level

D

Paint appears to have reacted with the excess roof membrane and has discoloured. This is largely an aesthetic issue. Remove the membrane, clean the concrete and repaint. Staining appears to be from initial construction, as no evidence or reports of active leakage were noted, but could be from a leak or condensation. We recommend the stain marks be cleaned and the curtain wall be monitored for any water ingress. Deformed gaskets could affect the performance of the curtain wall. RepTace deformed gaskets. Realign operable vent to ensure full seal is achieved when closed. Glazer to complete curtain wall installation. Apply coating to missing areas, as required.

12

Level 3 & 4 Commercial Unit

Staining was noted along curtain wall vertical mullions of Level 3 & 4 commercial units.

I

13

Level 3 & 4 Commercial Unit Level 3 Commercial Unit Level 3 Commercial Unit Level 23 Penthouse Suite

Deformation of interior curtain wall gaskets.

D

14

The operable vent in the east elevation curtain wall was misaligned and therefore did not seal properly when closed. Curtain wall is missing a section of pressure plate and beauty cap at east elevation. Top of parapet wall extension is missing coating in two locations.

D

1 5a 15b 16a 1 6b

D

D

6

Photo! Item
17

Sample Location
Level 23 Service Roof

Deficiency Description
Organic growth was noted between payers at service roof.

Category

Corrective Action
Organic growth should be removed as part of maintenance as it could potentially damage the membrane over time. Sealant failure appears to be due to poor preparation of the substrate on the adjacent building. Clean paint and prepare surface for sealant joint. The adhesion of the paint was good, and the damage appears to be from post construction activities. Exterior paint should be touched up as part of maintenance. Repair sealant joint, as required. Crack appears to be due to movement. Clean crack and seal with sealant. Further investigation is required to determine the cause of the water ingress and an appropriate repair method. No active leakage was noted at these cracks. Cracks should be cleaned of efflorescence and staining and be monitored for any future water ingress.

M

18

East and West Elevations

At the transition to the adjacent building, the sealant joint has failed along the adjacent building.

D/M

19

TH 827

Damage to the elastomeric coating on the exterior concrete wall was noted. M

20

Ground Level East Elevation
-

Discontinuous sealant at granite veneer joint (located at column behind bus shelter). Crack noted in exterior cladding at ground level. Water ingress was noted at the service penetration below grade.

D

21

Ground Level East Elevation
-

M

22a 22b

Parking Garage

I

23a 23b 23c

Parking Garage

Several cracks were noted which were stained with efflorescence. It should be noted that Xypex crystalline slurry was used during the construction of the walls and to address post construction cracks, this material can cause efflorescence. The topcoat of the vehicular traffic coating in the parking garage has delaminated in some areas.

I

24

Parking Garage

D

Traffic coating to be repaired.

7

Photo! Item
25

Sample Location
Parking Garage P2 Stair

Deficiency Description
An active leak was noted at the sprinkler pipe fitting in Stair 1.

Category

Corrective Action
Further investigation may be required by the plumber to determine the cause of the leak.

l/D

Summary
MH conducted a visual deficiency review of the building envelope and a visual 15-month common area and 2 year warranty review. We reviewed the building envelope components, where accessible, including wall components, windows, roof deck, the landscaped podium, and the roof. In general, the building appears to be performing in accordance with the original design intent, but we have identified a few items that need to be confirmed or corrected under warranty to ensure that the performance of building is in accordance with the design intent. The following are items which are of most concern and may require further investigation, • At suite 810, water staining was observed along the window wall frame and appears to be coming from above the balcony soffit, where a roof drain is brought down and into the building. There are three potential sources for the water, a plumbing leak in the drain pipe, a deficiency in the membrane transition at the drain body, or condensation forming on the cold pipe. While the water has been kept to the outside of the building envelope, the structure within the soff it could begin to deteriorate as a result of the water and should therefore be repaired. Further investigation will be required to determine the source and to find an appropriate repair solution.
rd th Staining was noted on the curtain wall vertical mullions at the 3 and 4 floor commercial spaces. While there was no further evidence that this was a result of active water ingress, the mullions should be cleaned and monitored, and the consultant informed if any ingress is observed.

At the below grade service room, water ingress was noted at the service penetration. It appears that repair attempts have been made in this area; however, water is still seeping through the penetration. Further investigation should be conducted to determine an appropriate repair solution to stop the water ingress.

The building envelope maintenance manual for Raffles was prepared by MH at the completion of construction. The manual includes necessary information to maintain the building envelope as well as a 10-year sample log form meant to provide a mechanism of tracking maintenance activities. The log forms include columns to identify the maintenance item, the date it was performed and the name of the maintenance service provider. The Strata should note that a tracking mechanism of maintenance activities is useful in the evaluation of the warranties, can provide valuable information as to the time the maintenance program will need to be updated, and can be used to plan for

8

renewals. The Strata should also note that maintenance of all aspects of the building is critical to the performance and operation of the buildings. We recommend that the Strata continue to utilize the maintenance manual to ensure the performance of the building is sustained. We trust the above meets the Strata requirements for a warranty review. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any questions. Sincerely, MORRISON HERSHFIELD LIMITED

Darienne Deans Building Envelope Consultant
M:\PROJ\51 05001 \00\Raffles 1 5&2yr warranty review DRAFTdoc
-

-a>
0O

¶9

The Raffles 821 Cambie St., Vancouver

V

Photo 1 Suite 810 clogged with lint.

-

Exhaust vent

Photo 2 Suite 810 Staining between window wall and balcony soff it.
-

Photo 3a Suite 810 Evidence of ponding of water on balony.
-

Photo 3b Suite 810 Scupper drain is not flush with balcony slab.
-

Warranty Review

The Raffles 821 Cambie St., Vancouver

-

F-

:;c.I

Photo 4 Suite 802 Missing seal at sprinkler pipe penetration through window wall.
-

Photo 5a Suite 802 Missing coating at west elevation.
-

-j

F

Photo L, East Elevation Missing coating on Level 4 deck eyebrow.
-

I

Photo 6 Suite ?u2 Loose flashing section.
-

Warranty Review

rn.
IP

The Raffles 821 Cambie St., Vancouver

I
-

I

Photo 7 East Elevation Missing cover flashing at Level 5 window wall section.

Photo S Level 2 Corridor Damaged door frame.
-

I

Photo 9b Amenity Area C mortar joint.
-

Warranty Review

The Raffles 821 Cambie St., Vancouver

V

A.’\ Photo 10 Level 4 Roof Deck Poor sealant joint at roof deck flashing.
-

/

Photo 11 Level 4 Roof Deck Discoloured elastomeric paint above upturn flashing.
-

Photo 12 Level 4 Commercial Unit Staining at curtain wall vertical mullion.
-

Photo 13 Level 4 Commercial Unit Deformed Gaskets

-

Warranty Review

The Raffles 821 Cambie St., Vancouver

7
A

Photo 14 Level 3 Commercial Unit Operable unit misaligned in curtain wall.
-

I

Photo 1 5a t t Elevation Missing pressure plate at Level 3.
-

Photo 15b Missing curtain wall pressure plate.

Photo 1 6a Level 23 Missing coating at top surface of parapet wall extension.
-

Warranty Review

The Raffles 821 Gamble St., Vancouver

Photo 1 6b Level 23 Missing coating.
-

Photo 17 Level 22 Roof Deck Organic growth noted at roof deck.
-

Photo 18 West E ,ation joint to adjacent buildling

-

1 sealant

Photo 19 Townhouse 827 Damaged elastomeric coating at concrete wall.
-

Warranty Review

The Raffles 821 Cambie St., Vancouver

.4

Photo 20 East Elevation Discontinuous sealant at granite veneer joints.
-

Photoi EastE of concrete detail.

F

Photo 22a Parking Garage Water ingress noted at service pipe penetration.
-

Photo 22b Parking Garage Active leakage at pipe penetration.
-

Warranty Review

The Raffles 821 Cambie St., Vancouver

Photo 23a Parking Garage Staining and efflorescence noted at several crack locations on exterior walls.
-

Photo 23b Parking Garage Staining at exterior wall.
-

Photo 23c Parking Garage Efflorescence at wall to slab joint.
-

Photo 24 Parking Garage Delamination of the traffic membrane topcoat.
-

Warranty Review

The Raffles 821 Cambie St., Vancouver

Photo 2o r LJr 1 sprinkler pipe fitting.

ater leaking at

Warranty Review