April 2 Construction Meeting notes

Harold, Dorothy and Bob met from 11am to 12:10pm on Tue. Apr. 2.

Yellow (“ochre”) color being applied to 910s: This does not match the existing, but has a darker brownish/greenish tinge. What would the cost be to redo the few areas (chimneys) of the first pod that it has been applied to? It is easy to change for future clusters, since a vial of custom color is added to the base, not mixed in advance. The principle of “match existing” has not been applied in this case–it is really not the same.
Tony the plasterer was called in to consult. “Mission” beige, “ochre” and “Taos rose” samples were discussed. Tony will get new color samples done today to be ready by Wednesday, and have a price estimate by the contractors’ meeting with Bob on Thursday.
The lifetime of the color coat, which is water resistant (but is not the primary waterproofing layer–the mesh coat is), is 25 years, but it does last longer and it does not fade. It can be pressure washed. [see separate blog entry on this, with photo]

Roof Tiles: the roofs of cluster A have been “loaded”–the roof tiles have  been stacked up for installation. Some of those stacks won’t be installed until the flashing under the stucco for that roof part is completed and the stucco repaired. When the tiles are delivered they don’t touch the ground, but go right up to the roof to save time & labor.

“Estuary” blue paint color, or leaving some doors white: The new blue paint seems more green than the existing. Also, if some owners want to leave the doors/windows in their entry courtyards the unpainted white fiberglass, can they? The MOU says that anything done on the 917/918 pilot is ARB-pre-approved for the larger LRP. However, all concerned say that keeping a uniform look from the exterior is important. However, the lower doors (not the Juliet) are not visible from the exterior, and the exterior “gates” and trellises are white. It would be good if the community/Board had an opinion before going to the ARB. Unresolved.
The blue color seems to match better in the shade. This mixture was approved, but Bob can look into how much paint has already been mixed in case we want an adjustment.

Dust intrusion during door/window install: anywhere there are ragged edges there is a potential for dust intrusion. Mitigation measures (taped interior plastic once the plywood comes down?) have been implemented for work going forward. This applies mainly to the window/door framing where the interior molding has been removed.

Detail drawings for changes to bid drawings. These are all posted on the  ProCore site (including meetings notes etc.); ftp access instructions provided to owners upon request.

Stucco layers. An owner asked why the repaired areas are applied in one thick application, instead of the three layers over the paper and wire mesh, namely: 3/8″ scratch coat, 3/8″ brown coat, 1/8″ skim (color) coat, for a total of 7/8″ of stucco. Each of these coats if applied separately would need to dry/cure for 2 weeks. To shorten this time for repairs to the demo’d areas they are using “Eisenwall” product, which is not applied in layers. It was vetted by architect, leak forensics, and applicator. There are submittals on ProCore about this.

Roofing: Stonemark is very pleased with the work this roofer is doing. They are progressing with installing Sarnafil on the towers, since there is no need to demo stucco to tie in the metal flashing there. (For the rest they need scaffolding to do the demo, so they can’t move forward to new clusters.) They won’t install the tiles on the tower pyramid because it is not effective to load tiles only for that part of the roofs/cluster.
Bob explained in detail the drainage solution for the tower pyramid roof. The drain pipe into the courtyard will be closed off at top and bottom so as not to imply functionality. A scupper will be the sole drainage in the future. It will lead the water far enough from the wall that dirty streaks from standing water are not likely. There is also a fix for the up-splash problem that was noticed on the 917/918 pilot (because the existing flashing was not raised from 4″ to 8″, but merely bent up for the installation of the sarnafil, then bent back down–but not screwed down). It is now being screwed down, with a bead of compressible waterproofing behind it. This fix has been vetted & approved.

Weeps. The weeps do not drain through the holes in the horizontal surface parallel the ground. Rather, the weep has a slanted upper profile under the stucco to provide a sloping surface embedded at the bottom of the stucco wall, which lets water wick out through the surface of the stucco.

Window casings: Project is still assessing whether to reuse the existing moldings or replacing them with new. The intention is that the final result will be indistinguishable from the existing.
What about some owners’ custom casings? The contractor will try to preserve as much as possible during demo removal. If it cracks or is otherwise damaged, the owner can provide new casing, and the project will cover the installation cost. (This is the same principle as the overall window/door solution and exterior light solutions: owners are responsible for providing custom materials, but the project will do the installation.)
A question about the interior mullions separating the awing windows from above fixed Imagewindows came up after the meeting (to discuss next time).

Project help to individual owners: The Board has requested an accounting for this. For example, if owners get help packing up custom window coverings, who will pay for reinstallation? We should keep track of costs to help in the ultimate decision. Also, now that the exterior lights are being replaced by the Association, should working existing bulbs be re-used, and who will pay for the new compact fluorescents?

Landscaping: Brian Peck is the “new Colin” (site manager) from Plowboy. They haven’t started the trimming on the 920s yet because they don’t want it to grow back before the scaffolding work commences. We got a fair price from Plowboy for this work.

Scheduling. The general contractor still isn’t providing updates to the overall schedule, so Stonemark is developing its own with the plan of getting the contractor(s) to buy into it. This will be released at the April 13 Town Hall. There will be liquidated damages assessed if the project is not completed on time, so the contractors have an incentive to keep to the timeline that Stonemark prepares (although they are not/cannot be bound to it).

Next meeting: Tuesday April 16, 2013, 11am.

About hmarcuse

I've been an environmentalist since my college days in the 1970s (May 1977 Seabrook, New Hampshire occupation) , and am now a professor of German history at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s