Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2014-01-15 (02)
p0 MEMORANDUM 1-4 Q •e■r/■ ' Q „oREG®�, TO: Development Review Commission FROM: Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner Planning and Building Services Department SUBJECT: LU 13-0042: Modified design for reopened hearing DATE: January 3, 2014 NATURE OF APPLICATION / REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of modification to approved Development Review Permits (DR 8-75, DR 33-76 and DR 19-77) for an exterior remodel of all the buildings on the site. The property is located at 215 Oswego Summit (1S1E32CD90000). BACKGROUND The Development Review Commission (Commission) held public hearings for LU 13-0042 at its meetings of October 28 and November 18, 2013. At its November 18 hearing, the Commission deliberated and tentatively voted to deny the application. The Findings, Conclusion and Order for the Commission's tentative decision were not prepared because the applicant filed a request to reopen the hearing in order to submit a substantially modified design to address the Commission's concerns. The Commission granted the applicant's request at its hearing on December 2, 2013, with the understanding that the applicant would submit a revised application within a reasonable timeframe. If a revised application was not submitted before March 3, 2014, then the Commission would proceed with the adoption of the Findings, Conclusion and Order based on its November 18, 2013, tentative decision. The applicant submitted a revised application on December 18, 2013. These materials are attached as Exhibits E15-E33 and F3-F4. Public notice of the reopened hearing and opportunity to comment on this application was provided as required by LOC 50.07.003.3. One comment in support of the revised application was received as of the date of this memorandum (Exhibit G138). 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 .ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 15 COMMISSION'S FINDINGS The Commission was advised that City Council has interpreted "complementary" in the Building Design Standard. In McNulty v. City of Lake Oswego, 15 Or LUBA 16 (1986), which referenced the City's interpretation of"complementary", LUBA accepted the Council's interpretation: "To be complementary a design does not need to be in a particular style and it does not need to mimic the materials and forms of the elements of the adjacent buildings. The standard requires that an aesthetically pleasing relationship (a complementary relationship) be created between the on and off site elements listed which completes the visual image of the universe being considered. The Standard anticipates that multiple design solutions are available for a given site. The Standard does not require a specific design in a given circumstance. Flexibility and innovation are encouraged by the development code." Record at 18. During its deliberations on November 18, the Commission noted several concerns with the design of the proposed exterior remodel of the condominium buildings. The Commission found that the existing buildings are of a unique design and character in Mountain Park and that the Building Design Standard requiring buildings to be designed to be "complementary" in appearance to adjacent structures of good design with regard to materials, setbacks, rooflines, height and overall proportions (LOC 50.06.001.5.b.i) does not mean that the building design should match or mimic the adjacent structures of good design. In other words, the Commission found that "complementary" does not mean "identical with" or "substantially identical with." The intent of the standard is not to require every building to look the same, but rather that the proposed design be complementary to the overall visual aesthetic of the "universe" being considered. The Commission found that the existing design of the buildings on the site, though quite unique in the neighborhood, is complementary to adjacent structures of good design and by modifying the design to match the materials of the adjacent structures and removing decks and roofing material that contribute significantly to the dynamic design of the cascading building type, the result is a static, repetitive design that significantly reduces the diversity in the neighborhood and detracts from the overall visual universe. A change in design of existing structures in an established neighborhood disrupts the aesthetic "universe" in which the buildings are a part. The Commission found that a remodel of existing structures that would create a sameness of design to adjacent structures would not retain the complementary aesthetic design relationship to the adjacent buildings. The Commission acknowledged the applicant's challenge to address flaws in the original design that it finds are causing or contributing to significant repair and maintenance issues necessary on many of the buildings. The Commission found, however, that in proposing an exterior remodel that is necessary to address these flaws, the applicant must still propose a design that does not disrupt the existing aesthetic "universe" in which the buildings are a part. In this instance, the Commission found that the uniqueness of design character of the existing structures relative to the adjacent structures needed to be better preserved in order to meet the "complementary" design standard. Page 3 of 15 REVISED DESIGN AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA The revised application materials submitted by the applicant consist of the following exhibits: Exhibit F3 Revised narrative Exhibit F4 Supporting documents and evidence referred to in the revised narrative that provides a comprehensive history of approvals, repairs and building investigations for the structures on the site from design review approval in the 1970's to the present Exhibit E15 Revised building elevations for Building Type 1 Exhibit E16 Revised building elevations for Building Types 2a, 2b and 3 Exhibit E17 Colored perspective view of the overall project Exhibits E18-E21 Revised colored perspective views illustrating different roof and deck railing material options for Building Type 1 Exhibits E22-E27 Revised colored perspective views illustrating different roof and deck railing material options for Building Types 2a, 2b, and 3 Exhibit E28 Revised color palette Exhibits E29-E30 Revised samples of roof materials Exhibits E31-E32 New sample of tinted glass and metal components of the deck railing system Exhibit E33 New Window sample. In response to the concerns expressed by the Commission at the November 18 hearing, the applicant made the following revisions to the design: • Hardiplank shingle accents are proposed on all building types. The main siding material remains horizontal hardiplank lap siding. • The Red Barn color has been removed from the color palette and the overall color scheme consists of muted earth tones. • The vinyl clad sliding doors and windows are proposed to be a light taupe color ("desert sand") instead of white. • The roof material is proposed to be Certainteed Presidential Series composition shingles and the applicant provided two color options in either warm tones of dark brown and gray or a combination of light and dark browns. The applicant also provided another composition roofing option for the Commission's consideration, which is a composition roof shingle that mimics the appearance of terra cotta tile. • Tinted bronze glass and dark brown metal deck railing systems are proposed on all the building types instead of clear or frosted glass railings. As alternatives,the applicant provided an option for metal picket railings as well as an option on Building Types 2a, 2b and 3 (cascading buildings)to retain the "roofed" deck railings with modifications to create 8" x 12" portholes directly above the gutter for drainage purposes. Page 4 of 15 • Windows are no longer proposed to be eliminated from any of the building stairwells (or any other existing windows that were previously inadvertently missing from the elevation drawings). The discussion below will focus on the Building Design criteria in LOC 50.06.001.5.b.i and iv for the revised design and materials. Compliance with all other applicable criteria, which are not affected by the proposed revisions, is discussed in detail in the October 17, 2013, Staff Report (Exhibit D1). Staff notes that the revised narrative addresses LOC 50.01.001 and LOC 50.06.009, which are the Title and Purpose of LOC Chapter 50 and the Historic Preservation regulations, respectively (Exhibit F3). Neither of these code sections contains criteria that are applicable to this application because the Title and Purpose section outlines general purpose statements for Chapter 50 and neither the subject site nor the buildings are on the City's Historic Landmark List. Building Design for Multi-family Development [LOC 50.06.001.5.b.i and iv] b.i. Design buildings to be complementary in appearance to adjacent structures of good design with regard to materials, setbacks, rooflines, height and overall proportions. The applicant is not modifying the setbacks, rooflines, height or overall proportions of the existing structures; therefore, materials are the only relevant consideration of this criterion. The structures adjacent to the site include both multi- family and single-family dwellings (Exhibit E12). All of the adjacent structures are sided with horizontal lap siding. The primary roof materials on these structures are tiles (the tiles may be synthetic) or architectural grade composition shingles. Deck railings utilized on adjacent structures range in materials from metal at the apartments at One Jefferson Parkway to wood railings on nearby single- family dwellings and the multi-family development to the southeast, although there are some single-family dwellings with glass railing systems (Exhibit E12). All of the structures, with the exception of the apartments at One Jefferson Parkway, have white clad windows. The windows of the apartments at One Jefferson Parkway have bronze cladding. Page 5 of 15 As noted previously, the Commission found that the existing unique design of the buildings on the site is complementary to adjacent structures of good design and by modifying the design to match the materials of the adjacent structures and removing decks and roofing material that contribute significantly to the distinctive design of the cascading building type, the result is a static, repetitive design that significantly reduces the diversity in the neighborhood and detracts from the overall visual universe. The Commission found that the proposed exterior remodel, though necessary to address structural design issues, must preserve a uniqueness of design character relative to the adjacent structures in order to meet the "complementary" design standard for this established neighborhood. Siding The applicant still proposes to remove the existing cedar shingle siding from all the buildings and replace it with horizontal hardiplank siding, but has added hardiplank shingle accents to provide more visual interest and continuity with the existing building design. The applicant has not illustrated the shingle accents on the elevation drawings and they are only depicted on the colored perspective drawings, which do not include all building elevations (Exhibits E18-E27). Staff encourages the applicant to provide the Commission a full set of elevation drawings for each building type that illustrates the location of all of the proposed hardiplank shingle accents. The "Red Barn" color that was previously proposed has been eliminated, leaving an entirely muted earth tone palette (Exhibit E28). The horizontal lap siding is proposed to be painted "Messenger Bag" or "Foothills" (soft green and brown) on alternating buildings with "Threshold Taupe" as the color for the shingle accents on all the buildings (Exhibits E18-E28). Staff is concerned that the proposed shingle accent color will not contrast enough with the color of horizontal lap siding material. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the shingle accents to be a shade or two lighter than "Threshold Taupe" in order to provide more contrast for these elements. Trim is proposed around all windows, doors and vents, and at all building corners and eaves. The building fascia, gutters and garage doors and trim will all be painted Chateau Brown (dark brown) and the window and door trim is proposed to be painted a light tan color that closely matches the window and door cladding (Exhibits E18-E28 and F3). Staff finds that the horizontal lap siding with shingle accents is complementary to the siding materials of all the adjacent structures because the uniqueness of the overall building design can be substantially maintained by the introduction of shingle accents and preservation of the "roofed" decks on Building Types 2a, 2b, and 3 and the metal picket railings on Building Type 1 (see discussion under deck railings and section b.iv, below). In addition, the design utilizes similar neutral colors and trim treatments as the apartment buildings at One Jefferson Parkway, which are of a good design (see Exhibit E5-E7 and E12 and photograph below). Page 6 of 15 Roof The applicant proposes to remove the existing concrete roof tiles from all buildings and replace them with Certainteed Presidential Series composition shingles in either warm tones of dark brown and gray or a combination of light and dark browns (Exhibits E18-E19, E22-E23, E26 and E29). The applicant also provided another composition roof material option for the Commission's consideration, which is a shingle that mimics the appearance and color of terra cotta tile (Exhibits E20-E21, E24-E25, E27 and E30). The roof material is the most distinctive design element of the existing structures, particularly on the cascading buildings (Building Types 2a, 2b and 3). The applicant has provided evidence illustrating that the buildings were originally designed with a metal roof, but the materials were later modified to substitute concrete tile, a heavier material that the roof was not designed to accommodate (Exhibits F3 and F4). Staff finds that when determining whether a proposed redesign of an existing structure retains the uniqueness within the existing aesthetic universe, what may have been originally conceived for the buildings—metal roof material -- is not relevant. The fact is that the buildings have concrete shingles, a distinct element of the design, and this contributes to the uniqueness of the aesthetic universe that must be preserved in order for the proposed remodel to be complementary to the adjacent structures. While it may not feasible to replace the existing concrete tiles with the same material, a similar appearance can be achieved with the Monaco composition shingles, which mimics the appearance and color of terra cotta tiles and would maintain the overall design character of the buildings and thereby result Page 7of15 in a design that is complementary to the adjacent structures by preserving the uniqueness of the aesthetic universe (Exhibits E21, E27 and E30). Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the roof materials to be the Monaco composition shingles as depicted in Exhibit E30. Deck Railings The applicant proposes to replace all of the existing metal railings on Building Type 1 with a glass railing consisting of a system of bronze tinted glass and dark brown metal (Exhibits E18 and E31-E32). As an alternative, the applicant has provided an option for metal picket railings on Building Type 1 (Exhibit E19). Staff finds that the metal picket railing option for Building Type 1 would be most complementary to nearby structures of good design because it maintains the existing design character of the buildings, which thereby contributes to the overall uniqueness in the aesthetics of the surrounding "visual universe". The proposed glass railing system would significantly change the design aesthetic to a more institutional appearance, which even though unique from the adjacent structures, would not be complementary to the adjacent structures of good design. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the metal railings to be maintained or replaced with railings that are substantially similar to the existing railings. Windows The applicant proposes to replace all of the existing bronze metal or vinyl clad windows and sliding glass doors on all building types with vinyl clad windows and sliding doors in a light taupe color instead of white (Exhibits E18-E27 and E33). The applicant no longer proposes to remove any of the stairwell windows. The light taupe clad windows and doors are complementary to the adjacent structures, which primarily utilize lighter color (white) clad windows. As conditioned, staff finds that the revised building design and materials create a complementary relationship with the adjacent structures of good design. b.iv. Design those elements listed below to be complementary in appearance to those buildings or structures upon which they are associated and limit the variety of styles of building elements: • Awnings • Signs • Chimneys • Stairs • Decks and railings • Utility connections and • Doors meters • Downspouts • Vents Page 8 of 15 • Foundations • Windows • Lights • Weather vanes, aerials, • Mailboxes and other appendages attached to the roof or projecting above the • Mechanical equipment roofline Staff finds that in determining whether these elements are "complementary in appearance" to the building design, the element must be consistent with the overall building design that is found to be "complementary to adjacent structures of good design" in the (b.i.) standard above. Although the Commission found that the uniqueness of the building design needed to be preserved in order for the buildings to be complementary to the adjacent structures, that does not mean that the building elements must be unique to the proposed building design. The elements must integrate well with the design in order for it to have the effect needed to preserve the building's design uniqueness required in its aesthetic universe. The applicant proposes to replace the existing windows, sliding glass doors, exterior light fixtures, and deck/balcony railings on all of the buildings (Exhibits E10, E18-E27). The existing aluminum or vinyl windows and sliding doors are proposed to be replaced with vinyl clad windows and sliding doors in a light taupe color (Exhibit E33). The existing building entrance doors and garage doors will remain, but will be painted dark brown and black, respectively (Exhibit E28). Overall, staff finds that the proposed windows and doors are complementary in appearance to the structure on which they are located. The proposed exterior light fixtures will replace existing sconces on the building walls at the garages and pathway entrances and ceiling fixtures above each deck/balcony (Exhibits E10 and E15-E16). The proposed fixtures are of an art deco style, but with subtle details that are complementary to a variety of building designs (Exhibit E10). Staff finds that the proposed fixtures are complementary in style and color to the overall building design. Building Types 2a, 2b and 3 currently have decks incorporated within the sloping red tile roofs. The applicant still proposes to replace the roof forms on the front of the decks with bronze tinted glass and aluminum and railing systems (Exhibits E16, E22 and E31-E32). These same tinted glass and aluminum railings are proposed to replace the metal balcony railings on Building Type 1 (Exhibits E15 and E18). As discussed previously, staff finds that the replacement of the metal railings with the glass railing system on Building Type 1 is not complementary to adjacent structures of good design and recommends a condition of approval requiring metal railings to be retained or replaced with substantially similar metal railings on Building Type 1. Page 9 of 15 Although the applicant proposes the glass railing system on Building Types 2a, 2b and 3 (cascading buildings) it has provided two other deck railing options: metal railings (Exhibit E23) or retaining the existing "roofed" deck railings with modifications to create 8" x 12" portholes directly above the gutter for drainage purpose (Exhibits E26 and E27). Staff finds that roof forms fronting the decks on the cascading buildings are integral to the overall architectural integrity of these buildings and that removal of these features will not be complementary to the design of the buildings, particularly because an assortment of narrow roof remnants will be left over on the cascading side. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the existing "roofed" deck railings on Building Types 2a, 2b and 3 to be maintained. As conditioned, staff finds that the windows, sliding doors, light fixtures and decks are complementary in appearance to the buildings. Staff finds that the revised design can be conditioned to comply with all the applicable Building Design Standards. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that LU 13-0042 complies with all applicable criteria and standards or can be made to comply through the imposition of conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of LU 13-0042, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit,the Applicant/Owner Shall: 1. Submit final building/site plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or substantially similar to the elevation drawings and materials illustrated on Exhibits E10, E15-E16, E21, E27-E28, E30 and E33 with the following modifications: a. Provide a full set of elevation drawings for each building type that illustrates the location of all of the proposed hardiplank shingle accents. b. The roof materials on all buildings shall be the Monaco composition shingles in the style and color illustrated in Exhibits E21, E27 and E30. c. The metal railings on Building Type 1 shall be maintained or replaced with railings that are substantially similar to the existing railings as depicted in Exhibit E21. d. The existing "roofed" deck railings on Building Types 2a, 2b and 3 shall be maintained as illustrated in Exhibit E27, and may be modified as necessary to assure Page 10 of 15 proper drainage from the deck surface and to comply with Building Code railing height requirements. e. The color of the shingle accents shall be one or two shades lighter than the proposed "Threshold Taupe" color (Exhibit E28). f. No existing windows shall be removed or covered over with siding except where window-mounted air conditioning units or similar features are to be removed or modified. Code Requirements: 1. Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the exterior remodel approved by this decision shall expire three years following the effective date of the development permit, and may be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section. 2. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application as required by LOC 55.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include: a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6-foot high cyclone fence secured by steel posts around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by the project arborist and approved by the City. b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. The note shall also inform contractors that the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree protection zone. c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction. d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing which states that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior written approval has been obtained from the City Manager and project arborist. Note: 1. The applicant is advised to take part in a Post Land Use Approval meeting. City staff would like to offer you an opportunity to meet and discuss this decision and the Page 11 of 15 conditions of approval necessary to finalize the project. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure you understand all the conditions and to identify other permits necessary to complete the project. If you like to take advantage of this meeting, please contact the staff coordinator at (503) 635-0290. 2. The land use approval for this project does not imply approval of a particular design, product, material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure except where a condition of approval has been devised to control a particular design element or material. 3. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Section are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, and other applicable codes and regulations. The applicant is advised to review plans for compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the development, e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. City staff may advise the applicant of issues regarding state and federal laws that the City staff member believes would be helpful to the applicant, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of federal or state law or regulation. 4. It is the applicant's responsibility to determine whether the development would be subject to any CC&R requirements and to obtain any additional approvals that may be required from the Mountain Park Homeowner's Association. EXHIBITS The bolded exhibits, below, are materials received on or after December 18, 2013. The bolded exhibits are attached to this report. All of the other exhibits are available on the project page online at http://www.ci.osweo.or.us/planning/lu-13-0042-request- modification-previous-development-review-permit-exterior-remodel-all. A-C. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. STAFF REPORTS Dl. Staff Report dated October 17, 2013 D2. Staff Memo dated October 25, 2013 D3. Staff Memo dated November 15, 2013 E. GRAPHICS/PLANS El. Tax Map E2. Site Plane/Existing Conditions Plan E3. Photographs of Existing Building Types Identifying Deck and Window Modifications Page 12 of 15 E4. Perspective View of Remodeled Buildings E5. Building Elevations for Buildings 1-21 (Building Types 2a, 2b and 3) E6. Building Elevations for Buildings 22-25 and garages (Building Type 1) E7. Building Elevations for Recreation Center E8. Roof Material Board (board is on file) E9. Color Palette (on file) E10. Cut Sheets and Photometric Plans for Light Fixtures E11. Cut Sheets for Windows and Doors E12. Photographs of Structures Adjacent to the Site E13. Photographs of Existing Structures on the Site E14. Revised Building Elevations E15. Revised Elevations for Building Type 1, received December 18, 2013 E16. Revised Elevations for Building Types 2a, 2b and 3, received December 18, 2013 E17. Colored Perspective View of the Overall Project, received December 18, 2013 E18. Option A Colored Perspective View Illustrating Presidential Shake Comp Roof (Aged Bark) and Glass Deck Railing for Building Type 1 E19. Option B Colored Perspective View Illustrating Presidential Shake Comp Roof (Aged Bark) and Metal Deck Railing for Building Type 1 E20. Option C Colored Perspective View Illustrating Monaco Comp Roof and Glass Deck Railing for Building Type 1 E21. Option C Colored Perspective View Illustrating Monaco Comp Roof and Metal Deck Railing for Building Type 1 E22. Option A Colored Perspective Views Illustrating Presidential Shake Comp Roof (Aged Bark) and Glass Deck Railing for Building Types 2a and 2b E23. Option B Colored Perspective View Illustrating Presidential Shake Comp Roof (Aged Bark) and Metal Deck Railing for Building Types 2a and 2b E24. Option C Colored Perspective View Illustrating Monaco Comp Roof and Glass Deck Railing for Building Types 2a and 2b E25. Option C Colored Perspective View Illustrating Monaco Comp Roof and Metal Deck Railing for Building Types 2a and 2b E26. Option D Colored Perspective View Maintaining Existing"Roofed" Decks with Presidential Shake Comp Roof(Aged Bark) for Building Types 2a and 2b E27. Option D Colored Perspective View Maintaining Existing "Roofed" Decks with Monaco Comp Roof for Building Types 2a and 2b E28. Color Palette (copies do not render color correctly-see palette on file) E29. Sample Board of CertainTeed Presidential Shake Luxury Shingles(on file) E30. Sample Board of Monaco "Valencia Sunset" Designer Shingles (on file) E31. Samples of Tinted Glass for Deck Railings (on file) E32. Samples of Metal Components of the Glass Deck Railing System (on file) E33. Window Sample "Desert Sand" (on file) F. WRITTEN MATERIALS Fl. Applicant's Narrative Page 13 of 15 F2. Applicant's Rebuttal to Written Testimony, dated 11/12/13 F3. Revised Narrative, dated December 18, 2013 F4. Supporting documents and evidence referred to in the December 18 revised narrative providing a comprehensive history of approvals, repairs and building investigations for the structures on the site from design review approval in the 1970's to the present G. LETTERS Neither for nor Against (G1-99) None Support (G100-199) G100. Letter by Greg Friesen and others, received 10/25/13 G101. Letter by John & Patricia Stuart, dated 10/23/13 G102. Email by Stephen John, dated 10/23/13 G103. Email by Janet Feldman, dated 10/13/13 G104. Letter by Joann M. Metcalf, dated 10/16/13 G105. Letter by Greg Friesen, received 10/25/13 G106. Email by Amy Davidson, dated 10/18/13 G107. Letter by Anonymous, received 10/25/13 G108. Email by Klaus &Janet Ahuna, dated 10/18/13 G109. Email by Sarah M. Tillery, dated 10/21/13 G110. Email by Dennis B. Meyers, dated 10/19/13 G111. Email by Barbara Warren, dated 10/20/13 G112. Letter by Suzanne W. Brockmeier, dated 10/21/13 G113 Letter by Ann Faulkenberry, dated 10/21/13 G114. Email by Robert & Nancy Taft, dated 10/23/13 G115. Email by Heather Rocklin & Carter Wilson, dated 10/22/13 G116. Email by Jeanne Beckett, dated 10/23/13 G117. Email by Elaine E. Sutherland, dated 10/28/13 G118. Email by Gayla Trevino, dated 10/27/13 G119. Letter by Helen J. Lundesu, dated 10/27/13 G120. Letter by Patricia Stuart, dated 10/27/13 G121. Letter by Elizabeth J. Albright, dated 10/27/13 G122. Letter dated 10/27/13 G123. Letter dated 10/27/13 G124. Letter dated 10/27/13 G125. Letter by William O'Neal, dated 10/27/13 G126. Letter dated 10/27/13 G127. Letter dated 10/27/13 G128. Letter dated 10/27/13 G129. Letter dated 10/27/13 G130. Letter by Larissa Forte, dated 10/27/13 Page 14 of 15 G131. Letter by Joann M Metcalf, dated 10/27/13 G132. Letter by Janet P. Feldman, dated 10/27/13 G133. Letter by Jeanne Beckett, dated 10/27/13 G134. Letter dated 10/27/13 G135. Letter by Gayla Trevino, dated 10/27/13 G136. Letter by Lydia Soyer, dated 10/27/13 G137. Letter from Elizabeth Albright, dated 11/12/13 G138. Letter from Lynne L. McDonald, dated January 3, 2014 Opposition (G200+) G200. Letter from Claudy Lynch, received October 15, 2013 G201. Letter from Gino Pieretti, dated 10/16/13 G202. Letter from Deanna Nelson, dated 10/16/13 G203. Letter from Jim &Agnes Swan, dated 10/16/13 G204. Letter from Martha Dougherty, dated 10/16/13 G205. Letter from Mary J. Lee, dated 10/16/13 G206. Letter from Phyllis & Michael Harwood, dated 10/16/13 G207. Letter from Mary Kitchel, dated 10/16/13 G208. Letter from Donna Harrington, dated 10/16/13 G209. Letter from Cookie Johnson, dated 10/16/13 G210. Letter from Manuel & Candice Soulakis, dated 10/16/13 G211. Letter from Helen M. Nicholson, dated 10/16/13 G212. Letter from Brenda Fulle, dated 10/16/13 G213. Letter from Gladys H. Geaser, dated 10/16/13 G214. Letter from Diane E. Webster Warren, dated 10/16/13 G215. Letter from Susan Killoran, dated 10/16/13 G216. Letter from C. Harry &Glora B. Norstrom, dated 10/16/13 G217. Letter from Christopher Eng, dated 10/16/13 G218. Letter from Gary L. Smith & Delbert W. Grate, dated 10/16/13 G200. Letter from Claudy Lynch, dated 10/15/13 G219. Letter from Lala Bucan, dated 10/16/13 G220. Letter from Lynn R. Johnston, dated 10/16/13 G221. Letter from Marsha M. Pruitt, dated 10/16/13 G222. Letter from Pamela C. Sheehan, dated 10/16/13 G223. Letter from Polly Gray, dated 10/16/13 G224. Letter from Ron & Carolyn Plath, dated 10/16/13 G225. Letter from Tim R. Cauller, dated 10/16/13 G226. Letter from Marcia Buser, dated 10/16/13 G227. Letter from Dragan & Rada Pancic, dated 10/16/13 G228. Letter from Jennifer Tujo, dated 10/16/13 G229. Letter from John Freauf, dated 10/16/13 G230. Letter from Mrs. Rose J. Howe, dated 10/16/13 G231. Letter from William Rourke Lowe, dated 10/16/13 Page 15 of 15 G232. Letter from Marcus A. Groeneveld & Dana M. Bozek, dated 10/16/13 G233. Letter from Cookie Johnson, dated 10/24/13 G234. Letter by Christy Corl, dated 10/23/13 G235. Email by Phyllis Harwood, dated 10/28/13 G236. Letter by Lloyd Kostow, dated 10/28/13 G237. Letter by Claudy Lynch, dated 10/28/13 G238. Letter by Susan L. Wiese, dated 10/27/13 G239. Letter by Rose Whitaker, dated 10/28/13 G240. Letter by Diane Norwood, dated 10/28/13 G241. Letter from Harriette Hyde, dated 10/30/13 G242. Letter from Phyllis Harwood, received 11/1/13 G243. Letter from Manuel & Candice Soulakis, dated 11/1/13 G244. Letter from Claudy Lynch, dated 10/30/13 G245. Letter from Martha Dougherty, dated 11/4/13 G246. Letter from Diane Norwood, dated 11/4/13 G247. Letter from Jennifer Tujo, received 11/4/13 G248. Letter from Donna Harrington, dated 11/4/13 G249. Letter from Maureen Loverjoy Swerdlik, dated 11/4/13 G250. Letter from Lynn Johnston, received 11/4/13 G251. Letter from Barbara Miller, dated 11/3/13 G252. Letter from Ron & Carolyn Plath, received 11/4/13 G253. Letter from Lloyd Kostow, received 11/4/13 G254. Letter from Tim R. Cauller, received 11/4/13 G255. Letter from Gary L. Smith & Delbert W. Grate, received 11/4/13 G256. Letter from Cookie Johnson, dated 11/4/13 G257. Letter from John L. Matteson, dated 11/4/13 G258. Letter from Gino Pieretti, dated 10/31/13 G259. Letter from Susan L. Wiese, dated 10/27/13 G260. Letter from Cookie Johnson, received 11/12/13 G261. Letter from Cookie Johnson, received 11/12/13 G262. Letter from Gary Smith & Delbert Grate, dated 11/11/13 G263. Letter from Diane E. Webster Warren, dated 11/12/13 G264. Letter from Pam Sheehan, dated 11/11/13 G265. Letter from Martha Dougherty, dated 11/12/13 Date of Original Application Submittal: August 16, 2013 Date Application Determined to be Complete: October 8, 2013 Date of Revised Application Submittal: December 18, 2013 State Mandated 120-Day Rule: April 17, 20141 1 The 120-day deadline was restarted from the date the revised application materials were submitted. __,,_...._. 1 , I 7 II 1 il I F 1 im II ; 1 I ..i ] _ I 1 1 F 1 , II I_ '' 1 1 a , I 1— ' I 1 1! ( — i R !, .-2.-- T.„ •—- '-. pi [ ----.1 .1 Front i -------- i 1[1 1, E }EOI g_ - ., rill al I nit MT :, --,±, II i _ i [En !I 1. ,1 Right TYPES it OSWEGO SUMMIT EXHIBIT E-15 LU 13-0042 Z pke\es Z 7 uorlorialsuoo 3 P3 I Gi.07,ra iiini!Ai ns oeTv\so 1 a 3dAl 401 I Ilra i I If 1.0--.1 i 1 L V ,-!" 1=! mln— ) 1 .. .._ . :,... .,- pg ii .--- 1. 1 [D] II II Ilr II Ll in71 nri f-i-n ' j ITTI 1 b L j ..__. 1 L ; 11 1 i_i . ,ll 1 1 , 1 II u i] II • 1 1 II II II II i: I r-i imEng rrn _1111 wHI LAFAI ILL, iT11 LU ILLk.1 ii , 1-7 I, 1 ,, 1 IIN1 ioui, F.1-IlLeJILL. i ' b, _! r--Ea 1 lal !LLUI I-LII Fr-Q I. .1 _ 11 II illAi 1j lii 1 1 1 , . 1 I i 1 1L . __. i . 1 • , Ui Eflhr u u.a• ii ' ji 1.1 €1.1 ®l , 0 1:, n.„,,,,. L, _____-- _,i , 1 , i 1 F , , 1 , , , i , 1 1 , i i i -, i i Front I tip` ./I 1 i 1-1—ll i 00 — LI 1111 i \ ` I 1R!1 \ I I rrn Right TYPEIa OSWEGO SUMMIT t , EXHIBIT E-16 LU 13-0042 Lo P 3 I 1 1 1 J 11 IIIL._Ii ; I , _I u ' 1,,.._..J1 , _____ IN 1' ' •111111-1==1 , I . li , Ir_J[ 1.--, 1 III 11 ME III 1 11• . .1 1 i . ___. _ 1 -II II it iI r - Back / Skybridge 1 1 /1 11-1- I __ } I ii • !Ili fl '.'. 0 ' - ---) I ILII Left TYPE;la OSWEGO SUMMIT r O 2013 18 E Construction 4 -- 1 , ,. it • .,D 1 1 li 1 V v 1 I] [ * , _. •1 h i 1[ li H I I 11 j1 LI _ 1 L 1 I i i - 1 --I I I 1 -, , 1 1 1 1 - J i 1 1 1 1 1 i _ I Front Skybridge /7,--- . , 1 lif NN. . i ....„ . , . ITT 0 al 1 ' ,----- I IFTI' r 1 I Right TYPE OSWEGO SUMMIT C)2013 I&E Construction 5 9 uallangsuo0 9 g I l07 C7 1IVII iflS O03MSO 413du lien I 3 Iirnil N14 ,„ I �1 [ II .I.J 1 4t) _ , . r , X11 V.V N I 11 n771 1 ,.._, 1 _.I 1 I , .. If 1 i -_i j I I I U LI 1 11 1 1 . Hdi i I I I Li 11I IN II millDII1 II®i ® 0 of 1.1 .; rli . , i . . _..,, 1 1 m1! FT' 1.1 IIIII rte! _, �1 o = = I`1 �L! I . . Front .\ 111 ' I Erill . Right TYPE f 3 OSWEGO SUMMIT C 2013 1&E Construction 7 . , , , , , 1 '1 -1171i i 11 1 , rI 111 ,:k 1 11111 i , .1.-,' 1 '1 ,....._,J ,. 11 I i 111 , , .. IIIJ , h ._._J _ .. _. ,----1 ;, 1- ___. -.,_ r Ell ,ii il , ,- 4 . ! . 1;1'1 . ..., ,, , Li • L .,, ,, L i Back ,r7'------/ 1E11 1 11 [ 1 1E1 1 l' I Left TYPE/ 3 OSWEGO SUMMIT ©2013 I&E Construction 8 :• - , , ' ' -`1 ' =-.4').• ' .-.• .,. "4 r . 41(Al 'i .... . . n 2 • ? s 11 PI CO u 13.3 Fit: -'':-. .,• --- 0- ..,... . . ' .I , ._ or• .. 4,-- DEC 1 , Al Qw.x -.i ,, .r,,ve,,op - 'rt, •....•.4 I COMTVgal 1..'s' ... • -, -s. .. •'-4, ' i r It w r e . ,1 • F . '''71 . ( ,I re iii 41 IrIr 1114, P ' . ... .. . . ---t .,t..,... i • 1 .• 1 P0, . ! .., 1 • , i. -, - I ' ..4 , ,.1' •• (.. •,. . • t `<•; illi t • II, " • * 01. .,.,, . 411:111tilr-f .: ' .. illikeir . . .,_.• it. • .I• IL.. -,- '\ i . . 1 7, I. ' . r- -.1.•:-. 4 • ,,,JI .4, . ..-. : 0 -- PI , ' \ II ... \ ...I. N it EXHIBIT E-17 .., . LU 13-0042 ,... 9 • ot �. . ✓SAY `s , ..r �. — - -- - ''7ro .• • • • _ •4! \ ' ,, ii t ifig'.. .,,, _.....1, _._:,,,7y.24..., • ..- ?: el'. ii.; lai!1,.......„0„....0 —,_—• fw .,•5:-. .4„—,.-_,;,::,:_t, _ _ ;,M, • i ,�_1 I•, __ �. .. 4 . 1,• Irv- C 4< • � _ r • ,r.. ' . _ . ... J '; ` - I t% Vial , " - — c..., __-.. ..- ir... -4it ._ : r. • _ iii. d I MI - .. .i . . .. ,t-,,,y , :...._ r .-. ..__.____-___________,_ 1 . . . ,11.._. „'..e.„ ._ ..,,� —__.._.=. _.,.„.... - ,'.Ti _.%.—. I-11-W __—__0__ - _ 1 a 4 PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE I AGED BARK • BRONZE GLASS RAILING OSWEGO SUMMIT EXHIBIT E-18 10 LU 13-0042 ,--- w / „,0 ,.91 5 C 1 N, , co, , 0) , . ..,.. •4,..1„, .._ ,it . . 5._,. `±, LU • si .•4.4 4', ''' LE.1 2 2 re (9 ..* ,,• . ''''' , — r X , ,,..41. Mr”, W w, 4 p < 17- 0 S. •Alt .....4.,, .. z 4 ... Lu • .. . r. Ai,.fifir....AN• 11, .c. • , "''' ."-• at'•k • - 44 CL- e fr• •. vir a 0 ."--- - ,.:I-. '.:.-4,...41114,•• . , 001A-. ,,, • . ' 4., r .• .• % • x14-''''- ''' , . ...i. 4 • 4) , ' t • , , A :', , r )! ,,,,, • si I - ... • I r .41° • • : IM 'AJE" . ''_ .,—Ili • f 11 ' . F ' . 1 , i:, 1:1 * 4. . A W 01'4 rill 4 i 4...4 . .. . 11 i - I ' 14-4 I ., I :.• 01 it ), I. . t ;', o ... ''' . In' 1J . .% ,til ' • • • MI Sc" i . 1 ,'' • `1 • s ....,..,..4., , / 111 • . .• ) )} gf ii. ; ., 1 1 '':'14.1 ,F o ,,,.4 itt ,1.4. • ' „. 41. • r - . r k , - ....... I l' k • i .• k % * 1'1,0;• . ..., ,1 . i ' ”- ' 4 t k sl ' 4‘.4'', ilt.4. .., -- gifij LIrtz,•4 ':` ; 4 , ,,, Jo/ Ititt MIIII 1 . , t,,,,' 44 ) it HI .-,1„,ii.,,. P.T;i',AL , • , 'A, -i:" t,,--i- _,-, , iF7 vi,N, t ., 0..,,.1 -.- -":•,,,•••• • , A, II ''t- ' ' -• 4, ',‘•‘1,'" ' ' , --lar-4- .`.. 'Mitt , .‘i • - . ... •;‘, * e ..r. . a. . -•w: ...o. ' -' . +4.1;.g."' fra „,.. I — lt, .-.. .•,..... '0,4 ,:::' , :4:4 -4 d ' 4 'r-1' • -'..-.. • - ---,-1, -- • , A '-.. -• .1._W.'' i i',,' (2r 1'''' .1., '.. N.m. 0-% • "' ''lir C- ,t.,.).W., 4. , . ..' -, a • a i A ... , . • + ..,,`. 4- „ ' —ro, -.L" .,' ,' ..''''' - ..,' '..lit • rY• , ... lioair, ° s#a • ' I.' 11111 : t; ::10.49., „,w• .4. ' ri .41 -..• , ..,:. . _ . ... _ , , , . -7, . „„; . -,-- '' • -4. co I Z 71 11 o - • '+.'., :1-i::i'ale;14e a ' 1 I I /; D:7L. +=. c\I wpm pm 0 Cf) Z '4C L.1.1 F- 9 / LJ 0 2 — <LLI 7 N CO C'D _ •: ' .J. - . ..,":"Wir.414 INfe..!V.*I lal 1 ' .' i III —Z = • . - ., co 0 (I) x ......i 'Mini LLI cc .---• ..- i‘•* — , %• - w e 1 prtb.;„ 'II •tomittiOk•1 . m 0 ' -- 'frAltilii litill o . Z 1 CD 1.1.1 ,i .T.%:.'•-t• • r ' ..:1-, .. A. • i• 0 ,....., •. . . - . . il 't , . , - , • - • -, 0 ..• ... 0 ---- . ._•.,-,•,,.--,- wain- " ‹ 0 .' • "1..;' a i , .i.,.. Olt 'lit . • . . • inAl itipi ( , ,„ MI i••`. le lit ' t /".. • 6 . .• i ■ ii, L • ' l 1 ., • '•••,, 1.4 ' '- , • t ,A..tifi.7; ....LI • ' i ' • Al'40. ' -" • r•••"' ..-* - L - ..F.A•A!''' ..---• j_ ...•••• ' ' iAM'',r,:1 '•4'.. y ,, '. ''' • .' " ' ' " 1 k '' ' -414,''' •I'' ;IA,.;1'4'''' ' i *1 I 111 'A- ' ti, -- - ''' •1 bi ''',14.'f •''.. —;._. " . ..• •,-%: ,. jo, , -. ''.' " •47::::"..,',•'-i:-• • ' N ••'i • a _ , , ,, , ,,,LIt,•‘,., ...4 •':•,2 . Il ,,. i A ..."3:` : It\ , . . , g_ ,.--.... .,r:' 4 ...1--.,<‘;\',.Y , ...vt')), ' ;I• 8.S •t '"46'': ij. . WEIN ' : .- - • -- Vi -:, , 40' -., • .0,,,,1 6,.• oi...„-itt -•••,,___. 'k .• ....0",,,,' : I. ...4. ...... --T •', . - •; - ,.:(... :,,,.:',.4 % t•)L ..,1; . 14177!"' - I4':,-. TT; •...• ...• , --___7,:,....ir...:4)1Aijilibtaftrtb,r` „ ,, •0. OA:" ...... C-1 M r '. ,�, a IF f �,,,.:,:� r d f r_Y•� f. MF {� ,• %y,/ CSS r • a ,� wk`'Ft, ---- d- �^, '' la `III Z-1 # LLI p ' Y%/ .1{loll€r ¢Ts F i-•t R 1LLi . .w 0.1. -c•?.• 44 r , " • 1 a'i -1 3 i; a r ,� „ - M 1:.'111111 . 4 - �I � r'• f1 'R' �� 1 it T P �� �EN it 1I !lam - l 1 F It -7 ` ., oil •. i i)• 4 #�-y�ji +r • 'I`. I Fil . .11111 ii. . ,, - T �f Ila y I- �... ire, _,, s Y/ • C I �.k ,e-`bh ; '� 4410.44t... � ` .��i is •+n / k 14 A-47 s � dk a-;. /.' e y I: .' ..'. '';'. ---40:4L11 44: �►` , .r 4 ...,,-__.., , .., ..„ , • •__, . . .5- a_ .,_--' Lam.._ �� ' • r4 il #ll :1 1I r - s - , - �` ; ,. - 3: 7 .;,.a, •1:-• .:..- - : ',. • r. -,7" +. r. 111 •- .; ' ' s � . F., t' , r .,.;;.�4;411 ISI j !' fi '`, ' . Jew./ ' ittOP PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE I AGED BARK BRONZE GLASS RAILING OSWEGO SUMMIT gh EXHIBIT E-22 LU 13-0042 15 • \I t 1 �� s r •f ¢ ,�1� j yyi f f{rj F!1 i q1 4i ie• • •.. zf .,... 7 +aF^SI 1 ;'¢ .\1.\,\..\IN:-: —7‘.\X"\- .\--14rkil—.141 a II—.5 ',, \\\;\\ r I IF `� \ F \\\\1\ 11111 , • ¢ 0LJA tI``, \ ._t '1 111 I ' k j ill .i . .WILN ‘\\. ) \1 , . iA,,t‘x\\‘‘\‘'\ ‘,.wank\TH'.' 1 • i , iiii is . , it, , , ' ",..."- —1 •-_-- — t _ c fiE 4 . ,,,, . ...„, , . • . ,. ,,,.., ., ..., .,. ...„. ...•..4...,... i,„_ ,.... • _ ..,.;.,..-..,....r.,.....,..14,:.: ..,-,4:„.. . . ..„...„ ........... . .. . .,,,,,,k,„ . ,.. . ....,...,.. -, .,„.. .,,,, , : „...„,„,r. 1 . .. ,.... . 1).41.,:".:::',14,, il' :i n n ,i :Aro i• i •1 ' { \ •'' • mom. �� �_ • a r. Nu, 1 2 r . ... . '. fir.• . °1.e ..0 .4 tG rti.,• 'h,!{1`:.` ,4„1..1. ,; ,i,► "'';4441�.v'._.. yam, ,,- , .:- rZ ►r 1, i+. ; (,. y *may ? i- �,jJ� • ,eft,• ,,tl � 1r r�,� 11' - �Y��t a rY'�• L ▪ }will .,- .0 f: :CI,, ...,'•;-/..z:l " c A li • # Y I. d "r r.rj •,5? , /lir", ...•• „ •-•- - i:, .. r l : . {av' '{4, ' t _ R ,'. V�'•- fr1 4. , ti •'•` +., f- .ice ,_ yY4 N- •l '.� 'j • •-,12,-;,:',..:_f } .i ;ill\if 1 : +, `� 1 • i jai °{I' .` & EN SHAKE j AGED SARK `h'-- _I a RDNZE GLA S :s OSWEGO SUMMIT ©2013 I 8.E Construction 17 18 l :4'1-440 li' I,:l y.rl � `s' s. _ � �i` ;� {� 1r11.01. - . IItE1II1i !III i.400.0" • • 4 • fry� ' IP ,, s isl t- A 4114, Illi - •, a._ • • 4(116E11' _ SNI v ,.R. ! 6.- SiV � •I , . 44 • �f .ra mull!, 11N —?► x •.,= 'a_.•1 —+s.' r•• PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE I AGED BARK METAL RAILING OSWEGO SUMMIT EXHIBIT E-23 LU 13-0042 19 f 1. r 1 ).riti, ;ek.705.460..-. I - _t: • r 1. 1, 4.. . k PIIII r 4 ,IP"' Ew1111 ;. ' �•it .. -_'ar.�' � I :., i u I IV. 1 . lii!�[t���`� R • := • .r •+,me.''' • • - - iiiblir App. A. 1' ' i MI 1 1 4 , ..„ ., _ .;-..ii._ .. r.!. r .J �r 171 •1 ,Tl s !!�� ,"Y Milt i .. -.1 �l PRESIDENT SHAKE'AGED BARK Almir META i, OSWEGO SUMMIT U 2073 I&E Construction 20 4 .4:43.7"trttilff;r:/, . ;,,T, !S ." rr .,`,1, , . .p ..'} �' it " ! 1� A� r \' . . - i `/. t fi' , • t '''Nil, fIrlit ^ \ - ti Aro . 111441 * 4 , \ .....----• II -- - -0^- .t..F.:* ,. 111111 • `'a..` ^'q7' sem_` fib 4.11h11111*r". low •cam i ► .,�` , iii • T - ~. \`'.` l F m , ..i I, 7Xr 'Y - t t. 1i 1 ,__,_ -n --fl,-,. ' ' I r. ' ,, ,-.. .; _ • MONACO SHINGLES I VALENCIA SUNSET BRONZE GLASS RAILING OSWEGO SUMMIT EXHIBIT E.24 LU 13-0042 21 1 4 ,-gi ill-11 al F - ::. , , S ; iiiiiiiiill17, OOP / r. . 11. fil i i 11- �� B 1 1 44 \ \ \ ` 111 1 1 \\ 1.a \°\1/41/41111pi \\\ c co co o \, '� `' � A;y \\�" !1111 "" o m F , a \'\ tt Nt Q ' \ k .1 ....= 1 \\t ' —��4� � aipt �� 5" rix v,\, �' .� l ri1 r At ri fl \1/4.,\411.1L:.::.",,:‘''.,7-' 'aiedik .i, 1, li :6; s i ,i�4 l 11 ` 1111 RI L Ir. � 9� • w , ti�/— fit ...- I,8,1 F - a 14.104 ,ipi 1.4 i.4, If-r :-37, •.i .,,1 . ',Api -.-„,,,,,,,, ,,,..4..,,,i,,, .,.,,,,.,,.„,.._„ • - S .. • f ai _ — z ;., `. '�• '• '^rte 101 I\ . - r, r,C.. ' • s. y it I�IQ'j • �.z., r I .� b - • d , N N I t t JTry f Sh !n!l T i,-'2-- 2-..1 — f - Z1,... ..-4- ..,...r24 --4- . , . 17, '',.' ':::L'•,'. • \ 7e., I, ^ '• • is .,j 3 ./. I.' ,T T r LL ' � @ � u I 21 . • '- '4%1'.r ,-,471 ,4- - .tel•M 1 • s ‘.7.—..'''. ie • ' 441-..ir- -� = 4.'4' ` -. Vie• 40.•tret, r'`,. _� I: IS +fes 1r},..#'fj.r f• %A:.'-_4 i i ' s fit' \ �.- 1111Arl----------- 1111 Wtil,. _ K: I 'I IZ MONACO SHINGC ST1ALENCIA SUNSET' - ONZE GLAS OSWEGO SUMMIT E.2093 I&E Construction r 23 24 �,4/4Y"s !F ( , �. 7 . i - 4�} i Y. ir- . 1111 I i :: i►i .. • 11 f 11 • • W� • '11.1.11111111161 .k..-itilik..4 v.'. _ I►A, • a „fir __I ����_ tL IN 1. MONACO SHINGLES I VALENCIA SUNSET METAL RAILING OSWEGO SUMMIT EXHIBIT E-25 LU 13-0042 25 • • .s. qS .. , ..:. I ' � '(� ;. . ash -v.,•""- • 1 - 1 �" -- -� ��; � .i. .i . ]%1; 1 e H / y 1 IJ .�"^ •f 1111 ${ I.`�II{t"� 1}{1 -4'%V.1 T J f •1 ,ii.,.,:PIAUI II I F + tli fl it' ',�, II ,•i�:iSllli•x.n5 y- '• • %;.•4'2'-.'*% "7.- i rIPIPPlir s.-1 lt,..\ ;. ' ' 4,_ ,-. - ,, r .-. .. "• f!`R• ,''_ r>-, _ ,V441\_. : 0- ; ' . '��„ l� I I 1 i `* rir t` MONACO SHINGL• * NC IA SUNSET r.. �, .�. + r. META `YY .. -. .• OSWEGO SUMMIT + •�� r `• ©2013 I&E Construction 26 V' 4yr.i.`' T� if cp sr. • _ ty • •, Jam" R. "". + A f . -_ tilis.1 C _ IC ' II I� 't' 4, . \ ,-. • _ , . !,,,,,„4,e.„,, ••_.,,. . ....... - , .. ,..,—..---- _ __ \ ..... , ____ _____-- ___ _ _ , _ - __ „............ . _. . .:_4_ -- ••- ." .,.: 1 . _. . t_. • ti,... ./..„.„_,. ._ •_ -..,....„--_. .-704._ & ____ _ ;,., • €.' -- i ce • r VIII ` a4tilt.Chi T. . A, -- ••—.•=-•!_.,._. ' i "I''t 1 • WI."' • rj:4$* .^ PRE$IDENT3AL SHAKE I AGED BARK EXISTING ROOF OSWEGO SUMMIT EXHIBIT E-26 LU 13-0042 27 e • { • !:!'!•:',.:' ; rt `ev,. • r m +, *� R ' it*' - loff; '-; � 'S • t-,..-,..: 4, fes, ' :♦ V ', 7t 4:y t"i f Ii • t ThZ i;•--T6_ Mi :0 - $ - !' i • �• sir .r...�.M.1 i a • I wit....1111111111101.1.111.10 • • 11,,X .. .. a r i�' •• ' ' '. . ' ',„1:.144H42•,' ; il%'43-:••4:;:...,,,,,'" 1.' • -"C\A -in , ...,... ,,.,.., ,,,.-r.:•• :•:;..- ,. . ,- • b- _ N_ hili ' , Visies; .- • PRESIOENTIA' -•' AGED BARK EXIST k .'+a • OSWEGO SUMMIT OD 2013 I&E Construction 28 •4 -tt¢ ripr_ ... • . b ti x ...-z-----,„-____ ., - ;' 15M-.714.1r. illi . • ' '77,?,.. �� . ...Spir • • • c.v y _ tr406, .� .. _ 77 ., ��2` l,.1 ,+^+rte. } • .,„- •\„. a, 77.-7 .------,. ,7-7—- " 11 .....:iv. 4 ir. ,...,....A.&_rivil fili$It11.7.-106,, s\ — Wir\ '.. • '"Qi:Fi/l'''. -7'4 '-.,1'.. '.' '' . .,:rt.,„..:.#^`' ` i sem_ \, \.{ _. - Air �. . '� MONACO SHINGLES I VALENCIA SUNSET EXISTING ROOF • OSWEGO SUMMIT EXHIBIT E-27 LU 13-0042 2,pet29 i 4kir 4.40 Irookifr . . . ,,..._. . . , .... /11r1. --,..,,,,-, .. _ . • ,. ,,a - --If.......;_-4 -,.....,1? , : , ,4' -.- • :-s'.1,4§:,..:.. ",:.' , i:.'".'•.!"., •/, f--,-.ti \ I y . • ,-..i . r fir..: . .fir.•,y • N. _ ° v y i �C. i t.4,41%.„ �',�!�+ �}�.�. • {tom. •.• .'44::.-'...-".v: ' Ft. .. ..:\\''''SN ...AYI',r ,Z.••"1.' ‘t" s‘1 • • ' ' • ' i. lk 'S\ ..:•,.,., ..rituill 1,7,,' '- ��•. - Ul4.- .his' 41t[+A i. • I I� ~- ,�'" MONACO SHINGL *• N IA UNSET EXISTING RnriF . fir'•,. - ' ►�w_ - .,* 4'`7a•s# �».� • .,,�>xN;t•Z..4 — OSWEGO SUMMIT "`a i _ _� �i CU 2013 I&E Constructioi3 30 :c • G Y • CC .( w • • ..- ZnilE nevi elaw � Pi kill S':VIE:*PI Alfas Isu. caoaccQ LL4l .a.• pt(i.n )E _ ..kwon rw n L Ifl {; II'NH111 Qu9a su )th t-s 1:M LnP11 9rLl•n• iaH. 14, tlrl- Fr'!Ua Elena EL Sap pY V'F[ w• :F+::n F s 31'1$-9Ol.:i.R SO{all aMpl 143x•1' L9 • yY• 11 i) • 91 IR[, ;1 7• 999a::: uNT7 9a» W-IA,n L:u 4r • ral n'n a.9 E1-1i Fr'[ara a l{lp W-faII rppp 'p4aN1 Q;µ Ur :n . 1u,9 W, S 1 LLpndMUNN as •••••••••••Nog Cap • II „ IL •• )1011311MtCP �.,,w . .. .•p,,,.....,,n n9" EXHIBIT E-28 LU 13-0042 31 ..., 6''' 7::::..zw....:', 4 .::.,,:,:,'.• ' ' . , . ...„4. ori,';^.7.N. • R •T .o.„....:. • -. ,.... , .. ,,,, .:.,, , • x•rAA,-:;.•,.,-,.,.• • IS ai •..-..- .• It. . .:.. .i.„,... e v. .... ,.. . . .IA,. • -.• , ...,. . .,.• , , .. ' C .C: 1 . ..• . •v. .., ':., . m III 1 , • . - • , . . i, Ji li... .', .. • — is I • .... t .... .... .. 't. 0 . r . • ,. r• '14 • . # . ' . i,, = • • .4. .• • " ..0 •• . , 111 . ••-, '...1,-,,.•1.7. • t .1 1 !:...!..:.,..s,,, ' - '.,';"- `,.• ...,,'i ••••,',-'..t. $••1...5. ' lie-'1'-1:24.- • '••-•..' . ,'-,, ,'. '-''' i il .2*. ......0." 111 .. 4:1! : '..,k-r.......r.',.....)•,,..."I': 41 .j*.*". . - 11 if.rlr' w C., 1111141111 I ._,-'3 . . . . . .. .r., III: . ., _ •. .. N.4. ---- .,1 111 -44‘14,1-lai... Ca*• . .. ..0 . % . 4 -;:--;--- it OD .1104 Al' ,• .4... . . . .. tt 'f.-- . ",, --:,. ... (:.;'t.,'Ir-r,;,..P,•-.1:3:),..,,i! . f' . , . i. . . • . " . . - - • - -• • • - • • • •c - . ,I. .... . ... . ..'. •.• . •. • . . 0. ... .. ,10.r. • , 3 _ . , ,i. .... ..., . - , - .. . , ... . • • , . • • • - -. • t - - • - . • . • • . . - CI) • • •- . P . ..... •. . • . a . • • W101 • • . • ; • - • • . - . . 2 .. . . • 1 . . . .. — . ... .2 , • . c.) 1 _. . m c . • • •. E 2 , . • .• ,. .1 2 . . , • c 2 .. 11. 111111! ` Inc . , 1111 I i .4 - , - . • . . • . - . 1111 it 11 , IV i FJIJ III 0 I ,, .. ' - C . 1111 at . .. .. , E & B. 01 11)1 P..1 4, . • , .O • _ , , - -,, ---.. •••.t-.artlirrIgr .. EXHIBIT E-29 LU 13-0042 _I- ____ M 01) 1 . ';ft' �}a, 7 ti`s',`aJ./..t•lfy ri4' y •.6.--.. M N7inj�� y4htF' . t ? �} } (1j , y� 1 - C � ; .rti -...14".44,' .-W44.'.' �''�1 W,`E$'T A{s' 4 m si. • „ v J a . f ?, -4,•;,--,,,....,, . it 4 i4 4 ,y-i' „ ;.i r Ire `� •.e..tkr: „7.'>.....�iy s � t' .� -,1�•fi} r7y'.*:'7 - k a h 7 �t ii' ., `tt 4� 'Sy': h r .rl.r`T ' � r7 r i- t i J i.-.4 .,4 Ar, ,7"yy�,: y 5 1'•S7. -' d +, 4. + ,�{���c,, �. •,tii``;r"'rS s:l''• "'i+,� '�t `rg' r� �k7� �� '�'s .{.+ f'" :(- 3. , ,"..h.9 -:" t f ;'4tII, • - ; i � m. ,,.sem;5 ,, . frp"t .. ?x '!.'., S1n't /k - 11.,14-'' N.Y. 1 J 3 .,1.-,tly; ,l Ic,fk. rJ,f�r r .YR 'o-,,,,, ' .+:� Y ,:�'.��i � R • .1 \� •4t } yrs i....,1':1.-•',`ik `C.�£., ' t t r t x • • , �ti 'e,1 a,� y e Jrq ` y ,MX N' ' ""(1.1.4,+ '*'' 3 h . )j- 3. +. :r r k. • i,{ 13' '•r,„:.•,,./-;;,,-,-. ,',r y ,'i. #rt /,�aa lir• x ' 3 • e r c 7 sa'gF �'. . - ..",,,,,...1....c - 1 x t. tY� `xr _ 2-6, � 1, F5. r ..f -.1',','1'..'ioor t..;•4'44-;-:',A1_'••,..'. ` �7�,"irk #'fa"' t 1 3� Tfoo y r r t 34,6 • ♦ r l ria���•..x S e'��r ,r' „'1,,.� r•+' -' rn J1`�, '_ •f'' �+L' i , `�� .,'{ RLcuF'�'� t':',fA,x ..-•?..r• j y t> Uy6+;; `,F ,•r'G.L`)4, ., bas a ` n� v • r �1tijF#c rf, {• -, W ter rr• '.A',''.-2,,, ..4r 'Y .0.''t It-: 1-;.(r,7:: - r , _ • F' r6 515f s • E f1- M y �i -._ ck, r k••..� t • 1 w r ile• �4 a -�'i>7 gy'} r•, t154,Y t�' - , Y�x'. •,44.q..t ?,,.• r • • _ • v r ••• '� 'tr rid -� �;4' ,1 . ti ,6 '1.. +t .i k, z j - 7 ::' „•, •`F i ...f�.�`a '-'°'-''''''- 'w.,:• •• 7 xri •. is .lf°3.•:•••1''',"1".014",".`5,...2.'1. -t ' "�kr”" . _ i �f r t? - •akR, ,„,IR -`Y ._••.�+N.w i ;l'sf Js:h�?•1 3 '~.. Sy':i'r 1 i• :'ff�E{ 7':{tii'� '`t, !.�+r _' •,'� �_ 4 i �jJeipJaeJnue 1J U.1j OOU asa6ley 1 s,esrjawd uNo main 4 ']', I- S 4 r 1 W 1 �, 1sn11�e�na,� )deep to 4 ha li / ' AIM ' Ntiv C ' 1 . i ) /V L i /- r � iI y _ r Ly �+7y = 1 ii �}y?� i yi :# { ; j r s�' a7��d e1 Lip d AI�!��)ui f .� t•is x ti(r x Ili tpir tti i. i u a i uado�n I r'"r rf�' ��u; u.i �t ?x'i�,x t s >t u... I� A, /tom ' 'H au�nua0 10 • • NNW Mi. r 10111.44 OMB VW Y S. A • tlrL V w hMY «r11�. M ` I t S SAMPLE �` AMPLE 11111111 rm � x z 1:13 •• m av I' "d`ot`e i, •gen /. °/ • C= is a7 o� � N ' EXHIBIT E-32 LU 13-0042 35 t COn 4c4. I .404 111 0 L40 r � 06 cnI 0 Prof s V 1 I , 1 * EXHIBIT E-33 LU 13-0042 ),, ,, i,,,:.„ - 11 _ .•:., ,:7,4-,,,, .:),.,..).),..:_f. - . ..... ,. • ,,,,, _ _ _ , • • ,,,T r' qrrhtteCk.--',:',. ARciiti:! .„.rt): i, WI v rarenstc, . Oswego Summit Building EnvelopeReplacement Project . ..,..„ .,,:-.',....-...,..,-:- .'-: ,,,,,ili.,.,,,,,-, :14-1..i.:ilkif_r: +'i-iil.-54';,:!:!''''..::':.-..:'''''''"'-'-'-'-r-- ...-..„ .7_,..,,,-.„--....-5''''''-t1,9_0,-'--'''• -,:f,,------17:!':..:4pt 7:14;,,i,:reirn!'Al _,,,,,,4',..'-'7,,_,.-40":11-01-1.-iltir..,i...- ._... ..,* •],, ' -7:4 ,,,,4::::;:z....., .-.- ' ., -, .,.:7'.„,,:.=1,,, ---, '...%1 71.::::,.44:.T -.-1-. ',,,,--::::-.-r:- ' .'.- ' r,., .. .,,,...... .... .. - .r,,,,.. . . ..,,......,......... .. _.•, ..., ' "••••. DPercoejm"e cteNr al r872tiovel 3 —3Vr---D RECt, DEC _ . ,...;,..4 2013 1 '' - EXHIBIT F-3 LU 13-0042 1 3) ()colds , ....., ,'F `p o}ERp�N ARCHITECTURAL forensic,ir h E,$ F'#S ...1; , City of Lake Oswego Planning Department Attn: Design Review Committee Oswego Summit Building Envelope Replacement Project Narrative December 18, 2013 Project Team: • Oswego Summit Board of Directors, Owner °Western Architectural, Architect • I & E Construction, General Contractor 1 .0 Site Description 1 .1 Oswego Summit is a multi-family development located in the Mountain Park Community of Lake Oswego, Oregon. The development consists of 214 individual units within 25 buildings, built in 1976 through 1982. 1 .2 Original construction methods and details did not conform to industry and quality standards pertaining to the water resistant design of the building envelope. Leaks between material transitions, geometry of water drainage including lack of roof and deck slopes, and inadequate or missing door and window flashings and sealants have allowed water to penetrate into the interior wall framing and finishes. These issues have been documented through a number of investigations conducted by Western Architectural and other consultants since the completion of the original construction . 9115 SW oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectura Isom 2 1 .3 The Home Owner's Association has attempted isolated repairs of building exterior components on several occasions, which have been plagued with water intrusion from the completion of these buildings. The targeted repair approach has proven unsuccessful and each attempt to spot repair has further strained the financial resources of this community. 2.0 Historical Timeline 2.1 Western Architectural proposes to modify the DR 8-75, DR 33-76, & DR 19-77 and for an exterior remodel of all buildings on this site. The purpose of this project is to resolve water intrusion issues, which have resulted from poor design. These issues have plagued this association almost immediately since the buildings were constructed. These issues have been well documented by past residents, community management, and attorneys. 2.2 DR 8-75 the Mountain Village Apartments, per Exhibit "B" was to consist of 41 apartment buildings, consisting of 300 units and a clubhouse with pool, which was to be developed in two phases (See Exhibit 1). It is our understanding that DR 8-75 was approved on November 19, 1975 by unanimous vote; the minutes from the November 19, 1975 DRB meeting are incomplete (See Exhibit 3). 2.3 Per Exhibit "D" of DR 8-75, phase 1 was scheduled to begin construction immediately and per the construction schedule submitted by the applicant dated 10/30/1975, was to be completed in a thirteen month timeframe (See Exhibit 2). The applicant did state, during the November 19, 1975 meeting, that the construction of Phase I would take approximately 9 months (See Exhibit 3). 2.4 Per Exhibit "D" of DR 8-75, Phase I was to consist of 21 buildings and 150 units (See Exhibit 2). Per Exhibit "C" of DR 8-75 were approved to have cedar shingle siding, standing-seam metal roofs with a reddish-brown factory finish, plywood balconies with a waterproof membrane, which drain into scuppers tied into the roof drainage system (See Exhibit 4). 2.5 On September 30, 1976 the project architect submitted in writing to the City of Lake Oswego Planning Department, a request to alter the original approved design (See Exhibit 5). The project architect stated in his 9115 SW oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarch itectu ra l.com 3 request, that the changes "do not alter the overall appearance or the original concept". Six changes to the previously approved Use Permit were reported at this meeting, which included enclosing stairwells and sky bridges because of climatic conditions, the addition of a stair tower on the back elevation of each building at the direction of the fire marshal, enclosing the stairwell and modifying the roof lines on buildings 4 & 7, and the changing of material from a reddish-brown standing seam metal roof to a concrete tile roof surface, with a terra cotta colored finish. Two drawings and material sample of the roof were provided. There appears to be no records that indicates that structural modifications were made, or that engineering calculations were requested to ensure the structure was capable of carrying the additional load of the tile roof. 2.6 On October 6, 1976, nearly 11 months after approval of the original permit, Mr Pat Barnum, the Planning Director for the City of Lake Oswego went before the Design Review Board (consisting of 3 of the 7 members) to notify them that changes had been made to the original Use Permit. Mr Barnum felt that these changes to the design could be made administratively. The board, consisting of 3 of its 7 members agreed these alteration could be made administratively, stating that the changes were "superficial". There are no record that any exhibits were presented to the board for their review, as would have been noted in the minutes from that board meeting. Upon review of the DR 8-75 file we found no history of these drawings. Because the board did not have a quorum, there was no motion to approve administrative changes and no vote occurred (See Exhibit 6). It is interesting to note in the DR 33-76 file, a staff report dated February 18, 1977 specifically states that a vote could not occur with a missing board member (See Exhibit 6). 2.7 On October 8, 1976 Mr Barnum drafted a letter to the project architect, issuing administrative approval of the design alterations with two conditions (See Exhibit 7): 1) Drawings are provided upon completion, to become part of the permanent file. 2) That the architect work with the Fire Marshal to comply with all requirements. Mr. Barnum did not request additional engineering as part of his approval. On October 22, 1976, James A. Cox, Attorney for the City of Lake Oswego, drafted a letter to Mr. Birenbaum, the attorney representing the original architect (who was no longer the project 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitecturaLcom 4 architect), in response to a letter drafted by Mr. Birenbaum on October 5, 1976 and received on October 12, 1976. The response assured the original architect that the current project was being overseen by a licensed architect and that "Any modifications to the plans previously submitted will be properly approved and stamped by a registered architect or engineer (See Exhibit 8)." Once again, there are no records in the file indicating that these drawings were requested or provided prior to approval of the modification. 2.8 It is not clear to why the developer changed the roofing material 11 months into the project, as there was not an official hearing held that would allow for such a question to be asked. DR 33-76 approved on February 23, 1977, a request to modify the approved design of the Recreation Building does offer some answers. During the question and answer period, the developer was asked why they were changing from a metal standing seam roof to a tile roof, and gave "economic reasons" for an answer. Deliberation by the board during this meeting seems to suggest that they were unaware of the tile roof being installed on building 1 -21 , as they felt the tile would not "achieve the same effect as metal" and mentioned "keeping with design aspect of the project." The board goes further as board member Glenn Chilcote stated he "felt the Board should stand on the previous decision denying the tile roof", and the board members agreed (See Exhibit 9). We find this particularly interesting, because modification to the roofing material had been approved administratively on October 8, 1976 (See Exhibit 7). 2.9 We know that Phase I was completed and substantially occupied by at least August of 1977, as a grievance was filed with the city over the developer's failure to notify Phase I occupants of the hearing for DR 19-77, modifications to Mountain Park Apartments, Phase II (See Exhibit 11). Also, it is clear that these were to be condominiums per the declaration submitted to the city of Lake Oswego in August of 1977 (See Exhibit 12). Based on that timeline, it stands to reason that some of these buildings had tile roof installed prior to the approval in October 1976, as it is unlikely that the developer had 21 buildings under construction simultaneously and managed to complete them, sold them, and had them occupied in 10 months. 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 5 2.10 On May 25 1977, the developer applied for preliminary approval for design modifications to Phase II of the Mountain Park Apartments. At this time Phase II, as previously designed, had already been approved for construction. Rather than continue the project, as designed, the developer opted to undertake the rather large expense of having new design documents produced, engineering reports, and also the lengthy and expensive process of re-applying for a development permit, which under there new design, required revision of the development plan (See Exhibit 13). 2.1 1 On August 8, 1977 the developer of Phase II presented their arguments to the Planning Commission, asking them to modify the development plan to allow for 4-story structures rather than the 3-story structures that had been approved for this site originally. During testimony and in defense of the new design, the developer specifically stated "Patios above the living rooms on the original plans were difficult to waterproof." The proposal was denied based on 4 factors: 1) Increase in density; 2) Growth in trip generation; 3) Reduced open spaces; 4) Not enough parking (See Exhibit 14) 2.12 On September 20, 1977 The developer appealed the Planning Commissions decision to deny DR 18-77. During the hearing, the Architect, Mr. Swatosh, confirmed that he understood the project could proceed with construction following the originally approved design; however, he insisted that modification to the design was necessary. It should also be noted the modified project had the support of the acting President of the Mountain Park Home Owner's Association. In fact, no one spoke in opposition of the appeal. When given the choice of whether or not to construct an additional 19 buildings, similar to the original 21 vs. a modified design, not one person testified in opposition (See Exhibit 15). 2.13 September 28, 1977 DR-77 was approved including several conditions, including producing an elevation plan (See Exhibit 16). It should be noted the elevation/drawings on file with the city do not depict the presence of windows on the front elevations of buildings, within the stairwells (See Exhibit 17). 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 6 2.14 Oswego Summits earliest recorded leaking event is documented on April 20, 1979 (page 2). We suspect the developer new of these issues as he testified to the fact that the "decks above living space were difficult to waterproof' in his defense of the design modification for Phase II of the project (See Exhibit 14). As of February 29, 1980 the leaking had become so extensive the developer issued a letter to the Phase I homeowners stating they would make no more repairs without being compensated and absolving themselves from any responsibility (Exhibit 18). 2.15 In January of 1980, a law suite was filed against the construction group of Phase I. On July 30, 1980 the attorney representing the Unit Owners of Oswego Summit, Phase I drafted a letter requesting the reconstruction and waterproofing of all decks. At that time, there was active leaking in 65 of the 92 units with decks over their living space (Exhibit 19). Along with the extensive water intrusion issues, severe cracking and settling was reported throughout the development. The severe settling reported is significant, because these buildings were never actually designed to cary the load of tile roofs and concrete surfaced decks. It is around this time that documents indicate that the developer modified the original design of the decks with the addition of a 2"-4" tapered concrete slab. We believe this was done during the original construction, as a means to slope and waterproof the decks, but in any case was the walking surface prior to the units being sold as condominiums. 2.16 On September 9, 1980, the developer through their attorney, made a settlement offer, which included resurfacing all decks in exchange for a signed release from all liability (Exhibit 20). The majority of unit owners complied. On March 2, 1981 a letter drafted by the attorney for the developer was issued. This letter stated that all repairs to decks were completed, and the builder was to make no additional repairs, nor did they have any further warranty obligations (Exhibit 21). 2.17 November 1 7, 1981 , 8 months after the developer declared their repairs to be final, a storm induced leaking within at least 60 units. Almost all of these leaks were the result of leaking at the deck above and/or leaking at the sliding door threshold (either in their unit, or the one above) (Exhibit 22). 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.weste r n a rc h i to ct u r a l.co nn 7 2.18 October 29, 1982, An interview occurred between the full-time property manager,Jack Dunlap and an insurance adjuster for 8 pending water damage claims. During this conversation Mr. Dunlap indicates that the Phase I buildings regularly experience leaking at tile roofs, decks, sliding doors, and deck drains. It is interesting to note the insurance adjuster asks about the ongoing leaks and references the 60 reported leaks from November, 1981 . Mr. Dunlap clarifies the Association hired a general contractor to repair the known deck issues in the spring of 1982; however, as of August on 1982, 8 more decks are actively leaking. This would represent the 3rd & 4th time many of these decks have been reconstructed (Exhibit 23). 2.19 December 9, 1982, Mr. Dunlap drafts a letter in response to the attorney for unit 130. In Mr. Dunlap's letter, he states a list of maintenance projects undertaken in the calendar year of 1982. The extensive list of repair items listed for the 5 year old buildings in Phase I include: 1) Check, repair, and patch all roof surfaces 2) Repair and replace flashing on all buildings 3) Secure, repair, seal all chimneys 4) Replace broken and missing roof tiles 5) Repair broken and missing shakes 6) Removed, flashed, sealed and replaced 11 sliding doors Mr. Dunlap goes further to state that he spends 50% of his work week addressing issues of water intrusion, coordinating repairs, and communicating with residents about ongoing issues (Exhibit 24). 2.20 A storm occurring December 1 -4, 1982 induces leaking within at least 21 units in Phase I. A letter drafted by Mr. Dunlap, the on site manager, on December 17, 1982 states that ongoing leaking for all units within Phase I should be expected because of the "Architectural Design" of the buildings (Exhibit 25). 2.21 On a letter drafted December 20, 1982 Mr. Dunlap recommends to the board, that they hire McDonald & Wetle, Inc., an local firm that specializes in water intrusion and waterproofing. During the preliminary survey conducted by Mr. Smith, a representative from Mcdonald & Wetle, Inc and Mr. White, a representative from Gaco Western, Inc, a manufacturer of waterproofing materials, Mr Smith observed several design deficiencies 9115 SW oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 wwwwesternarchitecturaLcom 8 with the decks, which were likely leading to water intrusion. He offered three recommendations to resolve the design deficiencies: 1) Remove all concrete, plywood, and membrane and reconstruct the decks. 2) Remove by sandblasting, the current concrete sealer so that a urethane waterproof membrane could be installed. He noted the concrete was showing signs of improper mixing, as evident by efflorescence present on the surface of the concrete. 3) Add Flashing around the perimeter of the decks, bedded in sealant, to prevent leaking around the perimeters of the decks (Exhibit 26). 2.22 Meeting minutes from March 19, 1984 meeting of the Oswego Summit Owner's Association indicate that resurfacing of the decks on buildings 22, 24, 24, & 25 is nearly complete (Exhibit 27). The scope of work for this project is not known, but Meeting Minutes from March 23, 1981 indicate there were ongoing issues with pooling water on concrete slabs, water migrating through slabs and staining interior ceilings, efflorescence staining, rusting of hand rails, etc. (Exhibit 28). 2.23 Major deck restoration projects were completed in August of 1985 and April of 1987 (Exhibit 29). A scope of work is not available; however, from what we have observed, we believe that "option #2" was completed, by the recommendation of McDonald & Wetle, Inc in 1982. We do not feel the issue with the poorly mixed concrete was resolved by pressure washing the concrete, as of 2013, we continue to observe bonding issues with the membrane and the concrete. 2.24 April 1 7, 1990, Board appoints Steve Sheridon to for comity to investigate on going leak problems (Exhibit 30). 2.25 May 1 5, 1990, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Notes indicating repairs have been made, or are ongoing. Notes indicating both architect and engineer indicate issues with roof structure (Exhibit 31). June 18, 1990 Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Notes indicate Insurance claim denied due to "construction faults" relating to the original work (Exhibit 32) 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitecturaI.com 9 2.26 February 19, 1991 , Mega Pacific, reviews original construction drawings and produces preliminary findings to Lee/Ruff/Waddle Partnership, Architects. A summary of their review indicates a combination of inadequate construction and design as the cause for water intrusion at roof decks (Exhibit 33). February 25, 1991 , Walker/Diloreto/Younie, Inc. (structural engineers) produce findings from document review (Exhibit 34): 1) Original Construction Documents call for metal roof. No revisions to the structural documents were made for heavier roof. 2) Architectural details call for sloped plywood deck with weatherproof membrane. No coordination with deck framing was completed in regards to the additional load of the concrete surface. 3) Details do not indicate how decks are to drain or tie into drainage. 4) Architectural drawings are incomplete, providing little information. 5) Structural drawings are complete in regards to plans and details; however, reflect much lighter building materials. 2.27 February 28, 1991 , Walker/Diloreto/Younie, Inc. (structural engineers) produce findings from field observation. Several deficiencies were observed (Exhibit 35): 1) Decks were not framed or shimmed as designed. Plywood is fastened directly to joists, causing the plywood surface to be level, not sloped as designed. 2-4 inches of concrete are applied over the plywood, which is not included in the details. This structure was not designed for this load. 2) Water intrusion is occurring through plywood decking. Bituminous waterproofing is not intended to act as waterproofing in concealed conditions. Dry rot to overloaded structure was observed. 3) Deflection of overloaded joists were observed. 1 "-1 .5" of deflection was observed at center span. 4) Crushing at stud wall supports is occurring due to excessive load. 5) Deflection of structural beams in the crawlspace were observed due to overloaded structure. 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 10 6) Beams over the patio doors were noticeably sagging. 2.28 July 29, 1991 Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Board Member Roberta McEniry states that issues with water intrusion have been ongoing since the construction of the buildings and to the best of her knowledge, none of the issues leading to water intrusion have been resolved. She suspects a substantial amount of dry rot may exists due to 15 plus years of water intrusion. She strongly recommends an engineering study from a professional familiar with the issues at hand. The board rejects her request and votes to terminate the study, feeling the limited funds they have are best spent dealing with the individual water intrusion issues. Roberta immediately submits her resignation from the board, siting negligence of the board (Exhibit 36). 2.29 As of October 17, 1991 ongoing water intrusion is still a major problem at Oswego Summit. The Board of Directors for Oswego Summit considers legal action against parties involved with the development, against the advice of their legal council (Exhibit 37). 2.30 July 28, 1992, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Board has been considering deck repair options for several months, soliciting bids from several contractors. At that time, 19 decks are known have active leaking (Exhibit 38). 2.31 August 25, 1992, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Board hires a company referred to as "Northwest" to install a Dexotex Product to repair 5 decks and Ultra Quiet Floors to install Tufflex on 5 decks (Exhibit 39). October 27, 1992, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Board hires CA Gustafsson Company to repair deck at unit 52. Apex Roofing is also conducting deck repairs at this time (Exhibit 40). 2.32 August 25, 1993, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Further leaking has occurred due to clogged scuppers and inadequate drainage. Home owner recommends that the association employ contractor to manage the issue. Board deliberates on the complexities of providing access to individual decks by a contractor (Exhibit 41). 9115 SW oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 11 2.33 December 1 5, 1993, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Board member meets with the City of Lake Oswego Planning Department, who advises board member that a secondary drainage is required by the 1991 building code, as the decks are considered roofs by technicality. Board considers installing 150 additional scuppers (Exhibit 42). 2.34 March 20, 1997, ESS Engineering, Inc presented their findings from visual observations and condition assessments of buildings 1-25 and exterior garages. The findings of this report concluded the following: 1) Gutters were failing or improperly designed and inadequate to handle the amount of water runoff. 2) The physical appearance of the siding appeared to be significantly damaged and required replacement as water intrusion was likely occurring. 3) Roof tiles showed signs of leaking due to age and weathering. It was recommended to replace damaged tiles; however, this type of tile is no longer available, making full replacement more likely. 4) Low sloped roofs to not have adequate slope to drain, causing pooling water. 5) Decks are leaking because of improper sloping and and failed joint sealant. 6) Windows in almost every unit showed signs of leakage. It is recommended to replace all windows and install new windows following current industry standards. 7) Excessive settling was observed in Phase I buildings, leading to cracking and damage to interior finishes and uneven floors. A estimated cost to complete targeted scope of repairs, along with unit by unit cost estimates were provided (Exhibit 43). 2.35 June 24, 1997, R&H Construction presents a scope of work matrix to Oswego Summit for rehab work to be started in 1997. This scope mirrors the one provided by ESS Engineering; however, appears to have been value engineered, as the scope of work executed is not as extensive as the one proposed by the engineering consultant. The majority of exterior repairs target Phase II buildings, including replacement of Shakertown Siding with a similar product. Association takes out bank loan for approximately $2million to complete targeted repairs. It is our understanding that at some point in this year, the board elected to paint 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarch itectu ra Isom 12 the then grayish/orange tile roofs red to extend the useful life. (Exhibit 44 & 61) 2.36 November 23, 1999, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Among various topic discussed is the issue of individual unit owners having their windows replaced and immediately leaking. Several people testify that there windows still leak after being replaced. Also discussed is the exhausted reserve account, Phase I buildings continuing to leak, and questions about the quality of work being executed on buildings 22-25 (Exhibit 45). 2.37 February 13, 2001 , BW Inspection Engineers observe siding being installed counter to current building codes and industry standards. They note that failure to correct these issues will result in water intrusion and premature deterioration of the siding (Exhibit 46). 2.38 October 25, 2001 , Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Leaks in several Phase I units are ongoing. (Exhibit 47) 2.39 February 28, 2002, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Leaks in several Phase I units are ongoing. Leaks now occurring in Phase II buildings, post rehab. (Exhibit 48) 2.40 April 1 2, 2002, BW Inspection Engineers, Structural and moisture intrusion observation. Numerous water intrusion issues, including damaged/decayed siding, improperly designed decks, failure at windows and sliding doors, and structural issues (Exhibit 50). 2.41 May 30, 2002, BW Inspection Engineers conduct site inspection of Phase I buildings. Observations primarily target issues with decks and slider doors. Recommendation to install metal pan flashing under all sliding doors (Exhibit 49). 2.42 March 27, 2003, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Leaks in several Phase I units are ongoing. Representative from Superior Exteriors presents to the association. He states that "these buildings are not designed for the Northwest" and that his company is working to correct the original design flaws (Exhibit 51). 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 13 2.43 August 20, 2003, Leaking reported on 8 more decks in spite of decks being resurfaced. Management proposes enclosing deck as permanent solution (Exhibit 52). 2.44 August 26, 2004, Meeting minutes from the Oswego Summit Owner's Association meeting. Leaks in several Phase I and Phase II units are ongoing (Exhibit 53). 2.45 September 2005, Manager Report. Preemptive plan to caulk all south, east, and top decks in Phase I approved. (Exhibit 54) 2.46 Between 2005-2009, all leaking incidents were recorded on handwritten individual work orders. During this 4 year period, approximately 210 of these work orders were recorded. 2.47 Matrix of repair work and associated costs. Work completed 12/2010-12/2012 (Exhibit 55) 2.48 October 18, 2011 , Western Architectural's observation of deteriorating concrete stairs and decks in Phase II. Findings include rust jacking as the primary cause of concrete deterioration. Omitted waterproof traffic coating over decks and stairs is allowing water to absorb into the concrete, causing reinforcing metal to rust and spall, which is fracturing large sections of concrete. (Exhibit 56) 2.49 January 14, 2013, Western Architectural's observation of all roof surfaces for buildings 1-25. Findings include several roof surfaces at or beyond their expected useful life. Newer roof surfaces were observed to have numerous deficiencies, including improper flashing and material transitions, drainage and slope issues, and damaged or defective membranes. (Exhibit 57) 2.50 February 13, 2013, Western Architectural's findings report from building condition assessment of buildings 1 -25, including 32 invasive openings. Summary of findings include, active water intrusion observed at nearly every invasive opening. Flashings installed at window heads, doors, and other various locations were improperly integrated with the Weather Resistant Barrier. Siding was observed to be seriously deteriorated. Original windows were observed to be separated at the miter joints and 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 14 likely leaking. Newer windows were observed to be improperly installed and flashed at most locations. Some newer windows were observed to have been altered during installation, which would have voided the warranty. Deck membranes on Phase I buildings were observed to be in fair condition, however, flashing issues at material transitions were observed and likely leading to water intrusion. Decks were observed to be poorly sloped and drainage was observed to be insufficient. (Exhibit 58) 2.51 December 12, 2013, Hayden Consulting Engineers review structural construction documents provided to the city on February 25, 1976 and referenced those documents with the actual method of buildings construction. They conduct field observation of structure framing , as built, for Phase I buildings. Their findings conclude that the buildings are overloaded and the buildings were not designed to carry the additional load of the concrete deck surfaces and the tile roofs, which is why crushing, deflection, and settling have been observed in the structural members of the building. They also observed that the seismic standards under the 1973 UBC were much more relaxed compared to todays seismic standards, and it is likely that the buildings as constructed would not achieve the lateral resistance requirements, which would prohibit the reinstallation of a tile roof. (Exhibit 59) Conclusion: It is clear that Phase I buildings were poorly designed and that construction did not follow the design by the original architect. Phase I buildings were designed by a California Architect, unfamiliar with the drastically different climatic conditions of the Pacific Northwest, and the design and detail in the drawing reflected this inexperience. Numerous construction and design professionals have testified to this over the last 35 years. The Oswego Summit construction project was salvaged half way through the first phase by a new developer and contractor, as the original developer had defaulted on its bank loan. The new development team immediately changed materials, in order to reduce overall costs. This was openly stated at the hearing for DR 33-76, on February 23, 1977. The developer at that time clearly stated the the reason for changing from a metal roof to tile was "economical" though, officially DR 8-75 was never amended, to reflect the change from metal to tile, as this would have required a motion, a second, and a vote by the DRB to allow administrative approval of changes to be made. The hearing on 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitecturaLeo rn 15 October 6, 1976, where the changes were proposed, and authority to make administrative changes granted, did not have sufficient Design Review Board members to make that vote. The three present members all agreed that the several design changes that were being proposed were "superficial" and were able to make that judgment without adequate drawings submitted for visual reference. They did not, however, ever put the decision to a vote. This may be a moot point, as the tile roof was later approved in DR 33-76 and agin for DR 19-77, though there was serious apprehension by the DRB during the DR 33-76 hearing. It should be noted the original color of the tile roofs was terra cotta orange, not barn red, which was not applied as a paint coating until some time between 1997 and 2001 . It should also be noted that Mountain Park immediately requested the color be changed back to orange. Because the roofs were made of concrete and not fired clay, the orange color quickly faded to a grey, with a light orange hue. This color can be observed on buildings 22-24, as these roofs were not painted. The roofs were to a barn red in an effort squeeze the last remaining bit of useful life out of them. We have no record that any modifications to the structure were made, or if the question was ever asked if the existing design could support a material drastically heavier than the structure was originally designed to support. It is possible that, at the time, those documents were not required by the city for approval of the building permit. The city did state in a letter to the original architect, who wrote the city addressing concerns for his design being constructed without his over-site, that alteration to the design would not be made with out the appropriate documentation by a licensed architect or engineer. What we do have is the opinion of several engineers, who observed over loading of the structure, as well as an opinion from a structural engineer that the current structure was not designed to carry the load of a tile roof and concrete deck. Going through the records, several contractors and experts had testified that these buildings were poorly designed and are not conducive to the climatic conditions of the Pacific Northwest. At least 8 different contractors, some of them very reputable, have attempted to waterproof these decks and have all failed. The original contractor/development team refused to build another 21 of these buildings, and spent a great deal of their own time and money to design completely new building types and push it through for city approval, rather than construct buildings similar to Phase I, for which another 21 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitecturaI.corn 16 buildings were already approved for construction. This association has been paying for spot repairs and interior damage for over 35 years. It has exhausted their financial resources, which in turn has lead to deferred maintenance in other areas of the buildings. Though the design of Phase II varied drastically from that of Phase I, those buildings have had no shortage of water intrusion issues. The original Shakertown plywood/shingle siding lasted no longer than 17 years, and was then replaced with an identical product. As documented in reports during construction, as well as our own reports, several flashing deficiencies and sealant omission were repeated in the re-clad of Phase II. Once again, we have evidence of water intrusion and numerous reported leaks, and as the siding approaches 15 years of age, there are visible signs of deterioration throughout the installation of the panel siding. Furthermore, roof deficiencies have greatly contributed to water intrusion at this development. Phase II construction differs from Phase I, as there is gypsum sheathing behind the siding. This product is far less resilient, when it becomes wet, than plywood is. The design presented by Western Architectural, goes further than any previously attempted project by the Oswego Summit Association to fully eliminate all known cladding deficiencies, and employes the experience and expertise of licensed architects and engineers, who have dealt with these types of issues for over 25 years. Furthermore, we have brought in an experienced contractor, for which we have worked with, resolving issues such as these on multiple projects. This project will eliminate 35 years of pain and suffering by an association that was dealt a bad hand from day one. We analyzed the current condition and building methods. We have looked at the historical records. We have reviewed the recommendations of contractors and experts, prior to us, and we can see what they did right and where they went wrong. It is 100% clear that attempting any type of remediation, similar to those attempted before us will result in continuing water intrusion issues. Without this project, this association will continue to be subjected to persistent and escalating costs for perpetual repairs. We have put forward a design that preserves many of the originally intended architectural elements, while achieving our objective of correcting serious design deficiencies, deviation from building code, and industry standards. The end result will be a community that compliments the surrounding community and can be adequately maintained. 9115 SW 0leson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 17 3.0 Project Description 3.1 Western Architectural proposes to remove all exterior cedar shingle siding, all mis-matched windows and doors (both metal and vinyl framed), tile roofing, low sloped membrane roofing, concrete deck and walkways surfaces, and enclosing deck walls and railings, in order to repair water damage to the buildings structure and correct numerous deviations from building code and industry standards pertaining to the design of the building envelope. Water intrusion damage affects both the livability of the dwelling units and the integrity of the structures. The perpetual cost to repair damage associated with the chronic water intrusion issues have resulted in serious depletion of the associations' reserve account. 3.2 It is also our opinion that selective replacement or targeted repair will not repair the ongoing water intrusion issues, as many of the materials on the building are aged beyond their warranted and expected useful lives and are no longer viable components of the building envelope. Historical documentation presented in this document support our findings that targeted repair will be unsuccessful in resolving water intrusion issues. Replacement of all exterior components is necessary to achieve a fully integrated, weather resistive building envelope system. 3.3 Our project goal is to restore this community aesthetically comparable to the adjacent and neighboring structures of good design within Mountain Park. In doing so, we will improve community pride in the appearance and function of Oswego Summit and create reasonably maintainable buildings. Re-baselining the community reserve funds will include provisions for future replacement of building cladding components, fostering stability and vitality within the community as part of the single family neighborhood. 3.4 Our design approach to restoring the building envelope is a result of historical research of the building original design and construction with subsequent repairs to the components that did not perform as designed. We aim to restore the original design intent of a unique high density community in a prominent location with extensive natural beauty from mature layered landscaping. Our restoration improves the original detailing and water intrusion resistance by complying with current building codes and industry standards. We propose to replace existing deteriorated materials with new decay resistant materials over a 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 18 continuous weather and air barrier drainage plane. We will increase thermal performance of the buildings which may lower community energy use by installing thermally insulated windows, repairing existing damaged insulation, and adding insulation on the roof surface. A top down synopsis of repair scope is outlined as follows: a. Low Sloped Roofs: We propose to eliminate roof ponding and leaking by replacing the deteriorated membrane and inadequate slopes with a 40mi1 single ply membrane "cool roof' system with tapered insulation sloping to existing drains that are re-set with the new roofing. We will integrate flashing and drainage in accordance with the current building code. The exposed metal flashing, heat welded to the roof membrane, will be either prefinished or field painted to match the fascia trim. The roof membrane system product comes with a 20 year manufacturer's warranty. b. Pitched Roof Surfaces: The existing pitched roofs are covered in heavy concrete tiles painted bright red. The building was designed to support a metal roof, which was approved by the Design Review Board in 1976. When considering the right replacement roof material, we hired a structural engineer to evaluate the roof framing to determine whether or not the roof framing is substantial enough to support replacement concrete tiles. The structural analysis determined that the roof will not adequately support replacement concrete tiles. Therefore, we propose to replace the concrete tile roof with earth toned luxury composition shingles in a unique shake design and color blend approved by the Mountain Park Master Association, integrated visually with the earth tone paint colors used on the walls and reminiscent of the original terra cotta colored concrete tiles . Under the shingles, we plan to install new high performance underlayment and re-designed, pre-finished and field painted metal flashing components completely integrated to the roof and wall weather barrier systems and matched to the building fascia color. This will include new "kick-out" flashing that is currently omitted at roof to wall transitions, which is a significant contributor to water damage. We propose Certainteed Presidential Luxury Series composition shingles, a heavy(355 lb/square), textured to resemble cedar shakes with the 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitecturaLcom 19 performance of fiberglass construction. These shingles, while composition, are equal or better than those seen in the adjacent neighborhood and carry a 50 year manufacturer's warranty. Roof shingle Option A: We propose Certainteed Presidential Series Luxury series shakes color A option as a unique blend of two colors combining Autumn Blend and Aged Bark alternated every other course: dark warm gray and brown with predominant warm tones. Roof shinale Option B: We propose Certainteed Presidential Series Luxury series shakes, color B option as a unique blend of two colors: Chestnut and Aged Bark alternated every other course: variegated medium and dark brown with predominant warm tones. Roof shingle Option C: GAF Monico, Valencia asphalt composition shingle. This asphalt shingle is designed to mimic the appearance of terra cotta tile. c. Weather and Air Barrier: Directly on the wall sheathing, following the repairs of damaged plywood and framing lumber, we propose to replace highly deteriorated and water damaged asphalt impregnated building paper with Fortifiber Weather Smart Commercial Wrap and self adhered transition flashings, a system designed to allow for breathability while greatly reducing the air leakage and energy consumption from individual units. This system is highly resilient to water infiltration and is designed to shed any water that penetrates the siding system. This product comes with a 15 year manufacturer's warranty. d. Siding and Solid Doors We propose to replace all cedar shake siding with painted James Hardie fiber cement shingle panels and lap siding with matching trim in the cedar mill wood-grain pattern, in a contemporary installation of a code compliant drainage system. All wall penetrations including windows, doors, vents, lights as well as inside and outside corners, and eaves will have trim; we propose most trim painted to match the 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 20 adjacent siding. Trim accents in a muted dark brown will be used at the building fascia, gutters and used as the garage door and trim. The siding palette includes a consistent earth tone shingle panel color and three muted earth tone lap siding colors, approved by the Mountain Park Master Association. We propose warm earth tones for the Individual Unit doors, selected from the rust and burgundy areas of the color spectrum. These earth tone colors provide visual variety and accent the distinct shapes of the buildings. Pre-finished and field painted metal flashing will be installed at horizontal transitions including, but not limited to: roof copings, window heads, and wall penetrations. The flashings will be integrated with the weather barrier and project beyond the outer face of the siding to allow for water egress and prevent water ingress and staining. Fiber cement siding and trim comes with a 20 year manufacturer's warranty. e. Colored Vinyl Windows: We propose to replace the existing mis-matched sliding windows in both individual homes and common areas with Jeld-Wen Premium Series vinyl windows in "Desert Sand", a neutral light taupe color, without grids or grilles. These energy efficient windows will be installed using the proprietary High-Performance window flashing method from Fortifiber, in compliance with AAMA 2400-02. Painted, textured fiber cement trim, 3 1/2" wide, will be installed around every window and door to accent the window shapes. We propose the trim and the metal head flashings around the windows to be painted matching the window color of "Desert Sand"; a quiet visual effect that does not draw attention to the window geometry. Jeld Wen windows come with a Lifetime manufacturer's warranty. f.. Private Balconies This project will restore the original building massing by removing approximately 30 balcony enclosures that have been installed by individual unit owners without City of Lake Oswego planning department approval. We will then replace all of the mismatched vinyl and aluminum sliding glass patio doors with energy efficient, colored vinyl sliding glass doors. 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westerna rchitectu ra i.co rn 21 Following enclosure and door removal, we propose to remove all leaking and damaged concrete deck surfaces and repair the code required horizontal fire separation between the balconies and living space below. The modified design preserves many of the existing roof lines, as we would only remove the triangular sections of roof directly in front of the decks. We will not extend the deck surfaces forward, but keep them virtually as they are. The installation of the railings will be recessed, allowing the sloping roofs to remain the predominant feature of these building types. The repaired plywood deck surfaces will be covered by an earth tone colored, slip resistant urethane traffic membrane coating with 10 year warranty(Tremco "Maple"). The coated decks will be bordered by and sealed to the wall flashing under the replacement siding and to new stainless steel sill pans under the replacement doors. The decks will slope to a redesigned, easily maintained gutter system of pre-finished metal and rust proof aluminum, painted to match the fascia trim. The original railing is a triangular cross section formed by the roof slope on the public side and a vertical wall toward the private unit. We propose several solutions to solve drainage performance issues created by this configuration while maintaining the unique aesthetic. Bronze glass railing Option A : The railing walls will be replaced by new vertical shop painted aluminum and tinted glass safety railings. The tinted glass will provide the appropriate privacy to the decks from both the perspective of the occupant any person looking onto the buildings. At night, lights from interior space will animate the facade at random. Metal Picket railing Option B : The railing walls will be replaced by new vertical powder coated aluminum safety railings. The paint color and slim vertical picket railing pattern is proposed to be black and unobtrusive, similar to tree trunks and branches in the nearby natural landscape. Roofing and wall framed Option C : 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 22 If a conditional approve requires that we do not modify the existing design and layout of the decks, we will maintain the original configuration of the decks, and will re-clad with painted fiber cement lap siding in the inside of the private balcony and apply new composition roofing toward the public space. We would modify the drainage so that decks drain through (no less than two per deck) continuous scuppers, that daylight out onto the roof surface, eliminating the drainage pipes enclosed in the soffit and reducing the likelihood of the drainage being restricted. Visually, this would leave approximately 8" tall by 12" wide portholes in the roof, directly above the gutter. A prefinished metal cap on the wall will match the fascia trim. g. Common Elevated Walkways: We propose to repair the deteriorated concrete and install the earth toned slip resistant urethane deck coating (Tremco "Maple") on all of the existing elevated walkways to repair safety and egress issues. The coating will prevent water infiltration into the repaired existing concrete structure on phase II buildings, which will prevent further spalling of the concrete and rebar. This product comes with a 10 year manufacturer's warranty. 3.6 The Oswego Summit community has endured many years of deferred maintenance and is now focused on replacing building exterior components with visually distinctive yet unified materials palette that will foster community pride and allow the site's natural beauty to prevail. The Management Staff and Board of Directors is prepared to repair the exterior, increasing thermal performance while decreasing building maintenance issues with modern exterior materials and systems design. They have built a team of professionals (Western Architectural and I & E Construction) who specialize in exterior building envelope design and construction and who have lengthy track record of successfully and attractively repairing similar developments throughout Oregon's challenging climate. The Owner has applied for bank financing as the cost of this project greatly exceeds the capital available in the Reserve Account. The scope of work prepared by Western Architectural addresses all the known issues with roofs, siding and windows and the transitions between these materials. Completed reconstruction work of the described building 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 23 exterior will create the new equity and maintenance baseline required by the lenders. 4.0 Applicable Zoning and Site Specific Standards 4.1 Title and Purpose: [50.01.001] 2. Purpose a. Generally Applicable Purposes This Code has been drafted in accordance with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lake Oswego. It is the general purpose of this Code, therefore, to provide the principal means for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To fulfill this general purpose this Code is intended to: It is our opinion this code lacks the language or previsions that would address the specific circumstances of this development, as the code assumes that buildings are designed and constructed to comply with the adopted State of Oregon Architectural and Structural codes. It also fails to address that codes, standards, acceptable building practices, and acceptable materials evolve over time as the architectural community as a whole gains a better understanding of the scientific forces that dictate how buildings are designed and constructed. Therefore, we feel that the General Purpose outlined in the first chapter of this code is particularly applicable as it describes the intent of the code: i. Protect and promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare; Per the code: the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare are currently being negatively impacted by the existing conditions of these buildings structures. iv. Assure prompt review of development applications for compliance with this Code's requirements, and the application of clear and specific standards; Per the code: "the application of clear and specific standards" implies compliance with the adopted building and structural codes of the 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 24 State of Oregon, manufacturers installation procedures, and all applicable industry standards. Therefore, all designs considered by the DRC should take into consideration the various design and aesthetic features, and their compliance with the current code and industry standards. viii.Establish procedures, standards, and review of uses assuring that the design of site improvements and building improvements are consistent with applicable standards and minimize adverse impacts on surrounding land uses, and yet allow for and encourage flexibility in the design and layout of site improvements and buildings, and innovation in design and construction; Per the code: it is the intent of the code to affords us the flexibility to alter the original design in an effort to correct unforeseen design flaws, that otherwise render these buildings unmaintainable. It is our opinion that only innovation in the design and construction will resolve the ongoing issues this development has endured. b. Historic Preservation Purposes This Code incorporates the City's historic preservation regulations that are intended to: Per the code: Oswego Summit development does not qualify for the previsions under this section of the code, nor have any official designations been made. Therefore, it is our understanding that no greater importance or architectural significance should be implied to the specific design features of these buildings as they relate to themselves, as this would be implying that these building have been designated either historical buildings or landmarks under the definition of this code. Should the deciding body disagree with the above statement, we feel that the following sections are relevant: ii. Foster community and neighborhood pride and sense of identity based on recognition and use of historic and cultural resources; The current condition of these building and their visual appearance foster and conflict and animosity among the residence of the 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 25 development as they have for 35 years, as well as impose unreasonable financial hardship. Furthermore, it has been well documented that visual appearance of Oswego Summit, in the eyes of the Mountain Park Association, is that of disapproval. iii. Identify and designate as historic resources only those structures, sites and objects which possess historic features and characteristics viewed by this community as having true historical significance; As previously stated, this development is not designated as a historical building or landmark and does not meet the criteria for either of those designations. viii.Enhance property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants; If property value is determined by the relative value of comparable properties within close proximity to the one in question, Oswego Summit does little to contribute to the enhanced value of the neighboring properties, based on well documented deferred maintenance and disclosure laws. Historically speaking, maintaining the buildings as they are has provided little to no financial benefit, as the money spent over the last 35 years has done nothing to improve the condition of these buildings or prevent the instances of water intrusion. xiii.Provide clear procedures and standards to ensure that the ongoing operation and maintenance of residential, commercial and industrial uses are not affected in a manner that jeopardizes the economic viability of such uses; and As these buildings exist today, the economic viability is and has been jeopardized. The association has little to no liquid assess in reserves to continue ongoing repairs required by the deficiencies in the building envelope. This has come to be, no by self infliction, but by conditions that existed in the original design of these structures prior to the sale of the first unit. 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-2970665 www.westernarchitectural.com 26 xiv.Protect private property Per the code: any restrictions preventing the remediation of the well documented issues at the Oswego Summit development are in direct opposition of protecting the property of Oswego Summit. 4.2 Historical Preservation: [50.06.009] 5. Designation and Removal of Desianation a. Criteria for Designation of a Landmark i. In order to designate a site, object or structure as a landmark, the Board shall find that: (1) The resource is 50 years or older, or it is less than 50 years but of exceptional importance with regard to its historical or architectural significance; and This site is only 35 years old. Though exceptions are occasionally granted for buildings less than 50 years, we feel that those exceptions must be of extraordinary significance that would not apply to this development. If the case was to be made, we believe the arguments listed below would disqualify this development, under the listed criteria) for consideration. ii. The Board shall consider the following factors in determining whether the criteria found in subsection 5.a.i of this section are satisfied: (2) Architectural Significance (a) Significance as an example of a particular architectural style, building type and/or convention; Per the code: Yes, these buildings are unique in design; however, that uniqueness also represents its inherent design flaw. The uniqueness is also a testament to its poor design, as good design is typically repeated and copied. It would be unfair to subject the owners of this development to unreasonable financial hardship in order to preserve an archetype, which though unique, has inherent flaws that prevent the reasonable maintenance of the structures. 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 27 (b) Significance due to quality of composition, detailing, and/or craftsmanship; One of the first lessons learned when training to be an architect, is response to the site. These buildings were designed by a person would was unfamiliar with the climatic conditions of the region, and therefore failed to respond to the specific conditions of the site. Furthermore, the construction of this building, in regards to the building envelope, are of poor detailing, as evident by the 35 years of persistent water intrusion. This is a direct result of improper detailing and poor craftsmanship. (c) Significance as an example of a particular material and/or method of construction; Considering that the development team that completed Phase I refused to complete Phase II as designed and approved in DR 8-75 is self evident that the methods of construction are significant only in the fact that they were never repeated. 4.3 Dimensional Standards: [L0050.02]: Residential Hiah Density Zones (R-W. R-3. R-2. R-0 FLOC 50.04.001.31 The proposed exterior remodel does not involve any building expansion or changes to the existing building footprint or heights, therefore, the PD zoning dimensional standards are not applicable. 4.4 Development Standards: [L0050.06]: Buildina Desian FLOC 50.06.0011 [LOC 50.06.001.5.1] Establishes design criteria for the development of building structures within a specified area. The statute states: "Design buildings to be complementary in appearance to adjacent structures of good design with regard to: Materials, Setbacks, Rooflines, Height, Overall proportions" The single-family homes and multi-family developments within 300' of Oswego Summit have been constructed in contrast to the overall aesthetic of Oswego Summit in regards to material use, rooflines, 9115 SW oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 28 height, and overall proportions. It is apparent; however, that the overall consistency of the adjacent neighborhoods follow a cohesive design aesthetic composed of: • Fiber Cement Lap Siding, with Trim Accents at corners, floor lines, and penetrations Vinyl Windows with Trimmed Surrounds • Composition Asphalt Shingled Roofs • Earth tone color scheme approved by the Mountain Park Master Association Oswego Summit was constructed prior to the development of the majority of nearby neighborhoods, therefore the design of Oswego Summit might have set an aesthetic precedent. For unknown reasons, however, cement tile and cedar shake buildings are not predominant. We see this as an opportunity to restore Oswego Summit to "New Construction" condition in regards to the building envelope, and protect the value of ownership to the individual unit owners of this association. This remediation project is vital to prevent Oswego Summit from falling into a further disrepair. The materials and design elements of this project align the overall aesthetic of Oswego Summit with the design standards of the adjacent structures and the overall aesthetic of the Mountain Park Master Association. widely used and accepted building materials, and establish a cohesive aesthetic relationship with the adjacent building structures. We anticipate that this project will add value to the units owned by individuals at Oswego Summit, as well as those properties adjacent to this community. [LOC 50.06.001.5.e] Establishes design criteria for the development of building structures within a specified area. The statute states: "Buildings shall be designed and constructed with roof angles, overhangs, flashings, and gutters to direct water away from the structure" As these buildings to not currently comply with the language in this statute, or objective is to modify the deck design to allow for the appropriate drainage from the buildings as intended in the code. We 9115 SW oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural.com 29 plan on achieving this objective by eliminating the enclosure around the decks so that they may drain over the edge, free of obstructions. We propose to retain the privacy of those enclosed decks by replacing them with a bronze railing and tinted bronze glass. In doing so, we will preserve the sweeping roof lines, and allow them to carry through the structure as is. 4.5 Circulation And Connectivity: [L0050.06.003]: Access/Access Lanes (Flaq Lots) FLOC 50.06.003.11 No changes to existing access points are proposed. Circulation And Connectivity: [L0050.06.003]: On-site Circulation - Driveway s and Fire Access Roads FLOC 50.06.003.21 No changes to existing driveways and fire access roads are proposed. Furthermore, we will be staging and storing all materials out of the areas of vehicular travel. During the hours of construction, the employees of the general contractor will observe a strict fire safety plan and will have all equipment and materials returned to the staging and storage area by the end of every work day. A fire safety protocol is currently in place and has been approved by the Fire Marshal. 4.6 Site Design: [L0050.06.004]: Landscanina. Screening. and Bufferina FLOC 50.06.004.11 No changes to landscaping, screening, or buffering are proposed. All trees will be protected throughout the construction and any disturbance to the landscaping will be restored to the original condition. Site Design: [L0050.06.004]: Liahtina Standards FLOC 50.06.004.31 All exterior light fixtures are to be replaced with low glare, high efficiency light fixtures. Light fixtures will be replaced like-for-like, meaning new light fixtures will serve the same function as the previous light fixtures so long as they are low or no glare and energy efficient, and no new light fixtures will be added. Light fixtures will be mounted on blocking, providing human scale and visual variety in the siding wall surface. 9115 SW oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 Pr 503-297-0665 www.w este r n a rc h i to ct u r a l.cont 30 4.7 Park and Open Space Contributions: [L0050.06.005]: Park and Open Space (LOC 50.06.0051 No changes to open spaces are proposed. 4.8 Geologic Hazards and Drainage: [L0050.06.006]: Hillside Protection (LOC 50.06.006.21 No changes to the building footprint are proposed. Geologic Hazards and Drainage: [L0050.06.006]: Drainaae Standards FLOC 50.06.006.31 No alterations to existing site drainage are proposed. CONCLUSION: Western Architectural has developed a comprehensive scope of repair that addresses all of the issues pertaining to the building envelope and community aesthetic goals. The Home Owners Association has selected I & E Construction, a highly qualified construction firm, to repair and re-build this development. The completion of this project will greatly benefit the owners within this association as well as the surrounding community. Slight modification of the existing structure is necessary to correct inherent design flaws that have plagued this development from the day it was constructed. We feel that our design preserves the predominant roof lines, that define this development while eliminating the persistent water intrusion issues associated with the decks over living space. Our design restores the existing color pallet of the roof surfaces from barn red back to a color reflective of the terra cotta orange, using a highly textural asphalt shingle. We propose to install a shingled siding product in areas that highlight the substantial features of these buildings, and provide a color pallet of muted earth tones, which create a harmonious reflection of past materials, and only subtly alter the overall appearance of the development, which can be clearly seen in the renderings provided. We hope you will consider the aspects of this design review submittal and share our perspective on the outlined design challenges and proposed solutions. We envision a design that will restore Oswego Summit as a visually and functionally cohesive element to the Mountain Park Community. 9115 SW Oleson Rd,Suite 106 Portland OR 97223 P: 503-297-0665 www.weste r n a rc h i to ct u r a l.corn 31 32 r EXHIBIT 1 F 1 A II F. K 4 r,' iliNE. P t! 4 N 4 A A A 0 ce ATF; ; 4 .e 14 ARC' HITIIC'' T A ti. pLA w NIti {I t' 0 ' e. rL, TANIS s: '; MOUNTAIN VILLAGE APARTMENTS Lake Oswego, Oregon 1 ASITE , The project comprises 300 apartments on 14.37 acres of land. y The existing 1. .dform is a ridge, heavily wooded on the steep northern side, with a more open and graceful southern slopes Forty-one apartment buildings and a recreation facility are designed to provide maximum retention of the existing landform and site amenities- By incorporating parking within the buildings, stepping the buildings down the hills, and maintaining a three-story maximum height from the access areas, the ground ¢, covered by buildings and vehicle areas is minimized. i The cascading building type provides a low profile, cora- , patible with the sloping site. Large areas within the site will efq be left in their natural state, while areas affected by con- r ;`: steuction will be landscaped to blend with the existing character of the site fully. ,Access and circulation for vehicles and pedestrians is a 4 multiple-entry loop system to eliminate dead-ends and blocked -access problems, and provides good emergency vehicle access. BUILDINGS The four building types are essentially of twoc'. nfigurations: three types step downhill, and one type steps uphill. Each unit has a private outside entrance, with entrys typically no more than 11/2 flight of stairs from the garage. The apartments range from a small one-bedroom, one-bath unit to large two-bedroom, two-bath units; from approximately 730 to 1250 square feet. Each apartment has either a private balcony/deck or a private patio. Each downhill building contains a convenient laundry and a tenant storage room in addition to the storage closet at each deck or patio-. The basic exterior materials are wood shingles, sloping metal roofs, and stained wood,. The materials were chosen for their compatibility with the existing character of the site and with other buildings in the Mountain Park area. The use of garage doors eliminates a usual source of visual clutter and creates a more pleasant streetscape. gL ....; , d v E 1 . J t ild�° PLANNING DEPT, '. 1 t ' iir ', f 4 ' 1 IC :,1`. I ` i 'v t- . ; ! . i, • t 1 r 11. 1 1C!4f b .,. '. 1.117i# _ -- EXHIBIT F-4 A LU 13-0042 33 10/30/7 5 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Page 1 OF MOUNTAII' VILLAGE PHASE I STARTING DATE 11/6/75 00,1;PLETION DATE t2/1/76 UMBER OF BLDG'S „ BLDG UNIT UNIT PER HLDD No . OF TOTAL `PE TYPE DESCRIPTION Na. UNITS ILDGS UNITS A 1BR-1B 2 9 18 C . 2BR-23 2 18 2Rd.-2B 2 18 A 1&-1B 4 7 28 2 B 2BA-2B 2 14 • C 2BR-48,.. . ., 2 14 11 1 Jb-#-1JJ 1V— I tb 2 3 b A 181 -18 2 6 B 2t3.K-2B 2 6 C 2]3a�t ,_ —2B 2 6 L 1 Bit—'1 13 b 2 16 4 PROJECT ` 10TALS 21 150 A 52 • B 38 C 38 D 6 E 16 TOTAL UNITS— 150 Ps 34 • EXHIBIT 3 =SIGN ReVIEW BOARD MINUTES j . , 7!..17,5 The November 19, 1975 meeting of the Lake Osweg0 Dosiun Rcvlw Bourd called to order by Chairman Robert Stark. All Board men ',zero .:resent with the exception of Tony Marquis. Staff members pr,...,f3ent were Marlin DeHaas, Gary Bradshaw, Pat Barnum, Bob Yakas, Jt '30/ and Joyce Kazala. The minutns of the November 5, 1975 meeting were approved ar ;37A11,A.. FUBLIC BEARINGS • 8-75; TC 117-75 (High Village, Inc. ) - A design vuviow 7-:fph Village, Inc. to allow the construction of 300 apartmen! :.,- .:.reation center in the Planned Unit Development of Monnta7 ft also a request for a tree cutting permit to allow 7,.7-,ral of 5a4 trees. This property is located on thf. ry Parkway, across from the Equestrian Centor 110 Jr?ift, ,,;-,1q • • ,7:st. (Multnomah County tax map 15 1E, section staff report was presented by Bob rakes. He r ( ,- rod which adopted the Planned Unit Development of Mountain commented on the modifications which were made out.' rer.,o114, -,1 erproval. lin DeHaas gave background information regarding initial • the complex. Gary Bradshaw presented a revdsed site plan showing ouggestetinhirr • justmonts to the circulation plan (Exhibit "W') • ';izgh MJ (oholl said that because of a conflict of JoLcIroot .'1:, tttin from the dtscuosion and voting on thto -12 onow,Jr to a question, the Design Review Board WI: Lold ..t- L upon the exterior materials, colors, land:leaw, ploa, .: ;hting and modifications to the plan. = ▪ Evans asked if changing of roads was allowed :Untie g'- mit had already been approved by ordinance. Ho woo told • ib2t for staff to make minor modifications. Tho public hearing opened and Rod Friedman, Fioher-Priodm;in 1:::, opoko as proponent. He presented slid':; showino , l'..ypen of structures to bo used, and the development plan. tlir? Ward that the size of the recreation center would be tg” from what was originally planned. Mr. Friedman also i.old the Board that Phase I would contain - :;0 'nil and would be completed in approximately nine months. Ho sal,.; the client would retain ownership and management of the comple:4, - . , t 35 EXHIBIT 4 FISHER F E D M A N ASSOCOATESA l A *, T S lv :� C� t' 3NS [- i. T .. A FC C II l T E GTS & F LAN I MOUNTAIN VILLAGE APARTMENTS Lake Oswego, Oregon DESCRIPTION OF EXTERIOR MATERIALS APARTMENT BUILDINGS 1. WALLS A. EXTERIOR WALLS: Wood shingles, saw-texture, natural finish, with fire- , retardant treatment. B. WINDOWS AND SLIDING DOORS:Aluminum frame, dark bronze color, with re-sawn 2 X 2 wood trim, stained. C. ENTRY DOORS: Painted wood, with re-sawn 2 X 2 wood trim, stained. D. GARAGE DOORS: Sectional overhead type doors, re-sawn wood with stained finish, with re-sawn 2 X 2 wood trim, stained. 2. ROOFS A. SLOPING ROOFS: Aluminum sheet, Reynold's "Vanguard" channel pattern, with reddish-brown factory finish. B. FLAT ROOFS: Standard built-up roofing with gravel finish. C. ROOF OVERHANGS AND SOFFITS:Re-sawn texture plywood, stained. 3. HORIZONTAL SURFACES A. ROOF DECKS: Traffic-bearing waterproof membrane with optional indoor/ outdoor carpeting. B. BALCCNTES: Spaced wood decking, stained, over exposed wood joists, stained. C. STAIRS AND ENTRY DECKS: Textured concrete D. PATIOS: Textured concrete 4. PATIO FENCES: Re-sawn 1 X 6 wood installed diagonally (45 ) on wood posts and nails, stained. 5. MISCELLANEOUS TRIM A. PIPE RAILS: Standard 1 1/2 " diam. , galvanized pipe, painted with accent color, B. FASCIAS & MISC. W(Y)D TRIM: Re-sawn wood, stained. C. GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS: Galvanized iron, painted. Ci) u'J i 15P) xmair ' PLANNING DEPT. I ( ,A1.s1 01.1 %1 '1. ! RI 1 1 • = .r "d 1,' sielN(1,4<'0 t [,Ii tlltRlt * 1,1171i 36 IP/ EXHIBIT 5 411 October a, 1576 Kenneth L. Cols, Architect 316 E. Evergreen fillVd. Vancouver, Wt 56660 Dear Mr. Cole: I have rev'swed your latter of Septomber 30, 1576 requesting administrative ap-, proval of curtain minor exterior °henget: in the approved plane for the Mt. Village Apartments. I am prepared to grant approval far the items outlined in your letter and the two attached drawings (sheets 9 and 10 of the approved plans, as modified). my approval is subject, however, to two Conditions: 1) Thet final drawings of the desired modifications be furnished to thele office and to the BUilding Official when completed, to form o part of our permanent file. 2) That Firm Code requirements for both the prneeeed modifications and the porion e of the project already approved be ade,...iteed to the setiefeetion of the Firn Mernholl. I make this requirement baceueo it hen become evident that acme Important teems of information wore neither documented, nor for.- worded to you, by the previous mrchiteete and/or owners of the pl"..oject. It seems es though a plan review conference mey be edvinablo and you should contact the Fire Marshall directly. If there are additional questions, Z11 be happy to discuss them with you. Sincerely, Patrick Oernum, Assets. AXP Planning Director PB/ca - 6 • , * f 37 _.. ,,mgum ui,eu,d"a u..W,rVf iYi J Yu JI illl Iii olb 11nVY.IYY� EXHIBIT 1 ( EN a!e E. MADMEN BLVD VANCOUVER.WASH WO 1 QLE a mom • VANCOUVER t206i lf13*9AEO [j. P.S. PORTLAND tai 283452$ TUIITECTS i September '3C, 1976 Mr. Frit Berneaiti Planning Director City of Lake Oswego 348 n. State Lake Oswego, Oregon 9703 " Tie: rt. Village Apartments, i.t. park Dear Prat Since the have acelrl•ed the above mentioned preeieet, we Breve noticed several problems which we wish to correct. We ere utrakieg several minor exterior changes in the prior approved concept. These changes, in our opinion, do not alter the crerall epponrance of the original concept. Following is a list of the chanew which vial affect the exterior 1. >ncloeing the exterior eta,i.rc with atslditienal ci.3i.nt; and windows, maintaining the original crib-ular concept. P. Enclosine the connectin 1...idt;cc at the 3..1 floor with additional niding and windows. I emc 1 and 2 arc lode, requested to "enol.?e Cori onr ;rooter:-prrlcWi+t.~ ppl'tlutnr h i eh is : meet. i. t tnire from t'"e third t'loer to tic second. ;:iti rit ee re required 1.. • the Vire i'nr cha 1, Wee. posey a oeri crus t,nter-pren.i'ir.e problem. WC; ere propee ni to ene oeo t:`ttOce ctaire end int:a;Th nt:, the int;egri t" of the t rta l dime Aerti.,n_. 4. '. c hevc Indiertterl or the attached drawings Mui~ aoluti nr to the exit boleony required be ti:e h.rc i3arshall. F. Te provide :lere :.'Crib>ct' proteetioi 2nr the otci"a en l:ui.lel2ttt; tr.'rpc tt40 ;.}o prepDee: tD 'eetre the lo:ececd roe:: .aeetieh te mate% the teithee roc:" cd.;aceitt to eneh ride C110 =tend the :.3optnd. reof to match the adjecciif• ro efe. 6. We ace proponlne to r`?'euce. cite clnped feet, e etel to 11;;iaf-i i girt: eetieeete real! tile. A crimple o". the roof tile will neeel.prtr,,, °:.le.i.^ 'ctte:e. 38 �N�� EXHIBIT 6 ��� ' ! ,DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING October 6, 1975 The October 6, 1976 meeting of the Lake Oswego Design Review Board was called to order by Chairman Tony Marquis. The following Board members were present; Glunn Chilonte (late arrival), Dave Evans and Hugh Mitchell. Staff members in attendance were: Bob Amptman, Asoimtont'City Engineer; Pat Barnum, Planning Director; Ralph Tahranv Planner II; Joyce Kaze]a, Secretary. Because only three members were in attendance at the start of the meeting, General Planning items were discussed. ~ � GENERAL PLANNING ' Y Pat Barnum told the Board that administration of the Sign Vmrwwoe Ordinance had been transferred from the Planning Commission to the Design R/.olom Board. Because no emergency clause was included in the ordinance, he nontlnund, there will be a 30-day waiting period before the ordinance will take effect. Mr. Barnum commented that members of the real estate profession had been polled�yor hi�h suggested changes to the existing Lahm'u�m�go Sign Code. A copy or the no�ition w �' was sent members of the profession was given each Board member. He also gave Board members a copy of the Bulletin which is published by the Clackamas County Board of Realtors and addressed sign violations and how to notify the Ro Board of violations. ` ,e,, Modification ~ Mt. Villace. Mr. Barnum told the Board that certain modifications hoe boon mode to the Mt. Villages project which could be approved administratively. He felt the Board should be con- tacted since several minor changes were scheduled: l ) Enclosure of the stairwell because of climatic ccnditions; 2) Changing of the roofing material From aluminum to eoncrotn tile; 3) Addition of a stairway between the second um] third floors of the structures because of Fire Code requirements; 4) Addition of 2 by 12 facia boards. _ (Glonn Chilocte arrived.) ^ 7he Board felt the changes were superficial and could be approved administratively. ' - :Neiman Marquis inquired about the changer to the variance requirements. He wee told ty Mr. Barnum that the City Council had withheld approval until the Design Rn- °iam Board had heard the recommendations from First Addition Neighbors. That presen- tation wee made at the meeting of September 22, 1978 by Dennis O'Neil. Mr. Barnum suntinuod that the City Ceunoil mould make a decision regarding the Code changes et its meeting of October 19^ 1975" � Mr. Barnum was requested to write a letter to City Council urging adoption of the �. requirements to the variance portion of the Coda, and a copy of that letter forwarded to FAN" A suggestion was made that the staff report might be satisfactory. ^ � ' ^ / -^� - . . ' �_~�� L .��'� '��`� � ' `' 7r� �`'``��' ��` ,� - - '-- - �, 39 �����K����� �� . �N� EXHIBIT m� ,. ��V �- Design Review Board Meeting - 2 - October Be 1976 pUgLIc HEARINGS VAR 19-76 (Gale Nelson) - A request by Gale Nelson Company for a variance to allow a reduction in a front yard setback from 20 feet to 19 feet on property located at -' e, l872O Lake Haven Drive (tax lot 2019 of tax map 2 lE 17�8\. ~ � 9 ' The staff report and exhibits more presented by Ralph Tehran, who recommended denial on the basis that conditions for granting a variance (LOC 50420) had not been met. Bob Amptman suggested that a modification to the corner of the vurwQo nould alleviate the need for a variance. Ha told the Board, however, that thu foundation and framing 7,5, has been completed. This work was finished before it was determined that a need ler a variance existed. '� The public hearing was opened and Gale Nelson, applicant, spoke no proponent. He said that the bank survey determined that the corner of the garage encroached upon the front yard setback approximately B/lO of one foot. Ho felt that "cutting" the � garage to alleviate the need for a variance would rmeult in a nonapcivous structure. He said that the size or the home would preclude reducing the Qaroge size by one foot. Mr. Nelson also stated that there would be no visual problem with the garage in its present location. 4{ ^ ^ letter fromQuadrant Corporation in favor of the request was road. Tha Board was also told that a telephone call had been received from Norma J. Cannucd, next door neighbor to the project, in fuvox of the application. ei`� There being no one speaking in opposition to the request, the public, hearing was ~ � elooed. Lfter a short discussion among Board members, Hugh Mitchell made a motion that the r: ^arlanow be granted. The motion was seconded by Glenn Chi1ootm and passed unani- mously. a� ]R 22-76 (Fotomat Corporation) - A request by Fotomat Corporation for a Preliminary essign review to allow the construction of a kiosk on property located adjacent to iuonem Ferry Road on the Lake Grove Shopping Center parking lot -tax lots 2900 and : 00A1 or tax map 2 lE 700\. «r. Tehran presented the staff report and exhibits recommending approval, subject to � '.` -Lee following conditions regarding landscaping and building materiels: ^ Consider plant materials that will have a more significant visual impact. � ' - L_' The building materials will be more compatible with the surroundings. we~ Amp6eon presented the Public Works staff report and commented that electric aed phone service lines should be required to be placed underground. - � -es public hearing was opened and Roe Keck, representing Fotomat Corporation, spoke as proponent. He stated there would be no difficulty meeting the requiremnts amt mm =erth by staff. Mr. Kook told the Board that tht project had been increased from feet to 29 feet to provide landscaping. ~ ' c ! � �` 40 411 I EXHIBIT 7 October 8, 19776 Kenneth. L. Cole, Architect S15 E. Svergraen 9lVd. Vancouver, WA g8660 Noir Mr. Cale: I have reviewed your lettere of September 30, 1976 regueating administrative ap- proval of curtain minor exterior ahan}joe in the approved plane for the Mt. Village Apartments. I am prepared to grant approval for the items outlined in your letter. and the two attached drawings (sheets 9 and 10 of the approved plane, ea modified). !' appratel is subject, however, to two tenditione t 1) That final drawings of the desired modifications be furnished to this office and to the Building Official when completed, to form a part of our permanent file. ..` 2) That Fire Code requirements for both the pr`eoaed mocfifioatipne and the portions of tho project already approved be edo...aeaed to the satisfaction of the Fire M arehall. I make this requirement because it hea become evident that awe imeortent Memo of information wore neither documented, nor for. worded to you, by the previous orchitocte end/or ownero of the it ejecta It seems es though n plan review conference mey be edvisab1e and you should eor!teet the Fire Marshall directly. If there are additional guestiane, I'll be happy to diecUas them with you. Sincerely, Petrick Oernum, Aaaoa. AXP Planning Director P8/ce • 41 •• EXHIBIT 8 „. JAMES A. C05( • ATTORNEY AT LAW • L .4IE NORTH STATE STREET AREA COI 503 osweco OREGON 0703•5 TELEPHONE G35•3546 T1r'M4 J CSALTTREE October 22, 1976 • Mr. David Di Birenbaum Attorney , Law 3106 Fil ore Street San Fra cisco, California 94123 Re: Mountain Village Development ( Your Vile No. 1257-16A Dear Mr. Birenbaum: On Octob r 12, 1976, the City of Lake Oswego received your letter da -ed October 5, 1976, concerning the Mountain Village Development (your file No. I257-16A) . We have taken steps to assure that thee is immediate compliance by the parties now proceeding with conetruction of the project. Any modifications to plans previously sub- mitted will be properly approved and stamped by a registered architect or engineer. The construction will be continued only under the supervision of a registered architect or engineer. If we were not already aware of it, your letter cer- tainly puts us on notice that Fisher-Friedman Associates is no longer serving as the architect for the project. We do not, however, feel that we have any right or obligation to terminate further work on the jub simply because the original architect, Fisher-Friedman, is no longer involved in the project. As long as all plans arc properly approved and stamped, and the work is being done under the supervision of a registered architect or engineer, I do not feel that the City of Lake Oswego can become involved in the disputes between various architects and owners of this project. • Very truly yours, JAC:enp JAMBS A. COX cc: Marlin DeHaas, Director of Public Works .c: George Roe, Building Official wcc: Pat Barnum, Planning Director cc: Donald B. Eppley, City Manager cc.: O'Connell, Goyak Haugh, P.C, . < 42 EXHIBIT f . ✓. y�;'. Design Review Beard Mo416 -3- . February 23, 1977 FFF Bob Stark moved for approval of the landscaping en shown on Exhibit "H". Ken "' Meller seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ,."' Jr. Sterling brought up the issue of roofing on his ptoject. Ho stated hie reason -or requesting a change in roofing from standing rib steal to til was for economic reasons. The tile roof would last about SO ,mare with little upkeep, whereas t;he acetal roof would need replacing or repairing in about 1S years-. ti• ::x was pointed out that the basip concern of the Board was with the roof line and .ase tile, as it would not achieve the same effect as the metol roof. The comments .W: made at February g meeting were in keeping with the design eepoct of the proj lt. 'am MacDonald, eeneral contractor., sxpreased his Peelings on the roofing material. ..e stated thy, tile roof will last for 40 years at leset. ry, '" A l-airman "Nieland stated the Board finds itself having to conoiriur potential meinte"t- f r-x,e versus esethetios. Glenn Chilcote stated he felt the Benarl ehoul stand on :-e previous decision denying the tile roof, end the Board members agreed. :r` 33-76 (Christensen-MacDonald) - A request by Christensen-Mme0aneld Inc. for a =anal design review to allow the construction of the Mt. Villeee, Phase II Recreation +wilding on property located on MCNsry Parkway northwest of the Jefferson Parkway " and MoNery Parkway intersection (tax lot 226 of tax map 32 IS 10. i --a staff report end exhibits were p + ,•4,1"v p presented by Ralph iahret, who recommended a", rove .',4'`' : the construction of the recreation building. Public Works Department aloe rscom- ? -e :ted approval of the. project. =leh Tehran put out the plane that were originally approved as well es the current f :lens, ea a comparison could be made by the Board members. 'or MacDonald, general contractor and applicant, preoented photon (Exhibit «"J+") a-Suing the location of the building on the rite. Fla plated i-hut his firm is not : e. original developer of tte project ens; that the redesign came about with the :.-tinge in developers. One change.made wee to put in a central foundry system rather ti;),, r- pocket-type laundry systems in the individual buildings. The developers have Ire .a.sd dawn the recreation area to a grant extent, he said. Another change made ! .:s to group all the mechanical equipment together at a lower elevation than originally _-sanded in order to reduce its visual impact. I Lazy Rittenhouse asked a question about the retaining wale, and was told by Tom • q `` wa,: enald that the retaining wells would drop off about 3 feet from the original -':tet height proposed. --ere being no one epeeking in opposition, the public hearing was closed. es role, architect on the project, discussed the roof line of the structure. He ssr_red the Board members the mechanical equipment would be down in a well, and wz_ltntt be too visible. • "`_s-n Chilcote moved for approval of the construction of the recreation building end s- 'dueller seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. r r �\ \a 43 EXHIBIT 9 ,,,:::•::' .., , c ! _-.;,,, - -7-',..-.-_..:‘,-..,„:„'.....-p-, ., . . al Design Review Board Mseg -4- February 23, 1977 . . - 4 .304 DR 3-77 (Howdy Eddleman) - A request by Howdy Eddleman for a Preliminary design oeview to allow the construction of a 64-unit townhouse project on property located . • airectly north of Botticelli in the Mt. Park Development (Treat 1 of Mt. Park No. 12 .1 . rt tax map 2 IE 5BC Supplemental). ' ' 1 zalph Tehran presented the staff reports and exhibits, recommending denial so that - a more sensitive site study can be done. a • The Public Works Department referred to letters sent to Mr. Hegel, architect, on rebruary 11 and 17, 1977, Comments were made on a number of items which the Public ilia ' works Department felt the applicant should address. These comments refer specifically to Exhibit "H". 4..p• P passtions about what percentage of trees were to be cut and the numbers of varlet , types of trees wars asked by Board members, and answered by the architect. • .. aary Rittenhouse asked if a grading plan on the project had bean received, and was informed there was not a grading plan. \PI :herles Hegel, archilLect representing the applicant, addressed the Board concerning the project. ) .441 'el -bare was considerable discussion between the applicant and the Board members concerning trees, grading plans and structure locations. --... -here being no Further comment in favor of the project, opposition was called for. - - • . . 'r. Charles Rogers, 126 Del Prado, read into the record Exhibit "X", presented to -, . . the Board by property owners in Mt. Park. The letter contains signatures o= 19 , =maples. Other property owners who had not signed the letter stood and introduced themselves. . . . _ . -I-rb Strazer, 31 Del Prado, spoke on the site question. He exprooaed discontent with the buildings proposed, the number of trees proposed For removal, lack of grading . r :len and proposed rental of the townhouses. He stated that ho "elt grading will kill ! - additional trees and that with a 25% slope, there would be poteoLiel landslide problems. -e said he would like to see a thorough geotechnical and engineering study done on • these slopes. :terry Nothmen, 26 Del Prada, Lake Oswego, asked if it were a certainty there will be 1 54 units. He indicated he felt the area was not big enough to accommodate 64 units. , =atrick Barnum, Planing Director, stated that in 1967 the number of units approved a or that site was 64. It was based an 10 units per acre, 6.4 acres. b wt. Nathman discussed a recent court case in Oregon, which had the effect of reducing allowed density where the comprehensive plan is more restrictive than the zoning. — , :hairmen Nieland indicated that the ease referred to "Baker vs. Milwaukie", defined the comprehensive plan es the controlling document over zoning ordinances when the tampreheneive plan is more restrictive in terms of allowed density. He commented that t the case may not apply specifically to planned unit develolmonte. , .,. , - 1 . ' . - . , • , , \., 0.--.... • . _ . a 44 EXHIBIT 10 4 ` !ii:1 * .' ' 4-- -1r' ' ',',44 •' ' :'•.'• ' • , ' ,-' ' , 4t••,- •'•',..: ' -;_- ,T. '41.4 49 GO - '1,...N - • , . S -'•*,-;-- TAFF REPORT , . February 18, 1977 D.R. FILE DR 33-75 .14 I -4 '_ Pt' APPLICANT(S) Christensen-MacDonald Inc. 1;,, LOCATION On property located on McNery Parkway, northwest of the Oeff4 erson Parkway -‘1:4;‘'.. and McNary Parkway intersection. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax lot 226 of tax map 32 15 .1.E APPLICANT'S REQUEST Final aesign review to allow the construction of tha Mt. Viliego, _% Phase II recreation building. .... 1 . , • - 7,- SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE The proposal is located in the Mountain Park Development. Three hundred apartment units era proposed for the area surrounding _ . .„. . - = , A the proposed recreation building. Phase I (150 units) is under construction. _ # PHYSICAL CHARACTERIFTICS The predominant soil classification in the area of the site is Cornelius silt loam, which has moderate SCS ratings for dwellings and small . , zommercial buildings. - ' 1 :ONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The recreation building iv in conformance with . , . , : the Mt. Park development plan. 1 rUBLIC WORKS CONSIDERATIONS Refer to Public Works staff report. _ . kARRATIVE ln November 19, 1975, the Board gave Final approval on the 300-unit • Mountain Village apartment complex in the Planned Unit Davolopmnnt of Mountain Park. r2nase I, containing 150 units, is presently under construction. The location of the - , :roposed recreation building was established by the final approval or the Mt. Village site plan. -- • . The proposed building was presented at the January 5, 1977 Board meeting and one • 4 . Epard member's abstention made it impassible to pass on the dmign. The Board suggested that the appljcent return and continue the project es a final design ., review. The Board requested at the prel: ' -try design review that the original erproval of the recreation building be inciUtled at the final design review and also =swings that would indicate the character of the surrounding buildings. - . • _ . ..-- . . The proposed structure follows the sloped well concept of the apartment buildings A - end will fit in with the Mt. Village design. At the lest meeting there was a 17 suggestion to soften the visual impact of the retaining wall at the north end of the o1 area. It appears that the landscape plan has taken this into consideration. ---ere, is an ivy ground cover on the slope next to the retaining wall that will :robably cover the wall eventually. The plan also includes varieties in front of t% 77.-a wall that will camouflage it. The varieties are Japanese piarts (54), en ever- . . . -11 “ean shrub that has a tiered growth to about 9 feet, a rhododendron type (56) that - , • . - trews to about 10 feet, and some Oregon grape that grows to about e 6-foot height. , . , . „ . , , . ...- - - 45 • ,EXHIBIT 11 19 September 1977--staff report to Design Review Board on DR 19-77. Subject: Final approval. 20 September 1977--City Council hearing .on appeal of Planning Commission denial of revision of development p',an. City Council reverses Planning Commission and allows the change as requested. 21 September 1977--Design Review Board final design meeting noticed by publication. 28 September 1977--Design Review Board final design review • meeting. Approved with conditions to be brought back to staff and Design Review Board for review at a later date . Specifically mentioned were grading and elevations were not final, and that the applicant was to identify the trees to be cut and the trees to be saved. 10 February 1978--Oswego Summit Condominium plat filed. 25 mzly and 1 June 1978--publication of notice of Design Review Board final design review to be held on 7 June 1978. Motice also mailed and posted. 7 June 1978--Design Review Board approval of final design. 18 October 1978--letter to the Design Review Board. The Board acts to direct the staff to an on-site review of any discrepencies between the cutting of the trees and the grading of property from those represented in its earlier • exhibits. 7 November 1978--adjoining condominium owners appear before the City Council requesting action to stop the project . 10 November 1978--special Council meeting to consider City Attorney report. Page 2 46 LLU_._LJ 6+�11i JWJYVViLW.VrW .,u .nu wu uoi iY ill oYi4Yi YVI dW YI W IIrY�11Y1�I11 #XHIBT1l 410 REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON OSWEGO SUMMIT COMPLAINT PURPOSE This report is prepared at your,:. direction as a result of a communication received at your Meeting of 7 November, 1978 from residents of Phase I of the Mt. Park Village, which has been re timed as Oswego Summit. You received complaints of misrepresentations to the homeowners and to the Design Review Board, questions regarding the cutting of trees without a permit, and questions regarding remedies avail- able to the City should it decide to take any further action. This report is in two documents. This one contairs the relevant legislative criteria found in state statutes and city ordinances. The second document contains a chronology of the events transpiring to present. RELEVANT STATUTES Notice Requirements. Statutory notice requirements are found in the Public Meet- ings Law (ORP 192,640) . It provides that a governing body [which incleues boards and commissions recommending policy to the city council] shall give public notice, reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons, of time and place for the holding of regular meetings. The Attorney General' s Public Meetings and Records Manual (At- torney General's Opinion No. 7252) notes that the law only requires that the notice contain the time and the place of the meeting. If there is an established agenda, it should be disseminated. There may be special statutory require- ments for the content of notices from other legislative actions. The statutes governing city zoning do not set out any specific notice requirements. They are left to the City Council. However, the county notice requirements are found at ORS 215.223 . These relate to zone changes, but would undoubtedly suffice for actions by the Design Review Board. ORS 215.223( 3) provides that if a property owner initiates a zone change, then, in addition to notice by publication, there must be an additional notice 'el/ mail to record owners of property within 250 feet of the property for which the zone change is requested. The statue expressly provides that failure to receive the notice does not invalidate any action. Page 1 47 m m uudi m MI Ati EXHIBIT 12 il/Planning Commission August 2, 1977 Page 2 It is also our intention that both Phase 1 and Phase 11 are to be builtas condominiums. In doing such as ru quired by state law a condominium association would be formed and approved by the State of Oregon that will provide perpetual care and upgrading of the buildings, site, landscaping and utilities. Although the construction time table is spread out over approximately the next 18 months it is our intention at the present time to cut, fill and prepare: the entire site immediately and construct each individual building as outlined in our construction time schedule We thank you for your consideration of our request and needs. Thanking you, CHRIST , N.MACUON D.INC. 6m MacDonald �f Vice President TM nb _ 4 I 48 MICII16661 di EXHIBIT 13 410 Nir CHRONOLOGY OF OSWEGO SUMMIT 6 November 1973--adoption of Ordinance No. 1522 adopting amended final development plan for portion of Phase V with- in Mt. Park. 25 May 1977--application DR 19-77 filed for preliminary ap- proval by Design Review Board. 2 June 1977--development program submitted. Proposed to start construction in July of 1977 and complete within 18 months. 30 June 1977--published notice of DRB hearing. 1 July 1977--staff report to D1 referring to development plan adopted 1973 per Ordinance 1522. The adopted plan had detailed drawings with respect to height, bulk, separation, setbacks, sections, circulation, landscaping, etc. There- fore, there would be Planning Commission action required to modify the development plan to approve the proposal of the applicant. 6 July 1977--Design Review Board meeting. Proposal to change from 8 units per building to 16 and reduce the number of structures . Proposal to utilize garages instead of carports. Pointed out that Ordinance No. 1522 allows three-level structures while the proposal now before the Board has four. Staff recommends referral to the Plahning Commission for approval of a development plan change if the Design Review Board is in agreement with the prposal. Done. 2 August 1977--letter to the Planning Commission from ap- plicant. Took over Phase I project upon default of pre- vious contractor with work 50% done. Applicant completing project as designed but wants to change design in Phase II. Intends to build Phase I and Phase II as condominimums. 8 August 1977--staff had recommended denial because of increased coverage. Mr. MacDonald of Christensen-- MacDonald testifies regarding the fact that the project will, be condominiums. Mr. Trrry Chappelle of Botticelli Townhouses and Mr. Norm Oliphant testify regarding traffic concerns. Planning Commission denies requested development plan change. Appealed to City Council. 8 a . .4_5 September 1977--publiShed notice of final design revit„- hearing. 9 September 1977--mailed notices sent. Notices posted in City Hall, Library, and Police Station. Page 1 49 ler EXHIBIT 13 19 September 1977--staff report to Design Review Board on DR 19-07. Subject: Final approval. 20 September 1977---City Council hearing .on appeal of Planning Commission denial of revision of development plan. City Council reverses Planning Commission and allows the change as requested. 21 September 1977--Design Review Board final design meeting noticed by publication. 28 September 1977--Design Review Board final design review meeting. Approved with conditions to be brought back to staff and Design Review Board for review at a later date . Specifically mentioned were grading and elevations were not final, and that the applicant was to identify the trees to be cut and the trees to be saved. ;w 10 February 1978--Oswego Summit Condominium plat filed. 4 May and 1 June 1978--publication of notice of Design Revirvw Board final design review to be held on 7 June 1978. t tics also mailed and posted. 7 dune 1978--Design Review Board approval of final design. 18; October 1978--letter to the Design Review Board. The Board acts to direct the staff to an on-site review of any discrepencies between the cutting of the trees and the grading of property from those represented in its earlier exhibits. 7 November 1978--adjoining condominium owners appear before the City Council requesting action to stop the project . 10 November 1978--special 17ouncil meeting to consider City Attorney report. Page 2 • 50 .. ni.m.w Y �illi�i iYo Wl ndui Ytli YY fl iYi .. PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETIN• AUGUST 8, 1977 EXHIBIT 1P G 2 flx tlliorm Oliphant, 19 Bloch Terrace, voiced his approval of the widening but at the same emit:itre stressed his concern for bicycle P-'tths. George Schenk, 24 tndepandence, stressed his approval of the widening of the road but also brought up questions concerning the widening of the other roads in the area. As a nernber of the newly formed Mountain Park Homeowners Association, he stressed his hope that the organization could work along with the Planning and Public Works Departments to facilitate appropriate, and needed, changes such as m adequate shoulders bus pullout areas traffic signals speed limit signs John Davis, 32 Del Prado, questioned whether if approval is given fol this section of widening, other portions of Kerr Road could be widened without a vote of the public. Pat Barnum answered that this could not take place. A separate vote would be necessary, he said, for any major road construction not shown on the present plans. David P. Friedley, 39 ea Vinci, voiced his approval of the widening of Kerr. The following inviduals were against the protects as proposed; es Terry Chapelle, Botteceill Townhouses, wanted to go on record as being against. He wanted to know why no alternate plans were presented. ret Carol Fabian, 60 Touchstone, questioned whether the widening of Kerr would be limited to itust this expansion. Pat Barnum again indicated that is the case. She stressed her concern for more buses and the increase in population and traffic in Mt. Park. Concern for children in the area their safety. Questioned, as did Terry Chapelle, if there was an alternate plan for this area. Dennis Lively again pointed out that the widening of the road would he paid for by the developer. He also stressed that PCC could n. t he required to participate in this project. The item was then turned over to the Planning Commission for discussion, It was decided, by a unanimous vote, to approve the construction of both projects. Emphasis was put on the Commission's concern for bicycle paths and walk ways and it was suggested that the developer consider those items in constructing the projects. This item will now come before the City Council on August 9, 1977. A brier; recess was called for at 8:45 p.m. . The public hearing continued at 8.51 p.rn. B. ZC 9-771 PUD li-77 (Phase ? , Mountain Park/Mountain Villa,)e Apartments) A request by Christenson-MacDonald, inc. for a change to the Final Development Plan for Phase 5 of the Mountain Park PUD. The change is proposed for''the construction of the second phase of Mountain Village Apartments in a manner which differs from the Type, Location and Design of structures previously approved by the City. The proposed second phase development is to consist of 128 two-bedroom apartments and a recreation bufiding and will be constructed r , 51 ,, s. ai.Uu. Wi i,YIWe YOi, ,IIWI' PLAAX14G COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 8, 1977 EXHIBITP. ,43 rcfrtbw st of the phase one development of 150 units, located north of the McNary tFermay/Jefferson Parkway intersection. (Tax lot 226, Section 4225, Multnomah County,) Fat Barnum gave the staff report and made special mention of the conformance with goals a.--d objectives (Aesthetic Quality Community Design; Land Use - Residential) and of the fact that building Coverage was increased by 20,000 square feet. Recommendation by staff tees for denial with the hope that the applicant would suggest a design more nearly az'-csaching the total land coverage oe" the previous approval and showing more sensitivity Yr. ! pact upon adjacent uses and upon the physical impact of site grading. Exbts were presented as listed in the Staff Report. Ect Amptman, City Engineer, stressed the concern of the Public Worke Department for the traffic impact which will result from this development. Special concern was given far Merry Parkway, Jefferson Parkway and on Kerr Road. Fe rec mreided that the compound curve On Jefferson Parkway should be corrected, and eicee the steep portion of McNary Parkway the mountable curbs on the downhill side should be Changed to vertical face ones and the islands eliminated. A P is Testimony was called for and Tom MacDonald, developer, made several comments cem erring the difference in design from the original proposal . — 7. Patios above the living rooms on the original plans were difficult to waterproof. . Three instead of four stories are proposed in the new plan. Exiteit A was as follows - showing the difference between the proposals PHASE II - MOUNTAIN VILLAGE APARTMENTS Comparison of new proposal to previous approval Previous New Approval Proposal NurLear of Units 148 128 Tykes of Uni ;s 78 - 1 Bedroom 128 - 2 Bedroom /0 - 2 Bedroom Unit Land Coverage 62,800 sq. ft. 70,793 sq. ft. Covered Parking 3,460 sq. ft. 15,624 sq. ft. In regard to exhibit C, Mr. MacDonald expressed the following: ! ten I. Insufficient setback to single-family area on north side. Response.: Mr. MacDonald stated that on the north side was a greertway. AA Ite- 2. Grading plan requires extensive fill , cut. Need soil study. Response: Referred back to the public works department report. Yi. Item 3. 4-story buildings on north side will be visually overbearing. Response: Now a 3-story with basement instead of 4-story. ti 52 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 8, 1977 EXHIBIT11111, P 14G Item 4. Fire protection access to most buildings will be very difficult, because of garages, fire doors, stairway, located between street and dwelling unit. Response: Main problem with previous phase 2 is that most units are being put in one area along the lower road. And the parking is not very good. 1.8 garages to unit are proposed in the new proposal, versus about 1 per unit in the previous proposal . Iter 5. Parking islands cause fire access problems. Fire trucks can't maneuver. Can't turn at all on east side, blocks fire lane. Response: Public Works report mentions no problems. Item 8. The density is too high - leads to all site related problems. Response: This site was approved for 300 units - they are asking for less. The rest of the Items were dealt with in the Public Works Report of August 3, he said. perking was discussed between the members of the Planning Commission and Mr. MacDonald. ft was pointed out, as above, that there would be 1 .8 parking spaces for each unit. Larry Swatosh, architect for the project, stated that given the conditions for this site he felt that this was a very good design. Explanation was made concerning the difference between an apartment and a condominium. These units will be condominiums which will range in price from $50,000 to $75,000, as stated by Mr. MacDonald. Mr. Suatosh remarked that each one of teese complexes would have an elevator. There would be a total of 278 units - he also agreed that there would be a problem with traffic. Mr. Swatosh also mentioned that there would be a secur ijy system. Most likely each occupant would have a card, similar to a credit card, to open one gate, at the other gate there would be a security person on duty. Further public testimony was called for and Terry Chapelle, Bottecelli Townhouses, stressed his concern for the traffic that this would cause on the present roads. This same concern was shown by Mr. Norm Oliphant, 19 Bloch Terrace. Mike Montgomery questioned how many cars were anticipated per unit. iat larnum replied that trip generation is 12 in single-family and 8 in multi-family per unit per day. in response to a further question, he indicated that staff does not hese population figures for one-bedroom vs. two-bedroom units. Mike Montgomery again stressed his concern for the density problem this would create, indicating that two-bedroom units exclusively, as proposed will increase population over the approved one-bedroom' /two-bedroom mixture. Further discussion between the public and the Planning Commission was held and the item rwas then turned back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Tony Marquis stressed his concern with the increase in density and questioned again the 1,8 parking spaces per unit. This is probably marginal for the units proposed, he said, but more parking would Increase the overbuilding of the site. 53 EX. HIBIT 14 ptL NNlNG COMMISSION ;►4EETING AUGUST 8, 1977. , PAGE 5 A-*ter much discussion by the Planning Commission, Tony Marquis stated the overall f ncerns of the Planning Commission: } ll« Increase in density 2 Growth in trip generation 3. Reduced open space 4_ Not enough parking Etw,a'rd Frankel moved that this proposal be denied, based upon the above concerns, Mf.ke Montgomery seconded. 4 Diet.ussion was held regarding whether estoppf) could be claimed against the City. Mike Montgomery indicated that a recent case in Clackamas County would Indicate not. s The motion was voted upon and the Planning Commission unanimously denied the proposal for approval of modifications to the Final Development Plan. C. 5D 15-77; Rita A. Hoeren - A request by Rita A. Hoeren for approval of a minor partition which would create two lots from her property located at 2400 Wembley Park Road. One lot would be approximately 28,100 square feet ir, size and would contain the existing house; the vacant lot would be approximately 14,100 square feet in size, (Taxi iot 1800, 2 IE 16CA) . Pat Barnum gave the staff report and recommended approval as regeested. e'NExhidits were also presented showing the location of the property. Bob r mptman gave the staff repr.rt and stated that it meets the requirements of an SR-10 flag lot. Utilities are in the ;streat so this will not effect the property. He did not think that this request was out of the neighborhood character. PublFz Testimony was called for and Gary Koc:ren, son of the applicant, explained that the ceive way would be large enough to service the back lot and that the trees surrounding the its would provide privacy. Also that lots 1600 and 1700 had already been subdivided. In opeosition to this minor parition were the following: Hank Ernst, 2759 Wembley Park Road, stated that he was against any partitioning of the lot. !e stated that he wishes the area to stay low-density. He is the owner of tax lot 800. Don Cramer, 2920 Wembley Park Road, stressed his concern for what is happening in that area, *gutting houses back-to,back.. That if thie present partitioning of land continues then t :•ey will be destroying the livability of the neighborhood. Hazel ,arren, owner of lots 1600 and 1700, stressed her concern for privacy this would afford her if she decides to build on the lots that she owns. How far would it be from drivewa + to driveway? Bob Arrotman stressed that before any trees of significance would be cut the per on would have to eget a tree cutting permit and this might stop them from cutting down some trees that wc:.ald mean more privacy to the neighborhood. irN Roberta Gord, 2648 Wembley Park goad, stated that she was opposed to the extra housing in the area. 54 410 EXHIBIT 15 September 20, 1977 A regular meeting of the Council of the ''City of Lake Oswego was convened at 7:35 p.m. in the Council. Chambers. All members were present, as were City Manager, Don Eppley, City Attorney, Larry Jordan, and staff members Councilman Henderson requested that the minutes of the September 13 eeecial Council meeting be amended (page 3, "Resolutions", third entenoe) to read, "Ceencilman. Henderson asked the City Attorney whether the catf v-s locked into maiteaining Kruse Way. The City Attorney answered, 'yes' ." The minutes of the September 13 special Council meeting were approved as amended. PUBLIC HEARINGS L , Public hearing on appeal of Christensen-MacDonald, Inc. from Planning Commission denial of request for a change in final development plan for Phase II of Mt. Village Apts. PUD. layor Gerber announced that this was a de novo hearing. Patrick Barnum, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission had originally heard the request for a change in the final development plan on August 8, 1977. The request involved providing modifications to Phase II of the Mt. Village PUD. The Planning Commission's denial of the request modification was based on four items: (1) increase in density; (2) growth in trip generation; (3) reduced open space; and (4) not enough parking. 1?lr. Barnum clarified item (1), stating that the increane in density was based an an increase in land coverage. The previously approved Phase II covered 62,800 sq. ft., and the proposed plan covered 70,793 sq. ft. He stated that although there was a _eduction in the number of units (from 150 to 128), all of the units in the proposed elan contained ten bedrooms. The original plan for Phase II contained a mixture of -,ne and two bedroom units. ' 'r. Barnum used charts to explain the differences between the previously approved :site plan (Phase I and II) and the modified version of Phase II. He stated that the siginal PUD was approved in 1973. He stated that the applicant (developer) rede- signed the structure of the units in Phase II with the idea of creating abetter site :. clan. He stated that Phase I of the project is essentially complete. -. Barnum stated that although he did not have the statistical information, he relieved that since all of the units in the proposed plan are two bedroom units, there :.z'ald be an increase in people as well as an increase in traffic flow. ea stated that the allegation that the applicant did not have adequate time to study r e Planning Commission's report (dated 8-1-77) was true. He stated that the appli- eent did not receive the report until just prior to the public hearing on August 8. '..arry Swatosh, architect for the Mt. Village project, supported the appeal. Re etated tart there were two basic concerns arising from the Planning Commission's hearing: el the four items listed for denial; and (2) the general concept of the plan. Mr. :,vatosh defended the concept of the proposed Phase *Il as follows: :. Increase in densiee. He stated that it was true that there was an increase _- the number of bedrooms. The previously approved plan called for 234 bedrooms in :ED apartment units. The new plan for Phase II proposed 256 bedrooms in 128 condo- eenium units. ate stated that, based on experience, there ate fewer people per ::dominium than there are per apartment. � � . 55 FIBIT 15 2. Growth to trip ge tion» Mr. Swatosh stated Cha e a that an inerCase xn the number of bedrooms would effect an increase its the amount of traffic was speculative and not factual. 3. Reduced open space. Mr. Swatosh stated that although there was a reduction in , open space, there was some question as to whether there was a decrease in "usable" open space. 4. Not enough parking. Mr. Swatosh stater` that the previously approved plan pro- posed 1.5 parking spaces per unit, and the new plan proposed a;i increase of 1.8 t, parking spates per unit. Mr. Swatosh read into the record a letter from Mr. Lem V. Nelson, President, Mountain $ Perk Home Owners Association and Mountain Development Corporation, which supported the applicant's modified site design. Mr. Swatosh stated that he understood that if the applicant conformed to the origital approved plan, they could go ahead with the construction of Phase II. Councilman Finnigan asked Mr. Swatosh why the applicant had increased the mixture of onn, and two bedroom units (as proposed in the original plan) to all tt'o bedroom units. Mr. Swatosh replied that one bedroom condominiums were dif!tcult to sell, and they were also trying to upgrade the development plan (eliminate "row house" concept, add elevators, security gates, etc.), 1 lair. Tom MacDonald, developer and contractor, spoke in favor of the appeal. He slated that the redesigned final development plan (Phase II) was to provide a better coordi- nated project for Mt. Village: (1) decrease overall unit count density; and (2) increase overall parking. ;err. MacDonald distributed a prepared statement to Council and addressed himself to the following: 1. An increase in density. The overall project was adopted by the City as one PVDs Phases I and II are construction phases, not PUD approved phases. The proposed Phase II would reduce total unit count density from the approved 3Q0 units to .278. The reason for the reduction was not (ns indicated in the staff report) "to create a more economically viable project," but to provide adequate parking. The overall (Phase T and II) site coverage increased from 158,377.4 sq. ft. (25.30% of site area) to 166,827.9 sq. ft. (26.65% of site area), for a total increase of 8,450.5 sq. ft., or, 1.35%. (Maximum overall land coverage allowed in zone MR-3 is 50%.) 2. Growth in vehicle trip generation. The modified Phase II would generate no Imore, and possibly less, trip generation. The security gate system would lessen traffic through the complex. A trip generation study, prepared by Waker & Associates stated, "There is no statistically predictable difference in the number of trip: anticipated bymodification of the site development "" plan. 3. Reduced open space. In redesigning Phase II, total open space was decreased r" xhtly to provide: (a) better "usable"open Space between the units (and bettor v a); (b) decrease In building fire hazard (more space between units); and (c) titer normal and emergency traffic flow, IThe previously approved plan had 294,546 sq. ft. (47.06%) in open space and the pro- posed plan has 260,484 sq. ft. (41.61%) in open space, for a total decrease in open I space of 34,062 sq. ft., or, 5.44%. t. September 20, 1977 - Page 2 Regular Council Meeting 56 ,:w a Jm!W iwi II JW IYII II IWI iii ii iY ISI Ilii II WV madigaititalkiaillailliiiiiiiiiii L ` EXHIBIT 15 0 , 0 i 4. Insufficient4oarkin&. The approved PUD had the minimum required parking ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per unit. The proposed plan would provide 1.8 parking spaces per unit. Of the net decrease it open space (34,062 sq. ft.) 20,000 sq. ft. of this decrease was used for increased parking space. Mr. Robert Post, former on-site engineer for Eaglecrest (presently, selling cotd)- aainiums in. Woodburn), and Mr, Kerr;; Gilbert, one of the owners of the Mt. Village project, also spoke in favor of the appeal. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Mayor Gerber announced that the public hearing- was closed. )loved by Councilman Avery, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick, that the action of the :Manning Catnntissiorl, denying the request for a change in the final development plan for Phase II of the Mt. Village PUD, be overturned. Following discussion, the motion passed, with Councilmen Avery, Kirkpatrick, Henderson, 4 Campbell, Neely and Mayor Gerber voting "yes", and Councilman Finnigan voting "no". 2) Public hearing on appeal of h:.R. and Carolyn Ernst from Planning Commission approval of Rita A. Roeren minor partition on Wembley Park Road. This was a de novo hearing. Pat Barnum reported on the findings of the Planning Commission, based on memorandums, exhibits and mieutes of the Planning Commission. He stated that at its meeting of August 8, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Rita A. Hoeren'a request for a minor partition of her property on Wembley Park Road, creating two building lots: (1) a flag lot containing the existing house, consisting of 28,100 sq. ft. ; and (2) a vacant lot consisting of approximately 14,100 sq. ft. This request had been approved with the condition that the 14,100 sq. ft. lot be increased in size to 15,000 sq. ft. The zoning of this area is R-10. Mr. Barnum stated that the appeal was based on the neighborhood's concern over high density housing and the privacy of the homeowners. The n6ighborhood felt that the Planning Commission'e approval may set a precedent and many other property owners would request similar partitioning. Be stated that, through her attorneys, Mrs. tioeren was willing to increase the vacant lot's size to 15,000 sq. ft. He stated that theta were trees screening the existing house; therefore, providing privacy. Mr. Barnum stated that the Planning Commission had suggested that a petition could be circulated teroughout the area, requesting R-15 zoning. The City Attorney, Larry Jordan, stated that all land partitions must conform to the applicable standards for subdivisions as set forth in LOC 44.440/44.710. He Welted that the newly crested, 15,000 sq. ft. flag lot would have less frontage at Oa setback line (25 ft.) than required by LOC 44.650 (60 ft.); and, therefore, a mei- ` ' artce would be required to make the request valid. He stated thet the newly created flag lot would meet the zoning requirements, but would not meet the subdivision requirements. Mr. H. R. Ernst, 2159 Wembley Park Road, spoke in support of the appeal, stating that there Were eight people against the partition--all in the vicinity of the doeren property. He stated that he had circulated a petition in the neighborhood to rhange the zoning to R-20, and had 30 signatures thus fat. Mr. Ernst expressed his concern for the preservation of the "country" character of the neighborhood €axed for the September 20, 1:77 .. Page 3 Regular Council `Meeting gra , . - 7 5 EXHIBIT 410 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 28, 1977 . The special session of the Design Review Board meeting of September 28, 1977 was called to ceder by Chairman Kirk Nieland. Board members in attendance were, Glenn Chilcdte, Ken Mueller and Gary Rittenhouse. Staff members present were: Patrick Barnum, Planning Director; Ralph Tehran, Planner 11; Alex Arseniev, Assistant City Engineer and Nancy Bryan, Serretary. DR 19-77 (Christensen-MacDonald, Inc.) - A request by Christensen-MacDonald, Inc. for final design review to allow the construction of St. Village Phase 11 consistIne 1 of 128 condominium units and a recreation building on property located on McNary Parkway northwest of Jefferson Parkway and McNary Parkway intersection. (tax lot 226 of tax map 32 Is 1E) . Ralph Tehran presented the exhibits and gave the background on this particular protect.. In August, the Planning Commission denied this project request and it was appealed to the City Council. City t.ouncll overturned the Planning Commission's decision and approved the project. This approval covered the site planning, general location of structures, the height, the bulk and the number of units and the setbacks. The Design Review Board can look at the grading plan, the materials, the landscaping plan and the design of the structures. The fire. Department had some concerns with this site. Mt. Village agreed to design with a 145-foot radius to accommodate the large ladder trucks of the Fire Department. Fire Department would like to go in through the western exit. They did not want anything to impede access time. Public Works, Traffic Coordinator and staff and applicant would work out this problem. Ralph Tehran mentioned that the Fire Dept. had questions about the building access due to the elevator enclosures. The applicant had agreed to eliminate the enclosure and put in dry standpipes on the it elevator shafts. The applicant was proposing entry dates with a security system where residents tweed cards to enter. There was some concern as the entryway showed only 10-foot lanes. As the fire trucks are 9'2" from mirror to mirror, the fire Department had asked for a minimum of 14 feet for the lane in the center of the project, Pat Barnum stated the applicant had agreed to put In a 60-foot setback from the curb to the end of the islands at the center access. Pat mentioned that the philosophy was that two buildings on the site have much better access from the $; western road than going through the: entire project.. Tom MacDonald, general contractor on the project, mentioned that the applicant .+as not going to do anything but sign the exit with "Do Not Enter" or "One Way" signs at this time. When they work out another alternative, they would come back to staff. r` - Elevations -- The variety was rather nice. The buildings were nicely designed but staff felt the composition of the buildings 9et to be too much. However, the City Council approved this concept. City Council also approved four living levels. Pat Barnum mentioned that the project was being graded out in order to meet the definition of a basement. The basement as shown would be a floor level. • 58 nu uWI YI,VIWIVIWUwi XfrIUMT 16 Design Review Board tfeating -2- September 28, 1977 Gary Rittenhouse questioned the new grades as shown and the elevations of the condominiums. if what was shown was accurate, the top building would be at least 17 feet higher on the slope. Iry Cooper, consulting engineer for the applicant, mentioned that he did not have his final plans done, based on the new proposed grades. Changes would be reflected in the working drawings. Grading -- Public Works felt uneasy about the drainage--they felt the drainage shoui be intercepted before it entered the single-family residential area. The grading plan showed some changes noting the retaining walls and the tops of walls. Alex Arsenlev mentioned that the red marks on the street and grading plan seemed to indicate that the buildings were higher than what Council had approved. Alex staled the grading could be started as soon as Public Works received working drawings from an engineer, if the department was in agreement with them. Utilities -- An engineer must prepare accurate engineering drawings for all the utilities before the building permits would be issued. Building iayout and parking -- Public Works would like all the dimensions shown so they would know what they were asked to approve for a building permit. The key elevations Should be shown especially at the corner. Alex. Arsenlev stated that the entrance question would be solved by Public Works and the developer which would include 60-foot setback from the center line on McNary. Public Works preferred standard curbs, particularly where the drainage may get out of hand. Non-critical curbs should have at least G" of asphalt behind them. Catch basin details -- All easements must be submitted for 8" water and 8" sewer lines to remain City lines. Glenn Chilcote stated he felt there eels o basic question on the sire of the buildings. The Board could sec the impact and el-.at was happening on the site. Glenn quoted LOC. 50,870 Relationship of Buildings to Site (1) . Tom MacDonald, general contractor on the project, discussed the project. He said the buildings would average from basement to top of roof slab 32-33 Feet, and f.ouncil did approve 4 living levels. The applicant was working to tie in Mt. Village ll with Mt. Village I. Tom mentioned they could not do the cut and fill in the back until next spring. It was their intention to work on the crown of the hill during the winter and the back of the hill later. Kirk Nieland went through the requirements for LOC, 50.890 for final design review approval. I. Site plan was not complete. Need to indicate how drainage would be handled below the property near the residential section. There was a conflict between the drawings and the elevations shown on the three buildings on the northerly edge of the property. Larry Swatosh, architect from Nelson, Walla and Dolle said he needed to revise the grades with the, contours. Alex asked what they had in mind for slope and 59 w m u.wn.n_.u.uu.�u.uu7 EXHIBIT morz Review Board—Meetin -3- September Des Design ii 9 )e", 1977 erosion protection. Tom MacDonald stated they could use netting or mulch or something to hold the land from eroding. Larry Swatosh said the curbs near the buildings that come out would be a little lower. Kirk Wieland mentioned that where water comes against extruded curbs. it tends to erode and asked if the applicant had any objection to using standard curbs at least at critical places. There would be a pathway from the center area to the recreation building. Until the grading was defined, the landscaping -could not be complete, The applicant was trying to carry the landscaping from Phase I Into Phase II . Ralph Tehran mentioned he did not think some of the existing trees on the backside could be saved; the applicant would have to identify all trees to be taken out and those to be saved. • On the grading plan, indicate where the total slope fills would be. Michael Murray, landscape architect , discussed the plan. He said he would submit a revised plan, taking into consideration the changes In grading. There would be proper soil preparation first, before the re-vegetation on the slope fill., and cuts, consisting of closely planted ground covers, would be put in. It was suggested that perhaps something be planted to cover the retaining walls. Alex Arseniev suggested putting in a curb away from the retaining wall , perhnps sloping the walls somewhat, and put in landscaping in the area between the walls and the curb. There would be a sign on the iow entrance wall to indicate the project. Tim letters would be 8- i0" high with spots on the sign at night. There would also be "Exit" and "Do Not Enter" signs. Parking meats the code re,quirerrrnts, plus there 15 additional parking on the site. Turning was a concern of the fire department; this would he taken care of by the applicant. Utilities would be taken care of by the applicant according to Public Works requirements. Grading - indicate the slope en the north side of the site and where the drainage would be in rclaLion to the existing street and the adjacent property to the nordh, Landscaping on the downslope. Pat Barnum mentioned that this community was concerned about the removal of trees and the replacement of trees. Perhaps the applicant could look into the possibility of putting in Douglas Fir, Red Cedar or Oregon White Pine which lend themselves to the idea of Lake Oswego. 2. Type and slut and accurate location before approving the tree cutting application. irrigation would be indicated after the final grades were obtained. 60 J,�'��I. ill I II III I II III IIY_iYL L� "Al. , EXHIBIT 16 Design Review Board ,.eting -4- September 28, 1977 3. The Fire Department wants access to elevators instead of a gate as shown originally. The applicant would install dry standpipes near the elevator. 4. Materials basically would be the same as those used In Phase 1 . There would be shake panels instead of individual shingles on the buildings. The roof would be tile. There were no definite plans to enclose the air conditioners-- most likely the panel in front of the unit (placed on the balcony) would be solid. The applicant needed to indicate the treatment of the chimneys. 6. The project would hopefully get started in 60 days. Glenn Chilcote mentioned the good job staff was doing in observing the problems in this project and recommending denial on the basis of not enough sensitivity to Impact upon adjacent uses and upon the physical impact of the site grading. But, again, much of the Boardla authority had been eliminated by Council approval of the final development plan. Alex Arseniev requested that the applicant furnish a soils report regarding this site. WNW Glenn Chilcote moved for approval of DR 19-77 final design review with the following conditions: 1 . A soils report be presented to Public Works Department. 2. The grading plan be brought back indicating finalized grades for the entire y , project. 3. A drainage study be included with the soils report. 4. Continuation of pathways to the recreation building and wherever else required. 5. Study the landscaping along the' north line trying to save existing trees or replace new trees approaching to scale. 6. Look at landscaping along retaining wails. 7. Cross section of relationship tying adjacent property on the north to the buildings. 8. Size and location of all exi:.tind trees--those to be cut and those to be saved. 9. Bring in elevation plan. 10. Qualification of foundation plan as indicated by the soils report. ? l. Specifically include what kind of screening is to be used for trash and refuse pickup. Ken Mueller seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, The above plans oust come hack to staff and then come. to Design Review board. 61 EXHIBIT 16 411 Design Review Board Meeting -5- September 28, 1977 Findings of Fact 1. The application is substantially in conformance with LOG. 50.890 with the understanding that the sections not addressed that were made conditional, be brought back to staff and to Design Review Board for final review. 2. It carries through the intent and purposes of development of Phase li in accord with Phase 1 so there is a continuation of development of first-class ctnytructio There being no other business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Bryan, Secretary Design Review Board Meeting bti • r 62 . . •, , : ,,, , s14414rn ______T ,rst....u._,----31illliaamitiii _. . 4107 � ` ��3,' ; M It,i1_ .t I , e.. - i . t. ,nsir--ticnat " r--1::., if, mi_iil 1 4 4110-- ,ort.... t.t.: "w 1 u - . �""'"*.7:0:. :tr rr� _ i - *.r. ® {I,. r t rias A.ba " �4F �`i m. L q ws"t twanow c.,.r aawaxm V, a` q , V:H........,.., c�., Illv''''''lill: 10 III P 511211" ED mit ql fig 7 WI% 0: °" 1111 'e' uuullc4lullYuw WNW14rW 171 ■� ,m „mai as o . m �. Myr it,,.,, '� 1 t- En Al. ,. .. . El RA 1:9 , - f� DIY 1 i9 -e,:: :141 ot an, 0:97 ._ Q42.,l' E NN1N DEFT`. �;, : - rgt.l."'"".' J ::$.1 41111LII.O;:.0;U I.0 1 lalia dII, rn w � , .. n fid,. '... '.:.. •'.: It II11IIIIIII 4111 IIIA ilio 41'111�1u11:1lluiluuulh1111111ul,u.1,14.IlYI'll, If ll Il,11III ^VID i •I. , • w = 1 e .!aet 1 "U:a' 4 a'`I tr:,." tiSs�" it^ 1 11 a•0V.14, 17 ck. _a Ila :."' LNe 040 i ptr1G t.tkte *4, 1 ,�. Lid [17.7 aa>E ts, l°71 iL: 9 . •=9:111 - ii 1 :K{E;) „,t. v,9 is ., ,N-1.4, on: earl:7 aat, I _ ; D( , 1 Bea ,,, Yr°t].._.,.._.,.... _ fir T-______.----------- .�_ ._ ___`is .Inn i � est ., I �"...i.� , It It 1 �1 A V 1 1 1 1 1 r ! 4 -_I 1 4 € i :vR a 7;ii 1 C Jt a' . b/SVMEN"- FI.E+�+lZ P1�.N C 1;i1 t1` .. R vecK j vt LNG 6er, MOO. LNE. [L..7.:FIL 1 ' irtl'- GttyE ILII;1 i bt.9 I v-- * ,..:::7:21.1 CI t I,le :".......1 --- ';' C ' ;,,7„,,,to, 5 AIN 4II 11 ilblu III46100 L it B ; Ec [FAV.E D , , i (.4, i f4# «- ^.b f4 1 i in V;411 M m "MAY 1.8 1991 _ ovv ,...�i m f 4 IN ,. 40.16 _..1 PLANNING DEPT, �. Meri, "°' owr FL0oi0._pLAJ.4 ` / Lc) • , • R ... - r K0 f.......MMM' 1YFrY�,. ' • • r •w - x R ._ 1491- e ,{. .1 FR.; - -- , .4: 1 dam .+n p-lIn4 ,lio"L.4 . o i'{( Sir •. 'i r r• ~‘,. r+' 4 -30<)--la "<tiot Q '0"Z } . _ 11111. 1 , v �Rii11 r . n 11 . . ' i 7 • 9 . t• , • 1 , .. . . ., ____ ., , 1 . . • i , t,. a .r�•VS 1 .4',AZ 1 .0...4% 1 po;Z4 •/ w �� „/ i 1 A`. N.,,„,.. „,:'%%%''' 4. h4144! \ I' �+' • cti+tt611 f s. /j// i� H . g� .v t• i''�#:4 \:iv,. ta'r a p Y4 1 ^ ' t M / .f �b4y' tA•a �I °% • ,.... 4c `v �"' H`\' ,t, . yt , i/ 4t 7 ' .�rtlaRY� • • / ;s'" i4 ,) 'J ' Y ` iy j ((i ! i t S` v Ott . I �g !' i .:" , \ - „._, `tY e f jw+ llj l yr +1F� . .. ., 4...... , f t yg� x,.e. I f / 4‘.,,,,,.,4,,,, ,�Jw Y r E ), „..., • ,ypj��i Pti' 3 ', J \ is .. i a vG'+; �'r'4 r{,.., .i ,. / Yt4Ap' • '-',.--:1--,i,::: r �..^-,... + tt h w«q ( ,. f`'--- Yt(• ,..♦ `' .. 'r i Q' t 2' �y 'M4 .."�' •,«.✓`' ,Ngt•M4- ,�- / 'x ,�E' . ..y0. „Z1t7+'avH j e r p 1-41 . ' .✓^•'•^ /' • jC M.. y \n,�., ,f...--k r,a4rtr livt•tt.tt,' • s ` * rznl`11 - # --r, -\ . >N. •r'" 3 . �t.-J cam' .. s,; • M5 � .�' -:.,-,'4.":H rS.N .alai,0+ ,.�/ kO,_r:',.z.' ......7•-• t� } 32`--=""' '""l•^ P'.' tA;:. .....m.v.A 4 .".%"'"--- "" _,d �. S yu"a tl ...P«.. `"- »� /09,•^� ?t7 """"i` pR , ,-+rp —•••p+ •', '''> w.+w✓ i ! n to t ,�,,.....^r°�`� a t4�.3d .,. • •:4i4�3, iad t. .« ,yM+"jpV�iiy " : _ �"t� ,. ^~ O m . �-^w fS s •rscseli % �� �' 4i �ftJ ' w ✓{r` a — ",,,,+""' - n s k r r: G d a t#'�,.�:a3 f f �'',Lr ..."..4'' � , 4\4 r l4. .. ':. ,N A «a ,d''� .'V,..i..d.+l ,;:' '�7: .o.tu N a, '• �•! •,,� t, I,f - ,,,�. •# „......„.2....,„..... .,,,.. ,.,...----;,, 44'^"' s i r i•. tW Jr: e 1140)4,,t4 .�-..« ,,. .c ,. ,• -.••"" 44.1`"3 A ,rW +y�,,. osi fr* ^F hn •.,rb.+� ,} .', ""•"�..^•.+,...-«^•f„ !„-:---.A.04 •s"'�-.^-..-..•"" . n�4. `�\ Z 4 r ti'i t ���� r �Y `. tt�t -......r..- ' /• ..p'". `ate= — s " ,471 :r4`' `„ 7::-.-''•r' / `y•' i <` • . A G. f 4,•1.—.3 , • t rr"�'' r.• t �.,.r'''Q,34*' '''"Ai."' '' r-°^-' '4x ;f-4***"-‘:t,F [',.' � �„ ori ,te.. , "r.. 4t't � •; P. ` " ' , �.. R r -.r sec. ? ^fid .' /,`$ `...* • -"^�,,� 1y ____\--:::2,.......... .---'' , ,. ' �' o , ="if""f a _,tl A'\ „,0 j.'- .. /, ,s- y .*:'1,:-.''' ,,"•—• Ti - - d -' i -=t C_`` ., f 4,1„., +�< •,. ,. .. ,/' y tli r' p is ``"..-?'. , • ,..: _ ✓" r r �y 'e._1x1.1' ....••+rs ` ,� 1 it` b� n+""'✓. ✓ +t ."' P `i, u r N• r - r!•,,y( "�'AF F\,> �y [ �' •... .., J�. /sr §� '4 . . .,%" i o-'4+•,� lc..,,=...., 4µ-r^ } ya " 5j' a.. � ; } 00 'Ray ' :. –2;`--+`i J �" ',Jr( --„, , +'`' P !i_..t / ,„ . �a/' ., .„..\:,,...,.„,„../.....„.j, �w�'' ",✓. s • vt j, , !al , 6 4 { ft:1 5 -X a/a a ujr ��.,, 14110,;""iiti"litirmimmr1 I ql .i t "7 • poult2. +,,'-.pyo �.. f"� s.,,* \ y' P .. i t L' t i �` 11 PIC4'' et 1 ti.4 '� / 1,, ate\ ll.... , j �f� N 1d hNIQ I . 31I9 �9 l '' {{„ Mil A7 61 �# H if �f 1 "000,.a0.0 \\\ ,ti,: , — ii. j•••• ------ „, 1,—.........,...: --, „, 3} h5.3ti II'CA ::I _ y F i C Hvm�natf::3`ti ecrztia ° v.. ' x� is v m4. '.\ ii g:1,1 C .-+,,.".�.* 6Cis'{i. _ ''a�...,i"...-f'• (( .4"/,/,':-\:/.5."-':",,,4.-„4 ,'�z \ . . r '!- ,._.....w- r, a�c t "',�, .. ':" .m,�..»tet -il ti �. i ;` rN "°.r .+�' /' .....„_,p,.._,,,," f. -- "„-`''' '•,{;,^ice"' - -i \ 'ni sa"'"~ - .i — ,.. 1.-:'.-._mow ,, .c'M4'.747Y i ',�"`n. ' ` E{x ��, ''`i'� '..., jjtt��44 .._...j �" S_,---'t. -et :---�...:. 7-1,-1—',.--- ,,.`'ten-,S '.. i 7`1 rR ' eY'�r j'jj�' a'' *� 'd'" u ���\ r „\.,wI _'''" r". -""*.T.,^.., = t " ., . AJC �`"r "!;, - •__ .‘ T # .• { �� ,.,.y,. CIS>'YwSS'ri�hlliLH 1 e;,w+'. _ _ `.- ,...�`""..t ��;� ,', - ^ I�11 yi�y?Y M %9WPNA�fi'rdAd1P7 }�,��;,,^''``` .,.s:'.nr -'.w "..�" j ti i _ 1 "Fa Om el wrkt ei �» w.*WO .4..,4 04 �'^� P �"1 `a`~ s _-_•—� L'''''''',.., :at. p� (�...;.y C.,,..�, y. ,f' ry ��y o a.:".�«2__..:.. is Jf ., i r �rui� i i ,pro Rarastemmsen ac a•fno= EXHIBIT 18 0 MacArthur Blvd, icouver,Washington 98661 5)696-0381 (503)265-8321 Contractors-Engineers February 29, 1980 RE: WARRANTY WORK OF PHASE I OSWEGO SUMMIT Dear Homeowners Association and Condominium Owners: We are the general contractor who built Phase I of the Oswego Summit Condominiums. We remain currently employed by the project owners as the general contractor for Phase II. The purpose of this letter is to advise all concerned that Christensen-MacDonald' s responsibilities for any problems which may exist under Phase I warranty expired long ago. Therefore, we have stopped making further repairs. p As you are aware, the individual condominium units of Phase I were originally rented out to the public as apartments. This use existed for a period of approximately one year before the project owner/sellers decided to offer the apartments for sale as condominiums . The occupation of the units as condominiums is now entering its third year. It is our belief that any problems which may now be developing with the buildings are due to normal processes of settling and wear and tear. The extraordinary severity of Oregon's past two winters may also be a substantial contributing factor. There are no facts what- soever to indicate that any presently existing problems are our responsibility. Being the builders , we are knowledgeable about the complex and will continue to make repairs for you at your request on a cost plus basis. If you are a unit owner, you may contact us directly for repairs within your unit . Any leaks probably need repair of the common element , in which case you should contact' your home- owners association for repairs because upkeep of common elements is their responsibility. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN-MACDONALD CO. 0 Dave Christensen President Ihristensnn Group Company Page 7 of 419 68 EXHIBIT 19 LAW OFFICES OF ALASKA OFFICE J.DAVID BENNETT KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND 'AVID W.HARPER 420 L STREET 7BERT B.HOPKINS 3500 FIRST NATIONAL TOWER SUITE 302 CORDON H.KEANE PORTLAN 0,OR EGON 97201 ANCHORAGE,ALA5KA 99501 THOMAS M.LANE/YETELEPHONE(907)276-5152 DONALD H.PEARLMAN RICHARD L.SADLER TELEPHONE 224-4100 MARK G.COPELAND' AREA CODE 503 DAVID WOLF RANDALL L.DUNN RESIDENT PARTNERS DAVID N.GOULDER July 30 • 1980 JAMES S.CRANE O ROBERT H.HUME.JR.' 'ALSO ADMITTED IN OREGON Frederick T. Smith, P.C. Attorney at Law The Duniway House 2416 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97201 RE: Phase I, Oswego Summit Dear Mr. Smith: The Board of Directors has now completed their review of the extensive list of complaints of the owners of Phase I, Oswego Summit. A large number of complaints were eliminated as not being the responsibility of the builder/ developer or not relating to the common or limited common elements which we are dealing with here. First, my letter of May 22 relates that there are 60 units in Phase I with decks, 48 of which had leakage problems. I am now informed that there are 92 decks in Phase I and problems have been reported with at least 65 decks. Considering that over 70 percent of the decks have already experienced leakage problems, causing damage to the units below, it is the position of the Association that there is a defect in design or construction of all Of 1-hp r9PnlrG The Association will require that every deck in Phase I be corrected by the developer, whether or not problems have been experienced or reported. The list of units which have experienced leakage and stains caused by defective decks on the units above is again enclosed with this letter, and you will note Unit 11 has been added to the prior list. Considerable concern has also been expressed as to whether or not flashing was placed in the walls in the areas where the decks are built onto the units. This must be checked and if in fact it is not installed, this also must be remedied. 69 EXHIBIT 19 KEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND July 30, 1980 Page 2 The additional problems relating to common elements which the Association requests the developer to correct are as follows: Units 61 and 113 have defects in the fireplace chimneys. In Unit 61, there is a leak down the chimney from the roof. In Unit 113, when the fireplace is used, the smoke is drawn into the unit and sets off the smoke alarm. Units 92, 95 and 100 have problems believed to be caused by improper and excessive settling of the foundations. Unit 92 has a severe draft in the bedroom window and gaps at the bottom of the utility room door and patio door. Unit 95 also has a severe draft in the patio door. Unit 100 has a crack in the kitchen floor. The living room ceiling and kitchen and dining room floors are not level and concrete is separating from the threshold to the storage room door. In that area the developer did additional excavating which caused new settling of the buildings, creating severe problems with the units in that area. In Unit 22 the floor, ceilings and walls appear to have separated and dropped, which would appear to be caused by extreme settling of the foundation. The foundation of Unit 40 is actually splitting away from the stairs and Unit 55, which is in the same building (Building 7) , has cracks in the cement foundation. In addition to the list which is enclosed relating to the deck problems, the deck of Unit 54 was not properly slanted, resulting in standing water; Unit 79 has cracks in the deck; and in Unit 61 the deck slopes away from the scupper; Unit 46 has a crack in the concrete flooring of the living room deck. Although the developer started work on the deck on the unit above 85, that work was not completed and the lighting fixture on the balcony was not replaced,and exposed wires are hanging from the overhang, and the overhang which was ripped out by the repairmen was not completely finished. 70 EXHIBIT 19 KKEANE, HARPER, PEARLMAN AND COPELAND July 30, 1980 Page 3 Although the Association is not itself making claim for the complaints of the unit owners as to any defects existing in their individual units, the Association does request that repair work that was started by the developer in Units 61, 72 and 74 be completed. Unit 61 has a partially repaired open hole above the shower. Units 72 and 74 have partially repaired cracks in the walls. The Board of Directors has made every effort to be reasonable in its requests for repair and correction of defects in the common elements and limited common elements and has spent a good deal of time reviewing complaints of all the various unit owners, resulting in eliminating at least six pages of complaints before presenting them to the developer. The Board' s position is that every deck in Phase I must be repaired and that the relatively few items listed above be taken care of by the developer. The Association and the unit owners relied upon the assurances given by the developer that they would take care of the defects and further upon the fact that they were continually working around the area and correcting various problems. They therefore felt it was completely unreasonable for Christenson- McDonald Co. to have abruptly stopped all repair work with their letter of February 29, 1980. The Board of Directors must plan for immediate repairs before the fall rains commence. I would therefore appreciate it if you would present the above demands to the developer and provide us with a response within 10 days. Very truly yours, J. David Bennett BMD: lmw Enc. • 71 EXHIBIT 19 The following units are experiencing or have experienced problems with water leakage believed to be related to the deck on the units above: ,pECt. }18 JV Unit No. Leakage or Stain Observed In 3 2 Living room 7 Living room /0 9 Living room f/ 10 Leaks and stains observed in three places /.� 11 Ceiling leaking in living room 14 Living room, bedroom 20 Water leaks into light fixture in hallway 23 Living room ceiling (hears loud cracking noises) 35 Under balcony of unit above 38 Living room, bedroom 75 Living room 41 Several ceiling leaks (stained carpet, walls and furniture) 42 Bath ceiling molded -44 ; 45 Bedroom wall stained, constantly wet, living room ceiling 47 Living room ceiling, bath ceiling 63 Living room, bedroom (ruined drapes, carpet mildewed) g z 61 Bath ceiling, living room 64 Living room ceiling 70 69 Bedroom, warped overhang above entrance 74 Living room • 72 EXHIBIT 1.9 Unit No. Leakage or Stain Observed In 79 Living room around fireplace, bathroom 81 Living room ceiling (bad stains and rot) 84 Bedroom, around patio door, living room e?, 87 Bedroom 88 Living room (bad stains) 90 89 Living room 92 Bedroom 96 Bedroom, living room ceiling sag and discolored 97 Living room /0099 - Living room .70/ 100 Exterior entrance badly stained from leak f O 101 Ceiling from deck above 104 Bedroom AL2 107 Living room // 111 Living room //257 112 Entry //3 114 Living room, bedroom f A5 ` 121 Bedroom / 122 Bedroom, living room d 125 Living room, bedroom fir 127 Around fireplace 73/ 130 By front door and bedroom /gL 133 Living room, bedroom 73 EXHIBIT Unit No. Leakage or Stain Observed In 7 136 Living room 142 Living room, bedroom - ,/11 143 On patio and in living room 148 Bedroom ceiling (molded) 4570 149 Deck and around sliding glass door 26 Around air conditioner • 74 EXHIBIT 2 FrederickT.Smith,P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW THE DUNIWAY HOUSE 2416 S.W.FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND,OREGON 9720! TELEPHONE(503)227-2132 1cEANE, HARPER, September 9, 1980 PEARLMAN Add (10PLAND SEP 5 look) J. David Bennett 3500 1st National Bank Tower 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 Re: Oswego Summit Dear Mr. Bennett: I am enclosing a list of items that my clients have reviewed in an effort to try to resolve this case by repairing the items on the list that you furnished. The first list is a complete list of the items that my clients are willing to finish or repair as appropriate and which we are prepared to do immediately. The second list is a few items which my clients feel absolutely no responsibility for. I suppose I could say that there are quite a number of items on the first list that my clients do not feel responsible for, but in the interest of settling this matter as quickly as possible so that the work can be completed before adverse weather sets in, we are willing to do the work as soon as the following conditions have been met. Conditions are: 1 . That you will secure from each individual unit owner a release for the benefit of my clients in the exact form as Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 2 . That you will secure a release in the exact form as Exhibit "B" attached hereto which is a release to be executed by the association of unit owners. I have discussed this matter with Betty Davis from your office and I understand that you have some practical problems in securing the individual signatures. You may advise the various unit owners that we will commence the repair work immediately upon the receipt of their signed release. If any unit owner does not sign a release, then of EXHIBIT z FREDERICK T. SMITH course , we will not do any further work pursuant to this settlement proposal. Those who act quickly will go to the top of the list. We propose to repair the problems in accordance with the releases that we receive from the individuals. In other words, if a person hands us a release first, then we propose to do his or her work first. It would be very helpful if you could arrange for all of the unit owners to sign the releases immediately and essentially at the same time so that we could properly schedule the work rather than popping around in a sort of hop-scotch fashion. However, we will be willing to undertake the work on a hop-scotch basis if that is the only way we can get things started quickly. Nothing in this letter should be interpreted as an admission of any liability or responsibility on behalf of any of my clients. The purpose of this letter is to amicably resolve the problem and see to it that my clients are released from any further claims so that we will not have to go through this thing year after year. As I have explained to you and to Betty on the phone, my clients feel responsible only from the sense of being responsible business men. They do desire to maintain a good relationship with the unit owners and with the community. In that sense, we are undertaking far greater responsibility than, in my opinion, would ever be called for under the terms of the sales agreements. I am leaving the country for three weeks. You may communicate directly with David Park of my office. However, we will persist and absolutely insist that the releases be signed and delivered to us prior to the starting of work on any individual's unit. I think that is a fair proposal and I hope that you will be able to do it as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Frederick T. Smith FTS/11 Enclosures 76 EXHIBIT 32 OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held June 18, 1990 Note for the record: Two of the five existing board members were removed automatically by virtue of selling their units. They were Greg Derringer and Ed Peters. Remaining board members numbered three, with two remaining members present- at this meeting, representing a majority. tr.,. • 1 . Acting Chairperson, Sandy Detro . . , ca• led the meeting to order at 7 :05 p. m. 2. Board Members present: Sandy Detroit and Dick Roberts Staff: Bob Schlecht, Betty Schlecht, Jeff Brown and Cap Berri . 3 . First order of business was election of new replacement board member. Dick Roberts nominated Junko, who was approved by vote of the board. 4. Minutes from the May 1990 hoard meeting were approved as written. 5. The financial report of the association was presented by Jeff Brown and approved by the hoard. Ending checking account balance: $15,726 .07 Ending savings account balance: $56, 740. 37 G . Managers' Reoorts: Betty Schlecht reported on status of collection of homeowner fees : Current outstanding fees: $1, 172. 62 Previous periods total due: $4, 326 . 43. Bob Schlecht reported on asphalt repair bids. Latest bid was for $4, 200 by A-Line . Board approved this or any lower hid for the same work. Fence damaged by car by local homeowner who has been identified and who refuses to provide insurance carrier information. Board directed manager to file accident V report with DM' and to repair the damage for safety .: 4. purposes and to pursue responsible homeowner for damages. Building 25 elevator leaking water from concrete deck walkway above the elevator room. Bid to seal from waterproofing company $1 , 500, Board requested manager to pursue less costly alternatives. Page 242 of 419 77 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Homeowners' Association Page 2 May 15, 1990 7 . Old Business: Zinc strips for ridge to remove moss. 5' Strip $3.05 discussed. Cheaper product - Perhaps a chemical would be better. Continue clem spray. Roof Repairs: Insurance - Cost of 2nd opinion on structural report CH2M Hill $2, 500.00 Structural Eng. - Structure to plywood roofing Architect - Roof from plywood out $50.00/hour for subcontractor - Architect Eng. Do we go with this or do we start with an expert?. Decision to proceed with Architectural process. Garage Sale - June 2nd Sandy recommended adequate advertising Ms. Janet Kent - Discussed mirror and deck changes, Jeff Brown will contact Attorney as to approach. Discussion - CAI's Oregon Chapter - Shall we join? "No" - keep in file. Land Developer Consult meet at Mountain Park on May 29th - 5: 45 p.m. Design Review Board June 4th at Lake Oswego @ 7:00 p.m. 8. New Business: Sandy - what is our summer schedule? Change June meeting to June 14th. Gregg resignation letter by end of month Page 241 of 419 '{ I 78 EXHIBIT 31 OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held May 1'5, 1990 1. Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Board Members present: .Sandy Detroit, Dick Roberts, Greg Dieringer and Ed Peters Staff: Bob Schlecht, Betty Schlecht, and Jeff Brown 3. Minutes of the last meeting approved by Ed & Dick. 4. Jeff Brown gave Financial Report: 5. Manager's Report by Betty Schlecht.: Delinquency Report: #2 - We will carry figure until find out #9 - Had surgery - when out of hospital Ins. will pay Tenant for surgery. Board decided to charge fees now but after he pays consider break. #187 - Goes on auction block - has lien on prop. Board will look to Mr. Rickert to pay difference; motion Ed - Dick 2nd - Approved. Discussion: Shall we take away rec. bldg. priviledges when 3 months delinquent. Agreed that already applies . No vote necessary. Letter to violators would be required. Bob - Spring cleaning - new man doing well. Discussion: Wheel tracks on McNary Pkwy just below entry. Landscapers to address. Garbage can & dumpster building below building 25 needs to be rebuilt. Needs doors and roofs. Betty will get estimates. G . Committee Reports: General Maintenance: 9 Patches - $1, 200.00 - Additional paving bids requested. Parking stickers discussion of different style - no changes to be made. A flyer sent out — break up boxes - No hattries in dumpsters. Social Report: Pool Party June 1st - 6:00 p.m. Page 240 of 419 79 E XHIBIT 30 ,140 OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of-Regular Meeting Held April 17, 1990 1 , The meeting was called to order by Board Chair at 7:15. 2. All members present. 3. Ryan O'Brien presented up to date plans for Northview Heights. He asked for easement at the East side slope and easement at the Northwest corner of building #25, Relandscaped 25' area at the Southwest corner of property. Called a special meeting: Monday, April 23, 1990. All people impacted by plan will be notified. 4. Minutes: Motion Sandy, Ed 2nd. Approved as corrected. 5. Financial Report: Motion Ed. Dick 2nd. Approved. 6. Manager's Report: Betty on delinquency. Bob: Started on spring work, power washing, parking lot, moss spraying. Zinc strip information being pursued. Motion Sandy, Ed 2nd. 7, Mgrs. Report and Parking: Rec-removing remaining letters. Check jets on jacuzzi . Snow removal, still pursuing plan. Pool Party: June 1st 6:00 Pool Opening Party. 8. Old Business: Insurance proposed pay-off if last storm damage. $8465.00 on interior repair, $250.00 roof repair ,,,. - ~, ence repair. Steve Sheridon has volunteered for Ad Hoc. Comm. to study leaking problems. 9 , e" - +-. s: No new business, 10 . Meeting adjourned. ) Page 239 of 419 80 EXHIBIT AMERICAN POLYCONCRETE CORPORATION "Concrete Products/Protective Coatings" P.O. Box 25659 / Portland, Oregon 97225 (503) 627-9468 TO: OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDO RESIDENT DATE: 4-28-87 SUBJECT: DECK RESTORATION Oswego Summit is in the process of completing a major deck restoration in your condo. The materials used are some of the finest available on the market for this purpose. Your deck should give you many years of trouble-free enjoyment. It's imperative to mention that these decks were not originally constructed to withstand an excessive amount of weight. For your information we have prepared a list of "do's & don'ts" for your deck: 1. Don't stack wood or cut wood on decks ., 2. Don't place heavy objects on decks such as barrel plant holders 3. Don't put down carpet. Carpets become extra heavy when wet and add weight to the deck structure. 4. If you notice a hole or cut in your deck, don't dig or cut at it. Notify the management right away since a service call is less expensive than a deck replacement. 5. Check you scupper (drain) on a regular basis. 6. To clean your deck, use water and mild soaps. We strongly urge you to follow these simple procedures in order to avoid any damage to your deck as workmanship and materials are not under warranty if the above listed procedures are not followed. Thank you for your cooperation. K :$ AmP-CO Restoration Systems • 81 EXHIBIT 29 AM PCO American Polyconcrete Corporation Grates Ji' .exon alyitim.' (503)627-9468 • TO: OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDO RESIDENT DATE: 8-26-85 SUBJECT: DECK RESTORATION Oswego Summit has just completed a major restoration of decks in your condo. The materials used are some of the finest available on the market for this purpose. Your deck should give you many years of trouble- free enjoyment. Tf ' c important to mention that these decks were not originally constructed to withstand an excessive amount of weight. For your convenience we have prepared a list of suggestions: 1. Don't stack wood or cut wood on decks 2. Don't place heavy objects on decks such as barrel plant '. holders 3 . Don't put down carpet. Carpets become extra heavy when wet and add weight to the deck structure. 4 . If you notice a hole or cut in your deck, don't dig or cut at it. Notify the management right away since a service call is less expensive than a deck replacement. 5 . Check your scupper (drain) on a regular basis. 6 . To clean your deck, use water and mild soaps. We strongly urge you to follow these simple suggestions in order to avoid any further leaks and damage. Sincerely, Management & Crew P.O.Box 25659 Portland,Oregon 97225 82 EXHIBIT 28 OSWEGO SUPMMIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Date: March 23, 1981 Time: 6:30 p.m. Place: Oswego Summit Recreation Center Present: Directors Dean Boyes, Jan Carkin, Marilyn Denlinger, Fred Ehman, and Gary O'Connell Absent: None The meeting was called to order by Jan Carkin, President. A quorum was present and the following items were discussed: 1. The minutes of the March 9, 1981 annual meeting were read. There were no additions or corrections. 2. Gary O'Connell summarized the P and L Statement. Delinquencies are running approximately 25% each month. Two homeowners are more than 90 days past due and lien proceedings will start for them. For future meetings, PMS will send copies of the P and L Statement to each board member prior to each meeting. 3. Phase II/ILL warranty items were discussed briefly. No representative from Christensen Construction was present. Gary O'Connell will get in touch with Christensen to get their response to the problems of warped doors, the concrete slabs that won't drain, rusting handrails, and the leaching of the concrete slabs through the ceilings below, Gary reported that all chimneys have been lengthened and the proper caps installed. Now the Board will wait for feedback from the residents to see if this solves the problem. The contractor also has requested to use the sauna in the tee center for drying out the warped doors. The Board agreed to this providing the con- tractor pays for the electricity used. 4. The Board requested that PMS get an estimate of the cost to paint the exterior trim on Phase I buildings. The Board will then decide how much painting can be done this year. 5, The Board requested that Jack Dunlap bring his paint color samples to the next board meeting so that the Board can decide on a permanent color schedule. 6. Jan Carkin will. call Mark Distort of Gilbert Bros. regarding the poor workmanship done on the decks of units 61 and 97, The concrete coating was splattered on the shakes, etc. and never cleaned up. 7. The Board authorized Jack Dunlap to repair the damaged garage door panel of unit 181. 8. Gary O'Connell will consult the developer regarding future expansion of the swimming pool deck and construction of a path from Phase IV to the recreation center. Page 176 of 419 83 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Board of Directors Meeting March 19, 1984 C. C. Morrow Unit 91 Mary Behrendt Unit 115 Susan Gregory Unit 100 Keith Howe Unit 173 Dick Harmeyer Unit 159 8. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 3. Page 215 of 419 84 EXHIBIT 27 Oswego Summit Board of Directors Meeting March 19, 1984 storage room lights. To date, 12 buildings have been completed. B. Recently there have been a number of auto break-ins reported in Mountain Park and four at Oswego Summit . The Board approved the changing of the lock on the Recreation Building, the issuance of new keys and parking stickers for resident 's vehicles. This will take place beginning April 6, 1984 . 6. Old Business: A. Rich Ackerman of Oregon Landscape Maintenance presented a plan for converting the fountain to a planter and for additional landscaping at building #23. He will submit a written proposal for the Board' s consideration. B. Building #25 erosion. Tony reported that an engineer had been out and we are awaiting his report . C. Work is progressing on resurfacing the decks of buildings 22, 23, 24 and 25. The job should be com- ' pleted in a few weeks , but there has been considerable damage to the newly laid surfaces that may result in additional costs. Bill Pauli will review with the contractor and report to the Board. 7. New Business. The April 16, 1984 meeting will be the Annual Meeting of the Association. A prospective slate of candidates for election to the Board was discussed and the following persons are to be included on the ballot : 2. Page 214 of 419 85 EXHIBIT OSWEGO SUMMIT ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DATE: March 19, 1984 TIME: 6:30 P.M. PLACE: Oswego Summit Recreation Room PRESENT: Dean Boyes, Sandy Detroit, Tag Nicholson 1. Dean Boyes called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. A quorum was present. 2. The minutes of the February 21, 1984 meeting were read and approved. 3. The February operating statement was reviewed and income and expenses were in line with the budget with the ex- ception of utility expenses. February utility expenses were $3,369 over budget for the month and $2,156 over year to date. Bill Pauli stated the cause of the overage had not been determined, that it could be increased power consumption, rate increases, inaccurate budget forecasting, or a combination of these factors. He will investigate and report at the next meeting. 4. The delinquency report was read and approved. There was an improvement of nearly $1,000 over the previous month. 5. Manager's Report : A. Tony reported on the progress being made in trans- ferring to Association meters the power being used for exterior lights, garage door openers, garage and Page 213 of 419 86 EXHIBIT 26 the concrete and then the surface sealing compound could be applied. He declined to estimate the cost of this procedure. His third suggestion was to run a "L" shaped flashing around the entire perimeter of the deck to form sort of a tray. This would then be pattially filled with a flexible sealant and covered with indoor—outdoor carpeting to provide a walking surface. We will receive a bid for this within the next week to ten days. At this time Mr. Smith stated that they would only perform this work during the summer months because the cement must be completely dry before application of the sealant material and must have a minimum of i8 hours to dry after application. Since it appears that any action to—repair-decks wilrbe-quite expensive we have taken the following steps to determine if this is actually the source of the problem. We purchased a roll of heavy, seamless Visqueen and installed it over the surface of the deck and up the sides to a t heighth of six inches. This has been secured by staples and by lathe to hold in place. The end result is a water proof liner which will not permit water to reach the surface of the deck. Should'the leak in unit #130 cease, we may reasonably assume we have found the source. The possibility exists that this material is sufficiently durable to last thru the remainder of the rainy season if not disturbed by the occupants of unit #131 and could protect the unit below until permanent repairs can be made. Best reg ' , /, ( .-4K0111 JH. $ ;=lap, .ager cc: Board members Jack Vaughan P. M. S. I. Page 119 of 419 87 EXHIBIT 26 December 214, 1982 Mr, Dean Boyes, Chairman Oswego Summit Condominiums Lake Oswego, Oregon Dear Mr. Boyes, In compliance with the directive of the Oswego Summit Board of Directors at the Monday, December 20, 1982 meeting, the firm of McDonald & Wetle, Inc. were contacted. This firm, which is recognized as expert in-the area of detecting and sealing leaks, sent Mr. Chris L. Smith as their representative accompanied by Mr. Patrick H. White, District Manager for Gaco Western, Inc, a pro- tective coating manufacturing Go. We first discussed Mr. Smithts approach to determining the source of a leak. He stated they use a two man crew equipped with a hose, pressure nozzle and a sprinkler° First, they spray the suspect area, section by section with the pressure hose with one man below to note when and if the leak is recreated. Should this fail, they then set up the sprinkler and let it run for at least one hour and normally two hours to determine if there is a break in tar paper in back of the siding. This, of course, with the man below to note when the leak reappears. Their cost for this procedure is $25.00 per hour per man plus overhead. (I failed to ask for this figure but normally will range from 20% to 25% of gross billings.) He noted that while they are usually successful, they cannot guarantee to find the source of the leak because certain combinations of wind tur- bulence and rain are impossible to duplicate. We then went to Unit #131 to survey the deck over unit #130 Which has suffered a series of leaks over a one year period. Mr. Smith, after reviewing-the areas reparied,--agreed-that- the--probability ofethe-leak . emaninating from the deck was excellent but pointed out that a great many other potential entry paints existed and the deck could at best be des- cribed as a prime suspect. Mr. White was then asked for his recommendation for repair of the deck should this be required. He offered three solutions: 1st, break out the concrete, remove the plywood and membrane and rebuild the deck in total. He refused to give an estimate of the cost, saying only that it would be - quite expensive and we could anticipate severe damage to the units below. 2nd, remove the present sealing material and replace with their Gaco mater- ial. To apply this would require sand blasting the deck because the con- crete, due to an improper mix, has begun to powder and does not have a proper bonding surface. After sand blasting it would be necessary to seal Page 118 of 419 88 EXHIBIT 25 \ December 170 1982 LEAKS RETO.TED fl UNIT OWNERS AMR TEE DFaMBER 1-h, 1982 STORM; UNIT # NAhE, oman 2 Altermatt 1/R Repaat of old leak - repairs had been started* 7 bale Wit b7 IV 't.lacc. Stain ',,v4ved - no ap -.: 0 t 15 Zenner Illi St04.1. hole in Oeilinigik Stain probably not needed. 18 Orleans I/4 Stain reeved, App4.4 a oki 35 Van Gulick Lik Two areas henvylal e nova* kt.tlned ol leak which is in . go.. of being ree,ired, 37 Welles X/R Reopened old ,, , Oink is in p2oC.417 of being '4, ., Oaf 47 Bai41ato I" Saw leak, oltryp- o tted only when out= bone* Not r,:, , ,,ed yet but past history would indicate a claim need be filed. 57 Ander-4n LA & 13/h To ., ,11 boles and stain in B/R. NO apparent de in TA 66 Mason lift Moderate *... .-e. R..,irs wore for prior leak* 69 Ringo LiR Four large stains on ceiling. Unable to find source because of continuing weather, If not . stopped soon, will require repair* 101. Rodney 11/R Ceiling stain removed. No apparent damage. 104 Stepp LIR & DA Stains removed. No apparent, damage. 108 Nellie Lift Stain renoved. No apparent 114 black 13/4 U.,T. ./ ceiling leak. Have yet to find so .e. Could require repair work. 119 Pupa LA Stain removed. No apparent damage. 121 Fast 1./R Owner states damp spot on ceiling. Unable to detect. 126 Dunn DA Stain removed* no damage. 130 Oillara LiR Repeat of old 1,,,. Unit under repair. 131 Gawlick LIR Entry tr.t permitted. No assessment of damage. 139 Smith IA-BA-Den Moderate to heavy stain. Stain removed. Probably no damage* 140 Abegg Lik Stain Removed but sag in ceiling still allows, may disappear with a bit more time, Page 117 of 419 89 EXHIBIT 25 December 17, 1982 Dear Mary Lou, Relative to our various discussions about reporting leaks in units at Oswego Summit to the Insurance Company, there are some unique factors in this complex which need be considered. 1. Because of the ercb tectural design of the buildings in Phase I (21 buildings - 150 units) there have been and will continue to be leaks into a substantial number of units with each heavy rain storm. When a strong South wind accompanies the rain the number of units developing leaks increases substantially. 2. The affected area is almost always the living room and/or bedroom ceilings. These ceilings are blown-on acoustical which manifests the damage by a wet spot and the separation of the acoustical material from the sheet rook making a bulge. In the majority of these, perhaps 95%, the acoustical material, when dry pulls back up against the sheet rock leaving a moth ceiling with only a water stain to show the leak occurred. We can and do remove these with very little cost. The others for some reason do not return to the original position and these "bulges" must be removed and the area re-textured at a cost of $250.00 to $1,300.00 each depending upon the area involved. Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to determine up-front whether the damage will be minor or Major. This makes for a rather difficult decision: report some 50 to 60 potential claims per year, with the possibility that 3 or 4 will result in actual claims, or face the problem of explaining to the Homeowner's Board of Directors why they need allocate funds to repair damage that should properly have been paid by the Insurance Company. To further compound the unpleasant possibilities, the storm of Dec. 1 - 4, 1982 would probably qualify for the single occurrence clause and be eligible for a single $250.00 deductible, should more than one unit require repair. Later reportings on an indivi- dual claim basis would make this most difficult to prove. A determination of the course to follow cannot be made properly at this level , so I am attaching a list of units damaged in the above- mentioned storm. There is a possibility that none of them will res 4t rr:aq insurance claim but much Will depend upon how quickly the weather will permit the finding and sealing of the entry points in that contireted leaking expands the probability of needing repair work. Best regards, cc: Jack Vaughan Jack Dunlap Page 116 of 419 90 EXHIBIT pg. 2 #3 .. (attached) Upon receipt of this form, we flooded the deck of the unit above #130 and found the nflashinge under the sliding doors to be inadequate. We removed both sliding doors and frames, sealed area, installed roofing paper'& sealed again, installed extra wide flashing, sealed and replaced frames and doors. This action taken in May seemed to coreect the problem and there were no further leaks into the unit until the very heavy rain of December 1 through 4, accompanied by high South winds. At this time it appeared that the entry point could be the nOapn rail on the deck above so we removed the rail, sealed the area, put`down nVisqueen« and installed-a new 'Capt'-rail on Friday,, Dec. 3, 1982. The leak reappeared on Saturday, Dec, 4, 1982. On-Wednesday, Dec.-8;1942111y Relief Manager' and I spent some six (6) hours with a Hi..Presaure Hose trying to re.•create the leak. We finally Elicited a very small leak by forcing water up under the-roofing tile from the direction! the wind blew during the heavy rain storm. I have a man scheduled tomorrow to-remove-the tiles, find- and patch the break in the roofing paper which permitted the water to enter. Most certainly I can appreciate the frustration Ms O'Barra has encountered in the occupancy of her unit and the trauma it has caused her. However, it might be well for her to also be aware that the prople in Unit #131, above, who-dontt have a problem/have permitted us to tear up their dwelling several times in our attempts to solve her problem. Wander if she has ever thought to thank them. Beyond this, there is no guarantee that a building will remain water- proof. Should the problem appear again sometime in the future we will respond with the same promptitude exhibited the three prior occurrences. Best regards LA. M. Dun,e., Man-',Ar Oswego Summit cos Jack Vaughan - P. M. S. I. Page 110 of 419 91 EXHIBIT December 9, 1982 Mr. Dean Boyes, Chairman Board of Directors Unit #187, Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, Or. 97034 Dear Mr. Boyes, Relative to the complaint that adequate action may not have been taken to locate and correct leaks in units in Phase I, it may be of value to make them aware that the following action has been taken during the past calendar year. C. C. & L. Roofing checked, patched and repaired all roofs Columbia Sheet Metal - Repaired and replaced flashing - all buildings E2 Enterprises .. Secured; repaired and sealed all chimneys Oregon Home Improvement .. Sealed and caulked all suspicious deck areas A. B. C. Roofing Co. » Replaced all broken and missing tile Murray Duncan (P.M.S.I. employee) repairs by replacing br9ken & missing shakes. Searched for leaks, sealed and caulked suspect areas. • Weflen Construction Co. Repaired interior damage, Removed, flashed, sealed and replaced sliding patio doors in eleven (11) units. Resident Manager - approximately 50% of his working time has been devoted to this problem in the direct form of finding & repairing the problem areas plus assisting the above contractors with entry to units, etc. With direct reference to Unit #130, Susan (Marra, Owner, an extraodinary amount of effort has been put forth in her behalf* #1 - (attached) This form resulted in emergency action to preserve her personal property by bringing in Marion Comfort, a Professional Rug Cleaner, who dried, cleaned & deordorized her rugs. Concurrent with this the action detailed above was being taken. #2 (attached) Appearing that the problem had been solved, we brought in a Contractor who retrieved and replaced the wet sheet..rock & Insulation. He then then replaced sheet-rook & insulation & re-textured the ceiling. Page 109 of 419 92 EXHIBIT 23 • 493390-99695 7 A. That again is in the Living room ceiling No walls? A. No watts Q Next one? A. Number 149 - Sandy Detroit DETROIT and its the same as number 143 for cause and damage- Q. The sliding glass door? A. Right Q. What can you see on those doors what the construction was whether they were flash or where the water is supposed to go? A. Only when you pull them apart Q. What did you do to stop those Leaks, tar and water hose? A. We tarred them and put paper and then tarred some more art put ■ore flashing on Q. As far as you know you pretty much got them all stopned now, is there any at all that are continuing? k To the best of my knowledge we have got everything completed at this point Q. Ok thats we go look at each one of these Jack I wilt turn this record clear off I want to repekt the that this interview is recorded and that was with your permission A. Agreed Q. Ok thanks very much Page 105 of 419 93 EXHIBIT 23 49339-99695 6 A. I would suggest the carpet might be a problem What about the walls? A. The walls seem to be alright. I couldn't debet anb problem there Q. Are the walls in the units sheetrock? A. Yes Q. Lets move along to 130 A. 130 - Susan 0;Hara this goes beck to the November 1981 storm, again Its a ceiling damage. repairs were made after the storm the leak reoccurred er•.d here again some time. probably in August. we were able to find the source of the leak and seal it Q. Where is the damage in that one? A. Theta in the living room ceciling Q. What, if that was connected to the November storm in '81 a contractor was hired and and employed to repair it. had they been called to be informed that their repairs didn't, weren't prober? A. Noy they haven't- Do you think they ware proper? A. I can't answer■ this Q. Is there a possibility that they didn't properly repair the outside before they repaired the inside? A. Obviously this is an end result that pretty difficult to assign any fault any particular action or Lack of action 0. But we do know that they have never been informed and they haven't been told that the repairs weren't effective and there were continuing problems, is that accurate? A. That is to bhe best of my knowledge Q. Lets go on to was ft 140? A. 140 - Faye Allen ALLEN Her leak has come from the sliding door of the unit above Q. You mean the rain blows up against the door and goes into the track and thep ulitimately seeps through the under the track? A. Right 4 And wesex where is the damage in that case? Page 104 of 419 94 EXHIBIT 23 49339-99695 5 Q. When ultimately did you get the leak stopped? very difficult to put it specifically date because we are constrantly workinc on this but it would have been this summer Q. Was that one that may be traced back to the November storm? A. I can't say that, I just don't know what have been the original cause Q. Lets go on the next one 41 A. James Liston Q. Spelt that last name? A_ L I S T 0 N number 41 this leak came from the deck above and I don't have a origin original date on it. We worked on that one several times before we finally were able to correct the problem Q. What did you do, use tar and a water hose to locate them and fix them? A. Pretty much we go up and flood areas at a time until we get get a reaction below Q. Were those decks flatbed proberly or was there no flashing what seemed to be the problem? t I'm no construction man and I have no idea was proper Q. Lets-is that the livingfroom 8fEllUNNX also? A. Yea that is living room and slight damage in the bedroom it runs along the dividing wall Q. Lets move on to 121 A. 121 Jody Fast FAST This occurred on 10 9 82 the deck from above scupper developed a leak Q. Did the scupper get plugged up and over flowed over the glass? A. No in this case the there is a three sided sheetrock or not sheetrock but sheetmetat panel that sets in there with a drainpipe going down end that had loosened up and permitted the water to run under it instead of through the drain hole Q. What was the nature of the damage in that one? A. The nature is a livingroom area that needs replacing Q. Ceiling? Ceiling. And very-bad musty smell in the place that needs to be eliminated Q. In the carpet? Page 103 of 419 95 EXHIBIT 23 49339-99695 4 of that sheetrock and restore the noncore and paint it? %. Rights or I don't know if you can paint it or not you may have to sheet the entire room that would be up to the contractor who knows more than I do 4. Ok lets go on to the next one and I see you have number 11 there A. Number 11 owned by Myron Grandfsr Q. Spelt that 6randfar would you? A. 6 R A N FAA R I frankly don't know the date of the original teak we finally found this coming through the sliding door from the deck above Q. And when did you discover finally zero in on whet caused that? A. This lest summer Q. And when is it fair to say that whenever one of these incidents occurs you track down the damage-whenever one of these incidents occur you track down the damage that you refer to your superior and the Property Management co? A. Yes. both to the Property Management and the Board of Directors Q. Do you have a Board of Director meeting ever so often or when these things come up? t Once a month 0. Are there minutes taken at those times? A. NormaLty, yes 4. And so those minutes would reflect when each one of these incidents occurs Pretty much? A. Not necessarily it isn't how do I want to put it weatt go in there with a List that we had this problem. this problem and this problem they ere aware from various things aver the years that this has been a continuing problem Q. Lets go back to the damage in that particular apartment , what was the extent of that? A. This one again is a section of the ceiling-which wilt require repLaceaente of sheet rock end repopcorn of the ceiling, painting and patching and tha' is in the tivingroom Q. Next one then is 37 A. 37, Catherine Watts. Same situation as number 11 . And the damage is ap- proximately the same although a little more extensive an area r Can you zero in on the dote of the Lose in that case? A. No I can't Page 102 of 419 96 EXHIBIT 23 49339-99695 3 A. Yes ( And was there any work done on the outside at that time? A. Alt of the buildings had outside work. tiles replaced, roofs repaired the shingles, shakes were replaced. Qg Was there a contractor that took care of that? A. Yes there was Q. Do you revolt the name of the contractor? A. Oregon Home Improvement appears to have been the general these were handled by the insuredce company and then they hired a verity of subs Q. Lets back up lust a second, you know who built these? A. There was three contractors, two of whom I understand went bankrupt end Christianson McDonald did the final phases and completed the work Q. Is Christinson McDonald associated with the Property Management firm at all? A. I don't have- any direct knowldge one way or the other Q. But you do know that they participated in some of the construction? A That is right Q. Are those shingle walls are they over concrete? A. Some buildings yes others no Q. That building that we are looking at out of your office is that y A. That one is concrete Q. Ok they ere concrete panels and then they are covered with shingles? A. But that is not true of another 22 buildings Q. Lets go on with that number 2 that. what was the nature of the damage. wee that ceiling damage in the living room? A. Livingroom ceiling damage Q. What is the extent of it? A. iibtt 4. Just in your opinion. we' ll go took at these tater on? A We ere probably Looking at 2 x 3 sections44Rich the popcorn is gone Q. As far as your concerned we oght to seceion we ought to take a section otu Page 101 of 419 97 EXHIBIT 23 49339--99695 2 water dame*** to ceilings in the various condominiums? • "i*hat is correct Q. And explain to ma how you think the water got into the condominiums? A. Well there are a variety of sources from the tile roofs to the decks to the deck drains to sliding doors no one source has been the cause Q. it varies by the condonimiucs involved? A. From unit to unit Q. You told me or indicated when we talked briefly yesterday on the phone that in some cases the deck for one apartment on the second story or third story whatever is directly over the Living room of the one below. Is that aceureti A. That Is true..or in some cases over the bedroom as well. Q. You also indicated that you had been searching out these -Leaks and trying to find the source of the Leaks over the past couple of years, that accurate/ A. That is correct Q. Is it fair to say you now have them pretty much stopped? A. To the bast of our knowledge. they are under control finally Q. What happens when a leak develops,. your first knowledge of it is when an occupant of the condominium makes a complaint? A. That is right Q. Then do you Personally try to locate the leak or do you have a maintenance organization or do you call outside contractors, whet happens? A. Desicatty, I personally try to locate it Q. You have to work around the schedule of the various condominium owners, right A. To soma extent Q. As far as any interior work you would have to ok so —these various apartments that ms are talking about. whet are there sight of them you have a list there A. Yes there are eight Q. Why don't we just talk about the■ specifically. I notice the list starts with 2 whet is the situation on that? A. number 2 David is the owner. This was part of the Novemb 1981 storm damage. Repairs were made and the Leak reoccurred and we deferred taking say further action until we found the source. Q. When you say repairs were made. you mean the repairs were made on the interio Page 100 of 419 98 EXHIBIT 23 49339-99695 This Ted McLean talking from General Adjustment Bureau interviewing Jack Dunlop r- Lake Oswego Summit Condominiums location. This is in connection with severe damage losses that have occurred over a period of time. Q. Jack. this interview is being recorded. Is that with your oermissfon? A. Yes Q. Ok would you give me Pour full name please and spell your last name? A. Jackson M D U N L A P Q. And your address? A. Oswego Summit office. Lake Oswego. Oregon Q. Phone number? A. 635-4000 Q. Employee?? A. Property Management Services. Inc Q. Where is their home office? A, Vancouver. Washington Q. How long have you worked for them? A. Just over two years Q. At this Location all the time? A. At this location all the time Q. How old is this development? A. It ranges from six years down to a year and a half. various phases Q. Has there been any construction that has gone on since you started working here? A. Yes Q. Thats finalized now thy are ate built and occupied pretty moch or is there still some construction? A. There is no construction at the moment but there could be another four build- ings. sixteen units each Q. Lets talk about these various tosses, its my understanding that they happened it various times and you have a list there of the condominium units that are involved maybe best first of ell lets get on the record what in your opinion caused this damage. ft is my understanding of it is pretty much confined to Page 99 of 419 99 XHIBI,t TO ALL RESIDENTS - PHASE I As an aftermath of the severe November, 1981 storm, we logged some 60 Units which had interior leaks. Since then the storm damage has been repaired by patching roofs, replacing tiles, flashing, cedar shakes, etc. All suspect areas were then caulked or sealed in an attempt to block the entry points of water. This completes what may be called a general approach to correcting the leak problem. • Now we need address those remaining leaks on an individual basis, and in order to do so need to know what units need attention. If you still have a problem - continuing leak or damage to your wall or ceiling, please complete the form below and return to the office. You may have already reported but some of the work has been completed quite recently so please do so again. Thank you, Jack Dunlap, Manager Name t-!e Ci /7 q i:.-,._ Unit # /0 Still leaking 6,-------- Living room . Bedroom I Other Leak stopped but pairs and/or water stain removal need Living room Bedroom Other } j . ;�� � t,/I,/ / C'LcC 4)/1&)}/1.- U 71 ,...72/511.-`? yie, e../,,_. . ,....., , L... __ Cj/(� %i��d� L f 100 EXHIBIT 22 NOITKBER 1?, 1981. DEAR F.3MIOWNFR OR OCCUPANT; IE YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORY .------ . P PLIASE FILL.IN EET.JOA & RETURN TO OFFICE. Th7...- INSURANCE ADJUSTV. WILL EF TERI, ON TUESDAY JOITME-R. 2Lth) SO '41. MUST HAVE TiiiSI: FORM!: LACE IL Li,TLii THIN 6:00 F•M• MOVDAY) NOVD/S,ER 23rd. IF YOU { VE NOT LEFT A. KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US '10 ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH Td] ADJUSTER* JACK & MILLIE 1,....Th UNIT # 1 / i, BLDG # NAME )'NZ) 1, ) -\A i%va44-0, OWNER 1' RFTEt WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN OULL It- 1j)-1 6 itiv-\ 4..,..).1...17,1t -, 6.4.‘. 6atuov\ Rues ‘1" 1.-ALA 04-))1(AVIA DILE:705 -----, t- ( A't-q ky. pii4f/ii2-- , ...1 . --__ ----- ) tf-ck r•-.- ,l.C.I. eLl e. I ___ _ _ ___ _.-------- --- _ i (*i ,(4( i A 5(., F 101 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HJMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: Th YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM -------p PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EL HIRE ON TtIRSDAY NOVEMYER ath„ SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS EAOK NO EATER THAN 600 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE OR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILTJR UNIT # BLDG # -73 . , NAME OWNER RENTER WAJJs LIVING ROOM X BERM KITCHEN CEILING *CI 4-4749 #0-7 7 :"x% RUGS rley z DRAPES A t 102 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 AP DEAR POMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM FLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & R.ETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEES&A. atth, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 600 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd, IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A YET WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE \ 4 OR US 19 ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. 4L ,.,=,„( I V.. NA.14-- "". V , 11- vor JACK & MILLIE 14e,or tevt BLDG 0125kil Isk AAA crvcIL INVICE to....y r- VAzte UNIT # ""ittC""J"Al NAME neto, F dNEh 1///". RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM BURN (.0ITCHEN CEILING RUGS " tit p Dr4A/16‘ DRAPES c V , ,A I ; ,AP- ck 44 \ 4,- •- — de,„ Vla tIL • / (/' ( ) 103 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 19E1 DEAR f J?n,EOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WATTS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE -------, PLEASE FILL:IN EEUJn' & EFIUR?; TO OFFICE. TEE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL BE HER:, ON TUESDAY EV ER 214th' SO WE UST HAVE THESE FORMS LACE ND LAM—, TEJJ 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd.. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENT I- YOUR UNIT WITH TEL ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # ` ';:27 BLDG # 22 NAME OWNER R TE . WATTS LIVING ROOM BLR?1 KITCHEN CEILING RUGS r f / � 1 4arti_ 104 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 19E1 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ANUSTER WILL El HERE ON TUI:SDAT 2Lth, SC WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS FACE NO LATL-, THZ 6;00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVENIER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE TOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT VITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # z (7.'() BLDG # NAME ) RENV—LA WALLS LIVING ROOM EDRM KITCHEN CEILING RUGS DRAPES ( 105 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR IDMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE -------, PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER MLT ER HERE ON T7 SDAY NOVE lr, 24th, SO WE RUST HAVE THESE FOR'.: RACK NC LATER THAI; 6t.00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd.. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY w'ITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT PCSSIBLE FOR US TO ENT-R YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT ## j BLDG NAME Uri u S j O'viNER RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM <11 BDRM KITCHEN CEILING RUGS DRAPES � l' / O • �\ U 106 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM -------, PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL BE FERE ON TUESDAY NOVEIBP 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS SACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.N. MONDAY, NOVEM3ER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MII.LTR UNIT # / 'C BLDG # NAME �/q y.,e s e h OWNER L.-- RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING Walt'. �1 r,� o req/l Glared`, RUGS a� Ca6 4 ev��(Ya�h�c.�. u if gr ',Me J 2 e n'J 1:0/ `c v`$ e-ac e-4 fi Lt.-o,4 tkel Y, DRAPES ,(2 11 111.1 107 EXHIBIT 22 4r NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR POMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: LP YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALTS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE PLEASE FILL. N BELOW' & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTERWILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 214thj, SO WE FUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATEii THAN 61.00 r.r. ONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd4 IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH 65, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US. TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER, W-Le JACK & MILLIE 4-74-62-0A,„, UNIT # , 45BLDG # NA 1Z cut4 (.„5/A 6Cf GAINER RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM BERM KITCHEN CEIUNG RUGS DRJSES 108 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBEi 17, 1981 DEAR HOm-EowNa OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL..IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. TH.P.; INSURANCE ADJUSTEL WILL EL' KELLL ON TU-LSDAY Nova Ea. 2Lth, SO WE 1-.:UST HAVE THESE FOR:r. EACi° N LATLi THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMLER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAK.E IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR. UNIT WITH THE ADJTJSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # iS (z) BLDG # NA?E /v/C ec, gvP.cEft Ra-NT WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRY, KITCHEN CEILING L..,01'C: - 0 C p RUGS s DHAFES Oirk 109 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL.IN DEL04 & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WIL1 EH HEFI ON TUTAY flOVIEIER SO WE MUST RAVE THESE FORK. ci; i LATLh TH;..N 6:00 1.V. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT 'FPI' A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER, JACK & MILJJ UNIT # /'7 ' BLDG # _2/ NAY .40.04 // PrV OWNER RENTER WAILS LIVING ROOM DDRM KITCHEN CEILING RUGS DEAF ES V 110 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM -------, PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. TEE.. INSURANCE ADJUSTE:1 WILL EE H�:E-1 ON TUESDAY NOVVMf Erb 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORKS EACL NO L&TLR THAN 6:00 F.M. , MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF TOL? HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE POR US TO .ENThit YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE is UNIT # 14.3 BLDG ## WAIE SosA006.0AtzOWNER 0 RENTER WALLS V. LIVING ROOM BDRM X KITCHEN i r 0 CEILING )( LAI. g t tem RUGS V " + o► DRAPES y P if 111 f EXHIBIT 22 NOValBER 17, 1981 DEAR RomEowNa OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM --- PLEASE FILL,IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. TIE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL BE FERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2Lth, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd, IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # 6 BLDG # I NAME JOI1A1 OWNER 1,./ RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM BORN KITCHEN CEILING f)(•ni Liu;tkif-lka4i,l. necir 0/1- RUG? fejixo DRAPES 112 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOYEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL IN BEIZNI! & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL 171, HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 214th, SO WE 1ST HAVE TiST- FORKS EC NO LATER TH?U 6:00 P.M. MOKDAY, NCVEY1ER 23rd, IF Y01,1, HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKi IT POSSIBLE POR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & XILLLE UNIT # 14-3 BLDG # NAME .S..2ZA,L.,2' a Ph AA) OWNER >,( RENTET? 0 U WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN . . CEILING RUGS DhUF.Z \ -r->„ r.,)( t ei1 Lel* /519ti Pt s cif C)4*10 /t)er p4I ;ii Apr 14. 4t71*- fr-*A# c #4/-1 113 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RESENT STORM -------y PLEASE FILL_IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2Lth, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MII•T•TF UNIT # 14 - BLDG # NAME C ,V'i5 1;J(4r cr-a CT NER RENTER X WALES LIVING ROOMee'1(7)- BDRM KITCHEN CEILING ` RUGS DRAPES 114 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WA= DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ------, - PLEASE FILL=IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL BE FERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 24th„ SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK ND LATER THAN 6:00 F.N. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT TUFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLI' UNIT # 141 BLDG # �-v NAME -DAv i \-E 2CL-to OWNER RENTER V/ WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING ✓ RUGS ✓ l ~ P � DRAPES ,;(/ C9-0-A-e<-6)2_ • 115 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1961 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETJRN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WIL1 EI HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORKS EACE LATER THAN 600 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd.. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # BLDG # e NAPE OWNER RENTER 6t WALLS LIVING ROOM V DDRN KITCHEN CEILING V RUGS DRAPES ' 116 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1961 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WATJ , CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. TJ INSURANCE ADJUSTWILL EE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 214th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FOREELCK NO LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. .- MONDAY, NOVEKEER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIB UNIT # 131 BLDG # NAME Z)/Y;t171.".01-, OWNER X RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM X BERM /Y. KITCHEN CEILING . AOKI . RUGS DRAPES ;1? 0114/tat/ C e if '42./ / 44, /,„ • -4, 117 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL ER HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEBER 2Lth, SO WE MUST ELATE THESE FOR.'; :ACE NC L<ATEE: THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT T.FFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MIT,TTF: UNIT # BLDG # / NAME ��'� �� � OWNER RE�1TERM'^ WATTS LIVING ROOM BDRN KITCHEN CEILING RUGS DRAPES rce-c- 118 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR POYZOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WATJfi, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM f PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTEI: WILL EE HERE 01; TUESDAY NOVEMBER 21;th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS LACK N.:1 LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU H:VE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE KR US TO.ENTER. YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILL-1T; UNIT # f (? 7 1 BLDG # )({ NAMEhh OvJi �! ��t :l t t � t\!) i'1 � l ER j c KSS° �? RFntTE WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING /.7"-- RUGS ,-RUGS , c4:?,,tEty.D,a1 ty /< • 119 EXHIBIT 22 NO7D4LBER 17, 1981 DEAR FO!'irECrATIM OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER V11.1 EE FERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORKS BACK NO 1.1,TLii THAN 6:00 F.X. MONDAY, NOVDEER 23rd, IF 7011 HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE FLUE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLTF UNIT # 04-7-44 BUZ # /47 NAME OWNER RFNTER WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRY, KITCHEN ft'y / NeA11,4: -- RUGS l',„X DRAFTS ir\\. 412 3 - • (i) 7.. C.. 120 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEYEER 17; 1961 DEAR REO-4Na OR OCCUPANT: YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE PLEASE FILL. IN BELOW & RETIRE TO OFFICE. TIE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEICER 24t11, SO WE MUST RAVE THESE FORMS FACE NO LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT possna FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH TE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # BIEG # G3s ., 54NA-mE it) g'INER RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN, CEILING VII"' ‘tot 7 RUGS of DRAPES v LL - 4- 4.3) . , y- - 4°t y.yy- , Li1. 1 •"' 121 EXHIBIT 22 7 (-3-7' ,i - , / ....... ,..,, , (,--- 122 XHIBIT 22 ,_ . E NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WAILS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM m... PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVFMPER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS LACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.N. MONDAY, NOV ER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT I,FFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENT YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. 1 JACK & MIT,T.E 4.-7 , UNIT t' ( 33 BLDG # CA NAPA `i' ( rr'` to y :• \ i VOWNER / RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM X BDRM X KITCHEN CEILING . 1/7---- 1---3- . ,, RUGS , ;,..,7 ,,K- • ,,,,z7c2._„5:x. : DRAPES L/d'' m h 1 / 1 t X i Li 4 ,„„ y iL / 4 \-,„,, ki 1 ‘ ".'.',. 1 ,J . / ".7r V a t 123 EXHIBIT NCV BER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE FLE.LSE FILL. IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTE1 WILL BE EEY�_ ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2l:th p SO WE :LST FGRF:F. 'til: L..; Ti : THAI: J:0J P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd.. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US To ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH Tr ADJUSTER. JACK & MILT 7F; UNIT } . ' BLDG r NAME `L.( i s` t<_, A`s OWNER RENTER Win I i LIVING ROOM `•r BDH.NN K I TO HEN CEILING Lam, ;/2„,) hot / - ks +,, , RUGS 1/-' 114,t 5•t+- 'dGena, %n„ DIL�SES 1.151•1 / /1 / J y (1��7I� C111C � !!?��fr%!n4 � !/SI) 4S /rt)L�FL..G�.s'7�lFt�• 17 ��Faa t-- i Q//✓ j{ f `fiC--an - S44 4:1 /4d �/2.e, .i cvver evy ri.// /L'c 124 EXHIBIT 22 NOCBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET 3R DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE --, PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTEii WILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2Lth, SO WE 1;USTT HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NC LATER THAN 6:00 F.N. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF IOC HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # / a-- / BLDG # /, NAME 10._f f/3J U.. ti/ OWNER \ RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM, n - BDRM KITCHEN iv CEILING f ri E } y� • RUGS t FF s c\\.)144/ DRAPES ngy yy " s - r a 125 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HJIXOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE -----, PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN" TO OFFICE. T}-i INSURANCE kDJUST12. WILL ERRLRE ON TUESDAY NOVfl FER 2Lt'h, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVIY3ER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTEr: YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MIIT.�' 9 UNIT # ,� / BLDG # /7 i� NAME (�LFi�ti` (JFi5/ 774/Z OWNER ✓ RENTER WATTS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING \X -U(/, 41/ _.. (9A.)7)177OA!467 RUGS DRAF ,,,4''''' '-'2 T fl , f jf1 M (..- / 0)a,„ki-A----- ' , - 126 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ----_--, PLEASE FILL IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL FE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS EACH NO LATER THAI; 6:00 P.M. . MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MIT.T.TF I UNIT # 12.2— BIDGG # 17 ' NAME {Pri el 5 2-n cite Z OWNER ✓ RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM ✓ BDRM ✓ KITCHEN CEILING V s<'--_ RUGS (...j:°://: . D (ELkPES 04/1 127 ------, gc.) , / • - /v ,-; ;,;.!•,- OA NOVDC..BER 17, 1981 DEAR HOtEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: a YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CAR.PET, OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE kDJUSTEIL WILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 21th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS FACE NO LATLh THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENT,...h. YOI UNIT WITH THL ADJUSTER. ) - JACK & MILT.TE UNIT # BIIG # 7 - NAME '2'y MINER ,/ RENTER _ WA LIS -- ROOM BDRE KITCHEN CEILING 7 RUGS - - =Tc> DRAPES („)) • _ ,';-; • , jZ7y •-if.: n % 128 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ------, PLEASE FILL:IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTEF, WILL BE FERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE PORES FACE NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US- TO ENT..R YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILT.TF UNIT # // ,Q BLDG # / 7 NAME j /t'r4 G XER V REN'1ltht WALLS LIVING ROOM L..! BDRM KITCHEN CEILING L-/' RUGS DRAPES i 129 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR RJMEOWNE OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WATTS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ------'''17 PLEASE FILL_IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER MLI ET HERE ON TUESD7 NOVEMBER 2L th, SC: WE FUST HAVE THESE FORMS EeCE ND LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEFSBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US.TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. / JACK & MIl T TF 1) 1 UNIT # // - t( BLDG # / 6 NAME n 5e_ il, (JA,1-a K e r- owNER // RENTER • WA LIS LIVING ROOM BDRNh1„,,k,-- KITCHEN CEILING f,)e+ ca,--P,,- -1-- 5-mo,-0 &rP - -*- 5-mo,-l I lid Rin ._ Some Lt? r Y► J v RUGS L-ewl`in: - Re y h :- 5 4 DRAPES F 130 EXHIBIT 22 NOVELeER 17, 1961 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WATT , CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RFENT STORM — •••••••p PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFIOE. TPE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE HERE ON 7:5-1LAY NOVEnER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS PACE Ni LTL n: THAN 600 MONDAY, NOVEY1ER 23rd, IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THL ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE 7 UNIT # BLDG # / NAME OWNER 7'"- RENTER WATJ LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING jrn RUGS DRAPES , ALT 7, / /444.447_ - , ":1643: /741' 46aVi' 131 EXHIBIT 22 NOV BER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ---p PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL BF HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 2Lth, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS PICK NO LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd, IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # 9 e BLDG NAMEti/Ja,eD T H Y 9 v D Q v E OWNER Sq M a RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM ✓ BDRM KITCHEN CEILING ✓ *00' Need I 56i-t-I"Ge -Q9' Lt-'a 7.4-e r Cea t i r- Gcr/i/W.? ((7-1)0( -. RUGS Cii 05e /1? Ii 'f>7 roe>4) ce �o (eat (/- Cdri k)dEtter den�R�r.S -eA c pi-6,13.1e) )1 (z c - i ef-i,j1) (?,&:5z) - /22c Pdirj) i j rJ a tL L /2c1 c1 v4/ yet.,„!.( • 132 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ---- PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTFT, WILL BE FIRE ON T1ESDt,7 110VMER 24th, SO 'ATE lUST HAVE THESE FORMS EAC . NO LATER TEN 600 P.M. MONDAY„ NOVEISER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH T} ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLTF; UNIT # C77 BLDG # NAME cow,siA - Pik 0"Mi-NER RENTER v / WALLS LIVING ROOM ‘; EDRE KITCHEN CEILING Aldas,...4.,_,K) • "rs1) RUGS 133 EXHIBIT HOVER 17, 1981 DEAR HDK OWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WAITS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ----___, PLEASE FILL_IN BEEN & RETURN TO OFFICE. TI-E INSURANCE.ADJUSTER WILL EE' HERE ON TUESDAY NOVFMFER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THEE FORMS EAU NO LATE THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MITTTF UNIT # 667 BLDG # l7.-- NAPE Mu/v/417( /i'14►--ide OWNER ✓ R NTE WATTS LIVING ROOM EDRRE ✓ KITCHEN CEILING RUGS ✓ 4ezdroonr rugs weir So,alced T- w�� \ DRAFES ( f 9 , 9/k4,-,e; 13e�1roo,t door War eG/ 6 u/afei- ~ ,o i"! ,/ 'i •- VI' / P y 134 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1961 DEAR HO1OWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WAITS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ------9 PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL ER HERE ON TUL3DtY NOVEY7ER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS RACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT PCSSIBLE FOR US. TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK &.MILLIE i.\\\1 gUNIT # ( BLDG { �1- E t ) NAME 7e;;;;14;14 ge4J.K CIw`?� R RENTER f WALLS LIVING ROOM BORM KITCHEN CEILING / J ,Adel-eleva.-- I= t t zzefro RUG -414v1I S . h114-1- DRAPES ✓tel ' 4` AWL , ✓ dePa 16/-64, 41111(4" 1 y 135 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: EF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL IN EELOr & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMZER 214th„ SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS EACE ND LATER TRLJ 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & UNIT i 81 BLDG # NAME kla/7Ge (?&rE/,' OWNER X RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING )( oxiceez&if j7)V RUGS X . yfdidie 41/7 if11722/ DRAPES a4 milau/we/ lazi6 eivw do-oz) hk v&á' Jeet-d,r07/ ./A1) 2i- •//7f/f-41,"e). e 0•1 / -2 4/ V\ eld-thvoti, 7*//z/ ez,leJ //2.0 ot-a-z/71-d. 071) 2/22) /14, „ ,1 „ oeter rp' fr, ed,ele2e - azza • 6,72, wae,b, ezzei). - teeizsv,e,/ cb: — 136 P/� ✓— S e'e %c / lith en's WQJ p t/J1 / �cra c/ c r o ws-7 -,/i/ -�-�e- c-t%i ., /21/3/i 0 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL.IN BEIAw & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE kDJUS'ill 'KILL EE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEYIER 2L;th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS SACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILTTF f UNIT # l 7 BLEG # / 2 NAME ! /, ,<f /C7/7"?' i .// //7'7) Crew- ER L/ RF TER WATTS LIVING ROOM / BERM KITCHEN CEILING _ RUGS DRAPES 137 EXHIBIT 22 NovamER 17, 1981 DEAR I-TOM:OWNER OR OCCUPANT: a YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO .RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL IN DEIN & RETURN '10 oFna, THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE HERE ON TUESDAY NO),YER 2)44.cIa, SO WE MUST HAVE 'NESE FORMS PACK NO LATER THAN 6:03 E.M. MONDAY, NovElea 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US W ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE BUG # /11:() // NAME At?//I/ Ift /4/6-ti OWNER, I--------- RENTER I WATTS LIVING ROOM V BDRM KITCHEN CEILING RUGS if DRAPES 138 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17) 1981 DEAR 1-0YEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARP ET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICES TIE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE 1E2'1 ON TUESDAY NOV ER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE Ti-ESE FORMS EACE NO TEN 6:CO F MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE OR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT VTITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # 4 i BLDG # NAME //747,t,71f- 7 OWNER ,;,--<"/ RENTER \/ WAILS LIVING ROOM / BDRM KITCHEN CEILING 77 RUGS DRkFES 139 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HJ?IOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WAILS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO REENT STORE -------, PLEASE FILLIN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. TBE INSURANCE ADJUSTE;? WILL BE HERE ON TUESDJ`I NO F RER 21;th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORK: BACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVE'BER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENT1.'h.R YOITR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MIT•T.TF UNIT # ( - BLDG # (%' NAME\--))"7;7 ? .( _ ah`NER i RF► That 1 WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING 05 ,4t` %'r:_. /9/.._)( 't t ;L-e' G 2 r�_ RUGS DRAPES 140 EXHIBIT 22 NOGEER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALES, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE --------D PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. TEE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE HERE ON TULSDAT NOVEMBER 2Lth, SO WE FUST HAVE THESE FORMS LACK NO LATER TRLi; 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US .TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & YJLLTF UNIT # 4` BLDG # NAME / t Gl�''��(tj/ OWNER L-- RENTER WATTS LIVING ROOM L./ BDR} - KITCHEN CEILING RUGS DRAPES 1 cr �' v F� P r'f5,1 f. _ F 1.._ f,. 141 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR. EJMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WATTS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ---• PLEASE FILE.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL FE FE..-RE ON TUESDAY NOVaBER 2L th, SO :,L MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. \t/ . JACK & MIIITE \,,,Nyt.) 4. �` 7 UNIT # -- BLDG # ( P NAME c- 0(J)(- ..) CrYiNER RENT ,J/' i „0.,‘, ��` y4 t "{ LIVING R00N BDRM KITCHEN 1 d .'' i all $g. CEILING i1 r tI) v I il1A' 1it R?� i vpu� (� °) VV-D RUGS Y\QCr/1' �J�JC I UJ/ i . � u it �� / DRAPES il -'11\Q----1A2.6 OV\_ Thki 41 I 1/10-4 , OSA-Q-Q_a( 6-(224/J i i - I ( I 0 f ' • 2 liAs q , 1 ( .5tulg - 2 -hel I/11 isLag 1 41 cd --771"z1, )1‘,,,,,_,T'f) Dtill-, Ary3--rv\ rt,,,fraovo exad4(--Q, --C-Ram:*Q o 0 ---__A-GpAy), ci4A„ -iii-A,st )11 slatz j Iii.DAQ__ a-A-Q---- ., ' - I \r\ VliA.Aj yq,cf,(6 i, -Ko.,A..) -4cA,-, s, w (069 616-1/01) Lk- 6 142 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR IDMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU PAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORE ---, p1,F4SE FILL.I2t BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVFNFER 21:th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS LACE ND L�.TEi- THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US, TO ENT-2. YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILT.TF- UNIT # BLDG # Sr— NAME SG 01 NA 501\/ (MER V RENTER WAITS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING 2 ed )✓c f*t L►rt a/ 1-oc11- RUGS Gc5 Wye$ h ecl {'oa In / Lt ✓117I 1-c.0 DRAF rS /41rp! 'per. ttNN � 143 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUI TO RECENT STORM ------, - . PLEASE FILL:IN EELO' & RETURN TO OFFICE. TEE INSURANCE ADJUSTER, WILL BE HERE ON TULSI LY NOVEMBER 2Lth, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORME PACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILTTF UNIT # 47 BLDG # 6 NAME V. G. Badolato OWNER X RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM X BERM KITCHEN CEILING X PATIO DOOR X RUGS X (may be okay when completely dry) t DRAPES Cc4AL . r 7 E • 1 • t �• 144 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM PLEASE FILL:IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEI✓BER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.N. MONDAY,- NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLTE UNIT # �t� BIG # NAME a Q f f MER RENTER Y WALLS LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN CEILING NcOr. RUGS DRAPES <Zt4,--,(0 V.,600,1 .7k /,624/. • /, J41.) 145 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1961 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM --, PLEASE FILL=IIS BELOW & REVitN TO OFFICE. T INSi: ?.='J CF ADJUSTEF WILL BE HERE ON ;'GESS_Y NOVEMBER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE MESE FORNC LACE :LYME TF.:.,` 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVEXBER 23rd, IF-YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER. YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MI7,r.TR UNIT # 1) BLDG # NAME (el/4�(}f u v t ) 1,U QnThER X MITER WAILS LIVING ROOM A BUM X KITCHEN r j CEILING 6� x //PQ. RCS ' Lce-S RUGS DRAPES 146 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR IDMEOWNE. OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER. DAMAGE (CEILING, WATTS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ------, PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTEi: WILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVFYPER 21.th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS EACH NO LATLE THAN 6:00 F.N. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR IIS TO ENTM YOUR UNIT WITH THL ADJUSTER. p ` JACK & MITJ.TT sY . / UNIT # 4-4 BLDG # C NAIL A ,,f4/J 1 OCCJ OWNER ,.: 114a- RENTER -- s3:} / WALT S // LIVING ROOM BDA KITCHEN / /( CEILING RUGS 1 DRAPES V ? E"- 1AIA%CIS (-6K S ,en ye c)// //k/6 n24 W/iJ,co&i Wfi U---3 ESC IKFL7, QCT O"JL-27/ 19R/214 6E,3 -TO 46E Wf-?LL- 92D C/WPeT �C-//_ GF- vi/?7 //RS /3 J LW/co v 77-/ NO ,c) / ' /J7 '' .aq.41,96ET- X f�i s ' Tf/ 0 UG/-/LY -SOAK / v D/rV/NG / . "JO tAJ .0 07- ,\J Fi) /0 /3-E e/ J) 147 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 • DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT; IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM ."-""""''"' "li PLEASE FTTI,IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUETEn WILL BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 600 P.M. MONDAY: NOVEMBER. ?3rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH TIE ADJUSTER. JACK & NILITP; UNIT # ::-., ':::-' BLDG # I ri, ,.."). ,t7 .,.. NAME I.4, t #-,)1'-- ',. OWNER Y..„,. RENTER WAJI,S LIVING ROOM BDRM KITCHEN :` )( . ,j . .„.„. .. , 2 ' ,1 r/f 4-, lo1deekle Emil* Li vt rot.,,..,,,,,,,,.•ow ...... ST NI f4S. ifiliLet_ .., ,/ RUGS 14 V°6 DRAPES , . . • 5rAtt,JS, — a LA thta-i- • ' ' 1 41;( UNA.Atiqr foal‘ , 7,,,,...„, •, ., , ,, i vi, 4"'" ''''"',,,"/ ' '"":: &""t„ v f 7/ 11 .v., /1 ,,,' 4,,,-..., - ,4444. el26"."1" P1-'''''411.9 l'''''''';/- _ 14044 n / „el / xi / d : : ------ * " & 44t - 0/?1, "....„ Pa% 'iii-'' i : tb / .„,,,,,,,A.- -1,e441. N-4,11/ /''''''''' - --- P-a-,';--1',4-4 „ f 12 A-).„4-Pt 9 71,?:C 3 148 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR IOOWNER OR OC CUP LN T: LL' YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM --- PLEASE FILL,IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICES THE INSUR4N0E ADJUSTED WILL BE F.7..,2„E ON TUESDAY NOV DE ER 214t h SO WE MUST HAVE Ti-ESE FORMS PACE NO LTLF,, THAN 6:00 F,J . MONDAY., NOV-DO3DR 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER JACK & MILLIE UNIT # 3 7BLDG # NAME /1- tJL- OWN BIN T ER WAIJS LIVING ROO1 7 EDRM KITCHEN CEILING RUGS DRAPES F F /, , 149 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WAITS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RECENT STORM -----, PJ.F&SE FILL:.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 21:th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 F.M. MONDAY, NOVrER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT J 'F'T A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIhIE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTM. —1t' x JACK & MIT.T.]'F UNIT # BLDG # 3 NA1 L I� t / 'VCS Uv7NER RENTER WALLS AI LIVING ROOM X BERM Al o KITCHEN 4/12 CEILING Y,l RUGS A/a tftq ` / irk 150 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 19E1 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DU` TO RECENT STORM ------, . PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EL HERE ON Tt7r S kY NC EY ER 24th, SO WE NUST HAVE THESE FORXS E CL NO LTL LATLR TH.L 6:00 F.Y. MONDAY, HOVE BER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR ITS TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MII,TJK UNIT Vii' i 4 BLDG # L- • NAME 1‘11 6-_/\_• , tS, r= . OWNER j RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM /\ BDRM KITCHEN CEILING RUGS °f 5„ 3✓ .r.F .a DRAPES , x? � / r s- f) , .2447 i.Arie„,' d • t r1 172/7 14 1 151 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HONTOWNa OR OCCUPANT: .; IT YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WATIS, CARPET OPL DRAPES) DUE TO REC,ENT STORM ----p PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL EF :ERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMEE? SO WE NUST HAVE THESE FORMS FACE NO I.1-TER THAN 603 P.M. MONDAY, NOVaMER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE. IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT .v:ITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE 7 UNIT # , BLDG # NAME r gviNER RENT771 WALLS LIVING ROOM BORN KITCHEN CEILING RUGS DRAPES /e wt_i7r: , 7)47,4 ,Hz r/ty L/7 r/i 71L 5(9/74' til-1,7-14 152 EXHIBIT 22 NOVEMBER 17) 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, wArn, CARPET OR DRAPES) tor,. TO RECENT STORE PLEASE FILL lb BELOW & RETURN Ti OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER WILL PE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEYIER 2L SC WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS RAZE NO LATER THL: 6:00 F.X. MONDAY, NOVEYSER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LrFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE OR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE, ADJUSTER. JACK & MILLIE UNIT # 1/ BLDG # eZ) NAME }.7:7 .44 OWNER RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM BERM KITCHEN CEILING RUGS DRAPES : PA,u.,,c7)CI ' 153 EXHIBIT NOVEMBER 17, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: IF YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUI TO RECENT STORE -------, PLEASE FILL:IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUSTEt. WILL. BE HERE ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 24th, SO WE MUST HAVE THESE FORMS BACK NO LATER THAN 6:00 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23rd. IF YOU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR IIS. TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTER. JACK & LTE: UNIT # / BLDG # I I ` NAME = I'1 I «I e OWNER RENT.It WALLS LIVING ROOM .q CC BDRM KITCHEN CEILING G.LJ az. Te S ��� / 4/5, RUGS 10L- DRAPES d � / P 4ky ctr //// iry ''. C -tee.4.( C--- •2_ . • • 154 EXHIBIT 22 Novas1?, 1981 DEAR HOMEOWNER OR OCCUPANT: YOU HAVE WATER DAMAGE (CEILING, WALLS, CARPET OR DRAPES) DUE TO RENT STORE PLEASE FILL.IN BELOW & RETURN TO OFFICE. THE INSURANCE ADJUST M WILL EE aFI ON TUESDAY tiovuem 2Lth, SO WE 'MUST RAVE THESE FORMS EACE NO LTEC THAN 6:00 F. . MONDAY,. NO trYSF2 23rd. IF !OU HAVE NOT LEFT A KEY WITH US, PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTER YOUR UNIT WITH THE ADJUSTERS JACK & MILTIF 4 UNIT # BLDG # t-T1 - NAME . /)/„, OWNER 17 RENTER WALLS LIVING ROOM / BDRM KITCHEN CEILING RUGS (1) /11z)?)..S7 4p 42-4-2 cri \/9 DRAF ES t 4/ } A /4,) fr r!') 77't / Z.1/ . 44 I1/47, • 155 EXHIBIT 22-, TO ALL RISIDENTS -, PHASE I As an aftermath of the severe November, 1981 storm, we logged some 60 Units which had interior leaks. Since then the storm damage has been repaired by patching roofs, replacing tiles, flashing, cedar shakes, etc. All suspect areas were then caulked or sealed in an attempt to block the entry points of water. This completes what may be called a general approach to correcting the leak problem. Now we need address those remaining leaks on an individual basis, and in order to do so need to know what units need attention. If you still have a problem continuing leak or damage to your wall or ceiling, please complete the form below and return to the office. You may have already reported but some of the work has been completed quite recently so please do so again. Thank you, Jack Dunlap, Manager Name ✓a e �� 4 rt.-0_ Unit # /30 Still leaking lam' Living room fr Bedroom ! Other Leak stopped but 'epairs and/or water stain removal neE4r Living room Bedreom Other ) . / ii?. -0 / O — ''' z , , , V,— \),,,,a6?Ed, . .'":•27-//' T2-- 7 156 EXHIBIT 22 OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO: All Unit Owners, Oswego Summit, Phases II & III FROM: Board of Directors DATE: July 15, 1981 Your Board of Directors is now negotiating with Christensen Group, Inc. , to arrive at a clear understanding of the builder' s responsibty in correcting certain defects which exist in Phases II and III of Oswego Summit. To enable us to present a complete and final report of defects to be corrected, each unit owner must submit a response to this letter by no later than August 1, 1981 . The response must be in writing and delivered to the Oswego Summit office at the recreation center. Your response must include a description of the defect, when it was first noticed, and when it was reported to the manager or the developer. Your prompt cooperation will be appreciated. We hope that we will be able to resolve this matter quickly. CA \ .'" -(Sk L N 1 4•N , -\-. ..... --...r.,:, c--- „,...- ---- ... ...,. mp - . --,..04. ah • .....„04,7 t t A t----- 9 ..., I ,r) c :TL \j"-- , 157 EXHIBIT 1 • t' « cle rieI 1. S.11;ill, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE OUNIWAY HDUSE +co tO C 7.SMITH 2418 S W. FIFTH AVENUE TCLEr." e4( I•4011227-:I32 c.,.•AeVNE e.v..00EvLAING PORTLAND,OREGON 9720I 0Av1D D. PARA March 2, 1981 Association of Unit Owners of Oswego Summit and individual unit owners of Oswego Summit c/o J. David Bennett 3500 First National Tower Portland, OR 97201 ` Re: Oswego Summit Phase I Repairs Dear David: I am writing to you as the representative for the Oswego Summit Unit Owners Association to advise you that all repairs which the Association desired that we make, as set forth in our letters to you of September 9 and September 26, 1980, have been made. All decks have been repaired and all interior work has been completed for those unit owners who have been willing to sign a release. I am enclosing with this letter, copies of the executed releases of the •Assotiation and of each of the individual unit owners from whom we obtained a release. It is my belief that my clients, as builders and developers, have satisfied all terms of this agreement with the Association for making repairs in Phase I.- We have no further warranty obligations to any Phase I unit owner. To assure that all unit owners are aware of and understand our position in this matter, we are sending copies of this letter to all Oswego Summit Phase I unit owners. I would also urge any unit owner who has questions concerning this matter to contact you directly. I thank the Association and uni' ' wners for their cooperation with us and our s10 ontractor•;. Ve y (?:, . e L Fr-derick T. Smith FTS/ll Enclosures cc: Unit Owners Page 35 of 419 158 EXHIBIT 32 Oswego Summit Homeowners ' Association June 18, 1990 Page 2 . i Board reviewed exterior steps to Building 25 where homeowner reports tripping hazards . Board inspected and directed manager to take measures to eliminate any hazard. 7 . Committee Reborts: General Maintenance Dick Roberts reported he recommends this committee chairman should coordinate any bids for work on the property with the manager. Board agreed with this recommendation. S. Old Business: Board reviewed again the proposals for replacing the lettering on the monument sign at the entrance to the condominiums . The Board deferred a decision until the ,41 p August Board meeting and requested that PMSI obtain a hid from another contractor used by the company. Unit numbers need to be replaced. Board requested manager obtain bid from craftsperson. Insurance Settlement: Insurance carrier for association denied portion of claim for renailing tile roofs based on their engineer' s report that the problem relates to original construction faults. Board approved minor work to f(')-/ secure any loose tiles throughout the buildings . ...:..„. Board reviewed issue of improper deck alteration in Unit 210 and approved referring issue to association attorney to obtain compliance. - 4,--- Homeowner, Janet Musso, requested that the landscaping brf• 't., contractor be instructed to remove weeds from area by her unit, The Board concurred. The Board reviewed the latest plans for the housing development below to the worth. Board requested detailed written design for the buffering landscaping 'kt by August meeting. ( Page 243 of 419 159 EXHIBIT 32 Oswego Slimmit Homeowners ' Association June 18, 1990 Page 3 9 . New Business: Board reviewed renting storage area - suggested charging $20 per month . Next:, Board Meeting will he Tuesday, July 31, 1990. Dick Roberts nominated Sandy Detroit as Board Chairman and this nomination was approved by Hoard. Meeting adjourned at 8: 30 p .m. Page 244 of 419 160 EXHIBIT OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Wednesday, March 27, 1991, 7:00 p.m. Members present: Janet Muzos, Roberta McEniry, Junko Tsunenaga, Albert Walker, George Emmett. 1. A real estate agent read a letter from Amy Reeves requesting that the rule limiting the size of pets to 20 pounds be changed so that she can sell her condominium to a woman who owns a dog weighing more than 20 pounds. 2. George moved that the homeowners be asked to vote at the annual meeting on a rule change to eliminate the 20 pound weight restriction on pets and enforce the rules concerning pets. Roberta seconded; motion passed. George and Roberta "yes," Al "no, " Janet abstained. 3. Minutes of February 27 approved as corrected. Junko called Theresa Reid and told her the board approved the windows she requested. Jeff will follow-up with a letter to Ms. Reid stating board approval. 4. Financial report accepted. 5. Managers' report:` a. Al moved that we waive the late fees of $208.84 for. Unit 187A upon the advice of the attorney; Roberta seconded. Motion passed. b. Unit 87 has agreed to make payments on back fees. c. The decks of Units 19, 23, and 58 are deteriorating. The board believes these decks need to be part of the engineering study. Fred Burckhardt has volunteered to look at the decks and report to Junko. Junko will instruct Jeff to write to the owners reporting progress. The board expressed appreciation to Mr. Burckhardt for his help. Page 247 of 419 161 EXHIBIT 33 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes March 27, 1991 Page 2 d. Leaks in Units have been repaired. e. Lots of maintenance has been done on pool, fountain, streets, etc. f. Weekend activities: 3: 16 p.m. Saturday Turned off water in Bldg. 3: 17 p.m. Sunday Broken water hose on washer and dryer in Unit Friday night "lockouts" : #175 Blew meter #214 Called about hot water heater Sunday. g. #45 Carpet cleaning has been requested because of a leak. h. It was reported that gas would be approximately 14 percent cheaper than electricity for heating the pools. It would take approximately three years to recover the costs of converting to gas; Geiger Pools bid $6,300; Blue Heron Pools bid $5,100. Both bids assume the gas meter will be on the back of the recreation building. Further review of both bids is required. i. 7-Dees bid $9 for the landscaping south of Building 22--sod and tree removal. 6. New Business: a. Helen Vorster (Unit 163) volunteered to be on the Community Relations and Social Committee. b. Jo Anne Pemberton (#151 ) volunteered to be on the General Maintenance and Parking Committee and the Financial Committee. 7. Al moved that Jeff remain at the meeting on overtime; George seconded. Motion passed. Janet, Al, and George "yes"; Roberta "no. " 8. Bob left at 9: 15 p.m. 9. Al moved that the board meet with the attorney to discuss the engineering contract. Two or three other homeowners will be invited to attend for observation. George seconded. Motion passed. The engineers will be at the meeting. . Page 248 of 419 162 EXHIBIT Board of Directors Meeting Minutes March 27, 1991 Page 3 10. Steve Sheridan said that he would like to have his unit (#21) be part of the engineering study. 11. Steve Sheridan requested that a previous motion--that PMSI disclose in writing their relationship with the original developer--be followed up. The board will write PMSI a letter requesting the disclosure. 12. Roberta moved that the sod be laid south of Building 22 and that Fred Burckhardt look at the trees to determine if the roots are causing damage to the building or to patios. Janet seconded. Motion carried. 13. The board will try to meet with the attorney and the engineers April 4, 1991. The board will invite Cheryl Frederickson and a member of the engineering selection committee to attend as observers. 14. George moved that we accept Sound Elevator Company to continue servicing Oswego Summit elevators. Al seconded. Motion carried. 15. Al moved that the board accept Jeff's suggestion that we prepare a "Notice of Rules Violation" for issue to violators. George seconded; passed. 16. Adjourned 11:00 p.m. Page 249 of 419 163 EXHIBIT 34 WALKER/DILORETO/YOUNIE, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL. ENGINEERS 215 S.W-HOOKER STREET,PORTLAND,OREGON 97201 503/223-0555 FAX 503/223-1025 PRINCIPALS February 25, 1991 ROBERT A. WALKER DALE J. DILOREro TO: LEE/RUFF/WADDLE PARTNERSHIP WADE W. Brian Carlton YOUNIE FROM: Wade W. Younie, P.E. LICENSED P.E. - ARIZONA RE: LAKE OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS CALIFORNIA COLORADO ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT REVIEW HAWAII IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA ITEM #1 : NEW MEXICO OREGON Original construction documents specify a metal roof over WASHINGTON plywood on the sloped roof. A heavier ceramic tiled roof was installed . No �in�Z®�f r v ion was rof icr�d ire the structural drawings for the heavier weight roof- ITEM #2: Architectural floor plans do not indicate slope of exterior decks. The architectural building sections indicate that the decks are to be sloped on Sheets 11 , 12 and 13. Architectural Detail 7/ 17 indicate a sloping deck surface; call-out a waterproof membrane on reference "Deck Flashing" ; and show that the deck is recessed with respect to the finished floor . The supporting joists, shown in Detail 7/17, are not in contact with the floor sheathing. No coordination with the structural deck framing was done. ITEM #3: The structural details for the deck framing are indicated in Details 8/913, 9/913, 10/S13, 10/Si , li/S1 , and 21/Si . These details indicate a 2x3 shim plate on top of the 2x8 joists, providing the deck slope. The details imply that the deck slope would be provided by varying the height of the 2x3 shim plates. ITEM #4: Neither the architectural or structural details indicate how much roof slope should be provided. Deck drains were not indicated on the structural or architectural plans or details. ITEM #5: Architectural construction documents are generally incomplete, providing minimal information in the construction of the units. Several detail bubbles on each of the sheets have been left blank . ' References from detail sections and plans were not clearly marked . Sheet 18 was not included in the reviewed set of the drawings . 164 EXHIBIT 34 Lee/Ruff/Waddle Partnership Lake Oswego Summit Condo Page 2 ITEM #6: Structural construction documents were generally complete. Plans were completed with good reference to details. Very little architectural information was shown or referenced on the structural documents. WAL�KE)R/DILORETO/ UNIE, INC_ ze_ L-Cr— Wade W. Younis, P E. 1 165 EXHIBIT • YYALKERJD LOPE 1 O/ 1 QUNl a INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 215 S.W.HOOKER STREET,PORTLAND,OREGON 97201 503/223-0555 FAX 503/223.1025 DATE: February 28, 1991 TO: LEE/RUFF/WADDLE PARTNERSHIP ATTN: Brian Carleton SUBJECT: OSWEGO SUMMIT FIELD OBSERVATION 2/2.8/91 TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED AELOW: CJ For Approval C] For Review and Comment C] For Your Use C] For Next Change Order C] As Requested El Copy to Follow in Mail REMARKS NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMITTED: 3 INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY SHOULD YOU NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES INDICATED ON COVER PAGE OR . IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRANSMISSION. SIGNED: Wade W. Younie, P.E. DISTRIBUTION: Page 351 of 419 166 ____.___ EXHIBIT 35 • ' . 11 vik- ' WALKER/DILORETO/YOUNIE, INC II . CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINGERS 215 S.W.plamil MEET PORTLAND,OREGON972o1 53123.0555 FAX 503/2234025 PRINCIPALS February 28, 1991 ROBERT A WALKER DALE J. DiLORETo TO: Lee/Ruff/Waddle Partnership, Architects WADEW. Brian Carleton YOUNIE FROM: Wade Younie LICENSED P.E ARIZONA RE: OSWEGO SUMMIT INVESTIGATION/UNITS 33, 34 5 3, CALIFORNIA O FIELD OBSERVATION/FE2RUARY 26, 1991 COLORAD HAWAII 10AHO MONTANA NEVADA Sheetrock in the ceilings of Units 34 and 25 was removed to NEW MEXICO OREGON examine floor and 'deck framing. Concrete topping slabs were WASHINGTON drilled to determine the thickness as in Unit 35. The crawl space under Unit 33 was surveyed. ITEM #1: Framing of the observed decks was not built according to construction documents. The tapered shims an the 2x8 deck joist was not installed, 5/8 inch plywood was nailed directly to the 2x8 joists. The joists were framed level on top of the wall plates. Slope concrete topping was poured over a bituminus waterproof membrane directly applied to the plywood sheathing. The thickneSs pf the concrete varied , from 3 to _ 4 inches at the patio dour wall to the 2 inches near the scupper at the outer edge of the deck. No concrete topping was indicated on the construction documents.. ITEM #2: . Signs of water infiltration through the decks into the living rooms below was evident in both Units 34 and 35. Water %tains, deformed sheetrock, and dampness were observed under the decks.. Moisture related deterioration of the wood framing and plywood sheathing was noticed in one area under the deck patio doors of Unit 35. ITEM #3: The deck joists under the weight of the concrete topping slab have deflected 1 to 1-1/2 inches at‘center span. The defleetion of these joietS has most likely altered the original slope of the concrete deck surface causing flat spots and even negative slope to orainage 'in s-c1appers. ITEM #4: The excessive load of the deck SOist has caused crushing at Page 352 of 4'19 the stud wall supports. As much as 1/8 inch of compression of wood at tht support was noticed at the Unit 35 f ,-4 window wall beam at the east eenn,--4- 167 EXHIBIT 35 Lee/Ruff/Waddle Partnership Oswego Summit Page 2 ITEM #5: Wood framing in the crawl space showed signs of bearing overload. The interior loads of the four (4) stacked condominium units were supported on a wood beam which was positioned near the center of the units. The beam was constructed with four (4) nail-laminated 2x12's. The beam was supported on four (4) interior posts made up with four (4) 2x8's. One of the 8 foot interior spans was noticeably deflected. The deflection was between 1/2 to 3/8 inch at mid-span. The interior supports showed signs of bearing failure. Two (2) of these supports had crushed wood and had compressed 1/8 inch to 3/16 inch. The joist over the beams showed signs of slight Crushing_ The plans call for a continuous foundation wall in place of the wood beam. ITEM #6: The wood floor framing in the crawl space appeared dry. no signs of water stain were noticed; but some o-f. the wood framing appeared new as. if it had recently been replaced. The framing under the deck was painted with a brownish-green preservative type coating. ITEM #7: The header beam over the patio doors and the patio canopy roofs were noticeably sagging. The facia board on the front of the patio canopy was separated at the bottom. WALKER/DILORETO/VULh E, INC. .A.24,(L Wade W. Youie, P',E. Page 353 of 419 168 EXHIBIT 36 OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Board of Directors Special Meeting With David Bennett and Homeowners Regarding Lee/Ruff/-W-add-l-e `"-= k Held July 29, 1991, at 7:45 p.m. Members Present: Cheryl Frederickson, Janet Muzos, Lorn Hildreth, Junko Tsunenaga, and Roberta McEniry David Bennett said there is a "Statute of Frauds" stating contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. He said there are exceptions. It would be reasonable to negotiate for partial performance of service. Janet said her recollection of the meeting of February 2, 1991, was that the board voted to accept the Lee/Ruff/Waddle a, proposal Arid instructed Joe Van Gulik to inform Lee/Ruff/Waddle. '"The agreement was that all unit owners who were to participate in the study would sign releases before any work was done. The unwritten understanding was that a contract would be negotiated before any work was done. David Bennett left at 8110 p.m. Cheryl expressed her opinion that she felt we owed Lee/Ruff/Waddle`' Something and that David Bennett would be able to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Lorn said he believes we should spend our money to make repairs rather than to have an engineering study. Janet said she would rather spend money to make repairs than to have an engineering study. Junko mentioned that we have cracked floors as well as leaks. Roberta said that since the beginning of the complex, there have been major problems. To her knowledge, no problems have been fixed permanently. She suspects we have a substantial amount of dry rot in addition to cracked floors. She feels we need to have professionals tell us what is wrong with the buildings and how to fix it. Page 257 of 419 169 EXHIBIT 36 Board of Directors Special Meeting Minutes July 29, 1991 Page 2 Cheryl asked about where the money will come from. Roberta pays we have money to fix the roofs and have the study. Janet said she believes every problem is individual and that an engineering study cannot treat individual problems. Lorn said we have a product we are trying on the decks. Duke Harmeyer said Jerry Titus has recommended a way to fix the cracking floors, and he suggested we listen to him. Jerry Titus explained a little about how to repair the cracked floors. Dave Kimmel of Unit #151 said he feels that the Association does not have the money for an engineering study and that each individual problem is different. Lorn moved that we discontinue the current engineering study and that we deal with individual problems (leaks or cracked floors or dry rot) on a unit by unit basis. Janet seconded. Motion carried. Janet, Lorn--Yes; Junko, Roberta--No. Cheryl broke the tie by voting--Yes. Lorn moved that David Bennett be asked to negotiate a settlement with Lee/Ruff/Waddle immediately. Janet seconded. Motion Carried. Janet, Lorn, Junko--Yes; Roberta--No. Roberta is _ submitting her resignation, verbally and in ,„!7-' writing, from the Oswego Summit Board of Directors, effective July 29, 1991, because she believes the Board's - vote to terminate the engineering study is negligent, and she will not and cannot participate in that action. Meeting adjourned 9: 55 p.m. Page 258 of 419 170 EXHIBIT 7 COPELAND, LANDYE, BENNETT AND WOLF A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3500 FIRST INTERSTATE TOWER MARK G.COPELAND.P.G'A MITCH EL R.COHEN,P.C. PORTLAND,OREGON 97201 ALASKA OFFICE THOMAS M.LANDYE,P.C DAVID L.BLOUNT J.DAVID BENNETT,PC DAVID S.CASE,P.C.' 550 WEST SEVENTH AVENUE DAVID P.WOLF,INC.` THANE W.TIENSON'" 15031 224.4100 SUITE 1350 ROBERT B.HOPKINS,P.C. DAVID N.BOULDER ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 RICHARD L SADLER,P.C. P.STEPHEN RUSSELL III (907)276-5132 RANDALL L DUNN.P.C.... MARK J.DAVIS FACSIMILE 1503122.5.4133 JAMES S.CRANE.P.C." MARGOT POZNANSKI ROBERT H.HUME.JR,INC.. ROBERT P.OWENS 'ALASKA STATE BAR "ALASKA STATE AND OREGON STATE BARS I� !1I "'WASHINGTON STATE AND OREGON STATE BARS October 17, 1991 '"'ALASKA STATE AND WASHINGTON STATE BARS A LOTNERSOKESON STATE@AA9NLT Mr. Jeff Brown Property Management Services, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Vancouver, WA 98666-0007 Re: Oswego Summit Condominium Dear Jeff: Enclosed is the response I received from Henry Bauer in connection with potential claims against Far West. From this information, it appears that a relatively recent contact was made with Far West asking whether they felt they had any responsibility in connection with weather leaks of Oswego Summit which may be causing damage to units or common elements. Far West denied any responsibility, indicating they were not the developer, but merely the lender. It apparently was this process which caused RTC to send a form to the Association directing it to use the form for making a claim the Association felt it had against Far West. I had spoken with representatives from your management company together with members of the Board of Directors indicating I felt it would be fruitless to pursue a claim against Far West on the theory that they had responsibility for the leaks, that the case in all probability could not be proven, and that there would be substantial costs in bringing it. Accordingly, it was my advice to the Board of Directors in carrying out their fiduciary responsibility they ought not to waste resources by pursuing a claim which, in my view, had very little merit and in any event would likely be barred by the statute of limitations. Please let me know whether you wish me to do anything further on this matter. Very truly yours, J. David Bennett, P.C. JDB:sjc Enclosure cci Ms. Cheryl Frederickson Page 134 of 419 171 EXHIBIT 38 OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 28, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. 1. Called to order. 2. Open Forum - None 3. Minutes accepted as revised. 4. Appointment of new board member. Discussion about candidates. Lorn nominated Margaret Montag to fill the chair until the next annual meeting. Junko seconded. Lorn, Jay, Junko - Yes. Dave - No. 5. Financial Report - Jeff Brown May: #367 $23.05 received? - State tax refund #398 Roofs/Ultra Quiet Floors, etc. #96 Tile and floor credit for repair. Motion to accept May financial report approved unanimously. June: #266 Security's fee lowered (reduced coverage) . Lorn made motion to accept June financial report. Passed unanimously. Jay requested that the financial report page numbers be consecutive. Jeff will check into it. 6b Lorn made motion to reinvest the certificate of deposit for 6 months at Pacific First Bank. Jay seconded. Jay, Junko, Lorn, Dave - Yes. 7. Managers' Report - See written report. Late fees - See Betty's written report. #134 - Unit is for sale. Water spots on ceiling--hard to sell. If we fix the ceiling to help the sale, we can collect the $885.96 delinquent. #210 - Garnishment to begin Page 282 of 419 172 EXHIBIT Motion to accept the Managers' Report. Jay seconded. Unanimous. 8. Jeff's Attachment: A. Northview Heights letter from Jack and Ron. Letter refers to the drains for Building 24, but Lorn thinks they meant Building 25. George Dwire, from City of Lake Oswego, sent us a letter written by Ryan O'Brian saying Northview Heights will take care of the drains. Jeff will contact George to further discuss. Jeff discussed with George once. What about cracks in the buildings due to Northview Heights' construction? Do we need an engineering survey report regarding the problem? Maybe. A building inspection may suffice. S.D. Building Inspectors was recommended. Two buildings - 10 units = approximately $700. Jeff will get estimate from engineers for inspection. B. Ultra Quiet Floors - Tufflex. One year warrantee vs. 5 year warrantee. Jeff sent Steve Waldrup letter regarding prior services. Steve said Weatherdeck will wick the water away but is not a good seal and can hold the moisture and promote rotting. Of course, this is not his product. C. Pat Ryan's Letter. Unit #137 owes approximately $3,000 plus interest. Pat recommends a collection agency in the Sacramento area. Jeff will call a collection agency and get the details. D. Quotes on parking lot maintenance (asphalt and line painting) . Table this matter until bid from Portland Paving. E. Painting $34,500 bid for entire complex. Jeff will get other bids. Jeff will ask the bidder to make decision regarding need for primer before painting and bid accordingly. F. Pool - Gas conversion. Jeff will check on pool cover prices. Lorn made motion that we replace all three heaters, contingent upon Northwest Gas bringing gas to building at no charge. Jay seconded. Jay, Lorn, Dave - Yes. Junko - No. Lorn made motion to accept bid from Neptune contingent upon Neptune provides a formal contract including their Page 283 of 419 173 EXHIBIT 38 Board of Directors Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 28, 1992 Page 3 warrantee and manufacturers warrantee. Dave seconded. Jay, Dave, Lorn - Yes. Junko - No. 9. Old Business A. Lights - Examples installed in Building 22. Dave Kimmel says the lights that are focusing the light downward gave better lighting (BR 40) . Tried 6 and 13 watts and 9 watts. $32/per fixture (32 x $32 = 1024) . 46 fixtures required for Buildings 22-25 - 1472. Bob will check with PGE for information regarding any rebate to be used toward light fixture purchase. Junko will check Beaverton Lighting. B. Cardboard Bin - Bob will have recycler bring the cardboard bin. C. American Business Machine won't maintain the copy machine. Used Cannon Model 350 for $700.00? Lorn will get detailed information on this quote. D. Landscaper bids: 7-Dees bid on. Dave will get other bids from Land Graphics. Lorn will get Jim Card's bid. E. Decks - Lorn said we need to complete the repairing of 19 more decks. We4, only dee- on$':trc,c63,.G kNe -y46,4161 F. Jeff will get copies of old engineer's report to Jay, Lorn, and Junko. G. Dryrot - See Dave's draft. Dave will revise his RFP for: 1. Pouring concrete deck 2. Opening VanGulek's rental unit (#34) H. Jay requests that she be able to move her air conditioner to the dining room wall. Let's do more re5eero( It's a walkway and may need approval of fire department. I. Jeff will call Tuff Flex and see if authorized dealers have a better warrantee. Page 284 of 419 174 EXHIBIT OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 25, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. Present: Lorn, Jay, Junko, and Margaret 1. Proposal from Quantum was presented and read. Lorn made a motion to accept the two year extension with Quantum. Aye: Margaret, Jay, Lorn. Nay: Junko. Will have a work session to discuss the details. 2. Amended minutes of last meeting. Jay made a motion to accept minutes. Lorn seconded the motion. Unanimous. 3. Open Forum A. Victoria asked to be updated about Northview Heights. Burgess no longer associated. Randy Meier now owns every other two lots. Lolich owns the rest. Lorn will contact Mt. Park, Bob Erickson. Call the City--Jeff Brown. Junko will call Concerned Citizens. 4. Budget Lorn will negotiate the overtime bill. 5. Budget #390 Ahead of budget because of changed security. #354 #357 Variance over time charged by Jeff. #398 Lorn made a motion to accept the Financial Report. Margaret seconded. Unanimous. 6. Manager's Report Unit #87 Owes$3,109. Attorney is having a credit check done. Attorney says the only recourse is foreclosure if no results from credit check. Page 286 of 419 175 EXHIBIT 39 Board of Directors Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 25, 1992 Page 2 Unit #210 Complaint for foreclosure being reviewed by Dave Bennett. Unit #134 Sold. Payment of $1,152 coming from title company. 7. Lorn made a motion to have Dave Bennett write a letter to residents of Units#120 and #87. a. Not to use the recreation center. b. They are to return all keys to the recreation center. Unanimous. 8. Lorn made a motion to re-key and replace all locks to the recreation center and distribute the keys to the unit owners who are current (attempting to be current). Junko seconded. Unanimous. 9. Rose Burkett requested that the sprinkler outside the bedroom be adjusted so that it won't hit her window. Bob will work with the sprinklers. 10. Lorn made a motion to accept Betty and Bob's Managers' Report. Margaret seconded. Unanimous. 11. Attachments - George Dwire, City of Lake Oswego. 12. Old Business: A. Lorn made a motion to repair five worst leaking decks using the Dex-otex product Northwest (Units 11, 18, 20, 59, and 146). Ultra Quiet Floors will do five decks using the Tuffex (100, 141, 135, 126, and 101). Jay seconded. Yes: Margaret, Jay, Junko, Dave. No: Lam. B. Painting -We decided not to paint the high trim. Bob and Andy and hired helpers will paint garage doors and trim and anything else they can reach. C. Paving - Bids - Lorn made a motion to accept Pioneer Paving's bid for $2,890. A-Line crack and fill bid for$2,677, to repair depression in by the storm drain in front of Building 24, repair the hole by building 15 probably caused by tree roots, and cover 5354 linear feet of cracks in parking lot. Margaret seconded. Unanimous. Page 287 of 419 176 EXHIBIT 39 Board of Directors Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 25, 1992 Page 3 D. Landscaping-Margaret made a motion to accept 7-Dees' proposal#1 and #3 to landscape area north and west of building 24 and area in work not to exceed$5,300. Junko seconded. Unanimous. We will refer the landscape bid. E. Marilyn Van Santen floor. F. One of the decks to be repaired has dog poop so bad the deck repair people will not clean it. G. Deck and garage inspection - No consensus. H. Work session - September 15 at 6:30, Tuesday. No regular monthly meeting to be held in September. Meeting adjourned at Page 288 of 419 177 EXHIBIT 4 • OSWEGO SUMMIT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, October 27, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. Present: Jay, Junko, Margaret and Dave (late). 1. Financial Report: Margaret made a motion to accept the financial report. Junko seconded the motion. Unanimous. 2. Manager's Report: A. Delinquency report - Betty Schlecht Unit #14 - Jeff will write a letter on behalf of the Board requesting payment of late fees. B. Maintenance Report - Bob Schlecht Apex Margaret made a motion to accept the Manager's report. Junko seconded the motion. Unanimous. 3. Deck on Unit 54 - bid from CA Gustafsson Company. Jeff will ask about an extended warranty. 4. Unit #52 needs the dry rot under the deck repaired. Agreed to let Gustafsson do it. 5. Unit #50 Marilyn Van Santen refuted the letter from Bennett. Subfloor is cracked, the floor cannot be repaired because of the paint. Jeff will arrange for another contractor to examine the floor and we will consider their proposal. Marilyn Van Santen prefers linoleum, but will investigate hypoallergenic carpets. She has allergies. Marilyn requested to have a special dispensation granted for her multiple cats. We will investigate the history of the rule. Jeff recommends that a Board 178 EXHIBIT 40 Board of Directors Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 27, 1992 Page 2 member also look at the floor problem. Jay recommends that Bob accompany the contractor during the inspection. 6. Complaint regarding tenant with two cats. We need to address. 7. Unit#137 past owner owes us money. Our attorney found this person and a bill has been sent to a collection agency. If successful, we will get one half of the funds collected. 8. Building 24 walkway* two proposals. A. Apex: flashes the edges to prevent leaks. B. Northwest: Jeff will get more information and get back to the Board. 9. Unit 143 for sale. They want their ceiling repaired. He wants the money so that he can brocade a ceiling. The ceiling shouldn't be repaired until the leaks are stopped. Reimbursement should not be made until his bill is presented. Dave made a motion that when Bob reports to Jay that there are no leaks, we will reimburse after the ceiling is done. Margaret seconded. 10. Unit 146 ceiling leaks by fireplace. Bob fixed the leak. Ceiling leaks in bathroom this problem should be solved between the two owners 146 and 147. Ceiling repair will go on the list. Scott Brady will speak with Jay. 11. Jeff will check with PGE for recommendation for low wattage lights. 12. Jeff will talk to security regarding rounds. 13. Elevator service being bid. Bids can be reviewed in the office. Sound Elevator is the current service. Jeff recommends staying with Sound Elevator if their price is correct. 14. Pool covers: need prices on the two options. 15. Unit #214 wall cracked from construction of Northview Heights. 16. Unit #68 requested tree pruning. 179 EXHIBIT 40 Board of Directors Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 27, 1992 Page 3 17. Carport - U Haul should pay. Jeff is handling. Adjourned at 11:10pm 180 EXHIBIT 41 ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF OSWEGO SUMMIT Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Wednesday, August 25, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. Present: 1. Call to order. Meeting called to order at 7:02 p.m. Jay Sonnad, Margaret Montag, Al Walker, and Jeff Brown present. 2. Open Forum. A. George Cramer (unit 22) brought information to the Board regarding installation of additional deck drains to help prevent the existing scupper drains from plugging. One of Mr. Cramer's concerns is the weather deck carpet on the deck rolls into the drain and cuts the opening size of the drain down, which he feels caused his unit's deck to back up and leak into Unit 21. There needs to be further research as to whether the original building code requires additional drains installed. Are the decks considered a "roof" or a "deck"? Oregon Weatherdecking, the company who installed this membrane has yet to be contacted regarding the reasoning behind the way the decking is applied. Jeff went over the option that was discussed at the July meeting, in-which a second drain is installed next to the existing drain. This is an alternative to some decks but not all. The cost for the second alternative suggested by Mr. Cramer is approximately double option one's cost. However, option two may be significantly more effective. There still remains a question of who is in charge of cleaning the new drains, currently the unit owner is responsible for cleaning the existing drain. Al was concerned that the overflow water from the proposed second alternative drain would cause the shakes to begin to dry rot. Jeff said that there would be a little more maintenance on the shakes(caulking, etc.); but that the secondary drain would be used as an emergency back up. The second alternative would include putting in a 4" x 6" metal drain through the side of the deck wall. This opening would be located at an area that would allow water that backs up from the existing scupper drain to drain off the deck, over the side of the building, then down the shakes. No down spouts would be involved. It would only be used if existing scupper was badly plugged. Units with two decks may require an additional drain and pipe to move water from the secondary deck onto the main deck, where the water can be directed off the building. Jeff also asked the Board if they want to take the step now and try one of these overflow drains or do nothing. Jeff reiterated the fact that the Board had voted to ask the Cramer's to pay the replacement cost of weatherdecking and the Board would make up the difference to have the Gaco system with flashing installed. The Cramer's have agreed to this. The same style deck would be done as is currently being put up elsewhere in the complex. The next question is should the second deck be covered. Nothing was torn off the second deck and has not leaked as of yet. Apex has given an estimate of $897.00 to place the Gaco system on the bedroom deck (second deck). Al motioned to fix only the Cramer's living room deck with the Gaco covering (with the agreement that Cramer's pay the weather deck costs). The Board will pay for Apex to install the flashing, and put in the new scuppers. Margaret seconded. The Page 320 of 419 181 EXHIBIT 41 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of August 25, 1993 Page 2 motion passed unanimous. The question of who is in charge of keeping the drains clean was brought up. In the rules and bylaws it clearly states that the owner is responsible. Jay suggested that each homeowner be given the option of hiring someone through the Association to clear their drains. Al noted that even with this option, it is still the owners responsibility and they must give the contractor access to their deck. Jeff stated he is not comfortable with the Board being a "contractor" for every unit. Margaret and Al both feel that this is not a good option. The Board reiterated the position of "owner responsibility." Jeff brought up the question of who should be held responsible for the damage done to the unit below the Cramer's. The Cramer's contend that the carpet on their deck was defective, in how the carpet was laid (blocking opening), therefore, they should not be held completely responsible. No other decks with similar carpet installation reported flooding during the rain storm that effected the Cramer's. George Cramer asked to be allowed to look at other decks in the complex with carpet on them. Jeff will go on this tour with George. It was decided to table the discussion on who's responsible in the Cramer's situation until the Board has more answers. Jeff will continue his conversation with Betty regarding getting Apex started on the decks, including the Cramer's. 3. Installation of Board members. A. The Board appointed Lani Woodward and Terry Walker to the Board until the election in April 1994. 4. Approve minutes of meetings. A. Margaret moved that the minutes be approved with corrections. Al seconded. Al seconded the motion. The minutes passed unanimously. 4. Approve financial report. A. Jeff reviewed the P&L. On-site administration total will be reviewed by Jeff. It was decided to keep Ken at the same amount of hours (30) for now, even with Bob out. Landscaper has had to rewire the timers (wires were pulled apart when the parking lot was Page 321 of 419 182 EXHIBIT Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of August 25, 1993 Page 3 worked on). Margaret mentioned the dead plants that the landscaper was suppose to be removing, have yet to be removed. Jeff also mentioned the current status of the CD savings account. Al made a motion to pass the report. Margaret seconded. The motion passed unanimous. Terry Walker asked if Jeff contacted the insurance company about the up-grading of the pool. Jeff will question Trish Ezell regarding insurance upgrades. Jay wanted to review a copy of the 1991 management agreement between Oswego Summit and Quantum. This document talks about what will be provided and at what time. Jeff brought a copy of the current documents and left them with Betty at the office for open review by interested parties. Jeff also discussed a shortfall in management fees charged to the Association. The prior contract offered a rebate to the Association over a portion of the last contract. That reduced rate of$1,498.00 should have been increased January 1, 1993,to$1,605.00 per month. August's report will show the payment of that shortfall to bring the account current. A discussion was held regarding an owners request for a reduced charge for use of the Association's meeting room for language classes available to other owners. The Board felt that since class size was limited to only eight (8) persons per class, not all owners would benefit. Margaret motioned to continue the current policy of $25.00 charge per night of use. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Reviewed Correspondence. A. Resolution of the Board of Directors etc.. This document allows the board the right to disconnect a homeowner from a common meter. Jeff asked the Board to formally adopt the document and have the president and secretary sign. With this document signed it gives the association the power to move forward against delinquent units. Lath made a motion to adopt. Terry seconded. The motion passed unanimously. B. Letter from Vincent Badolato (unit 47). Jeff has not responded to this letter, he was waiting for the Board to decide how they wanted to act. Jeff's response will be that the decision to cut the tree was made over several months at the Board meetings, of which he was invited to attend. Several other owners requested the tree be cut down,and they are now happy. In regards to the utilities above his unit, the owner above him will be asked to try to do laundry when Mr. Badolato is not home. Jeff will send a letter to both reminding them of each other's complaints. C. A proposal to repair dry rot was presented from John Howell Construction. Work Page 322 of 419 183 EXHIBIT 41 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of August 25, 1993 Page 4 is required to repair water damage that leaked in from the outside and is damaging the interior of unit 107. D. Supercreek products company sent a document regarding the warranty (2 year period) for resurfacing building 25's walkways. The Board decided to table this matter until Jeff is able to meet with the company and discuss more details. TCS sent a document addressing roof drains in the large garage (the one to be re-roofed). The roof has settled and allows large(in diameter)pools of water. The bid is for$7500.00. Jeff is not convinced that this is the way to go. He will talk to All West roof about their recommendations. D. Portland Paving is working up a bid for the re-shaping of the speed bumps and will be getting back to Jeff soon. E. The Marilyn Van Santen (unit 50) situation is on hold pending the return of her attorney. F. Proposal from Mohr Sound ($1164.00) to install third light going down the hill by building 25. It was budgeted (1500.00) for this year. The proposal was accepted. 6. Managers' Report. A. Betty reported that the lien was in place on unit 1 for delinquent dues. We have postponed further action on unit 210 as the unit is under foreclosure by the bank. Betty indicated that security coverage would be cut back to four hours after school starts. She also indicated that Nathan, our maintenance helper, had returned to school but that Ken remained to help Andy with maintenance repairs. Work continuing smoothly. 7. Committee Reports. None. 8. New Business. None. 9. Old Business. None. Page 323 of 419 184 EXHIBIT Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of August 25, 1993 Page 5 Next meeting September 22, 1993. Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m. Page 324 of 419 185 EXHIBIT 4 ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF OSWEGO SUMMIT Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Wednesday, December 15, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. Present: 1. Call to order. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. Jay Sonnad,Margaret Montag, Al Walker, Terry Walker (arrived late), and Jeff Brown present. 2. Open Forum. A. No open forum. 3. Approve minutes of meetings. A. Al moved to accept the minutes. Margaret seconded. The minutes passed unanimously. 4. Approve financial report. A. October income $500.00 over budget, year to date income is $7,200.00 over budget,this is due to the collection of late fees and delinquent accounts. Although, there are still a couple of major accounts still outstanding. B. Noteworthy expenses are as follows: Administrative: No outstanding variance, year to date $637.00 below budget. Maintenance: Account 231 reflects the addition of man power. Account 236 is $500.00 over budget due to the numerous leak repairs done. The maintenance account is $1,726.00 over budget for the month of October. Landscaping: For the month of October the account is right on. Year to date the account is$665.00 below budget. There will be some tree pruning done in November. Security: The account is $3,676.00 over budget year to date due to the expanded coverage in the summer, we did reduce the hours this fall. Pools: Account 296 shows the replacement of a spa seal and impeller motor at a cost of$995.75 in the month of October that was not budget. Year to date the account is$1,885.00 below budget. Page 325 of 419 186 EXHIBIT Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of December 15, 1993 Page 2 Major repairs/replacements: No out of the ordinary expenses in the month of October. Year to date the account is approximately $2,200.00 below budget. General expenses: Insurance: Quarterly payment made in October. This account is $384.00 over budget year to date. Legal: The account shows $122.00 in legal bills for the month of October, and approximately $500.00 below budget for the year. C. Net operating income for the month of October is $164.00 below budget. Year- to date the account is approximately $3,000.00 over budget. D. Replacement/repairs is still below budget (#398) as approximately $10,000.00 is being held until the walkway work is improved. E. Operating/money market account/CD shows $74,432.00 in the account. F. Al moved to accept the financial report. Margaret seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Manager's Report A. Reviewed what actions could be taken against unit 14 to collect the outstanding debt. It was decided to table this issue until April. B. Unit 210 is selling her unit and believes it should take two weeks for the sale to go through. She agreed to have a check to the Oswego Summit office by December 30, 1993. Terry motioned to allow two weeks for the sale of the unit, at which time (December 30, 1993,) if the sale has not gone through a line of credit would be issued to pay for fees. If this does not occur then the water would be turned off. Al seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Jeff met with the attorney and discussed the following issues: 1. Unit 13 - the sale attorney has been petitioned as to why the Association did not receive any monies from the sale of the unit. It appears that a second mortgage lien was filed prior to our's, chances are slim now for any collection of monies. Page 326 of 419 187 EXHIBIT 42 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of December 15, 1993 Page 3 2. Unit 22 - will discuss later in the meeting. 3. Unit 87 - sent a letter regarding no payment for the month of December, gave a notice of opportunity to speak at the January 26, 1994, meeting. The water will be shut off Friday, January 28, 1994, if no payment received on the 26th. D. Bob has continued to have some leaks during the rainstorms. Oregon Weather Decking is coming out to repair their warranty work. E. Unit 22 - has a leak around the second deck. Jeff has sent them a letter stating the work they agreed to pay for on their first deck is due and payable with their December payment. If the monies are not received by the 18th of December it will be considered late and fees will start accruing. Jeff will notify that there were no late fees charged on the$2,900.00 while pursing answers to their questions. A letter was received from Mrs. Cramer asking that the late fee assessed on a check be dismissed because the check was misplaced or misdirected. Discussed the legality of charging late fees on repair work done to a unit. Jeff will send a demand letter stating if no monies are received this matter will be turned over to the attorney. The Board agreed to repair their second deck. Upon proof of stop payment the Board agreed to drop late fee charges on Unit 22's account. F. Bob has six to seven other decks that need repairs, Jeff asked that Bob prioritized them, so a replacement//repair plan could be developed. G. A unit owner requested handrails be finished in his building for use by his elderly wife. Al motioned to put up the handrails after seeking other competitive bids for the work. Terry seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. H. A unit owner requested sanding be done in the parking a lot sooner, on snowy or icy days. Very few companies do this type of work anymore and the one's that do, get to the Summit's parking lots as soon as possible. 5. Reviewed Correspondence. A. Letter on November 11, 1993 from our attorney regarding the lien on unit 13, as stated earlier, our claim will probably be dismissed. B. Letter to unit 210 giving notice of water termination, as decided earlier this issue Page 327 of 419 188 EXHIBIT 42 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of December 15, 1993 Page 4 is tabled for two weeks. A copy of the certified letter that came back after three attempts to deliver, also attached. C. Copy of memo and budget draft sent to unit owners inviting them to attend the Board meeting and give their input. D. Letter on November 23, 1993, to unit 22 regarding the deck situation. Last week Jeff met with the unit owner at the city of Lake Oswego Planning Department to talk about the requirements for drainage. The known current interpretations of the building codes are that decks over living spaces are truly considered roofs, therefore, falling into the roof category. The "roofs" like unit 22's need to have two drains to meet the 1991 Uniform Building Code. Jeff is checking to see if the UBC code changed prior to 1991. According to the state of Oregon, in 1974 when these condominiums were built it was not necessary for them (Oregon) to review the blueprints. Now Jeff will go back to the city of Lake Oswego and go through the archives to see what the codes read in 1974. After all the research is done, it may become necessary for the Board to review the idea of putting in more back-up drains, approximately 150 units would need the back-up drain. The issue of owner responsibility of keeping the scuppers clean was put in front of our attorney, Dave Bennett, his response after reviewing the by-laws, rules and regulations, and our previous history, essentially agreed with the interpretation and policy that the Board has set down. Al Walker has agreed to go down to the city of Lake Oswego to do the research regarding the building codes. It was decided to table the issue of installing second drains until more answers to the remaining questions can be found. E. Letter from the Frederickson's stating that the inspector requested a trim board be fixed in the common hallway before the inspector would approve the sale of their condo. Bob said he would fix it. F. Complaint filed regarding snoring and other loud noises. The homeowner then sent a letter (enclosed) to the homeowner of the unit in dispute, asking the owner to speak to her renter regarding the disruptions. 6. Budget. A. Reviewed the proposal from Drake's 7 Dees and discussed the options. Jeff is to verify seasonal color plantings are billed separately from the monthly billing. Terry motioned to accept the monthly proposal for a two year period. Al seconded the motion. Page 328 of 419 189 EXHIBIT 42 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes of December 15, 1993 Page 5 The motion passed unanimously. B. Al motioned to accept the budget with the increases and provisions stated. Terry seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Committee Reports. None. 8. New Business. A. Lani Woodward has resigned from the Board due to the selling of her home. It was decided her position would be filled at elections in April, 1994. 9. Old Business. A. See#5 reviewed correspondence. Meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Next meeting January 26, 1994. Page 329 of 419 190 EXHIBIT 43 . . . STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 1! !! FEASAltil ATV STUDN' FOR OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS LAKE OSWECO, OREGON tqq, II tt,-7(17 Enayat, Schneider, Sharpies WWI? Engineering, inc. 540 S,W. Westgate Drive, Suite 130 Portland, Oregon 97221 Phone (503) 291-1686 Fax (503) 291-1687 191 EXHIBIT 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS: Sheet Scope of Services 2 Observations and Recommendations ?-4 Conclusions 5 Prioritized Repair Cost Totals 5-6 Itemized Repair Costs per Unit 7-84 Itemized Window Repair Costs 85-86 192 EXHIBIT 43 March 20, 1997 The Board of Directors Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego OR 97035 Re: Feasibility Study for Oswego Summit Condominiums The Board of Directors: ESS Engineering, Inc. visited Oswego Summit Condominiums on November 13, 1996 thru January 28, 1997. The purpose of the visits were to make general observations of the structural condition of buildings 1-25, exterior garages,recreational facility and grounds. SCOPE OF SERVICES This report is based on the visual observations made on November 13, 1996 thru January 28, 1997 and is cursory in nature. This report is based on professional engineering judgement and symptomatic clues that are indications of distress. Non structural concerns such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, etc. are not included in this report. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The existing gutter system in many places could not handle large amounts of rainfall. This is caused by the gutters either being to old and leaking or not properly installed . In some areas the slope of the gutters was inadequate. It is recommended that the gutters to be replaced for the entire facility. In addition adding downspout extensions to gutters where decks and catwalks are located. (Refer to pictures#7, 9, 11-16, 18,33,46 &52) The physical appearance of the exterior siding appeared to be significantly damaged in some areas. Siding replacement is recommended,because of the high chance of moisture intrusion, which over time can cause extensive dry rotting within the structures. (Refer to picture#57) The roofs tiles on many of the buildings showed signs of leakage,due to age and weathering. It is recommended to replace only damaged roof tiles. If a similar roof tile can not be located then it is recommended to replace the roof tiles on the entire facility. The tared low roofs of building types I and II showed signs of puddling water. It is recommended that a new properly sloped surface is installed. (Refer to picture#39) Many living room and bedrooms of building 1-22 showed signs of moisture leaks, which Page 2 193 EXHIBIT 43 damaged interior wall surfaces.. The ceilings stains are caused by inadequate sloping of decks above and failed joint seals. The recommendation is to replace gypsum board sheathing if damaged and repaint. (Refer to picture#19, 21, 25, 53 & 55) The windows in almost every unit showed signs of leakage. Many of the windows have seals that have failed and caulking that was not applied to the exterior joints of the windows. The recommendation is to replace all the windows in all units except those that have recently been replaced,and caulk around all exterior window joints for a tight window seal. (Refer to picture #10) The concrete stair cases leading to the individual units show signs of deteriorated joints between the concrete stair and building side. The joints around the base of the basement units of building types II and III have also failed. The recommendation is to clean and recaulk all joints between stair cases and basement retaining walls. (Refer to pictures 4, 5 & 31) The decks and catwalks of all the units were visually inspected. Many of the deck surfaces showed signs of puddling, cracks and inadequate slope. These problems have caused extensive moisture damage to the buildings. Ceiling stains and moisture penetration were visible within the living spaces below the decks. The recommendation is to have all the decks and catwalks resurfaced except those already repaired. It is also necessary to add an additional scupper, new base flashing,and a metal cap over existing guardrail. (Refer to picture#20, 23 & 34) The exterior link walkway between building#2 and#3 showed signs of water damage. The water damage is caused by leaking windows. The beams of the walkway have also bowed due to moisture penetration. The recommendation for the walkway is to replace existing beams, windows, flooring and caulk all exterior window joints. (Refer to picture#8) The roof of building 22 has recently been reroofed, but it was done incorrectly. The roof shows signs of leakage and puddling on the roof surface. The recommendation is not to resurface the entire roof, but modify those areas that are leaking and showing signs of puddling. (Refer to picture#64) The existing chimney vents do not shield water from entering into the buildings. The recommendation is to install the current chimney stacks with a"Rooster Tail",over the chimney stack,except those that have already been replaced. Then caulk around all exterior chimney stack joints. The garages of buildings 22 thru 25 visibly show signs of leakage from above. This is evident by interior ceiling and wall stains. The recommendation is to resurface roofs,and slope properly to drains. Repair damaged gypsum board sheathing and repaint. In addition it is recommended that additional roof drains to be installed for proper drainage. (Refer to pictures#61-63, 69 & 73-76) Page 3 194 EXHIBIT The west garage unit of building#23 has settled. The garage has bowed in the middle and the corner garage foundation has pulled away from the garage wood structure. The continued settlement of the ground has caused pavement cracking and possible retaining wall, failure. The recommendation is to remove a portion of the existing retaining wall and stabilize the ground. Then replace the two west end connected garages of building#23 and damaged pavement surfaces. (Refer to picture#105) The structural damage is within the basement and first floor units of building types I and II. The structural damage is a bow on the ceiling wall between the living room and bedroom. The recommendation is to examine the effected units. If dry rot is found, replace all damaged structural members, repair gypsum board sheathing and repaint. (Refer to picture#78-81) In building Types I, II and III upstairs bathroom floor has a visible bow. This is caused by settlement of the building. The recommendation is to monitor the floor condition. If the floor condition worsens, proper repairs should be initiated. (Refer to picture#44 &45) Many units had ceiling or wall cracks due to building settlement. Recommendation is to repair crack with gypsum board sheathing patch and repaint damaged surface. (Refer to picture#22, 26-28,40, 42,43, 47, 58 & 70-71) The trash facility for building#25 has concrete slab settlement. The recommendation is to remove the existing trash facility and existing concrete slab. Then stabilize the ground and replace the concrete slab and trash facility. (Refer to picture#97) The ground behind the existing retaining wall by building#25 has an underground spring. The recommendations is to place approx. 90L.F. of perforated drain pipe along retaining wall. Then place approx. 40L.F. of cast iron pipe, which will tap into perforated pipe and existing catch basin. Install existing retaining wall back to original position. (Refer to picture#95 &96) The pavement around building#22-25 show visible signs of asphalt scaling and weathering. • This is caused by the storm run off path leading to the storm drains. It is recommended that these areas be repaved to match existing recently paved surfaces. (Refer to picture#84-94, 103 &104) A memo dated December 17, 1991 by Jeff Brown from Quantum Commercial Management, Inc. observed the following: Cracked PVC pipes underneath the walkway and foundation of building 25, which has caused erotion of the earth under the walkway and foundation. At this time,these observations can not be determined. If further erosion occurs then further investigation will be required. Page 4 195 EXHIBIT 43 CONCLUSIONS Our construction cost is based on our visual observation during the site visits. It is our opinion that there may be areas with significant amounts of dry rot that is not visible at this point. These areas may be discovered during the course of restoration. Additional repair costs will be needed if damaged areas are found. PRIORITIZED REPAIR COST TOTALS Exterior deck and catwalk resurfacing for damaged buildings 1-21 ¢3 Total= $321,127.18 Exterior deck and catwalk wood& materials replacement, buildings 1-21 Total= $35,000.00 Deck resurfacing for buildings 22-25 - — – 15';Total = $50,356.80 New gutter installation to all structures Total = $100,000.00 Additional downspout extensions for buildings 22-25 4 Total = $1,104.00 Drainage system for attached garages 22-25 4 Total= $16,800.00 Exterior link walkway between building#2 & 3 Total = $2268.00 Window replacement for sky walkways Total = $4047.00 Structural repair for building Types and - -Building Type I /13 Total = $37,240.00 -Building Type II Total = $23,940.00 Preparation work and structural fix for attached garages 22-25 c Total = $820.00 Roof tile replacement for all structure p � ..___ .__ .__----�- Total=��31.Q,.000�Q-�c._ Roof replacement for attached garages 22-24 -0Total = $12,525 Building#22 resurface roof restoration g Total = $5000.00 Chimney vent replacement, "Rooster Tails" Total = $6938.00 Exterior building shake siding replacement to specified structures buildings 22-25 and free standing garages Total= $229,094.00 Caulking around all exterior window joints buildings 1-25 & Rec Bldg. Total = $43,290.00 Caulking for all exterior stair/retaining wall joints buildings 1-21 A Total= $10,534.00 Dry rot repair for unit#17 4,Total = $15,000.00 Ground settlement repair for West garage building#23 and retaining wall. ; >• Total = $65,400.00 Restoration of Retaining wall by building#25 h 4 Total = $3746.00 Repave remaining asphalt surfaces Total= $40,900.00 Interior gypsum board sheathing replacement for all damaged units. Ili Total = $12,000.00 Interior painting for all damaged units _. _ °'Total = $31,211.00 Gypsum board sheathing for attached garages 22-25 CTotal= $5044.00 Interior painting for attached garages 22-25 C Total = $3200.00 Metal fire escape and storage door replacement for entire facility ._. Total = $50,250.00 Elevator shaft of building 25 repair Total = $3,500.00 Removal of interior walkway surfaces buildings 22& 23 Total= $2000.00 i Page 5 196 EXHIBIT Replace fans/circulation indoor pool C Total= $Getting Bid Install drains behind building 10 &1 l Total = $1,500.00 Hallway flashing building 22-25 Total= $15,000.00 Clean out/redo all drains at bottom of stair wells of buildings 1-21,except 4& 7. Total = $17,000.00 Add slider indoor pool area: eliminate dry rot in window frames- north side for recreational facility Total = $2015.00 Trim paint for all facilities Total = $27,000.00 Repair walkway surfaces(Bldg 22-25) Total = $64,000 PGE enclosures buildings 22, 24&25- ',.Total = $2400.00 Fence building 12, #84 - 4 Total= $850.00 Finish stairway carpet h ._._ Total = $3500.00 Replacement of floor slab and trash facility Total= $945.50 Redo low roof building Types I and II Total = $1200.00 Sidewalk repair work(trip hazards) Total= $15,000.00 Recreational Facility window replacement Total = $6362.00 Replacement of all fire escape windows Total= $5700.00 Replacement of bridge between Building 14 & 15 .Total= $4900.00 Carport beam replacement(One location) Total= $290.00 Miscellaneous items(10%) Total = $160,999.75 15%for contractors overhead and profit. * Total = $265,649.58 GRAND TOTAL= $2,036,646.81 i '. Page 6 197 EXHIBIT 43 ITEMIZED REPAIR COSTS PER UNIT Building#1: UNIT#1 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints,repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.5 hrs. _ $45.00 Caulking(Sealant),75L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $180.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units,5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Living room ceiling has water stains by slider due to leak from deck above,ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. Repairs include: 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Bedroom ceiling has water stains at the south east corner of the unit and water has come down the wall between the party wall. Repaint ceiling to match existing ceiling.(Refer to picture#17) I laborer for repainting prep, work at$30/hr. for 2 hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include: 170 S.F. at$ .18/S.F. _ $31.00 Structural damage: -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish investigated and repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total= $1701.00 UNIT#2 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at $30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. _ $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 . Party wall between unit#2 and unit#6 is very wet from water not draining properly. (Refer to roll #1, picture#4). Structural damage: - Page 7 . 198 EXHIBIT 43 -Beam over the center of living room has a sag in the ceiling drywall at bearing point(the wall between the living room and bedroom). -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish investigated and repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total = $3675.50 UNIT#3 Deck surface do not drain well,due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5 hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at$2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at $1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: Total= $3847.92 UNIT#4 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5 hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 I- labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Total=$1870.50 UNIT#5 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 (Refer to picture#5) Living room ceiling has water stains by bow in ceiling due to leak from deck above,ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. Page 8 199 EXHIBIT 43 I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2 hrs.. = $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 Bedroom ceiling has water stains due to water penetrating down through the party wall. Repaint ceiling to match existing ceiling. Repairs include: 170 S.F. at$ .18/S.F. _ $31.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom wall. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom,if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 (Refer to picture#78-8I) Total = $1476.00 UNIT#6 Living room has water stains along sliding doors. The bedroom ceiling has a large water stain in the S.E. corner of the room as well as the living room ceiling caused by improper drainage from the deck and party wall from above,(Refer to picture #19) 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2 hrs.. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R., ceilings. Repairs include (Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface, (Refer to picture#20) - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5 hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces,35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. _ $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom wall. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 (Refer to picture#101 & 102) Total= $3806.00 UNIT#7 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not dram well due improper sloping of deck surfaces.(refer to Picture #1-3) Page 9 200 EXHIBIT - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5 hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea. + labor = $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk)25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $71.00 Structural damage: Total =$7006.00 UNIT#8 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.001 labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Total= $1870.00 • Page 10 i 201 EXHIBIT 43 Building#2: UNIT#9 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.0 hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 155 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $365.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. _ $15.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total= $1740.00 UNIT #10 Leak over entry door from walkway from unit above. Repaint living room. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2 hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. _ $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom wall. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total = $3775.50 UNIT#11 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. (Refer to roll #2, picture#13) - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5 hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea. + labor = $250.00 Page 11 202 EXHIBIT 43 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea. + labor = $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk)25 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. _ $71.00 Total=$7006.00 UNIT#12 No Access( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Total =$1870.50 UNIT#13 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Living room ceiling has water stains by bow in ceiling due to leak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Bedroom ceiling has water stains due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint ceiling to match existing ceiling. Repairs include: 170 S.F. at$ _l8/S.F. = $31.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. Page 12 203 EXHIBIT 43 -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$1476.00 UNIT#14 Bedroom ceiling over sliders shows signs of moisture stains as well as the living room ceiling showing sings of leakage. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. - $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $ .18/S.F. _ $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around ail deck surfaces,35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total =$3806.50 UNIT#15 Deck surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck. 60 L.F. at $2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck. 60 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deckguardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 Structural damage: Page 13 204 EXHIBIT -Bow in the ceiling over the sliding glass door in the living room. Total= $3899.40 UNIT#16 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for I.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and I scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Walk way between buildings#2,3 units (20-16), the floor is bowing causing the windows to possibly leak. -Also there is a crack over the stairs in the haliway.(refer to roll#2, picture#12) -The garage pavement puddles water and goes into the garage as a result the pavement needs to be resurfaced. Total= $1870.50 • • I . Page 14 205 EXHIBIT 43 Building#3: UNIT#17 No Access ( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints,repairs include: 1 laborer, for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45,00 Caulking(Sealant), 155L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $365.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. _ $15.00 Living room ceiling has water stains due to the deck from the above unit. Ceiling need to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Bedroom ceiling has water stains, due to deck from above unit. Repaint ceiling to match existing ceiling.. Repairs include: 170 S.F. at $ .18/S.F, = $31.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total _ $1886.00 UNIT#18 The deck was redone and appears to be in proper working condition. Leak over entry door from walkway from unit above. Repaint living room. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total =$1430.00 UNIT#19 Leak from unit above causing ceiling stains in the living room. Repaint living room ceiling. ((Refer to picture#25) 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Page 15 206 EXHIBIT Repairs include (Living Room), 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. _ $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at $2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk) 25 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $71.00 Structural damage: Total=$7161.00 UNIT #20 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Total =$1870.50 UNIT#21 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 75L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $180.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Page 16 207 EXH I BIT 43 Living room ceiling has water stains by bow in ceiling due to leak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. I laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Bedroom ceiling has water stains due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint ceiling to match existing ceiling. Repairs include: 170 S.F. at $ .18/S.F. = $31.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total $1686.00 UNIT#22 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = S60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. $31.00 The deck was redone and appears to be in proper working condition. Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total = $1461.00 UNIT#23 Living room ceiling has water stains caused by leakage around chimney stacks, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include: 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck) 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers Page 17 208 EXHIBIT 43 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - [nstall flashing around all surfaces of deck. 60 L.F. at$2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck. 60 L.F. at $2.34/L..F. _ $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: Total=$4002.92 UNIT#24 No Access ( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and I scupper at $100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Total=$1640.50 Page 18 209 EXHIBIT 43 Building#4 UNIT #25 Caulk around stairs on exterior portions of building Caulking(Sealant), 75L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $180,00 Sliding glass door leakage problems, replacement includes: 1 at$1600/ea. = $1600.00 Structural damage: Total=$1780.00 UNIT#26 Prep. work, repair cracks and repaint unit. 1 laborer, $30/hr for 4hrs = $120.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - 2-downspouts, 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $35.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 92 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $1700.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13.0 L.F. at $1.12 = $15.00 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces,40 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $80.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 80 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $200.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at $1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: -Crack over corner of wall due to foundation settlement (Refer to picture #58) Total =$2460.00 UNIT#27 Structural damage: Total $0.00 UNIT#28 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00 + labor = $250.00 -2-downspouts, 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $35.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 92 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1700.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13.0 L.F. at $1.12 = $15.00 Page 19 210 EXHIBIT - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 40 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $80.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 80 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: Total =$2340.00 UNIT#29 Total=$0.00 UNIT#30 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00+ labor = $250.00 -2-downspouts, 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. _ $35.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 92 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. $1700.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13.0 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 40 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $80.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 80 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at $1.12 = $15.00 Total=$2340.00 UNIT#31 Caulk around stairs on exterior portions of building Caulking(Sealant), 75L.F. at$2.34/L.F. $180.00 Total=$180.00 UNIT#32 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at $30.00/hr. for l.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00 t- labor = $250.00 -2-downspouts, 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $35.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 92 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1700.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13.0 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 40 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $80.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 80 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: -The floor at the doorway entrance of the bedroom and living room has settled. Page 20 211 EXHIBIT 43 -Floor of dining room has cracked, (concrete floor). -Kitchen settlement crack at living room and bedroom (Refer to picture#59) Total =$2340.00 Page 21 212 EXHIBIT 43 Oswego Summit Condominiums Restoration Priority Bldg Cond on Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category R#Estimate ..P icture Exteriorstairs Downspout 5 L.F. Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 2 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper I each Surface 97 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Wall btw.condo 2&6 Wet each Roll I,#4 3 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. 4 Base Flashing 36 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 5 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 5 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 78-81 Ceiling bows-dry rot each 78-81 Water stains 392 S.F. Water stains 392 S.F. 6 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 101&102 Water stains 392 S.F. 19 7 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. 1-3 8 Base flashing 36 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 2 9 Exterior stairs Downspout 5 L.F. Re-caulking&sealing 155 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains each 10 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Living room Water stains 222 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 11 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 1 of 15 213 EXHIBIT 3 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RFI Estimate Picture 2 11 Deck Downspout 25 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper I each 2,13 Surface 300 S.F. 12 Base flashing 36 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 13 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-thy rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 14 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper each Surface 97 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 15 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper I each Surface 179 S.F. Living room Bow in ceiling each 16 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Garage Bow in floor each Stairs Cracks each Roll 2,#12 Walkway Bow in floor each 3 17 Exterior stairs Downspout 5 L.F. Re-caulking&sealing 155 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. Walkway Bow in floor each 18 Living room Water stains 222 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-thy rot each Walkway Bow in floor each 19 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Living room Water stains 525 S.F. 25 Walkway Bow in floor each 20 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Walkway Bow in floor each 21 Exterior stairs Downspout 5 L.F. Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 2 of 15 214 EXH IBIT 43 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 3 21 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 22 Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 23 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Living room Water stains 525 S.F. 24 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 4 25 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. Glass door Leakage 1 each 26 Deck Base flashing 40 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 92 S.F. Overall Cracks each Cracks each 58 28 Deck Base flashing 80 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 92 S.F. 30 Base flashing 40 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 6 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 92 S.F. 31 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. 32 Deck Base flashing 40 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 92 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each 5 33 Exterior stairs Downspout 5 L.F. Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 34 Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 35 Deck Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Glass door Cracks each 26,27 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 36 Water stains 525 S.F. 25 Overall Cracks each 28,29 Drywall each Roll 2,#19 37 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 38 Ceiling bows-dry rot each 39 Bathroom Bow in floor each Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 3 of 15 215 EXHIBIT 43 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 5 39 Deck Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Glass door Beam failure each Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 40 Overall Bow in floor each 6 41 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Deck Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 155 L.F. 31 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. Overall Cracks each 30 42 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 43 Deck Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Glass door Settlement each Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 44 Overall Bow in floor each 45 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 46 Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 47 Deck Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Glass door Settlement each Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 7 49 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. 50 Deck Base flashing 40 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 92 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 180 S.F. Overall Cracks each 52 Deck Base flashing 40 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 92 S.F. 54 Base flashing 40 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper I each Surface 92 S.F. Living room&bedroom Cracks each 8 57 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper I each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 58 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 4 of 15 216 EXHIBIT 43 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 8 58 Livingroom&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 59 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 430 S.F. 60 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 61 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 62 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 9 63 Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 L.F. 64 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail(lashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 66 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 472 S.F. 67 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 5 of 15 217 EXHIBIT Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RR Estimate Picture 9 67 Deck Surface 179 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 68 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 10 69 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 592 L.F. 70 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. 35,36 Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 300 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot 41 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Cracks 71 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 72 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 592 S.F. 73 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 74 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 11 75 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 616 S.F. 37 76 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 77 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 6 of 15 218 EXHIBIT 3 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture .... . ... 11 77 Deck Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 430 S.F. 78 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 592 S.F. 79 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 300 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 80 Deck Downspout 6 L.F. Scupper 1 each 12 81 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 416 S.F. Roll 3,#3 82 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 300 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 83 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 84 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 85 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Surface 179 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 86 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 13 87 Exterior stairs Downspout 5 L.F. Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 623 S.F. 88 Deck Base flashing 44 L.F. Caulking 88 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 7 of 15 219 EXHIBIT 43 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category R# Estimate Picture 13 88 Deck Scupper 1 each Surface 114 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 160 S.F. 89 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot 42,43 Living room&bedroom Water stains 540 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each 44,45 90 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 91 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 623 S.F. 92 Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 160 S.F. 93 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 540 S.F. 14 95 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Exterior stairs Caulking 155 L.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 430 S.F. 96 Deck Base flashing 44 L.F. Caulking 88 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 114 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 360 S.F. 97 Deck Caulking 48 Overall Bow in floor each 98 Ceiling bows-dry rot each 47 99 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 100 Deck Base flashing 44 L.F. Caulking 88 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 114 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 160 S.F. 101 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 8 of 15 220 EXHIBIT 3 P Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 14 101 Deck Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 540 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each 102 Deck Scupper 1 each 15 103 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 155 L.F. 104 Deck Base flashing 44 L.F. Caulking 88 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 114 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 596 S.F. 49,50 105 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 540 S.F. 51 Overall Cracks each 106 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 107 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. 108 Deck Base flashing 44 L.F. Caulking 88 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 13 L.F. Scupper I each Surface 114 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 460 S.F. 109 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper I each Surface 179 S.F. Overall Cracks each 110 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 9 of 15 221 EXHIBIT 43 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 16 111 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper I each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 112 Deck Base flashing 130 LF. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Ceiling bows-dry rot each 113 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 114 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Exterior stairs Caulking 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 115 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F, Scupper I each Surface 179 S.F. Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each 116 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 17 117 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 118 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each • Surface 97 S.F. Wednesday,May 21, 1997 Page 10 of 15 222 EXHIBIT 43 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RSI Estimate Picture 17 118 Living room& bows-drybedroom Ceiling rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 119 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each Cracks each 120 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 121 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 122 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 123 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Ceiling bows-dry rot each 124 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. 18 125 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 155 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 467 S.F. 126 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 127 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 11 of 15 223 EXHIBIT Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 18 127 Deck Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 53,54 Overall Cracks each 128 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 129 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 130 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper I each Surface 97 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 131 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Cracks each 132 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 430 S.F. Overall Cracks each 19 133 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 134 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 12 of 15 224 EXHIBIT Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 19 134 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 135 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 136 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 392 S.F. 137 Deck Base flashing 70 L.F. Caulking 140 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 55 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 125 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 525 S.F. 138 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 20 139 Basement Downspout 5 L.P. Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 56 Water stains 392 S.F. 140 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each 141 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 142 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 13 of 15 225 EXHIBIT 43 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 20 142 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 170 S.F. 143 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper t each Surface 179 S.F. Living room Sc bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each 144 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 21 145 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Water stains 170 S.F. 146 Deck Base flashing 130 L.F. Caulking 260 L.F. Downspout 31 L.F. Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. Scupper 2 each Surface 300 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each 147 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each 148 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. Caulking 84 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 97 S.F. Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 14 of 15 226 EXHIBIT 43 Priority Bldg Cond Location Description Amt Unit Subcontractor Category RH Estimate Picture 21 149 Deck Base flashing 60 L.F. Caulking 60 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 179 S.F. Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Overall Bow in floor each 150 Deck Base flashing 36 L.F. Caulking 72 L.F. Downspout 6 L.F. Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. Scupper 1 each Surface 72 S.F. Overall Cracks each Wednesday,May 21,1997 Page 15 of 15 227 EXHIBIT 43 Building#5 UNIT#33 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: l laborer, for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30..00/hr. for l.Shrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant), 75 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $180.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$1570.00 UNIT#34 No Access( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Assuming water stains on ceiling from prior deck resurfacing. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 The deck was redone and appears to be in proper working condition. Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total —$1461.00 UNIT#35 Living room ceiling has water stains caused by leakage from the above unit's deck ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include: 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $95.00 Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Repair gypsum board crack above sliding glass doors. (Refer to picture #26&27) Total=$178.52 Page 22 228 EXHIBIT 43 UNIT#36 Repair cracked ceiling surfaces: Repaint living room ceiling. ((Refer to picture#25) 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 525 S.F. at S.18/S.F. = $95.00 Structural damage: -Large crack running horizontally at the S.E. corner of the Living room, signs of settlement. (Refer to picture#28 & 29) -Nails have pulled away from the drywall. (Refer to roll#2, picture#19) -Crack over the stairs leading to the upstairs. Total $155.00 UNIT#37 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Bedroom ceiling has water stains due to the deck from the unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repaint ceiling to match existing ceiling. Repairs include: 170 S.F. at $ .18/S.F. = $31.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish investigated and repaired area. = S1330.00 Total =$1476.00 UNIT#38 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = S 1330.00 Total=S1330.00 UNIT#39 Living room ceiling has water stains caused by leakage from the above unit's deck ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include: 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 -Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 Page 23 229 EXHIBIT 43 Structural damage -Bathrrom floor has a hump from the settlement of the beam in the tloor. -Beam failure over the slider door of the living room Total =$230.00 UNIT#40 Structural damage: -The floor, (walkway)to unit 40 is uneven. Total=$0.00 Page 24 230 EXHIBIT 3 Building#6 UNIT#41 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant), 155 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $365.00 (Refer to picture#31) Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. _ $15.00 Living room ceiling has water stains by slider due to leak from deck above,ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr, for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Bedroom ceiling has water stains at the south east corner of the unit and water has come down the wall between the party wall. Repaint ceiling to match existing ceiling. Repairs include: 170 S.F. at $ .18/S.F. = $31.00 Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 Structural damage: -Cracked retaining wall due to settlement. (Refer to picture #30) -Retaining wall repair 1 laborer at$30/hr for 2.5 hrs+ materials =$100.00 -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom,if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total = $2061.00 UNIT#42 Continuing leakage into bedroom from deck above, repair includes: 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room),222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$ .18/S.F. = $31.00 Caulk around all deck surfaces, 84 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Page 25 231 EXHIBIT Total =$1661.00 UNIT#43 The living room ceiling shows signs of leakage from the deck 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include (Living Room), 222 S.F. at $.l8/S.F. _ $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$ .18/S.F. _ $31.00 Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L,.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 Structural damage: -Settlement over sliding glass doors is apparent. -Upstairs bathroom has a hump in the floor due to settlement. Total =$206.00 UNIT#44 Structural damage: -The floor, (walkway)to unit#44 is uneven, replace floor Total =$0.00 UNIT#45 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 75 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. .= $180.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 I,.F at S2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$1555.00 UNIT #46 Install screens in front of downspouts 1 at Living room ceiling has water stains by bow in ceiling due to leak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. I laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Bedroom ceiling has water stains due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint ceiling to match existing ceiling. Page 26 232 EXHIBIT Repairs include: 170 S.F. at$ .18/S.F. = $31.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$1461.00 UNIT#47 Living room ceiling has water stains caused by leakage from the above unit's deck ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include: 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. _ $95.00 Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Settlement over sliding glass doors is apparent. -Upstairs bathroom has a hump in the floor due to settlement. Total =$178.52 UNIT#48 No Access( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Structural damage: Total__$ Page 27 233 EXHIBIT 43 Building#7 UNIT#49 Caulk around stairs on exterior portions of building Caulking(Sealant), 75 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $180.00 Total =$180.00 UNIT# 50 Water stains in bedroom due to a leaking roof. Repaint ceiling(Bedroom), 180 S.F. at $.l 8/S.F. _ $35.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00/hr. for I.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 -2-downspouts,6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $35.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 92 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1700.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13.0 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces,40 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. _ $80.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 80 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: -Living room wall has a crack above the entry closet door. -Crack above the sloping ceiling. -Crack at corner of window in dinning room. -Crack above dinning room window. -Crack above the entry to kitchen at diagonal. Total=$2375.00 UNIT#51 Total=$0.00 UNIT#52 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+labor = $250.00 -2-downspouts,6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $35.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 92 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1700.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13.0 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces,40 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $80.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 80 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 Page 28 234 EXHIBIT 43 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: Total=$2340.00 UNIT#53 Total =$0.00 . UNIT#54 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - 2- downspouts, 6.0 I,.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $35.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 92 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $1700.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13.0 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 40 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $80.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 80 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: Total=$2340.00 UNIT#55 Caulk around stairs on exterior portions of building Caulking(Sealant),42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Total =$100.00 UNIT#56 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - 2-downspouts,6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $35.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 92 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1700.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13.0 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 40 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. _ $80.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 80 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: -Settlement crack at the corner of bedroom and living room. Total=$2340.00 Page 29 235 EXHIBIT 43 Building#8 UNIT#57 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.0hr. _ $30.00 Caulking(Sealant),42 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. _ $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room),222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and I scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces,35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 -Bow in bed room over the window, may be a structural failure. Total=$3876.50 UNIT# 58 Leak from unit(deck)above causing ceiling stains in the living room and around the fire place. Repaint living room ceiling. I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surface does not drain well,due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.-1 labor = $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, Page 30 236 EXHIBIT 43 60 L.F. at $2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at $1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room. The hump in the bathroom floor is very evident. Total =$3980.92 UNIT#59 Ceiling stains around the fire place stack Repaint living room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room),430 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $80.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F, at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Total=$2010.50 UNIT #60 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints,repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30.00/hr. for 1.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F, = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at $1.12 = $13 SO - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found Page 31 237 EXHIBIT 43 replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$3805.50 UNIT#61 Leak from.unit(deck)above causing ceiling stains in the living room and around the fire place. Repaint living room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well,due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck) 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk)25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $71.00 Structural damage: Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room, The hump in the bathroom floor is very evident. Total =$7161.00 UNIT#62 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Total = $1870.00 Page 32 238 EXHIBIT 43 Building#9 UNIT#63 No Access ( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/ hr. for 1.0hr. _ $30.00 Caulking(Sealant),42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L.R. and B.R., ceilings. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at S.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = S45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.0 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at $2.00 L.F. $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. _ $1330.00 Another bow in bed room over the window, may be a structural failure. Total =$3936.50 UNIT#64 Leak from unit(deck)above causing ceiling stains in the living room and around the fire place. Repaint living room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room), 525 S.F. at $.I8/S.F. = $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. (Refer to picture#34) - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. _ $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, Page 33 239 EXHIBIT 43 130 L.F. at $2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. _ $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk) 25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $71.00 Structural damage: Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room and bed room. The hump in the bathroom floor is very evident. Total =$7161.00 UNIT#65 Total=$0.00 UNIT #66 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at $30..00/ hr. for 1.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant),42 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L.R., B.R.and D.R. ceilings. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room),222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $31.00 Repairs include(Dining room), 80 S.F. at $.18/S.F. _ $15.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. -- $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = S 1330.00 Total= S3951.50 UNIT#67 Leak from unit(deck) above causing ceiling stains in the living room Page 34 240 EXHIBIT Repaint living room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room), 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surface does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at$2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck and guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room and bed room. Total -_$4002.92 UNIT /68 No Access( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at $2.34/L.F, = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at $1.12 = $13.50 Total =$1870.50 Page 35 241 EXHIBIT Building#10 UNIT #69 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at $30..00/hr. for 1.0hr. _ $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L.R.,B.R. and Entry and D.R. ceilings. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.I8/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at 5.18/S.F. = $31.00 Repairs include(Entry/Dining room), 200 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $40.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total = $1631.00 UNIT#70 No Access ( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Leak from unit(deck)above causing ceiling stains in the living room and around the fire place. Repaint living room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room), 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces,deck was redone, but done improperly. (Refer to picture #35 & 36) - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 6.0hrs. _ $180.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at $2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk)25 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $71.00 Structural damage: -Visible crack at corner of bathroom door due to settlement of front of apartment. Page 36 242 EXHIBir -Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room.(Refer to picture #41). Total =$7016.00 UNIT#71 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. Deck was redone,but improperly. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L,F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Total = $1870.50 UNIT#72 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L.R.,B.R. and Entry and D.R. ceilings. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Repairs include(Entry/Dining room), 200 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$1631.00 UNIT#73 Leak from unit(deck) above causing ceiling stains in the living room Repaint living room ceiling. I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surface does not drain well,due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 Page 37 243 EXHIBIT 43 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = S250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at$18,00/S.F. _ $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. _ $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at $1.12 = $120.00 Structural damage: -Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room and bed room. -Definite bow in the bathroom floor. Total =$4239.40 UNIT#74 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. Deck was redone, but improperly. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), l scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Total= $1870.50 Page 38 244 EXHIBIT 43 Building#11 UNIT# 75 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at $30..00/hr. for 1.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L.R.,B.R. and Entry and D.R. ceilirgs. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $31.00 Repairs include(Entry/Dining room), 200 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include(Storage room), 24 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $5.00 (Refer to picture 437) Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$1636.00 UNIT#76 Leak from unit(deck) above causing ceiling stains in the living room and around the fire place. Repaint living/dining room ceiling. I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room/Dining Room), 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surface does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surface.(Refer to picture 438) - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. _ $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers, 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room and bed room. Page 39 245 EXHIBIT Total = $4142.92 UNIT#77 No Access ( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Ceiling leaks around fire place, rooster tail installed,but still needs repainting. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint living/dining room ceiling, 430 S.F. at$_l8/S.F. _ $80.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. Deck was redone, but improperly. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. _ $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Total = $2010.50 UNIT#78 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for l.0hr. _ $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L.R.,B.R. and Entry and D.R. ceilings. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $31.00 • Repairs include(Entry/Dining room),200 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $40.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. - $1330.00 Total=$1631.00 UNIT#79 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well,due improper sloping of deck surfaces, deck was redone, but done improperly. • - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 6.0hrs. = $180.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6,0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at $100.00/ea.+labor = $250.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers Page 40 246 EXHIBIT 300 S.F. at 518.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at $2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk) 25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $71.00 Structural damage: -Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room. Total=$6861.00 UNIT#80 Deck repairs include: - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L..,.F. = $17.00 Structural damage: Total=$267.00 Page 41 247 EXHIBIT 43 Building#12 UNIT#81 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for l.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L,R.,B.R. and D.R and ceilings. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S_F. = $31.00 Repairs include(Storage room),24 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $5.00 (Refer to roll #3,picture#3) Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$1596.00 UNIT#82 Leak from unit(deck) above causing ceiling stains in the living room Repaint living/dining room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room/Dining Room), 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces,deck was redone, but done improperly. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 6.0hrs. = $180.00 - Downspout,(Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$I00.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout,(Catwalk) 25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $71.00 Structural damage: -Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room. Total =$7016.00 Page 42 248 EXHIBIT 43 UNIT#83 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. Deck was redone, but improperly. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Total =$1870 50 UNIT#84 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at $30.00/hr. for 1.0hr. _ $30.00 Caulking(Sealant),42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint L.R.,B.R. and S.R and ceilings. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $31.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. __ $1330.00 Total =$1591.00 UNIT#85 Leak from unit(deck)above causing ceiling stains in the living room and around the fire place. Repaint living/dining room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room/Dining Room), 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surface does not drain well,due improper sloping of deck surface, deck was redone, but done improperly. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 6.0hrs. _ $180.00 - Downspout,(Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at$2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, Page 43 249 EXHIBIT 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck and guardrail 21 L.F. at $1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room. Total =$3857.92 UNIT#86 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. Deck was redone,but improperly. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install Clashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Total =$1870.50 Page 44 250 EXHIBIT 43 Building 013 UNIT#87 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: laborer for stair prep. work at $30.00/ hr. for 1..Ohr. —` $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 75L,F. at$2.34/L,F. — $180,00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 LF at$2.82/LE $15.00 Ceiling stains due to deck from unit above. Repaint living/dining room and bedroom. I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. — $60.00 Living/dining room,430 S.F. at $.18/S.F. $80,00 Bedroom, 193 S.F.at $.18/S.F. — $35.00 Total = $400.00 UNIT#88 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint bedroom ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. $60.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 160 S.F. at$.18/S.F. -- $30.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs, ---, $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), I scupper at$100,00/ea.+ labor $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $212/L.F. $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 114 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $2100.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck,44 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. — $88.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 88 L.F. at$2.34/L1. - $210.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: Bow in wall between living room and bed room. Total -$2815.00 UNIT#89 Leak from unit (deck)above causing ceiling stains in the living room. Repaint living/dining room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs, = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room/Dining Room), 540 S.F. at$.18/S,F, $100.00 Deck surface does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surface. Page 45 251 EXHIBIT 43 - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L,.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 • - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at$2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 2I L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Bow and crack over the sliding glass door in the living room and dining. (Refer to picture#42&43) -The bathroom floor is bowed due to settlement of front apartments. (Refer to picture#44 &45) Total =$4007.92 UNIT#90 Deck surface does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. _ $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L..F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 36 L.F. at$2.00 = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at $1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Crack above the bathroom door due to settlement Total _$1900.50 UNIT 491 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units,5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Ceiling stains due to deck from unit above. Repaint living/dining room and bedroom. • l laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Living/dining room,430 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $80.00 Bedroom, 193 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $35.00 Page 46 252 EXHIBIT Total=$190.00 UNIT#92 Ceiling stains in living room and bedroom due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint bedroom ceiling. I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 160 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $30.00 Structural damage: -Bow in wall between living room and bed room. Total =$90.00 UNIT#93 Leak from unit(deck)above causing ceiling stains in the living room. Repaint living/dining room ceiling. I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room/Dining Room), 540 S.F. at $.18/S.F. _ $100.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well,due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, l laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base Clashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at $1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout,(Catwalk) 25 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $71.00 Structural damage: -Bow and over the sliding glass door in the living room and dining. -The bathroom floor is bowed and cracked due to settlement of front apartments. Total=$7166.00 UNIT#94 Structural damage: Total=$0.00 Page 47 253 EXHIBIT 3 Building#14 UNIT#95 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 155 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $365.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Ceiling stains due to deck from unit above. Repaint living/dining room and bedroom. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Living/dining room,430 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $80.00 • Total =$550.00 UNIT#96 Ceiling stains in living room and storage unit due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint living room ceiling and storage unit. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living room),300 S.F. at $.l8/S.F. _ $55.00 Repairs include (Storage unit), 60 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $12.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for l.Shrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82!L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 114 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $2100.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck,44 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $88.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 88 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $210.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: -Bow in wall between living room and bed room. Total =$2852.00 UNIT#97 Deck-green house covered deck: - Leakage between roof deck and green house enclosure. Recommendaion is to caulk and flash green house ceiling joints -- $1000.00 (Refer to picture#48) Page 48 254 EXHIBIT 43 Structural damage: The bathroom floor is bowed and cracked due to settlement of apartment front. Total=$1000 00 UNIT#98 Structural damage: -Ceiling over bathroom hallway(over stairs) is cracked due to settlement. (Refer to picture#47) Total =$0.00 UNIT#99 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. _. $15.00 Structural damage: Total =$15.00 UNIT#100 Ceiling stains in bedroom unit due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint bedroom, 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for lhr. = $30.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 160 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $30.00 Deck does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100,00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 114 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $2100.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck,44 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $88.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 88 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $210.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: -Bow in wall between living room and bed room. Total =$2785.00 UNIT#10 I Leak from unit (deck) above causing ceiling stains in the living room. Repaint living/dining room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room/Dining Room), 540 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $100.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well,due improper sloping of Page 49 255 EXHIBIT 43 deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. _ $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$I00.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck) 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk)25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $71.00 Structural damage: -Bow and over the sliding glass door in the living room and dining. -The bathroom floor is bowed and cracked due to settlement of front apartments. Total =$7166.00 UNIT#102 Deck does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea. = $100.00 Structural damage: Total =$175.00 Page 50 256 EXHIBIT Building#15 UNIT#103 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair prep. work at $30..00/ hr. for I.Ohr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 155 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $365.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Structural damage: Total=$410.00 UNIT#104 Entry ceiling replacement includes: (Refer to picture 449) Entry into unit is not draining well (Refer to picture#50) 2 laborers for ceiling prep. work at $30.00/hr. for 4hrs. = $240.00 3/8"Plywood replacement 56 S.F. at $.83 S.F. = $50.00 Repaint entry ceiling, 56 S.F. at $.44/S.F. $25.00 Ceiling stains in living/entry room, bedroom and dining room unit due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint rooms I laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for lhr. _ $30.00 Repairs include(Living/Entry room), 300 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $55.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 160 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $30.00 Repairs include(dining room), 80 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $15.00 Deck does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00 for [Stirs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.f labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 114 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $2100.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck,44 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $88.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 88 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. _ $210.00 - Install Clashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: -Bow in wall between living room and bed room. Total=$3170.00 UNIT#105 Leak from unit(deck)above causing ceiling stains in the living room. Repaint living/dining room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Page 51 257 EXHIBIT Repairs include (Living Room/Dining Room), 540 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $100.00 Repair protruding gyp. board nails (Refer to picture#51) 1 laborer at $30/hr. at 1.5hrs. = $45.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well,due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. _ $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at $1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout,(Catwalk)25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $71.00 Structural damage: -Bow over the sliding glass door in the living room and dining. -The bathroom floor is bowed and cracked(over stairs),due to settlement of front apartments. Total=$721.1.00 Unit 4106 Deck surface does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 36 L.F. at$2.00 = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 - $13.50 Structural damage: Total=$1900.50 UNIT 4107 Exterior stairs need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: Page 52 258 EXHIBIT I laborer for stair prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.0hr. = $30.00 Caulking(Sealant), 75 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $180.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. _ $15.00 Structural damage: Total =$240.00 UNIT#108 Ceiling stains in living/entry room, bedroom and dining room unit due to the deck from the unit above. Repaint rooms 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for lhr. _ $30.00 Repairs include(Living/Entry room), 300 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $55.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 160 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $30.00 Deck surface does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.Shrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 114 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $2100.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 44 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. _ $88.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 88 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $210.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 13 L.F. at$1.12 = $15.00 Structural damage: -Bow in wall between living room and bed room. Total =$2840.00 UNIT#109 Deck surface does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.Shrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at$2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, Page 53 259 EXHIBIT 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Crack over the sliding glass door in the living room and dining. -The bathroom floor is bowed and cracked(over stairs), due to settlement of front apartments. Total=$3847.92 UNIT#110 Deck surface does not drain well, due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper (deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea. + labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 36 L.F. at $2.00 = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Crack above kitchen entrance. Total=$1900.50 Page 54 260 EXHIBIT Building#I6 UNIT#111 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant),42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Visible water stains in the living room and bedroom,due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface, - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. _ $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$3966.50 UNIT#112 Living room and ceiling has water stains due to a leak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 Page 55 261 EXHIBIT - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L,F. _ $17.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk) 25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $71.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at $1.12 = $75.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk)25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $71.00 Structural damage: -Small bow over slider door -Bow in upstairs bathroom floor Total =$7232.00 UNIT#113 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for l.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L,F. = 575.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Above the stairs leading into the bathroom there is a visible crack at the bathroom entrance on the ceiling. -Crack in ceiling at bedroom. Total=$1870.50 UNIT#114 Caulk around exterior stairs cases. Caulking(Sealant),42L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Visible water stains in the living room and bedroom,due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. $31.00 Page 56 262 EXHIBIT 43 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for I.Shrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at $2.00 L.F. _ $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total=$3906.50 UNIT#115 Living room and ceiling has water stains due toleak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surface does not drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor _ $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 60 L.F. at $2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck and guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Small bow over slider door -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Bow in bathroom floor Total =$4002.92 UNIT#116 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of Page 57 263 EXHIBIT 43 deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. _ $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Total =$1870.50 Page 58 264 EXHIBIT Building#17 UNIT 4117 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30..00/hr. for I.5hrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant), 75 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $180.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 LF at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total = $1570.00 UNIT #118 Visible water stains in the living room and bedroom,due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R., ceilings. Repairs include (Living Room), 222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $I7.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L,.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total=$3806.50 UNIT #119 Leak from unit above causing ceiling stains in the living room and around the fire place. Repaint living room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include (Living Room), 525 S.F. at $.I 8/S.F. = $95.00 Page 59 265 EXHIBIT 43 Deck surface does not drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at $2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Crack above left side of patio door. - Upstairs bathroom is bowing. Total=$4002.92 UNIT 4120 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. _ $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Definite crack in ceiling running above staircase by bathroom enterance. Total=$1870.50 UNIT#121 Stairs outside patio show alot of water retention, not draining well. Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Living room and bedroom ceiling has water stains due to leak from deck above,ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. Repairs include: 222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include: 170 S.F. at$ .18/S.F. = $31.00 Page 60 266 EXHIBIT 43 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish investigated and repaired area. = $1330.00 Total $1476.00 UNIT #122 Visible water stains in the living room and bedroom, due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R., ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at $2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$3806.50 UNIT#123 Leak from unit above causing ceiling stains in the living room and around the fire place. Repaint living room ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include(Living Room), 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.- labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk) 25L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $71.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 Page 61 267 EXHIBIT 43 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at $2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at$1.12 == $75.00 Structural damage: -Upstairs bathroom is bowing. Total=$7161.00 UNIT #124 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at $1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Total =$1870.50 Page 62 268 EXHIBIT Building#18 UNIT#125 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30..001 hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant), 155L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $365.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2,82/L.F. _ $15.00 Living/entry room and bedroom ceilings have water stains from deck above,ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include: 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Repairs include: 75 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $13.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total = $1899.00 UNIT#126 Visible water stains in the living room and bedroom, due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room), 222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at $30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. -_ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = S250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at $1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found Page 63 269 EXHIBIT 43 replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. $1330.00 Total =$3806.50 UNIT#127 Living room and bedroom ceiling has water stains due to leak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 taborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 (Refer to picture #53 & 54) Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk)25 L.F, at $2.82/L.F. = $71.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at $2.00 = $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at $1.12 = $75.00 Structural damage: -Upstairs bathroom floor is bowed extremly and there isa visible crack at the the bathroom entrance on the ceiling. -Crack and bow above patio sliding door. Total=$7161.00 UNIT#128 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Page 64 270 EXHIBIT -Crack at kitchen entrance at doorway. Crack above stairs on ceiling near bathroom entrance. Total =$1870.50 UNIT 4129 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at $30..00/ hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 Caulking(Sealant), 75L..F. at$2.34/L.F. = $180.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Living and bedroom ceilings have water stains from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repairs include: 222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include: 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total -- S1701.00 UNIT 4130 Visible water stains in the living room and bedroom, due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at S30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include (Living Room), 222 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at $1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. Page 65 271 EXHIBIT -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. - $1330.00 Total =$3806.50 UNIT#131 Living room have water stains due to leak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. - $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 60 L.F. at$2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Upstairs bathroom floor is bowed extremly and there is a visible crack at the the bathroom entrance on the ceiling. -Crack and bow above patio sliding door. Total =$4002.92 UNIT#132 Ceiling stains in living room. Repaint living/dining room. Living/dining room, 430 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $80.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: Page 66 272 EXHIBIT -Crack at kitchen entrance at doorway. Total =$1850.50 Page 67 273 EXHIBiT 43 Building#19 UNIT#133 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/I,,F. = $100.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Visible water stains in the living room and bedroom,due deck from unit above. I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R., ceilings. Repairs include(Living Room),222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and I scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$3966.50 UNIT#I34 Living room and ceiling around fire place have water stains due to leak from deck above,ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $95.00 Deck and surface do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 Page 68 274 EXHIBIT - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$3806.50 UNIT#137 Living room and ceiling around fire place have water stains due to leak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. _ $95.00 Catwalk surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Catwalk clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs.. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk)25 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $71.00 - Resurface catwalk and slope towards scuppers 125 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. _ $2300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of catwalk, 70 L.F. at $2.00 = $140.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 140 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $300.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 55 L.F. at $1.12 = $65.00 Structural damage: -Very slight bow in living room ceiling. Total=$3373.00 UNIT 4138 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Above the stairs leading into the bathroom there is a visible crack Page 70 275 EXHIBIT at the the bathroom entrance on the ceiling. Total=$1870.50 Page 71 276 EXHIBIT Building#20 UNIT#139 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at $30..00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. — $100.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Visible water stains in the living room and bedroom,due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint L.R. and B.R., ceilings. Repairs include (Living Room), 222 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $40.00 Repairs include (Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00 T labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at $2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. _ $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 (Refer to picture #56) Total =$3966.50 UNIT#140 Living room ceiling haswater stains due toleak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. I laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 Page 72 277 EXHIBIT 3 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at $100.00/ea. labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk) 25 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $71.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 $260.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at $1.12 = $75.00 Structural damage: -Definite bow in the bathroom floor. Total=$7161.00 UNIT#141 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, I laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at $100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = S 170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Above the stairs leading into the bathroom there is a visible crack at the the bathroom entrance on the ceiling. Total $1870.50 UNIT#142 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant), 42 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at $2.82/L.F. _ S15.00 Visible water stains in the bedroom, due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint B.R., ceilings. Page 73 278 EXHIBIT 43 Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at$.18/S.F. _ $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and I scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. _ $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. _ $1330.00 Total =$3926.50 UNIT 143 Living room ceiling has water stains due toleak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck surface does not drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. Prep. work and installation for deck ceiling, 2 laborers at$30/hr for 6 hrs. = $360.00 Redo deck ceiling, 50 S.F. at$.83/S.F. _ $45.00 - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. -_ $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), I scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at $2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Definite bow in the bathroom floor. Total=$4407.92 UNIT#144 No Access (Assuming conditions from similar unit) Page 74 279 EXHIBIT Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and I scupper at$100.00 ± labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Above the stairs leading into the bathroom there is a visible crack at the the bathroom entrance on the ceiling. Total =$1870.50 Page 75 280 EXHIBIT Building#21 UNIT 4145 No Access( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Visible water stains in the bedroom, due deck from unit above. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Repaint B.R.,ceilings. Repairs include(Bedroom), 170 S.F. at $.18/S.F. = $31.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. _ $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at $2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total = $3781.50 UNIT#146 No Access( Assuming conditions from similar unit) Living room ceiling haswater stains due toleak from deck above, ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at $30/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at $.18/S.F. _ $95.00 Deck and catwalk surfaces do not drain well due improper sloping of deck surfaces. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - InstaIl additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Install additional scupper(catwalk), scupper at $100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout, (Deck) 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Downspout, (Catwalk) 25 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. _ $71.00 - Resurface deck/catwalk and slope towards scuppers 300 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $5400.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck and catwalk, 130 L.F. at$2.00 = $260.00 Page 76 281 EXHIBIT 43 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck and catwalk, 260 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $608.00 - Install flashing to existing deck and catwalk guardrail 65 L.F. at $1.12 = $75.00 Structural damage: -Definite bow in the bathroom floor. Total =$7161.00 UNIT#147 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs_ _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00+ labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. = $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Above the stairs leading into the bathroom there is a visible crack at the the bathroom entrance on the ceiling. Total=$1870.50 UNIT#148 Exterior stairs and retaining wall base need to be re-caulked and sealed at joints, repairs include: 1 laborer for stair and retaining wall prep. work at$30..00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 Caulking(Sealant),42L.F. at $2.34/L.F. = $100.00 Add additional downspout connection to existing downspout at retaining wall at basement units, 5 L.F at$2.82/L.F. = $15.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 1.5hrs. = $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = S17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper 97 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $1750.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at $1.12 = $13.50 - Install flashing around all deck surfaces, 35 L.F. at$2.00 L.F. = $70.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck., 84 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $200.00 Structural damage: -Bow in ceiling between living room and bedroom. Page 77 282 EXHIBIT 43 -Investigate wall between living room and bedroom, if dry rot is found replace rotted beams and refinish repaired area. = $1330.00 Total =$3835.50 UNIT#149 Deck above,ceiling needs to be repainted to match existing ceiling. 1 laborer for repainting prep. work at$30/hr. for 2hrs. _ $60.00 Living room/dining room, 525 S.F. at$.18/S.F. = $95.00 Deck and surface does not drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2.5hrs. = $75.00 - Install additional scupper(deck), 1 scupper at$100.00/ea.+ labor = $250.00 - Downspout,(Deck)6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. _ $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scuppers 179 S.F. at $18.00/S.F. = $3222.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 60 L.F. at $2.00 = $120.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 60 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $140.40 - Install flashing to existing deck guardrail 21 L.F. at$1.12 = $23.52 Structural damage: -Definite bow in the bathroom floor. Total=$4002.92 UNIT#150 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. _ $45.00 - Install additional scupper and 1 scupper at$100.00 + labor = $250.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. = $17.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 72 S.F. at$18.00/S.F. = $1300.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 36 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. _ $75.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 72 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. = $170.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 12 L.F. at$1.12 = $13.50 Structural damage: -Above the stairs leading into the bathroom there is a visible crack at the the bathroom entrance on the ceiling. Total=$1870.50 Total of Bldg. 1-21 =$394,464.22 Page 78 283 EXHIBIT Building 22 & 23 Repair fabric roof sheeting on building#22 = $5000.00 (Refer to picture#64) Exterior Units Repair all cracks and ceiling leaks due to deck leaking from unit above and building settlement. Prep. time 1 laborer at $30.00/hr for 1.5hrs. for 16 units = $720.00 Repaint living/dining room at 530 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 16 units = $1600.00 Repaint bedroom at 240 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 16 units = $700.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface for exterior decks. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, l laborer at$30.00 for 1.5hrs. for 16 units = $720.00 - downspout 6.0 L,F. at $2.82/L.F. for 16 units = $272.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 148 S.F. at$1.50/S.F. for 16 units = $3552.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck,62 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. for 16 units = $2000.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 124 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. for 16 units = $4650.00 - Replace existing guard rail 25.0 L.F. at 3.43 L.F. for 16 units = $1372.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 25.0 L.F. at $1.12 for 16 units = $448.00 Interior Units Repair all exterior unit cracks and ceiling leaks due to deck leaking from unit above. Prep. time 1 laborer at$30.00/hr for 1.5hrs. for 16 units = $720.00 Repaint living/dining room at 520 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 16 units = $1600.00 Repaint bedroom at 240 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 16 units = $700.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface for exterior decks. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. for 16 units = $720.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. for 16 units = $280.00 - Resurface deck and slope towards scupper, 135 S.F. at$1.50/S.F. for 16 units =$3240.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 58 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. for 16 units = $1900.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 116 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. for 16 units = $4350.00 Page 79 284 EXHIBIT 43 - Replace existing guard rail 23.0 L.F. at 3.43 L.F. for 16 units = $1262.24 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 23.0 L.F. at$1.12 for 16 units = $412.16 Total of Bidg.22-23 = $35,018.40 Page 80 285 EXHIBIT 43 Building 24 & 25 Exterior Units Repair all cracks and ceiling leaks due to deck leaking from unit above and building settlement. Prep. time 1 laborer at $30.00/hr for 1.5hrs. for 16 units = S720.00 Repaint living/dining room at 530 S.F. at $.18/S.F. for 16 units = $1600.00 Repaint bedroom at 240 S.F. at S.18/S.F. for 16 units = $700.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface for exterior decks. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. for 16 units = $720.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at$2.82/L.F. for 16 units = $272.00 - Resurface deck, 148 S.F. at$1.50/S.F. for 16 units =$3552.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 62 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. for 16 units = $2000.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 124 L.F. at$2.34/L.F. for 16 units = $4650.00 - Replace existing guard rail 25.0 L.F. at 3.43 L.F. for 16 units = $1372.00 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 25.0 L.F. at $1.12 for 16 units = $448.00 Interior Units Repair all exterior unit cracks and ceiling leaks due to deck leaking from unit above. Prep. time 1 laborer at$30.00/hr for 1.5hrs. for 16 units = $720.00 Repaint living/dining room at 520 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 16 units = $1600.00 Repaint bedroom at 240 S.F. at $.18/S.F. for 16 units = $700.00 Deck surface doesn't drain well due improper sloping of deck surface for exterior decks. - Deck clean-up and prep-work, 1 laborer at $30.00 for 1.5hrs. for 16 units = $720.00 - downspout 6.0 L.F. at $2.82/L.F. for 16 units = $280,00 - Resurface deck and, 135 S.F. at $1.50/S.F. for 16 units =S3240.00 - Install flashing around all surfaces of deck, 58 L.F. at$2.00/L.F. for 16 units = $1900.00 - Caulk around all base flashing on deck, 116 L.F. at $2.34/L.F. for 16 units = $4350.00 - Replace existing guard rail 23.0 L.F. at 3.43 L.F. for 16 units = $1262.24 - Install flashing to existing guardrail 23.0 L.F. at$1.12 for 16 units = $412.16 Total of Bldg. 24-25 =$30,670.40 Page 81 286 EXHIBIT 3 Garages for buildings 2.2-25 In repairing the garages for Buildings 22-25, first in investigate if there is any dry rot within the structure. If no dry rot can be found perform the following: (Refer to picture#61-63), (Refer to picture#73-75) Location where building joins with garage unit is where alot of leakage occures. Building#22 garage Prep work, 1 laborer at$30/hr for 1 hr for 6 garages = $180.00 Drainage system at$700/garage for 6 garages for Bldg. #22 = 4200.00 Replace gyp. board sheathing where water stains have occured. 1300 S.F. at .97/S.F. (Refer to picture #61, 62 &68) _ $1261.00 Repaint garage unit 742 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 6 garages = $800.00 Installation of rubber roof(EPDM)3000 S.F. at$1.40/S.F. = $4175.00 (Refer to picture #69) Electrical closet leakage (Refer to picture #66&67) Structural damage: -Crack at bottom of ceiling deck due to freeze thaw. Clean and patch cracked surfaces, l laborer at$30/hr for 2.5hrs+material = $100.00 (Refer to picture#65) Building#23 garage 1 laborer at$30/hr for I hr for 6 garages = $180.00 Drainage system at $700/garage for 6 garages for Bldg. #22 = 4200.00 Replace gyp. board sheathing where water stains have occured. 1300 S.F. at.97/S.F. = $1261.00 Repaint garage unit 742 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 6 garages = $800.00 Installation of rubber roof(EPDM) 3000 S.F. at $1.40/S.F. _ $4175.00 Building#24 garage 1 laborer at$30/hr for 1 hr for 6 garages = $180.00 Drainage system at$700/garage for 6 garages for Bldg. #22 = 4200.00 Replace gyp. board sheathing where water stains have occured. 1300 S.F. at.97/S.F. = $1261.00 Repaint garage unit 742 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 6 garages = $800.00 Installation of rubber roof(EPDM) 3000 S.F. at $1.40/S.F. = $4175.00 Building#25 garage 1 laborer at $30/hr for l hr for 6 garages = $180.00 Drainage system at$700/garage for 6 garages for Bldg. #22 = 4200.00 Replace gyp. board sheathing where water stains have occured. 1300 S.F. at .97/S.F. = $1261.00 Repaint garage unit 742 S.F. at$.18/S.F. for 6 garages = $800.00 Page 82 287 EXHIBIT Garages for#22-25 Interior garage renivation Total= $38,389.00 Damaged gypsum board sheathing replacement for buildings 1-21 $300/unit for 40 units Total = $12,000.00 Ground settlement repair for West garage unit#23 and retaining wall. (Refer to picture #105) -Remove and replace two damaged garage units 594 S.F. at $80/S.F. = $47,460.00 -Removal of existing wall = $800.00 -Ground stabilization/compaction at$97/C.Y. at approx. 100 C.Y. = $9700.00 -Reinforced concrete wall at$153/L.F. for approx. 40L.F. = $6120.00 Total = $65,400.00 Recreational Facility & Grounds: Trip hazards Repair all concrete slab cracks on recreational facility grounds, due to freeze thaw. (Refer to picture#98 &100) Replace broken curb guards.(Refer to picture#69) Total = $15,000.00 Entire facility requires the installation of new gutters, downspouts and flashing under roof tiles. (Refer to picture#I1-16) Total=$100,000.00 Many of the buildings shows large amounts of water intrusion due to old and weathered roof tiles. Total= $310,000.00 Metal door and frame replacment for fire escapes and storage doors, 210 doors at $250/ea. Total = $50,250.00 Replacement of chimney vents with "Rooster Tails", due to water intrusion. 76 at $60.50.00/ea. = $4,598.00 Caulk around all exterior chimney stack joints 1000 L.F. at $2.34 = $2340.00 Total = $6938.00 Resurface remaining areas of Oswego Summit parking facility, due weathering and erosion from surface drainage water. Total = $40,900.00 (Refer to picture#84-94, 99, 103 & 104) Sky walkway between building#2 & 3 Beam replacement = $300.00 Floor board replacemnt, $120/S.F. for 140 S.F. = $168.00 Window replacement 4 -4'-8" x 3'-9" = $1800.00 Total = $2268.00 Window replacement for remaining sky walkways = $4047.00 Caulk around all exterior window joints. (Refer to picture#10) Total = $42,120.00 Page 83 288 EXHIBIT Low roof Building type II re-tar roof at$300 ea. for 4 for low roofs. (Refer to picture#39) Total = $1200.00 Car port beam replacement at approx. $2.00/L.F. for 25 L.F. = $50.00 Prep. and finish work at$30.00/ hr for 8hrs = $240.00 (Refer to picture #82, 83) Total = $290.00 Replace sidings for building 422-25 and free standing garages $3.80/S.F. for 18348 S.F. Total = $229,094.40 Replace existing trash facility for building #25, due to settlement in floor slab. (Refer to picture #97) Ground stabilization (compaction), at$24.30/C.Y. for 10 C.Y. = $243.00 Slab $1.75/S.F. at approx. 230 S.F. = $402.50 New enclosed structure = $300.00 Total = $945.50 Retaining wall Restoration- (Refer to picture#95 & 96) -2 laborers for 16hrs. at $30.00/hr remove existing retaining wall and replace back to original condition. = $480.00 -Excavate 90 L.F. for per. pipe at$4.55/C.Y. = $410.00 -Backfill with 3/4" ruched rock at 19.95/C.Y. 40 C.Y. = $800.00 -Placement of approx. 90L.F. of 6" perforated pipe at$6.90/L.F. _ $621.00 -Excavate for 40L.F. of trench at 4.55/C.Y. - $185.00 -Placement of 40'of 6" cast iron pipe at$27.50/L.F. = $1100.00 -Tap into existing catch basin, 1 laborer at$30.00/hr. for 2hrs. = $60.00 -clean-up 1 laborer at$30.00/hr for 3hrs. = $90.00 Total =$ 3746.00 Structural repair for building types I and II -Building Type I at$1330.00/unit for 28 units Total= $37,240.00 -Building Type II at $1330.00/unit for 18 units Total = $23,940.0 Window replacement for recreational faciltiy Recreational Facility 8-windows 28"x58'at$244/ea. = $1952.00 1- window 48"x38" at $300/ea. = $300.00 4-windows 46"x70" at $350/ea. = $1400.00 8-Slider windows 46 l/2"x22" at$250/ea. = $2000.00 2-slider windows 45"x69" at$355/ea. .= $710.00 Total= $6362.00 Page 84 289 EXHIBIT ITEMIZED WINDOW REPLACEMENT TOTALS 2-Buildings(4 & 7) 8-End Units Living room 29"x58" at$355/ea. for 8 units = $2840.00 Patio door 105"x79" at$1450/ea. for 8 units = $11,600.00 Dining room 72"x48" at$500/ea. for 8 units = $4000.00 Dining room 27"x48" at $300/ea.for 8 units = $2400.00 Bedroom 52"x48" at$355/ea. for 8 units = $2840.00 8-Mid Units Living Room Patio door 70"x78" at$575/ea. for 8 units = $4600.00 Bedroom 88"x48" at $575/ea. = $4600.00 Bedroom 33"x48" at $300/ea. = $2400.00 Total = $35,280.00 9-Buildings(8, 9,10. 11, 12, 16, 19, 20 & 21) 18-1st floor Units Bedroom 95"x47" at$575/ea. for 18 units = $10,350.00 Patio door 70"x80" at $1100/ea. for 18 units = $19,800.00 Dining room 57"x44" azt $355/ea. 18 units = $6390.00 36-2nd& 3rd floor Units Kitchen 48"x33" at$300/ea. for 36 units = $10,800.00 Dining room 94"x45" at $575/ea for 36 units = $20,700.00 Patio door 94"x78" at $1450/ea. for 36 units = S52,200.00 Bedroom 94"x46" at $575/ea. for 36 units = $20,700.00 Bedroom 33"x45" at$300/ea. for 36 units = $10,800.00 Master Bedroom 94"x46" at $600/ea. for 36 units = $21,600.00 Total =$173,340.00 10-Buildings (1,2,3,5,6,13,14,15,17&18) 20-Basement Units Dining room 58"x47" at$355/ea. for 20 units = $7100.00 Bedroom 95"x47" at $575/ea. for 20 units = $11,500.00 Patio door 99"x78" at $1450/ea for 20 units = $29,000.00 20-1st floor Units Dining room 59"x47" at $400/ea. for 20 units = $8000.00 Bedroom Patio door 94"x80" at$1450/ea. for 20 units = $29,000.00 Living room Patio door 70"x80" at $1100/ea. for 20 units = $22,000.00 20-2nd floor Units Kitchen 57 1/2" x 34" at $300/ea. for 20 units = $6000.00 Dining room Patio door 70"x78" at $1100/ea. Page 85 290 EXHIBIT for 20 units = $22,000.00 Living room Patio door 84"x78" at $1450/ea. for 20 units — $29,000.00 Bedroom 33"x46" at $300/ea. for 20 units = $6000.00 Bedroom 84"x46" at$575/ea. for 20 units = $11,500.00 Master Bedroom 84"x46" at$500/ea. for 20 units — $10,000.00 20-3rd floor Units Kitchen 48"x33" at$300/ea. for 20 units = $6000.00 I Dining room 94"x45" at$575/ea. for 20 units = $11,500.00 Patio door 94"x78" at$1450/ea. for 20 units = $29,000.00 Bedroom 94"x46" at$575/ea. for 20 units = $11,500.00 Bedroom 33"x45" at $300/ea. for 20 units = $6000.00 Master Bedroom 94"x46" at$575/ea. for 20 units = $11,500.00 Total = $266,600.00 4-Buildint►s(22, 23, 24 & 25) 8-Lower End Units Bedroom 90"x34" at$575/ea. for 8 units = $4600.00 Bedroom 90"x34" at$575/ea. for 8 units = $4600.00 Dining room 70"x46"$355/ea. for 8 units = $2840.00 Living room Patio door 95"x81" at$1450/ea. for 8 units = $11,600.00 Living room 94"x58" at$575/ea. for 8 units = $4600.00 32-Mid Units Bedroom 44"x43" at$300/ea. for 32 units = $9600.00 Kitchen 44"x43" at$300/ea. for 32 units = $9600.00 Bedroom Patio door 70"x80" at$1100/ea_ for 32 units = $35,200.00 Living Patio door 94"x80"at$1450/ea. for 32 units = $46,400.00 24-End Units 2nd, 3rd& 4th floors Bedroom 48"x40" at$300/ea. for 24 units = $7200.00 Bedroom 48"x40" at$300/ea. for 24 units = $7200.00 Bedroom Patio door 67"x80" at$1100 for 24 units = $26,400.00 Living room Patio door 95"x80" at$1450/ea. for 24 units = $34,800.00 Dining room 70"x46" at$355/ea. for 24 units = $8520.00 Total =$213,160.00 Window Total= $688,380.00 1 Page 86 291 1 EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope Scope List by Unit bl ti.. try ',,,,`,,i l'igii.,. .•04,10.0.....4;*,67,-./404.04-4'...,,Wit'4,:',-,lkalittli;..;VNi$.4.-44..V., :iwill*-' ai fA 4 :.''.041814VaitgAfr-410,40***T4f44,0":"..viltx*,**KiAN004.,,,fro*mt. rve):410,4:44.t.,,tto I n.a. Ext.Stair wells Caulk stairs • n.a. Roof Chimney roosters n.a. Fire escapes Fire escape doors n.a. Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts n.a. Misc. n.a. Roof Leaking roof tiles n.a. Ext.walls Caulkwindows n.a. Ext.walls Window replacement ' 172,6 //-7', 1 1 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 1 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 LF. 1 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 1 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. , 1 2 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 2 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 2 Wall btw.condo 2&6 Wet each 1 3 Deck Surface Replacement I 17915.F. 11 4JDeck 'Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 1 5 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 5 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 5 Living room& bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 1 6 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S,F, 6 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each • 6 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 1 7,Deck 'Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 1 8 Deck Surface Replacement 72.S.F. 2 n.a. Ext. stair wells Caulk stairs n.a. Roof Chimney roosters n.a. Fire escapes Fire escape doors n.a. Gutters/downspouts Gutters 0 downspouts n.a. Misc. n.a. Roof Leaking roof tiles n.a. Ext,walls Caulk windows n.a. Ext.wails Window replacement 2 9 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 9 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 155 L.F. 9 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 9 Living room&bedroom Water stains S.F. 2 10 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 10 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 10 Living room&bedroom Water stains 222 S.F. 2 11 Deck 'Surface Replacement 300 S.F. Printed-6/24/97 pageFFee.35f of 419 292 EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit 2 12 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 2 13 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 13 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 13 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 2 14 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 14 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 14 Living room &bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 21 15 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 15 Living room &bedroom Ceilin9 bows-dryrot each 2` 16 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 16 Exterior stairs Cracks each 16 Garage Bow in floor each 16.Walkway Bow in floor each 3 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 3 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 3 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 3 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 3 0 Misc. 3 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 3 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 3 0 Window replacement Window replacement 3 17 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 3 17 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 155 L.F. 3 17 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 3 17 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 3 17 Walkway Bow in floor each 3 15 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 3 18 Living room&bedroom Water stains 222 S.F. 3 18 Walkway Bow in floor each 3 19 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 3 19 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 3 19 Walkway Bow in floor each 3 20 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 3 20 Walkway Bow in floor 1 each 3 21 Exterior stairs Downspout 5 L.F. 3 21 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. 3 21 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 3 21 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 3 22 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 3 22 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. Printed-6/24197 Page Iq69e 17 of 419 293 EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. .Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit „ s'ca7 47 k; ii pt rs<s'�i' i# is `` tR w . g .i 3 23 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 3 23 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F, 3 241Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 4 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 4 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 4 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 4 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters I downspouts 4 0 Misc. 4 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 4 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 4 0 Window replacement Window replacement 4 25 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 7 L.F, 4 25 Glass door Cracks each 4 26 Deck Surface Replacement 92 S.F. 4' 26 Overall Cracks each 4 27 Deck 'Caulking 80 L.F. 4 28Deck 'Surface Replacement 92 S.F. 4 301Deck !Surface Replacement 92 S.F. 41 31 Exterior stairs iRe-caulking&sealing 751L.F 4 132 Deck Surface Replacement 92 S.F. 4 32 Overall Bow in floor each 6 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 5 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 5 a Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 5 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 5 0 Misc. 5 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 5 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 5 0 Window replacement Window replacement 5 33 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 5 33 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. 5 33 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 5 34 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 34 Living room & bedroom Water stains I 392 S.F. 5 35 Deck Guardrail flashing 21 L.F. 5 35 Glass door Cracks each 5 35 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Printed-6/24/97 pagEPM,$51of419 294 EXHIBIT R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit ,XYPj#i ( '', 443kf.s��;,r� � ): ����'� fix"` � r�ca: ;` y ! �t -�e �,5 ':ice a,✓ i 5 36 Living room &bedroom Water stains 526 S.F. 5 36 Overall Cracks each 5 36 Overall mall' each 5 37 Basement Downspout 5 LF, 5 37 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 5. 37 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F.- 51 38 Uving room &bedroom _ Ceiling bows-dry rot I. leach 5 39 Bathroom Bow in floor each 5 39 Deck Guardrail flashing 65 LF. 5 39 Glass door Beam failure each 6 39 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525.S.F. 51 4G,Overall 18ow in floor I leach 6 0 Caulk stairs Caulkstairs 6 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 6 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 6 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 6 O,Misc., 8 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 6 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 8 0 Window replacement Window reaiacement 6 41 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 6 41 Deck Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. 6 41 Exterior stairs Re-oaulking&sealing 155 L.F. 6 41 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 6 41 Living room &bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 41 Overall Cracks each - 642 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 6 42 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 6 43 Deck Guardrail flashing 65 L.F. 6 43 Glass door Bow in floor each 6 43 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 6 44 Overall Bow in floor I leach 8 45 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 6 45 Exteiricr stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. 6 45 Li EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums Scope List by Unit 7 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 7 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 'f 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 7 0 Gutters/downspouts natter I downspouts 7 0 Misc. 7 0 Roof tilesLeaking roof tiles 7 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 7 0,UWidow replacement Window napiat emenf 71 491Exterior stairs 1Fe-oaulk1fl &sealing I 75L-F- 7 5 L-F-7 50 Deck Surface Replacement 92 S,i. 7 50 Living room&bedroom Water stains 180 S.F. 7 50 Overall Qrapfc$ each 7 54.Deck Surface Replacement 92 S.F. 7 54 LiVing room&bedroom Cracks :each 71. . 56(Deck 1caulking 80IL.F. 8 '0Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 8 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 8 0 Fire escape doors Ftre escape doors 8 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 8 0 Misc. 8 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 8 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 8 0 Window replacement Window replacement 8 57 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S,F. 8 57 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. . 8 57 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each $ 57 14i-ving room&bedroom —Water stains 392 S.F. 8 58 Deck Surface Replacement 179 SF. 8 58 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each $ 58 Living:room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 8 58 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 8- 59 Living room &bedroom Water stains 430 S.F. 8 60 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 8 60 Exterior stairs Re,caulking&sealing 42 L.F. 8 60 LiYieg room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot _.e._ each 8 61 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 8 61 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 8 61 Living room&bedroom Water stains I ani S.F. Dei Surface Replacement .. 8 82 I2 S.F. Printed-6/24/97 Pa *1®.6c St 419 296 EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit 9 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 9 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 9 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 9 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 9 0 Misc. 9 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 9 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 9 0 Window replacement Window replacement 9 63 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 9 63 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 42 L.F. 9 63 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 9 63 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 9 84 Deck Surface Replacement 300S.F. 9 64 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 9 64 Livingroom&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 9 66 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 9 69 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 42 L.F. 9 66 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 91 66,Livipg room&bedroom Water stains 472 S.F. 9 67 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F, 9 67 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 9 67 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 9 B61Decie !Surface Replacement 72lS,F, 10 9'Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 10 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 10 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 10 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 10 0 Misc. 10 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 10 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 10 0 Window replacement Window replacement 10 69 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. 10 69 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 10 69 Living room &bedroom Water stains 592 S.F. 10 70 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 10 70 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 10 70 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S,F. 10 70 Overall Cracks each 101 71 Deck !Surface Replacement I 72 S.F. 10 72 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. 10 72 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 10 72 Living room&bedroom Water stains 592 S.F. n..:,,s...i c/7d/Q7 Paeeslal061•&419 297 EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit g 10 73 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 10 73 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 10 73 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. ® 10 74 Deck ISurface Replacement 1 72S.F.. 11 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 11 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 11 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 11 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 11 0 Misc. 11 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 11 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 11 0 Window replacement Window replacement 11 75 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. 11 75 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 11 75 Living room &bedroom Water stains 616 S.F. 11 76 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 11 76 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 11 76 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 11 77 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 11 77 Living room&bedroom Water stains 430 S.F. 11 78 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 42 L.F. 11 78 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 11 78 Living room&bedroom Water stains 592 S.F. 11 79 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 11 79 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 11 80 Deck Downspout ,61L_F. 11 80 Deck Scupper 1 each 12 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 12 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 12 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 12 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 12 0 Misc. 12 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 12 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 12 0 Window replacement Window replacement 12 81 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. 12 81 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 12 81 Living room&bedroom Water stains 416 S.F. 12 82 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 12 82 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 12 82 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. Page 362 of 419 Printed-6/24/97 Page No.-7 298 EXHIBIT R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit 12 83 Deck ;Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 12 84 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 42 L.F. 12 84 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 12 84 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 12 85 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 12 85 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 12 85 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 12 86 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 13 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 13 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 13 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 13 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 13 0 Misc. 13 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 13 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 13 0 Window replacement Window replacement 13 87 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 13 87 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 75 L.F. 13 87 Living room &bedroom Water stains 623.S.F. 13 88 Deck Surface Replacement 114 S.F. 13 88 Living room& bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 13 88 Living room& bedroom Water stains 160 S.F. 13 89 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 13 89 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 13 89 Living room&bedroom Water stains 540 S,F. 13 89 Overall Bow in floor each 13 90 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 13 90 Overall Cracks each 13 91 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 13 91 Living room &bedroom Water stains 623 S.F. 13 92 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot leach 13 92 Living room&bedroom Water stains 160 S.F. 13 93 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 13 93 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 13 93 Living room&bedroom Water stains 540 S.F. Page 363 of 419 Printed -6/24/97 Page No.-8 299 } EXHIBIT R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit AtO4a4424gat 14 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 14 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 14 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 14 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 14 0 Misc. 14 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 14 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 14 0 Window replacement Window replacement 14 95 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 14 95 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 155 L.F. 14 95 Living room&bedroom Water stains 430 S.F. 14 96 Deck Surface Replacement 114 S.F. I 14 96 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 14 96 Living room&bedroom Water stains 360 S.F. 14 97 Deck Caulking L.F, 14 97 Overall Bow in floor each 141 981Overall Ceiling bows-dry rot each 14 99 Basement Downspout 5L.F. 14 100 Deck Surface Replacement 114 S.F. 14 100 Living room & bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 14 100 Living room &bedroom Water stains 160 S.F. 14 101 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 14 101 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 14 101 Living room&bedroom Water stains 540 S.F. 14 101 Overall Bow in floor each 14 102Deck Scupper 1 each 15 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 15 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 15 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 15 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 15 0 Misc. 15 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 15 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 15 0 Window replacement Window replacement 15 103 Basement Downspout 151L.F. g 15 103 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealin 155 L.F. 15 104 Deck - Surface Replacement 114 S.F. 15 104 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 15 104 Living room & bedroom Water stains 596 S.F. Page 364 of 419 Printed-6/24/97 Page No.-9 300 xf EXHIBIT 4 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit i 15 105 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 15 105 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 15 105 Living room &bedroom Water stains 540 S.F. 15 105 Overall Cracks each 15 106Deck !Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 15 107 Basement Downspout 5 L.F.- 15 107 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 1 75 L.F. 1 15 108 Deck Surface Replacement 114 S.F. o 15 108 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 0 15 108 Living room &bedroom Water stains ._ 460 S.F. 15 109 Deck Surface Replacement 179S.F. 15 109 Overall Cracks each 15 110 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 15 110 Overall Cracks each $ 161 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 16 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 16 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 16 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 16 0 Misc. I 16 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 16 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 16 0 Window replacement Window replacement 16 111 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 16 111 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 16 111 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 42 L.F. 16 111 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 16 111 Living room &bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 16 112 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 16 112 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 16 112 Overall Ceiling bows-dry rot each 1 16 113 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 16 113 Overall Cracks each 16 114 Deck Surface Replacement 1 each 16 114 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. 16 114 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each I 16 114 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 16 115 Deck Scupper 1 each 16 115 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 16 115 Glass door Ceiling bows-dry rot each 16 115 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 16 115 Overall Bow in floor each { Page 365 of 419 Printed-6/24/97 Page No. - 10 ,tee : 301 EXHIBIT R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit 16 1164Deck Scupper 1 each 16 116 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 17 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 17 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 17 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 17 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 17 0 Misc. 17 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 17 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 17 0 Window replacement Window replacement 17 117 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 17 117 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 75 L.F. 17 117 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 17 118 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 17 118 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 17 118 Living room &bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 17 119 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 17 119 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 17 119 Overall Bow in floor each 17 119 Overall Cracks each 17 120 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F, 17 120 Overall Cracks each 17 121 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 17 121 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 17 121 Living room &bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 17 122 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 17 122 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 17 122 Living room &bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 17 123 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 17 123 Living room &bedroom Water: stains 525 S.F. 17 123 Overall Ceiling bows dry rot each 171 124Deck Surface Replacement I 72 S.F 18 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs i 18 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 18 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 18 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts I 18 0 Misc. 18 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 18 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 18 0 Window replacement Window replacement Printed-6/24/97 Page No ag1,t966 of 419 302 __ -- ___ ' EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit 18 125 Basement Downspout 5 L.F 16 125 EXteriOr stairs Re-caulking &sealing 155 L.F. 18 125 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 18 125 Living room&bedroom Water stains 467 S,F.. 18 126 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 18 126 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 18 127 Deck Surface Replacemen300S.F. 18 127 Living room&badmmn Water stains 525 S.F. 18 127 Overall Cracks each 18 1 Su��oeRe�Uuoymoo* 72 I 1n 1 ��� | each . . 18 129 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 18 129 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 75LE. 18 129 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 18 128Uv� room�beUmom Water stains �V2G.F- ` -- -' 18 130 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F 18 130 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 18 130 Living room&bedroom Water stains ' 392 S.F. 18 131 Deck Surface Replacement 179n.F. 18 131 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S'F. 18 131 Overall Cracks + _ each 18 132Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 18 132 Living room&bedroom Water stains ' 430 2.R 18 132 Overall Cracks each 19 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs . . 19 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 19 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 19 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 19 0K0iuo. 19 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 19 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 19 0 Window replacement Window replacement 19 133 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 19 133 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 19 133 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 42!LP. 19 133 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 19 133 Living room &bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 191 134Deok Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 19 134 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 19135 1 Dook 'Surface Replacement T28}� i8( 1�UOvnmU |Cmcks | each Page 367 of 419 �~-^-^ "°^m, Page No. - 10 303 EXHIBIT R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit kry 1 o f VAsa' r, i a,- ' , i i. 19 136 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 19 136 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 19 136 Living room&bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 19 137 Deck Surface Replacement 125 S.F. 19 137 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 19 137 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 3 19 133 Deck Surface Replacement 1 72 S.F. 19 133 Overall Cracks each 20 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 20 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 20 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 20 0 Gutters f downspouts Gutters/downspouts 20 0 Misc. 20 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 20 0 Window caulking Caulk ulkwindows 20 0 Window replacement Window replacement 20 139 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 20 139 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 20 139 Exterior stairs Re-caulking &sealing 42 L.F. 20 139 Living room &bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 20 139 Living room &bedroom Water stains 392 S.F. 20 140 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 20 140 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S,F. 20 140 Overall Bow in floor each 20 141 Deck Surface Replacement 72IS.F 20 141 Overall Cracks each 20 142 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 20 142 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 20 142 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. 20 142 Living room & bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 20 142 Living room &bedroom Water stains 170S.F, 20 143 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 20 143 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 20 143 Overall Bow in floor each 20 144 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F_ 20 144 Overall Cracks each Printed-6/24/97 Page Doge Ae38 of 419 304 EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit s 6 21 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 21 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 21 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 21 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters I downspouts 21 0 Misc. 21 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 21 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 21 0 Window replacement Window replacement 21 145 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 21 145 Deck Base flashing 35 L.F. 21 145 Deck Caulking 84 L.F. 21 145 Deck Downspout 6 L.F. 21 145 Deck Guardrail flashing 12 L.F. 21 145 Deck Scupper 1 each 21 145 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 21 145 Living room&bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 21 145 Living room &bedroom Water stains 170 S.F. 21 146 Deck Surface Replacement 300 S.F. 21 146 Living room&bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 21 146 Overall Bow in floor each 21 147 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 21 147 Overall Cracks each 21 148 Basement Downspout 5 L.F. 21 148 Deck Surface Replacement 97 S.F. 21 148 Exterior stairs Re-caulking&sealing 42 L.F. 21 148 Living room & bedroom Ceiling bows-dry rot each 21 149 Deck Surface Replacement 179 S.F. 21 149 Living room &bedroom Water stains 525 S.F. 21 149 Overall Bow in floor each 21 150 Deck Surface Replacement 72 S.F. 21 150`Overall Cracks each 22 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 22 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 22 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 22 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 22 0 Misc... 22 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 22 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 22 0 Window replacement Window replacement 22 Deck Surface Replacement 1184 S.F 22 Living room&.bedroom Water stains 6160 S.F. 22 Living room&bedroom Water stains 6080 SY 22 Roof Fabric sheeting Printed-6/24197 Page Mtge 3d9 of 419 305 EXHIBIT 44 R&H Construction Co. Oswego Summit Condominiums-Scope List by Unit 1Ei11111'�, 23 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 23 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 23 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 23 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 23 0 Misc. 23 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 23 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 23 0 Window replacement Window replacement 23 Deck Surface Replacement 1080 S.F. 23 Living room &bedroom Water stains 6160 S.F. 23 Living room & bedroom Water stains 6080 S.F. 24 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 24 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters p 24 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 24 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 24 0 Misc. 24 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 24 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 24 0 Window replacement Window replacement I24 Deck Surface Replacement 1080 S.F. 24 Living room &bedroom Water stains 6160 S.F. 24 Living room &bedroom Water stains 6080 S.F. 25 0 Caulk stairs Caulk stairs 25 0 Chimney roosters Chimney roosters 25 0 Fire escape doors Fire escape doors 25 0 Gutters/downspouts Gutters/downspouts 25 0 Misc. 25 0 Roof tiles Leaking roof tiles 25 0 Window caulking Caulk windows 25 0 Window replacement Window replacement 25 Deck Surface Replacement 1080 S.F. 25 Living room&bedroom Water stains 6160 S.F. 25 Living room &bedroom Water stains 6080 S.F. / f { , xdt-,st lit„ ...> - Printed-6/24/97 Page Nage 35I0 of 419 306 EXHIBIT 45 Board of Directors Meeting: Tuesday,November 23, 1999 Attendees: Joe VanGulik,Barbara Miller,Dinty Moore,Dennis Meyers,Dewey Meazell and Clarese Ocker. Homeowners Dewey Meazell called the meeting to order. Minutes were unavailable and will be reviewed at next meeting. Committee Reports: A. The report from the finance committee just came in. I don't think there is anything new. Right we'll get to the budget with new business. Is there anything to report? Paul said we don't have anything to report because the accountants haven't got it ready yet. Barbara,Dinty,Clarese have been working hard on it but it's not ready yet. There's been a lot of things to do involving a lot of people so when it comes if you want to have a special meeting at that time to see where we are,it would be alright with me. Dewey: OK Joe:what are we doing with the board meeting of last month? Dewey: we don't have the minutes right now;we will take care of that next time. B. Delinquencies—are in the packet. Clarese: may I just say that with the accounting,it is a rather complicated set up that we have right at the moment?We have had to go back and forth. We have been trying to unravel this not just for the past couple of days but for the past couple of weeks. Transferring funds from various funds and trying to get beginning balance numbers. He can't give us anything yet but I think he is getting close. Dewey: we're still going through the transition. We will get there. a. Construction Committee—Joe: well there are quite a number of things. The drainage in front of building 9 has been completed. The landscaping in front of buildings 10 and 11 has been and drainage and sprinkler system has been finished in respect to the landscaping. I should add to it that in 72 we found dry rot which we knew was a possibility because the ground is slanted in the direction of the condos so apparently for years quite a bit of water was gathering under building 10 and 11 and that was the reason. We knew that and unit 72 is subject to sale,am I right? Dinty: right,right. Joe: so the inspector came up and found dry rot under 72 that we had to attend to. How much will it cost us? We don't know yet do we? Dinty: no,no we don't. It is something that we have to do and I don't think it will be a lot of money. I think basically it entails removal of construction material under there,its post and beam construction you know,remove several of the posts,visquine and I think that's it. Joe: Also,I think we aught to look at all the bottom units in buildings 10 and 11 in the likelihood that we will be having dry rot in the other buildings. Dinty: we have taken care with the re-grading behind those buildings to take care of any future problems but we certainly are not out of the woods on the current one. We should as long as we have the men on site to do that. Joe: We have completed the dry rot between building 1 and 2. Dinty have we got the bill. No but we are really not quite finished. There's probably about a half-day's work left. They let Harry off today but he will be back and do some research behind building 10 and 11. He's going to be our resident man from R & H. We also looked at the bridge between 13 and 14 and 14 and 15. Now we have dry rot there. I think we should ask R&H,to look at it,Dinty and myself and Jeff Ferell looked at this three weeks ago and I think what we should do is ask R&H to do just take some of the boys out there. I think that we will find between those two or those four buildings will be minor compared to the problem between 1 and 2 but I think it should be looked at. Dewey: how much are we spending on the first? Dinty: It's a time and materials. Joe: I think it's about in the order of 4 or 5 thousand. I don't think it's any more than that. This has to come out of the reserve doesn't it? It shouldn't come out of the loan account. What do we call that account? Clarese: the loan account. Joe: right, the loan account. Nothing more should come out of the loan account. Joe: The roofs on 24 is done right? Dinty: I think another half day. Harry is going to secure the flashing,the piece of metal flashing across the top he is. Joe:is that 24? Dinty no that is 23 and 22 have half a day's work on them. Joe: do we have a bill from R&H on them? Dinty: yes we have and I'm not sure that that hasn't been paid. Wasn't that for 23K? Clarese: yes,you signed that. Joe: we have signed off on 22,23 and 24. Clarese: yes they are not only signed off,but also paid. Joe: I would like to schedule a day to go up. Dinty: anytime. Joe: have you been up there? Are you satisfied? Dinty: Yes, I will be if they do what is necessary and they know what it is. Joe: We also have secured a CAD drawing of the plat here and have asked one company,we got the plat drawings from the county and then we assembled them altogether and the cost of doing that is going to be minimal. And then on those drawings, we should start putting the drainage system, water system and also the sprinkler system on there. I also have contacted the Gilbert brothers who were retained by the original builders about the apartments were converted to condominiums. They did all the paperwork. I am trying to resurrect the exact wording etc that was done at the time from those folks. We might have to go back to Salem and the reason is that we have on paper for the people living in phase 1 so we can tell them exactly what has been done regarding the water heaters, heat and some other issues and the lighting also. But I just thought you might like to know. It might take another month or so. That's just about all I have to say. Clarese: do you want to delay payment on the bridge until the roofs are done? Joe: no...they are separate. If you are satisfied with the building of the bridge between 1 & 2, I think we aught to pay it. Dewey: I thought R&H was going to get us bids for the other two bridges. Joe: Yes,right. there aught to do boards tearing off some see how bad it is. Dewey: but hopefully it is no big repair issue. Joe: no,mind you if water is getting into the bridge, that's a big deal and of the course the longer we wait the worse it gets so. Clarese: can we back up for just a second? Dewey: sure. Clarese: on the delinquencies do you want to go 307 EXHIBIT 45 ahead with the collections on the three here? Joe: I think we should. Clarese: there are three. Joe:there's two. Dewey: OK has Bankers trust paid something? I thought there used to be a lot more. Clarese: we have been lost in the shuffle. We were paid then the paper was sold and I just think we have been lost in the transition. I don't think it will be a problem we just have to notify them of the amount. Dewey: I thought it was a lot more. Clarese:I'll look into it but I...Joe: I think we need to let the rest of the people know that we have one unit that the lady is still living in there. Barbara: it was being sold and as it turns out,it was sold back to her. Joe: we really don't know what it is but whatever (Barbara....Rowskoski). It is a long story. Dewey: nothings in her name,nothings been in her name for a long time. Barbara: we've got a lawyer; we've got a couple doing the preliminaries; we have the files from Marathon and I think we're getting somewhere this time. Joe: am I correct is saying that the amount owing is only I 1K. Clarese: that's not the loan,just the dues delinquent. The loan is 7. Dinty: Dewey you are right on 161. It was considerably more than that now this figure I don't know. Dewey: I think it is off a couple of thousand dollars. OK shall we go ahead and make a motion. Joe: I make a motion that we go ahead with collection whatever way we deem most efficient. Dinty: second. All in favor:all against. The motion passes. Anything else on delinquencies? Sandra isn't here so I don't think we have anything from the landscape committee unless somebody else. Rules and regulations? Clarese: Denise Thompson said she couldn't be here tonight but she requested to attend the work session to define the scope of the committee. Dewey: sounds good. Manager's/Maintenance Clarese anything?:Just the work log from Ken. Dewey: O.K.did get the pool and spa resurfaced and those of you who haven't seen it,it looks great. All right, I guess we will move on to open forum. Yes madam: Voice: I have one concern. I was really glad to see the gutter people come out where they took the gutters in 17 and 18 where they directed the gutters away from the building. I think that's really really good. I think that maybe when you check for dry rot where it has been blowing for years and years. And then on the backside of the building you have the same issues. I have two gutters that are right next to the building that have the same problem. Dinty: Does it take the water away? What building are you in Voice:oh no,building 18. And I believe you'll find it on the backside of 17. At least 17 and 18 and probably all of them. Because the gutter is here's my bedroom window and here's little storage room and the backyard. There's a gutter that goes right there. Joe: you mean the downspout. Dinty: the downspout. Voice: yeh,yeh but still, my point being that the water is flowing right down there and and we're right next to it. Dinty: we don't take it away. Voice: no you don't' so Dinty: so you're talking about what they did on Joan Bennets and yeh Voice: right and they re-directed the downspout and gutters so the water is not flowing right next to the building but on the backside of the buildings you've got the same thing. Dinty: Well, maybe we can re-direct the downspouts and how will that be and the flashing too. Voice: that will be fine. Joe: I really think Dinty that if a gutter over flows that's one thing that should not contribute to the leaking of a building. Do you agree? Dinty: very much so. Voice: I would like it very much if you could check the dry rot for where the gutters have been flowing steady for years and years. Joe: we will check that. Dinty: do you have the same problem that Joan had? Voice: I don't know what her problem was....the closet? Dinty: yes the closet. Voice: yes I have had the same problem. Dinty: yes, ok. Is this new thing helping? Voice: I don't know because the previous damage hasn't been fixed. Dinty: we know where you live. Thank you Teresa. Dewey: Clarese when we get to new business, if we go with the gutter cleaning company H &K landscaping,will they be able to access the gutter system? Clarese: I am sure they would but the bid wasn't for construction so there would be an additional charge. But I am sure they would. You're just talking about extensions to the downspouts to carry the water back(Dewey...right,right) Dinty: they're certainly equipped to do that. Dewey: we can discuss that. Clarese: there may be other ones. I know that I forgot to mention that they're going to take the cages out of the downspouts because they collect leaves. I got them to do that at no additional charge. I figured it would be easy to pull them out. So anyway,I'll talk to them about this additional work—extension. Voice: my last comment is that you guys are doing a good job. I hate the fact that Dinty is still up in this office at 8:00 o'clock, 7:00 o'clock. Clarese: he Iikes to, Dinty: yeh. Voice: but is he getting paid? Joe: well we can double his salary(laughter...)I am grateful because a lot of volunteerism has gone into this change. Dinty: we like to think we have done some good. Voice: you bet. Dinty: that's pay enough. Voice: can we extend the scope of the landscaping people to include looking at the back of the buildings? Dinty: we are going to have a session with our landscaping people. Voice: cause I've got my own yard that I am taking care of but the lady next door(just moved in)is ? Dinty: aheh. Voice: she's just got a couple of grass things standing up and a bunch of weeds. Dinty: some of them are that way. Voice: the one underneath, by the street, (cant hear or understand). Dewey: thank you for coming. Voice: I live in 182 and a year ago D&F put in a couple of new windows and one is still leaking and D&F came out a week ago and it is still leaking. So I am wondering if anyone else is having that problem or am I blaming it on something else; shingles. Joe: did you see them put the windows in. Voice: yes the frame comes with a lip on whatever you call it. Joe: did they leave that on or cut it off Voice: I didn't see that but I am assuming that they left it on. Barbara: I talked with Dale about this because he installed my windows and he said"no"he is very aware that it's the primary rule here at Oswego Summit. Voice: I am little concerned wondering if anyone else has had a problem or. Joe: oh yes, we've had some problems. You say there is still causing a leak below you? Voice: no I am on the upper floor it's coming through the window frame. Dinty: it leaks only in your unit. Voice: yes Joe: I would call the guy back. Voice: I did and he said he was coming today but he didn't. Dinty: would 308 EXHIBIT 45 you let us know when he comes so we can go over and watch him and see what he does. Voice: sure, a week ago he came and put in some kind of rolled asphalt took the shingles off from the outside and put on some new shingles. Joe: and it still leaks? Voice: yes when there's a rainstorm. Dinty: would you let the office know when he shows up. Voice: I don't want to give him a bad time Dinty: no, no we just see that it's fixed. Voice: he's kind of half way blaming it on something else so Dinty: I see,right. No he might be able to teach us something and conversely we might be able to help him a little bit. Voice: I hope so,thank you. Dewey: any other questions? I guess we will move on to new business and we're going to insert at the top the new budget. Paul: do you want to do that now? Dewey: sure Paul Brockmeir of the finance committee will lead us through this. Paul: I am Paul Brockmeir of the finance committee for those of you who don't know me. The other member of the finance committee are Dinty Moore,Barbara Miller, Dewey Meazell and what I'm going to do now is present to the board of which they have copies the recommendations of 2000 budget from the finance committee with a few comments. Doing the budget this year was a little bit difficult because of the major changes between this current year and next year and going from no management company to doing some of the work ourselves. It was also a year 1999 in which due to the volunteer of some people,Dinty and Barbara and some other people we were able to essentially reduce expenditures for what was intended to be expenditure in year 1999. That in a way means we're going to end up with some cash at the end of the year unless we decide to pay Dewey and Dinty and Barbara a salary—we'll double their salary as they say. Anyway we have some figures and I going to make some comments as we go down. Employment, which is the pay that we pay the manager and maintenance person,employment for year 2000 is expected to be a little bit greater than the 99 budget and also than the 99 actual because for some months in year 99 we did not pay anybody to do maintenance or do management. Administration, which used to include the management fees to Marathon, which we no longer pay,administration for the year 2000 is significantly reduced. Both for the year the current year actual and for the 99 budget. And the big reduction is not paying Marathon management or some management company 35000 for the year....30,000. So if you added the two together, the year 2000 even though we are going to pay more employment costs and the fact that we are not paying a management company, significantly less it comes out a smaller expenditure than we have for the current year or what we budgeted for the year. In general office expenses we going to come out, we're budgeting for the year 2000,just about the same as we expect to spend this year and that's what about 4000 or 5000 less than we budgeted for 99 and the main reason why that is going down for year 2000 is Barbara, I think primarily, has done a lot of work investigating what we were spending money for in the office previously and we think we are making some significant savings in the office for next year. Utilities, going the other way. Utilities are going to be about 1300 more than the actual projected for this year and close to 12 or 13,000 more than the budget this year. Utilities include water, electricity, natural gas, and sewer. And just to give you a rundown, PGE is going up next year,natural gas which heats the swimming pools is going up next year, Rossman garbage, if they get the city to approve it,is going up 10%,natural gas is going up 15%,Lake Oswego,which charges water is going to be 13%over current amount, sewer is going up a small amount. In terms of water,I would suggest to all of you that you listen to see if your toilets are constantly running and do something about it. Because they can run continuously and I know that where I live even with me being hard of hearing, I can hear somebody's toilet running part of the time. I don't know how much water that uses but we all pay for it so let's put a brick in your toilet tank if you don't have one so we can use a smaller amount. State Farm Insurance is going to go up for next year. So essentially, well that's not utilities but when we get to insurance we have that also. So utilities are budgeted to go up. Insurance is budged for 36K next year which is what State Farm says they need. Landscaping just about the same at about 29K or 30K a year. That is what we pay for the landscaper,Highridge and also includes some extra things that have to do with landscaping. Taxes: we pay taxes essentially on interest that we earn from our bank accounts. We budgeted 2K for that. It may or may not be that high and it won't be that high in the future because our bank accounts that we earn interest on are going down because we have paid off a significant amount of the loans. And for operations maintenance, we are increasing operating and maintenance from around budgeted amount in 99 of 46K and an annualized amount for this year of 38000 we are increasing operating and maintenance costs. This is not reserve type thing this is on going maintenance routine maintenance. It may not seem routine to Dinty and Joe but it is considered routine. We are increasing that to 87K. Actually the budget committee thought that we aught to increase that significantly more. One of the reasons why maintenance has been low the last couple of years are because we've actually done some things that were charged to the 2M loan that ordinarily would have been charged to maintenance. And so our maintenance has been running low. We need to recognize that in Phase 1 buildings 1 —21 we will always have relatively high maintenance costs even though we've spent a lot of money we are going to need, this is my opinion not the boards opinion, we are always going to have a leaking problem in buildings 1 —21. We are always going to have the roof problems in buildings 22—25. In addition,we have some things that we have not done yet. We have not done significant painting for a couple of years now because we've always put off until the weather was good in the year and the last couple of years about the time we get ready to start that we get in a crisis, personnel and otherwise, so we haven't done any painting. So actually the committee wanted to increase maintenance much more than it is. One of the reasons why this report is a little late is that we just now received the updated reserve study and the updated reserve study takes into account all the money we've spent, 309 EXHIBIT 45 all the money that they predict may have to be spent in the future on things like siding and the water system and so on. We have to put in the reserves about the same amount that we have the last couple of years which is $116893. Out of the reserves would come things like renewing the siding, which needs to be redone on building 22 — 25? Resurfacing the outside swimming pool since the inside came out of the year. There are some other thing s that come out of the reserves. The roof repairs come out of the reserves. So the reserves are essential. The net result of all of this is the finance committee is purposing that the regular assessments for the year 2000 remain the same as they are for the year 1999. Which or whatever that is per unit,that they remain the same. We will be spending in more money than we take on regular assessment. We will make up the difference about 20K with the cash that should be left over at the end of dec.1999. In other words,we will carry that over and use it in the year 2000. Again,why did we save that money? We saved that money because we didn't do what we intended to do and the main reasons we didn't spend is that we have some maintenance things, we have significant volunteer labor and we had no salaries for a couple of months. So that's where we are and I'm not real sure, we hear comments from people about what they'd like to see done and maybe something more,different or better on a new landscaping company. That's for the board to decide. But I think the recommendation from the finance is essentially we need the 2000 regular assessments the same as they are for 1999 which totals about 45 3,800. Questions from the board or homeowners? State Farm Insurance; what is that? State Farm is on the structures and buildings that are the association responsibility and not the individual homeowners responsibility. It does not cover the inside of your unit. It does not cover the appliances. It does not cover paint or any repairs inside your unit. Just outside,the structure itself. Earthquake,fire and wind. We have recovered all of the last several years from State Farm maybe why it goes up,some amounts for wind and water damage. For wind in some area in March or April it's been three years in a row we have recovered from State Farm for wind damage and the incursion of water. It is also a liability. Having the pools we pay an increased liability. It also protects the officers and homeowners from any embezzlement. Joe: I like what I see. Thank you Paul. This year we have the option of letting a decision go a little longer is you want before we always had to have this done so the management company could prepare the new statements and get them in the mail for January by the middle of December or something like that. This year we may have a couple of weeks longer with Clarese. Voice: it is my understanding that the budget can be re-done from time to time during the year if necessary. Yes the budget could be done in fact one of the finance committee members would like to take a look at the budget sometime next summer and especially the office and maintenance areas. It's not written in stone. No but the board does need to make a motion on the decision. My own personal feeling is that we should not change assessments in mid-year. That's for several reasons. It's a heck of a problem. Plus it sets a terrible precedent simply because to do that it means that you're going a budget every time you turn around or every time somebody stands up in an open forum and says"I don't want to pay 219 a month. I want to pay 215 a month and I want the budget redone. Once we set the budget and assessment for the year, we aught to stick with it. In my opinion—I am not on the board. Another questions. Thanks Paul. Joe: Do you think it might be appropriate that the board approve the budget? Dewey: I think so. Do we have a motion? Joe: I move that we approve the budget as purposed by the finance committee. (Dewey.Second) and that we also retain the same assessment, which we had previously. (Dennis second) All in favor? Opposed? Passed Thanks again Paul. Just to let everyone know: we got our money back for the roof and we still have the roof tiles Thank you Clarese for getting that. Barbara: now we need a little stand down by the front to sell those things. Joe: I think that's all done. Dewey: yeh. Barbara—your letter. Joe: I think we aught to do something there. In fact this young fellow works outside and the noise that he makes was terrible. One time I walked by out there and I was very friendly and he just said buzz off. He is using power tools and using a sander and saw. What people don't realize is that you have buildings on both sides and it echoes. Dinty: I think he is through with his project. That doesn't excuse him for what he's done. Barbara: that doesn't prevent him from doing it in the future. Dennis: first of all we didn't call him when he first did it. We didn't write him a letter or notify him so shame on us. See, if he is through with his project, we can't go out and tell him he better not do that again. We can't reprimand him until he does something. Do we know he is through with this project? Is there something in the by-laws? "Yes" and it's a little ambiguous. He's using his garage. Well, he's not the only one. There are woodshops in a lot of the garages. Noise,not putting cars in and I didn't know he had finished his boat. Stacks of shelving sitting in there now. He will build something else. We also have an owner who has a dog on the outside and it's not just a tiny small dog. -a big dog. Dewey: at our next work session,let's talk to the rules and regs committee and see if we can get something done. Isn't there a size restriction on dogs. Barbara—there was and the lawyer said that is probably not enforceable. We don't want to operate on Judy's hearsay. Take that up at the next work session. The guideline was 20#. Did we change the rules? I don't think so. We can check on that too. Dewey: now we have the letter from Gilson Lipp. Unit 93. Just received today. This deals with the issue with general letter on sliders. Lipp is with Alliance properties. He is questioning where we need to take it, in general terms. We looked at this at the work session. It has caused confusion. Dewey: We decided that if R&H determines that their windows are causing leaks in unit below,their going to be held responsible not only for their own windows but for the damage below. Clarese: the historical data that R&H has provided(Dinty and I have worked on this)is vague. Not as specific as this. We have trouble finding this in their data. Maybe they are getting cold feet and don't want to be held accountable for the letter. Some of 310 EXH i BIT 45 these listed units;R&H doesn't have any back-up on. Dennis: then how did we get it? Clarese: There was a general letter to the Board. Discussion regarding these windows and the leaks. We don't know if windows need changing. If owner doesn't fix them and they leak,they are responsible. If replaced and leak persists,is the board going to pay for the repair. All we can do is suggest. Windows are old and not very good to begin with. Tom wants to know where information is coming from because downstairs unit doesn't have a leak. Clarese will look for back up from R&H. Jeff to provide some information. b. Walkie-talkies: We are not using the walkies talkies. We are using cell phones. We only have 2 hand units so it will cost us more to return them than to buy out the lease. Good locally only. Joe moved that we buy out lease. Seconded,passed. c. Gutter: 1M coverage by H &K. Last year paid 250 per building. Discussion about gutter placement making building sides wet. This year 200. Can start end of week. Moved and passed. d. Payment coupons: explained that it would eliminate statements. Clarese explained project. Two coupon books. Volunteers needed to statement mailings. Discussion of transfer fee or notification of transfer of ownership so office could keep abreast of real estate activity. Rules and Regs to investigate possibility of adding transfer fee. Mailing date discussed. Motion that we do coupons was passed. e. Fence repair: cancelled original contractor because he failed to meet our time frame, failed to call back, questionable phone numbers, bid person was gone. It appears that contractor does not want to do the job. Barbara said there was another bid. Discussion of having Ken do the work. He is not bonded. Should have a regular company do the work. Barbara said the existing fence could be repaired. Tabled for now. f. Next work session following Tuesday Nov 30. g. Garbage enclosure per Ken's drawings was discussed. Joe wanted more detail, questioned the up rights. Barbara moved,passed for Ken to build the garbage surround. h. Presentation by Micro Cam technologies. Tabled until next work session. Discussion from floor concerning security etc. i. Discussion of fine letter concerning maverick painting of door with non-approved colors. 6 letters went out(per Barbara)because homeowners had not used approved colors. Blues don't count at this time. In spring, those doors will have to be changed. j. Meeting adjourned; 311 EXHIBIT 46 p ik t ;/ BW INSPECTION ENGINEERS, INC P.O. Box 127 / 311 8 Avenue, Suite H I Lake Oswego, OR 97034-0127 OFFICE: 503-697-0640 FAX: 503-697-3286 February 13, 2001 Clarise Ocker Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: "A Cut Above Siding" - Siding replacement project with "Cedar Valley Singles" (CVS) on buildings 22, 23, 24, 25 and the recreation building. At your request an on-site inspection was performed on Wednesday, February 7th in company with my associate Verl Winters. Other people who were present during part or all of the inspection included: Clarise Coker the property manager, flinty Moore of the Oswego Summit board of directors, Ken Jacoby Oswego Summit maintenance man, Keith Randall the on-site project manager for "A Cut Above Siding, " work forces for A Cut Above Siding, and various tenants. Purpose The purpose of this visit was to compare the actual work performed against the work promised in the contract under the section entitled "Scope of Work" quoted below for convenience: 1. For safety, barricade all work areas with caution tape, cones, signs, etc. 2 . Tear-off Siding in accordance with industry standards. 3. Install Moisture barrier in accordance with industry standards . 4 . Install Siding and Trim in accordance with industry standards. 5. Paint or Stain Siding and Trim in accordance with industry standards. 6. Clean the job site daily and do a thorough clean up at the end of the job. 7 . All debris will be put in a drop box located in the staging area. 8 . All materials will, be stored in the staging area . 312 EXHIBIT 46 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 2 Observations & Evaluation Our observance of the work in progress tends to indicate general compliance with items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, & 8 . Further- more, the over all appearance of the siding already installed is highly favorable. Unfortunately, the contractor has not fully complied with item 4 of the contract. It should be noted that industry standards includes compliance with: A. code requirements . B. the manufacturer' s installation instructions . C. the general standards of other contractors who could be hired to perform the same work. Simply stated if a contractor does not comply with code requirements, follow the manufacturer' s application instructions or if a contractor' s work is substandard in comparison with other contractors in the area; then that contractor has not performed his work "in accordance with industry standards . " With regard to item 4 of the contact, problems were noted in the following areas : Head Flashing Problems Sheet metal flashings have been installed over the top of weather-exposed windows, garage vehicle doors and wooden mounting blocks for light fixtures (photos 4, 9) , etc. The flashings at the corners of the windows and vehicle doors were notched so that the sheet metal does not fully extend past the trim. The notch allows water on top of the flashings to run behind the wooden trim at vertical siding abutments . Examples are shown in photos 20, 21, & 22 . Photos 32, 35 & 37 show correct flashing detail without being notched. Section 1402 . 2 of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) reads in part: 1402 .2 Flashing and Counterflashing. Exterior openings exposed to the weather shall be flashed in such a manner as to make them weatherproof. 313 EXHIBIT 46 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 3 Notching sheet metal flashings to guide water behind the wooden trim does not comply with the above code requirement. It should be noted that applying caulk where the flashings were notched is not an acceptable remedy because caulk does not qualify as either a flashing or a counter flashing. Caulk is prone to failure and requires constant maintenance. The notched head flashings need to be replaced with flashings that are not notched and that extend past the trim. Vertical Alignment - Nail Problems The vertical nail patterns are out of tolerance in places on every building and garage. Some of the nail patters are out of vertical alignment by as much as two inches, which means that some of the nails do not hit studs . Examples of improper nail patterns are shown in photos 2, 6 & 8 . A panel on the backside of building 22, unit 151 above the kitchen nook window has only two nails holding the panel in place. There appears to be a few other panels loose on other buildings, but this could not be confirmed because most of the panels are not readily accessible. Additional checking is recommended. The CVS Application Instructions state the following under NAILING INSTRUCTIONS Use one stain-resistant nail approximately 1" up from the butt of the bottom course at each stud (16" or 24" O.C. ) long enough to penetrate 1/2" into solid nailable substrate when driven through the top of the preceding panel (or into sill plate on starter panels) . Gypsum board sheathing was used on these buildings, which does not have the capacity to hold siding in place. In order to comply with the manufacturer' s instructions, each siding nail must be embedded 1/2" into a stud or other building framing. Since framing studs are 1 & 1/2 inches wide, any nail pattern that is off vertical centerline of a stud by more than 3/4" will miss . I believe that A Cut Above Siding or any other contractor (It is industry standards to correct known deficiencies . ) would be willing go back and provide additional nails as appropriate . 314 EXHIBIT 46 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 4 The NAILING INSTRUCTIONS continue, On three-course panels, use second nail (1" up from butt at each stud) through top course. The contractor has modified the above pattern slightly so that the next panel above covers the top nail in the panel immediately below and so that the bottom nail in each panel is placed about 2 inches up from the bottom. The technique employed here is referred to as "blind nailing, " which is a generally accepted practice within the industry. Trimmed Panels - Nail Problems The NAILING INSTRUCTIONS continue in part, There is no need to nail other courses unless the panel has been cut horizontally (for window, door, gable, etc. ) , then each cut shingle must be nailed or secured with molding. The illustration accompanying the instructions includes a dia- gram for diagonally cut panels with the following directive: When panels are cut horizontally to fit gable ends, under windows and eaves, nail every cut shingle close to the edge or apply molding. (Suggestion: Nail shingles to be cut before sawing about 1/2" from saw line. ) Approximately 50% of the shingles at gable diagonal cuts need staples. Examples were found on all of the buildings including the recreation room, garages, and main buildings (for OK nails see photos 8; for improper see photos 7, 9 & 36) . A few of the shingles without staples are just starting to curl, but can still be remedied by following the above instructions. Missing Siding I found a vertical strip of siding omitted between units 176 & 177 from the roof all the way down to the ground on building 23 in front of the elevator. Photos 10 & 11 show the missing siding. The missing siding appears to be inadvertent, but must be installed. 315 EXHIBIT 46 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 5 Deck Flashings & Divots There are divots in deck coatings of the outside concrete walkways that allow moisture entrapment behind the siding and will expedite decay. The deck coatings/flashings at these junctures were not properly installed and need to be made waterproof. Examples include photos 3, 17, 18, & 19. Making flashing improvements at deck/wall junctures and filling in divots would be an added scope of work for the siding contractor. Additional Items We observed that some of the new siding is hard pressed against the earth. At least six inches of soil-wood and vegetation separation should be provided to minimize the pos- sibility of decay and/or an insect infestation. Summary Once the noted deficiencies above have been corrected, I would consider the visibly inspected components of the siding system to comply with item 4 of the contract . Limitations This was a preliminary visual review. Our observations were not exhaustive and a comprehensive evaluation was not performed. Additional observations and/or evaluations may be requested. WE DO NOT CERTIFY OR WARRANTY THE WORK OF CONTRACTORS . When the recommended repairs are complete, the contractor must provide a letter certifying that they have re-examined the siding they installed and corrected the deficiencies noted. Without this "all clear" letter and a warranty statement, we cannot provide assurance that the noted problems have been corrected even if a reinspection is performed. 316 EXHIBIT 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 6 Attached is set of photographs. Should there be any questions or if there is a need for additional clarification, you are welcome to call. Very truly yours, �J�— Y r Ott ` - Br 4 . Weight, Y.E. OR #13939 Exp. 06/30/01 g$:.,°/4" /4" 13939 OPEGON 317 EXHIBIT 47 X00 'HOMEOWNERS: October 25, 2001 MONTHLY MEETING 7:00 pm Meeting called to order by President Dennis Meyers. Board members present were: Sandra Ferguson, Loretta Stephenson, Dinty Moore and Joe Van Gulik. 8 homeowners registered. Clarese Ocker took the minutes. Approval of Minutes: Loretta moved and Joe seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 27 meeting and the October work session. Motion passed unanimous. Transfer of Funds: Joe moved and Dinty seconded a motion to transfer $6,339.68 from Reserve to Operating; $12,000 from Operating to Reserve and $7,536.98 from Operating to Loan. Motion passed Committee Reports A. Finance Committee: Paul Brockmeier presented the proposed 2002 budget. The committee recommends that we adopt a budget with the same assessments as 2001 and that there be no increase in dues. Joe moved and Loretta seconded a motion to accept the recommendation of the Finance Committee. Motion passed. B. Delinquencies: Clarese reviewed the delinquencies. Unit 87 was discussed. As the new owner is current, the arrears become a legal issue and our attorney is making efforts to collect. When the actual amount is determined, it will be re-entered on the report. Question raised about unit 12. C. Construction Committee: Joe Van Gulik reported that there are leaks at units: 15 (appliances), 19(deck), 67(deck and door), 126(siding?), 146(unknown) and 85 (plumbing and gutter). Joe moved and Dinty seconded a motion to have "A Cut Above" do the shingle repair at above 126 for $1,940. Motion passed. Joe requested photos and to be present when repair was in process. Joe reported on the seeping water by the fountain and Clarese explained that after investigation, it was determined to be our irrigation. Lake Oswego will not be responsible for the repair. Joe reported on his observations under building 6. Clarese reported on the repair and the amended billing. Joe said he will go under 6 and check out the completed work. D. Architectural Committee: no report. E. Maintenance Committee: Jaye Miller discussed the report in the director's materials. Some doors have been painted black; therefore that color will be carried through for Phase II small garage doors. The Architectural and Maintenance Committees will be combined. A stop "line" has been painted at the property entrance. Money is available in the 2002 budget for additional help for Ken. Clarese will research resumes and costs of structural engineers. F. Landscape Committee: Sandra Ferguson gave the report discussing their budget, QWest project, and compactor. Sandra will have year-end report at the next board meeting. Joe questioned software status. G. Social Committee: No report. H. Manager's Report: Clarese discussed her report covering new computer, the legal seminar, pet policy amendment, coupon books. I. Maintenance Report: In Directors packet. Open Forum: YY. A homeowner mentioned that his garage was sinking. Clarese will investigate having a surveyor put a transit on the site for our records. ZZ. A homeowner responded to a letter she had received from the board. AAA. Unit 67 owner asked what was going to be done about the leak in her ceiling. Repair to the deck was done but Joe said we would look into other causes. BBB. A unit owner asked about the replacement of washer hoses. Clarese reported that the cost was built into next year's budget and we would start after the first of the year. 318 EXHIBIT 47 New Business A. The Board agreed to have Argo give us a bid to make a hand rail for the steps outside the Rec Center. B. There was no action on a complaint from 125 about a cat because the cat could not be identified. Sandra said animal control will come up and pick up"everything." She suggested that this may be the only option to get people to comply with rules. C. The inquiry from unit 55 about a third vehicle was given a suggestion to procure a"temporary"monthly parking permit and park it by the Rec Center. D. The request from 125 to increase the plantings by her door was referred to the Landscape Committee. Homeowner suggested using rock salt to discourage cats. E. The third complaint about the cat at 133 was discussed. The Board said homeowner should be given notice that the cat must be removed from the property in 5 days or fines of$5.00 per day would begin until the cat was gone. F. The complaint from 125 about the barking dogs at 117 was given the same decision. G. The complaint from 125 about cat at 92 was discussed. Final warning will be written. Old Business A. Letter from homeowner at unit 16 was discussed. Homeowner will be responsible for cost to remove foreign paint. Because she said the property is co-owned,the fine for failing to apply for non-owner occupancy will be reversed. Sandra made the motion,Joe seconded it and it passed. B. Request from L.Baldwin regarding Unit 155 was accepted by Joe's motion,Loretta's second and a vote. C. Proposal from L.Waller to make repairs at 126 was tabled until the leak is fixed. D. Letter from R.Olson to rent out his unit(13)was approved on the motion of Dinty and Joe's second. 8:35: Loretta moved and Sandra seconded a motion to adjourn. Motion passed. October 25 2001 319 EXHIBIT -51 HOMEOWNERS: February 28, 2002 MONTHLY MEETING 7:00 pm Meeting called to order by President Dennis Meyers. Board members present were: Sandra Ferguson, Dinty Moore,Loretta Stephenson,and Joe Van Gulik. 14 homeowners registered and Clarese Ocker took the minutes. Approval of Minutes: Loretta moved and Joe seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2002 meeting. Dinty moved and Loretta seconded the motion to approve the February 2002 work sessions and confirm polled decision to have Schwindt up-date the Reserve Study. Both motions passed unanimous. Transfer of Funds: Loretta moved and Dinty seconded a motion to transfer $725 from the Operating fund to the Reserve fund and$1905 from Reserve to Operating. Motion passed Committee Reports A. Finance Committee:No Report B. Delinquencies: Clarese reviewed the delinquencies. There was an update on Unit 87 and Linda Pfeiffer. Joe asked how we could avoid so serious a situation in the future. Clarese explained the collection process and that continued vigilance should keep problems in check. C. Construction Committee: Joe Van Gulik reported on the current leaks. He described work by new contractor and frustration experienced by everyone over the elusive nature of some of the leaks. D. Architectural/Maintenance Committee: No chairperson,no report. E. Landscape Committee: Sandra Ferguson indicated that there were no new developments however she had scheduled a meeting with QWest on site for the 1 1th of the month. F. Social Committee: no report. Clarese reminded everyone that Jay would be providing treats before the Annual meeting and encouraged everyone to attend. G. Manager's Report: As the meeting was well on schedule, Clarese gave a detailed report pointing out that we will save $22,000 in interest by our completed loan refinancing; the year end accounting review was basically complete, the new software and drawings of the property were installed, evaluation of in-house Reserve Study is progressing with the chair of the finance committee and follow-up will continue with homeowners who must replace their windows and doors. There was a lengthy discussion on the merits of doing the Reserve study in- house. H. Maintenance Report: Dinty commented briefly on the report and said that trash collection was going well. 7:25: Open Forum: A. Homeowner from 160 spoke about her continued leaks and how she wanted the Board to respond in addition to resolving their personal leak problems. B. Homeowner from 19 would like to repair his ceiling and wanted some indication of when the upper slider would be replaced. Clarese said action was being taken. 7:35: New Business S. Clarese will call suspected swimming dog owner and request a change of behavior. T. The letter from 35 about the deck was responded to by Clarese. The deck has been repaired by Pacific NW Surfacing on 2/28. Clarese pointed out that contractor reported settling of the building and suggested an engineer evaluate the substructure. U. The customary committal letter from Schwindt&Co will be signed by Clarese. V. Joe moved and Loretta seconded a motion to procure additional bids for the landscaping. Motion passed. Clarese will bring 3 bids to the Board who will make a decision on contractor. Clarese suggested that contract follow calendar year for ease in budgeting. W. Loretta moved and Dinty seconded a motion to increase the Board of Directors Liability insurance to 3M per State Farm bid. Motion passed. Old Business A. Dennis suggested that Miller Engineering be given 48 hours to respond to the letter from 106's attorney. He said Miller should be given the opportunity to pay the bill before the HOA gets involved. 320 EXHIBIT 48 B. Loretta moved and Joe seconded a motion to ask Pacific NW Surfacing for an explanation of the Tufflex treatment on Phase II walkways. Motion passed. C. AquaSavers: dismissed without action. D. Letter from E. Schuman. Clarese will respond for the Board indicating that they stand on the stated position of our attorney. E. Dinty moved and Loretta seconded a motion to endorse and implement as amended the policy resolution officially called"Resolution of The Board of Directors Involving Nuisances;Improper,Offensive, or Unlawful Activities; and Violation of Rules of Conduct." Motion passed. 8:05: Loretta moved and Joe seconded a motion to adjourn. Motion passed. February 28,2002 321 EXHIBIT 49 BW INSPECTION ENGINEERS, INC P.O. Box 127 / 311 B Avenue, Suite H / Lake Oswego, OR 97034-0127 OFFICE: 503-697-0640 FAX: 503-697-3286 Clarese Ocher Business Manager Oswego Summit Condos 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 RE: Structural & moisture intrusion observations May 30th, 2002 site visit Dear Clarese; Observations were made for moisture intrusion problems inside various units at the request of the Homeowners Association. The associated units in the vertical stack of the affected units were also examined. For the purposes of this observation, the front of the clubhouse structure faces south. All references to direction contained within this report reflect this orientation. Persons who were present during part or all of these observations included: engineer, business manager, various condo owners and maintenance staff . At the time of these observations all of the units examined were occupied. The weather on the day of the observation was sunny. The temperature ranged between 60 and 75 degrees . General Conditions This condominium complex has experienced moisture intrusion problems, which has caused structural damage. Repairs have been made over the years, but the attempts to solve water leakage problems have been largely unsuccessful . The complex owners have received various recommendations from different contractors who have offered a variety of solutions. Management and the board of directors decided to have an independent third party perform an evaluation that has no vested interest in the corrective measures that might be employed. 322 EXHIBIT 49 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 2 Purnoso The purpose of these visits to the property was to make observations as requested. Management had a specific list of condos with leakage problems and the investigation was limited to those specific units. Only the specific items listed below were observed. Building 10 The focus of leaks into this building was on the ground floor condominium unit #69. There appear to be three separate areas of leakage as described below. 1. The living room ceiling is water stained (photos 301-304) and the owner of unit #69 said that the ceiling leaked the last time they had a good rain. The leaks in the living room ceiling line up fairly close with the slider door of unit #70 above. The relative location of the living room & bedroom of unit #69 with the slider door & guardrail of #70 above is shown in photo 308 . Potential leakage points include 1st, the inadequate deck flashing and open gap near the closet door shown in photos 314 & 315 and 2 , marginal roof flashing details shown in photos 311-313 & 321. No visible evidence of openings or leakage were found at the base of the back deck slider door of unit #70 (photo 318) . 2 . Additional water stains are found on both sides of the common wall shared with the bedroom and living room (photo 305 bedroom shown) , which have been patched. The greatest potential leakage point correlating with these water stains is at the guardrail lap splice shown in photos 316 & 317 . 3 . Finally, the ceiling in the storage room/office had been repaired due to water damage (photo 306) . The leakage into this area of unit #69 appears to be coming in from wind driven rain that enters the structure under the front entry door threshold plate of unit #70 (photos 307 , 309 & 310) . 4 _ An additional potential leakage point was found at the base of the fire escape exit doors . The deck coat markings at the base of the doorjambs tend to indicate that the door- jambs were not removed so that fleshings could be installed. There were no water stains inside unit #69 that correlated with this potential deficiency . 323 EXHIBIT 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 3 5 . The slider door of unit #71 (top floor) has potential for leakage that may correlate with water stains in either the living room ceiling or bedroom of unit #69 (see photos 322- 324) . There are openings at the end of both corners of the slider door. 6 . Live carpenter ant activity was found on the deck of unit #70 and also on the south exterior wall . I recommend that these ants be professionally exterminated and that a one- year warranty be provided. I strongly recommend that multiple bids be obtained for any professional extermination work. The goal of an extermination program should be to destroy the nest and to eliminate any conditions that might attract the ants . Buildina 5 Leaks were reported in condominium unit #39 (photos 325-326) , which is on the 3rd floor of this 4-story stack. There appear to be two separate points of water entry that are described below. 7 . The guardrail and wall juncture for the back deck of unit #40 above has three separate locations where water can get past the guardrail cap flashing (327 & 328) . The homeowners association needs to decide between replacing the cap flashing and maintaining the sealant. The three leaks are: a. The guardrail flashing does not fully cover the guardrail framing (photo 329) . b. There is an opening on the outside edge of the cap flashing (photo 330) . c . The cap flashing over the guardrail has a slight slope in toward the deck. Water that collects on top of the cap flashing is directed into the wall structure because the flashing detail is incomplete (photos 331 & 332) . 8 . The miter joints in the corners of the back door for the slider to the back deck at unit #40 are open (photos 333- 335) . Building 9 As I recall, leaks were reported into the bottom condominium unit. Unit #66 is on the lowest level of this 3-story stack. Three potential water entry points were identified. 324 EXHIBIT 49 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 4 9 . There are multiple separation junctures between the back deck slider door for unit #67 and the Tufflex deck coating (photos 335-337) . 10 . The guardrail cap flashing has an open lap splice against the roof (photo 338) . 11 . There are large gaps between the slider door and wood trim for unit #0 (photo 339) . 12 . 1 found no visible evidence of failed sealant at the miter joints of the slider door of unit #68, but the sealant will require maintenance. Slider door replacement is a preferred option, but this can be done at a convenient time. Building 19 Leaks were reported in condominium unit #137, which is on the 2'd floor of this 3-story stack. There appear to be two separate points of water entry that are described below. 13 . There are voids under the back deck slider door of unit #138 (top floor; see photos 341 & 342) . 14 . The guardrail cap flashing detail has been a consistent problem at many of the units checked. The guardrail cap flashing at unit #138 was no exception (photos 343-344) . ry15 . Placing pan fleshings under the slider doors and threshold plates of front entry doors are the preferred method of preventing water entry at these junctures . Slider door replacement is another option that must be considered because slider doors must be removed in order to install pan fleshings . Pan fleshings must be set into a full bed of approved silicon sealant (Dow 790 series for example) , which is designed for the intended application. However, provid- ing continual sealant maintenance at cracks and separation joints will usually do the job for short periods of time . 16 . The design of the guardrail cap fleshings has flat lap splices, which are prone to failure and require constant maintenance. They also have improper terminations against the walls . A better design would be to replace them with new cap flashings that have stand-up seams. In addition, the top of guardrails should always be sloped so that rainwater will not collect on top of flat surfaces and leak into wall abutments, joints and lap splices. 325 EXHIBIT 4 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 5 Observation Limitations Providing cost estimates is beyond the scope of this observation service. The solicitation of bids from qualified persons and contractors is highly recommended. This was a special, limited observation not intended to fully identify or disclose all aspects or possible defects in a property. Additional observations and/or evaluations may be requested. This was a preliminary visual review. These observations are not exhaustive and a comprehensive evaluation was not performed. Defects and/or hidden damage may have a significant impact upon visually based conclusions, statements and representations . The living room ceiling inside unit 146 of building 21 was opened up prior to my arrival . I did not have written permission to open up any of the other ceilings, walls and floors on either the interior or exterior to examine the leakage problems . The finished conditions severely limited my ability to make struc- tural observations. Seismic, wind, and a structural analysis of the building are beyond the scope of this observation service. We carefully look for evidence of water leakage into structures . However, the lack of evidence of past leakage does not guarantee that there will be no future leakage. We cannot reliably predict amounts of water, which may appear. In some cases leakage patterns may be subject to change. In this particular case, past evidence can only provide a reasonable degree of expectation for what can be anticipated in the future. THE CLIENT HEREBY REPRESENTS THAT HE/SHE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE REPORT HEREIN AND THE EXCEPTIONS THERETO. BWIE HAS MADE NO WARRANTIES. THIS REPORT IS NOT A DESIGN FOR IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE, BUT IT IS OFFERED AS A GUIDE FOR THE TYPE OF DESIGN I WOULD RECOMMEND. BWIE SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR CORRECTIVE MEASURES UNLESS THOSE IMPROVEMENTS/REPAIRS ARE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND/OR SKETCHES, WHICH ARE STAMPED WITH AN ENGINEER'S SEAL FROM THIS OFFICE. Unless retained to perform subsequent inspections during repairs, a qualified contractor must make the final decision on the full extent of repairs needed. The persons or contractor performing repairs/replacement must provide a letter certifying their work and the letter must include warranties . We do not certify the repair work of contractors even when reinspections are performed. Assessing hazardous and environmental issues including biohazards from molds, mildews and fungi is not within the scope of our services and when mentioned in the report this should never be 326 EXHIBT49 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 6 viewed as a comprehensive evaluation. We are not qualified to specify cleaning procedures. Please contact our office if this additional service is desired. THE SERVICE CONTRACT AND THE LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS SPECIFIED THEREIN ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS REPORT. Photographs were taken and are included as an attachment to this report. Please call if additional services are needed. Very truly yours, 00/ Brya, Y. Wight, P<E. OR p13939 Exp. 06/30/02 Oregon P.C.O. #1283 Oregon C.C.B. #86111 EDI certified moisture analyst OR-#08 SON .P7 zz 1-# vieNC/ 327 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Building #10 & Unit 69 Overview of the living room ceiling towards slider doors of unit#69. Additional close up photo locations are identified above. Overview of living room ceiling towards slider doors. The red lines box in where the water stain is located. 328 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Overview of living room ceiling towards slider doors. The red box shows where the water stain is located. Overview of living room ceiling towards slider doors. The red box show where the water stain is located. 329 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc This is the common wall shared between the bedroom and living room of unit 69 as viewed from inside the bedroom. The ceiling and wall have been patched. The green box helps identify the location of the patch. The ceiling and wall in the storage room /office have been patched. The green boxes help identify the patch locations. Unit 70 is immediately above on the middle level and unit 71 is on top floor above unit 70. 330 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Outside view of front door access to units 69 and 70. 69 blue door on ground level goes into storage/office area shown in photo 306. The location of photographs 309 & 310 are shown above. Back patio and decks of unit 69 ground-level, unit 70 mid-level & unit 71 is on the top floor. The location of additional photographs are shown above. 331 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Building #10 Front Door of Unit 70 Overview of unit 7u wont door Close up the front entry door threshold plate. The cracked sealant needs to be replaced and missing sealant needs to be installed by the name of"Superflash." 332 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Back deck unit 70 overview There is a gap between the building paper coming up from the wall and across from the roof. The building paper does not overlap, which leaves a void where wind driven rain can get in. 333 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc This view has the vn. Water can enter the gap where the building paper does not overlap, which has caused plywood delamination. The door into the storage shed for unit 70 is on the left. 334 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Close up of photo 316. There is only a 1/2"overlap between the bottom of the siding and top of deck flashing. Anyone that cleans the deck using a hose will cause leakage into the unit below. The overlap of siding and flashing should be at least 2 inches, Guardrail of 70 with a failed lap splice in the flashing. Moisture ants came out of the lap splice when I placed the blade of a knife into the joint. 335 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Buildin2 #10 Back Deck of Unit 70 Close up of the fa This is an overview of the dining room slider door of unit 70. There was no visual evidence of leakage in this vinyl slider door. In addition, the sealant at perimeter edges was fully intact. 336 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc The open door for the fire escape stairs leading up to the back deck of unit 71 is on the right. The close up view of the doorjamb is shown in photo 320. Doorjambs show deck coating splatter as identified by the pen. The splatter implies that the contractor did not remove the jambs to extend the flashings up and behind. Carpenter ants were found on the back patio and deck of units #69 and #70 respectively. 337 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Building #10 Back Deck of Units 70 & 71 The lead flashing for the deck 70 guardrail and roof juncture does not fully cover the opening. An overview of the back deck slider door of unit#71 on the top floor. 338 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc There is a gap between the shims and deck coating that is not fully coated. The gap is located directly under the weep identified by the arrow. Close up of photo 322 The same condition exists at other end of the slider door. 339 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Unit #39 living room ceiling overview. The water stain in photo 326 was wet. Close up of 325. The moisture meter reading in the water stain was 40.0%, which is exceptionally high. 340 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Back deck guardrail and wall juncture at unit #40. The leak into unit#39 lines up with this flashing juncture. Close up of 327 without the knife into the void shown in photo 329. 341 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Building #5 Back Deck of Unit 40 Close up 327 will Ig detail is bad, A different void is identified under the bottom of the fascia board corner. 342 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Aside view of the Note that the slope of the cap flashing is in towards opening. This close up of photo 331 shows the void where collecting water on top of the guardrail cap flashing runs behind the siding. 343 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Unit#40 slider dc door needs to be replaced. Close up of the miter joints showing cracked welds. In addition the sealant joint between the deck coating and the wooden blocking under the slider track has failed (red arrow). 344 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Exterior slider door onto deck#67 overview. There is an opening on the right side of the dining room slider door. A close up of the deck coating separation shown in photo 335. 345 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc There are additional problems oeiow me living room siiaer aoors. The juncture between deck coating and sider door is not sealed in places. The guardrail flashing at the guardrail of unit 67 and roof juncture has an open lap splice that is subject to leakage. This is a bad design. Ideally, the guardrail cap flashing should be replaced with a new one that has a vertical lip underneath the lead flashing. 346 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc The fascia board and wall juncture above living room slider door at unit #68 is not caulked. No leaks were detected in the bottom corner of the slider door. 347 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Building #19 Back Deck of Unit 138 Another void was A close up of the void is shown in the mirror. Close up of photo 341 348 EXHIBIT 49 BW Inspection Engineers, Inc Building #19 Back Deck of Unit 138 Another void was found in the guardrail and wall juncture at unit 138. A close up is shown in photo 344. The knife point shows where water can run behind the siding. Either the guardrail cap flashing needs to be replaced or the opening will have to be sealed with caulk and maintained. 349 EXHIBIT 50 BW INSPECTION E N INEES, INC P.O. Box 127 / 311 B Avenue, Suite H / Lake Oswego; OR 97034-0127 OFFICE: 503-697--0640 FAX: 503-697-3286 April 12, 2002 /14 Clarese Ocher Business Manager Oswego Summit Condos 215 Oswego Summit 044,1 Y171- Lake Oswego ' OR 97035 RE: Structural & moisture intrusion observations March 19th & 21st site visits Your request per letter dated February 8, 2002 Dear Clarese; Observati;one were •tnade inside`the crawl spaces of building 5 under units 33, 14i 37 '31cat the request of the Homeowners Association. S also made additional observations in various Places with particular emphasis on specific units as directed by yourself and Joe Van Gulik, For the purposes of this observation, the front of the clubhouse structure faces south. All references to direction contained within this report reflect this orientation. Persons who were present during part or all of these observations included: engineer, business manager, Mr. Gulik, various condo owners, maintenance staff, and other persons. At the time of these observations the units examined were occupied. The weather on the first day of the observation was very rainy. The second day the weather was mostly cloudy. The temperature ranged between 45 and 60 'degrees both days. General Conditions This condominium complex has experienced moisture intrusion problems, which has caused structural damage. Repairs have been made over the years, but the attempts to solve water leakage problems have been largely unsuccessful. The complex owners have received various recommendations from different contractors who have offered a variety of solutions. Management and the board of directors decided to have an independent third party perform an evaluation that has no vested interest in the corrective measures that might be employed. Page 377 of 419 350 EXHIBIT 50 1 I 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 2 The property has also experienced settlement including localized crushing of wooden beams immediately above a few posts. The floors are sloped in some of the units. Purpose The purpose of these visits to the property was to make observations as requested. The crawl space review WAS limited c�n&S with leakage preblaeme and the prim.- investigationof only to building 5 gement also had a specific list _ air was limited to those Specific units. Other items in need of repair or correction, were identified by happenstance. Only the specific .it "s listed below were observes. Evaluation nSeveral floor joists inside the crawl spaces have been -,..../ severely notched and cut out completely for the plumbing. I must recommend that a pressure-treated 2x4 support post be installed under the ends of Ole w_ea-kpnegLitai Qr,.,�Wa stn eacfi s he p umbang inf,i ut photos nd 37 (see 201=204' & 210 as ekar 1es). -the floor lvi.st that was cut outn%er unit (n.e a 225 Can be reinforced by doubling it u-Y-a sem" Galled sintering) wit a.. Tonal framing. 2 . Significant structural decay was found in the underfloor crawl spaces. Photos and a sketch showing the relative locations where decay was found are attached, Decay is often misnamed "dry rot. " Decay is caused by a .fungus that attacks the. cellul©se fibers and weakens their structural capacity. The fungus- .requires: relatively high moisture content in the wood before it can grow. The decay causing moisture source is often the result of weather exposure, poor flashing details., high humidity in the crawl space, standing wager, plumbing leaks, inadequate ground clear- ances., lack of a Vapor barrier, poor ventilation or a combination thereof. 3 . The generic specification for dry rot repairs or replacement of decayed wood is, "Ali wood showing the slightest signs of fungal growth, no matt,ez how small, or that can be damaged with a screwdriver or claws of a hammer must be removed and replaced." Use pressure-treated lumber for all replacement wood, when it is required. 411 other wood in the immediate area adjacent to decayed fuming that is not removed must be chemically treated with a €ungicide. In addition, the conditions that led to the decay must be eliminated. 4. The walls immediately adjacent to the stairs leading up to o unit 39 (photo 214) are decayed. There is additional decay Page 378 of 419 351 EXHIBIT 50 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 3 in the plywood floor deekirxg under the bathroom in unit 37 (photo 204) and also: in the floor decking above the living room ceiling of unit 1,4E (_photos 6052 '&1,53) . The decayed stair stringers, framing, andplywoodfloor deck should be replaced per the above criteria. 5. The front entry landings of units 31, 34, 3:7 & 38 have a rather challenging problem. The concrete walks and stairs were poured up againSt the wood Siding (photos .2, -14, 117 , 228 & 241) . Thia is a poor design that sometimes- leads to structural decay and/or an insect infestation. This is especially true if the area ie exposed to moisture or if the slope of the Concrete is down toward the building as these are. The decayed wood framing that supports these concrete caps extends into the main crawl spaces (,see photos 221, 224 & 23,6 4 . [Unfortunately the crawl spaces under these: access decks are separate from the main part of the building and these smaller crawl spaces do not have access. Therefore, it was not possible to inspect them, except from the top, so the full extent of decay and passible insect infestations went undetected. The contractor performing repairs .Will � � have to determine thea full extent of the repairs needed. E6. ) Some of the support posts in the main crawl spaces rest on top of the perimeter concrete foundation spread footings . There is evidence of water seepage coming through the spread footing and vertical stem wall construction joints. This arrangement sometimes causes decay in the bottom of the posts. Spot decay was found in the bottom of one support post under unit 38 (photo 226) . I recommend that the bottom of this post be trimmed and set on top of a pressure-treated 2x6 spacer. 7 . When the above repairs are complete, the contractor or persons performing the repairs must provide a letter certi- fying that do additional decay was found inside the areas repaired and/or that all decayed materials were removed completely. The letter must include a one year warranty on all work performed. Without this "all clear" letter, a clear pest and dry rot report cannot be issued even if a reinspection is performed. 8 . Evidence of moisture ant activity was found in the corners of two crawl spaces. Moisture ante are attracted by damp, decayed wood, and they will often infeSt it in very large numbers. However, they do not damage good, dry wood, and they are not the cause of the damage to the wood they infest; they are merely opportunistic. It is not usually necessary to have them professionally exterminated, but it is necessary to replace any decayed wood and to eliminate the decay-causing dampness. The moisture ant activity found here appears to be old and inactive. Page 379 of 419 352 EXHIBIT 50 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 4 9. A plastic vapor barrier is provided in each crawl space. 10 . Ventilation in the crawl spaces is poor by modern standards even though crawl space vents were added in August of 1989 (see photos 236 & 237) . It is very doubtful that marginal ventilation has contributed to structural deterioration. Therefore, I found no reason to recommend that additional crawl space vents be installed. 11. The front access decks over the crawl spaces were con- structed out of wood and covered with concrete caps that are roughly 2-inches thick. The access decks for units 37 & 38 are covered with outdoor carpet. Often during construction an attempt is made to separate the wood framing from the concrete caps; but very seldom is the construction water- proof. Such appears to be the case here. Decks covered with concrete typically have the following problems: a. Concrete has a natural tendency to develop hairline shrinkage cracks during the curing process. Additional cracks may develop over time with normal use. If the underside framing is not protected with a fully bonded roof membrane rather than building paper and polyethylene (plastic) sheeting, then the cracks will allow moisture intrusion and water entrapment. Leaks of this type can and do eventually cause structural decay. b. The gap between the bottom of the fascia trim (photo 229) and concrete foundation walls allows additional leakage. c. The slope of the concrete decks should be u-inch per foot as required by code. Decks with slopes less than the minimum do not provide adequate surface drainage away from the building. Concrete cap/deck repairs usually require removal of the concrete cap, replacement of all deteriorated framing members with pressure-treated lumber, lining the deck sur- faces with a continuous roofing membrane, installing metal flashings and peel/stick flashings as appropriate and also integrating them with the other building components so that they shed water. A less expensive, but higher maintenance repair would be to install new flashings and then seal the concrete decks with an appropriate two-layered coating system such as TUFFLEX or some other waterproofing material. Removal and replacement of deteriorate framing would still be required. Page 380 of 419 353 Exiilur 50 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 5 12. There are gaps between several sliding glass doors and wooden support blocks that allow water seepage underneath the thresholds (see photos 257-260, 263 & 273-277) . Keeping these slider door junctures fully sealed requires an exceptionally high level of maintenances that is usually unacceptable. 13 . Many, but not all, of the decks at this particular property have been coated with a, waterproof material like TUFFLEX. The concrete caps that provide access to units 33, 34, 37 & 38 have not been coated with a waterproofing material and these front entries are located over crawl spaces (see photos 211, 212, 227 & 241) . Another back deck that is not waterproof coated was found at building 22, unit 160. All of the decks checked, that were not coated, leak. 14 . The TUFFLEX waterproof floor coatings appear to be well installed and in good condition. It is very doubtful that there are any leaks directly through the membranes. The deck coatings around the scuppers and at floor drains also appear to be in good condition (photo 250) , I found no reason to recommend TUFFLEX re-application. However, minor touch up work is recommended at some of the slider doors. 15 . The design of the guardrail cap metal flashings for the decks and roof parapets have flat lap splices that are prone to failure and often require constant maintenance. A better design would be to install new cap metal flashings that have folded stand-up seams and that are held down with broad- headed screws and neoprene washers, The screws should secure the cap flashings through the drip edge sides and penetrate 11,-inches into a pressure-treated wooden nailer. At least one lap splice for the guardrail at unit 39 is open (photo 115) . There may be other lap splices at other decks that leak. 16 . Another apparent detail problem with many of these guardrail flashings are terminations at walls. It would appear that they lay flat without a turned up edge so that the end is totally dependent upon sealant (see photos 246, 248 & 264) . Flashings that have a turned up vertical leg do much better. If the guardrail flashings are changed out, then the terminations should be detailed differently. 17. The plywood siding that covers the guardrail of front access deck unit 39 was pieced together rather than constructed using continuous full sheets (photo 219) . The horizontal butt joint is open, which allows water to enter the wall cavity. In addition, the caulk has failed where the guardrail meets the handrail, Finally, a deck flashing was not installed where the end of the stair stringer butts up against the landing. These multiple angles and changes in Page 381 of 419 354 EXHIBIT 50 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 6 direction make it difficult to keep these junctures sealed. One or more of these issues are contributing to the leak in the covered area below (photos '16 & 117) . 18 . There is exceptionally high probability thatsore.,. if not tiny, of the original aluminum windows and sliding glass doors leak atthe corners. Most of the miter joints at the careers are dependent upon retrofit caelk.ug repairs:. The Window corners that have not been .caulked are open. (photos 247, 279, 282 .& 285-.29.0) and leak. In addition, some of the slider loop tracks are bent in the corners (photos 25a, 274 & 275) , which places racking stress on the corners. I would rec©emend that all of the, wriginal witdows and doors in the weather-exposed areas be replaced. when new windows and doors are nyta11ed, they must be properly integrated into the existing building materials so that they shed water. For example, the bottoms; fins of slider doorsmust be placed in front of deck flashings. It Would be very desir- abee s tooarairase the slider tracks of back doors one or two the decks. Peel and stick flashings are highly recommended at all through wall openings and sealants should be applied between fleshings and window fine. 1.0 Water was found sitting on top of the frontentry door of unit 42. t also observed water coming down the wall under the covered area above the door of unit 42 (phtos 242 & 243 . It was not possible to determine the source of this leak without roving the ceiling cover and sidingThe leak may be coming from any of a number of places including some of the problems previously listed above. Performing an invasive investigation was beyond the scope of the service Provided. 20. The bedroom andliving root ceilings in unit 126 of boiling 18 (photos 171. .& 172 respectively) show water damage. These ceilings were checked with a moisture meter and found to be dry. Deck 12 , which is above unit 126, was covered with plastic sheeting to see of it would stop the water damage and leak from continuing and it did. The most probable cause of this leak is the failed miter joints of the sliding glass door above, which should be replaced: The waterproof coating over the deck could also us some touch up work (see photos0.73-278) . (Si) The living room carpet in unit 160 of building 22 was wet next to the fireplace. Moisture mapping was performed as shown in photo'-65. No water was: found coming down the chimney and into the fireplace. The water is probably coming down the sidewalls of a metal lined chimney, maybe from a neighbor (photo ..66) . The water does not appear to be due to a roof leakage although the roof does have some Page 382 of 419 355 Exillur 50 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 7 challenges (photos 69 & I0) . The most probable cause of the water is wind driven rain, which can go vertically up and underneath the collar flashings (photos 167 & 168) . A repair that often corrects this problem involves installing additional collar flashings over the existing brim so that they have 4-inch vertical legs extending vertically downward over the risers. 22 . Retrofit roof diverter flashings, also called kick-out flashings, were installed where the roof terminates into the wall cladding just above the gutters (see photos"179 &- ,80 at units 128 & 132 respectively) . The purpose of a kick-out flashing is to divert roof drainage away from the wall and to prevent water intrusion. The installed retrofit kick-out flashings are a significant improvement in comparison with no flashings, but the existing design is at best marginal . . 23 . The uphill side of the kick-out flashing should have been placed underneath the step flashing so that it will shed water without being dependent on the pop-rivets and sealant. In addition, the vertical leg of kick-out flashings should extend up and behind the siding by 4-inches. Every condominium unit should be checked at these roof/wall locations. Kick-out flashings must be installed wherever they might be missing. It would also be desirable to replace the retrofit kick-outs with a marginal design. 24 . The foundation under unit 37 is undermined in a very local area (photo 208) . The undermining has not placed the structure in jeopardy of settlement and no repairs are recommended. E. A few of the main support beams inside the crawl spaces show localized crushing of wood above the posts. Photos 110, 334, 335 & 340 show the damage and the attached sketch identifies the locations of crushed wood. The technical term for wood crushing of this type is "bearing failure. " This problem occurs only when the weight of the structure is imposed over a relatively small surface area, which becomes impaled into the wood framing above. Correction involves spreading the load over a broader area by jacking up the beam slightly and then by placing additional posts immediately adjacent to the existing post. A sketch showing how this repair can be accomplished is attached. 26. As previously noted, the floors slope inside some of the condominium units. Reportedly, the owners had the floors surveyed to document the slope some years ago. An evaluation of this condition and what it might mean to the complex was beyond the scope of our service. Page 383 of 419 356 i 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 8 Observation Limitations Providing cost estimates is beyond the scope of this observation service. The solicitation of bids from qualified persons and contractors is highly recommended. This was a special, limited observation not intended to fully identify or disclose all aspects or possible defects in a property. Additional observations and/or evaluations may be requested. This was a preliminary visual review. These observations are not exhaustive and a comprehensive evaluation was not performed. Defects and/or hidden damage may have a significant impact upon visually based conclusions, statements and representations . The living room ceiling inside unit 146 of building 21 was opened up prior to my arrival . I did not have written permission to open up any of the other ceilings, walls and floors on either the interior or exterior to examine the leakage problems . The finished conditions severely limited my ability to make struc- tural observations. Seismic, wind, and a structural analysis of the building are beyond the scope of this observation service. We carefully look for evidence of water leakage into structures . However, the lack of evidence of past leakage does not guarantee that there will be no future leakage. In some cases leakage patterns may be subject to change. In this particular case, past evidence can only provide a reasonable degree of expectation for what can be anticipated in the future. We cannot reliably predict amounts of water, which may appear, and we cannot warranty that any basement, underfloor crawl space or other subgrade area will remain dry without the installation of a full drainage system designed by this office. THE CLIENT HEREBY REPRESENTS THAT HE/SHE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE REPORT HEREIN AND THE EXCEPTIONS THERETO. BWIE HAS MADE NO WARRANTIES. THIS REPORT IS NOT -A DESIGN FOR IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE, BUT IT IS OFFERED AS A GUIDE FOR THE TYPE OF DESIGN I WOULD RECOMMEND. BWIE SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR CORRECTIVE MEASURES UNLESS THOSE IMPROVEMENTS/REPAIRS ARE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS AND/OR SKETCHES, WHICH ARE STAMPED WITH AN ENGINEER'S SEAL FROM THIS OFFICE. Unless retained to perform subsequent inspections during repairs, a qualified contractor must make the final decision on the full extent of repairs needed. The person(s) or contractor performing repairs/replacement must provide a letter certifying their work and the letter must include warranties. We do not certify the repair work of contractors even when reinspections are performed. Page 384 of 419 357 lur 50 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 9 Assessing hazardous and environmental issues including biohazards from molds, mildews and fungi is not within the scope of our services and when mentioned in the report this should never be viewed as a comprehensive evaluation. We are not qualified to specify cleaning procedures. Please contact our office if this additional service is desired. THE SERVICE CONTRACT AND THE LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS SPECIFIED THEREIN ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS REPORT. Photographs were taken and are included as an attachment to this report. Please call if additional services are needed. Very truly your , , 464. riX.0 ," Bry. Y. Weight, E. OR #13939 Exp. 06/30/02 Oregon P.C.O. #1283 Oregon C.C.B. #86111 EDI certified moisture analyst OR-#08 Page 385 of 419 358 EXHIBIT 50 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 10 No th 214 (#35) (#39) 1 , 3 17' ( t.4rs ) ■ ■ X11225 ■ 221X 1 __ JP' X 223 222 ---1218,219 A216 v- 2217 227 • ■ 225 ■ 224 ■ 228 212 X :{ 229 `ice` X 239 X238 (#34) (#38) 215 227 X ■240 • I ■ ■ 230 202 I 203 211 201 XX204 I 2101 205X 233 2064 (#33) (#37) 232 234,y 1235 ■ 20 ' ' R 220 231 ■ IN 91? 2 7flR Lit:J BUILDING #5 Drawing Not to Scale C = Carpenter Ant C/S = Crawl Space X = Dry Rot or Pest Damage S/W = Soil-Wood Contact DW = Damp Wood Termite ST = Subterranean Termite WB = Wood Boring Beetle MA = Moisture Ant Ck = Plumbing Leak 0 = Puddles tt = Sump Pump • = Post 201 = Photograph Number (#35) = Condo Number Page 386 of 419 359 EXHIBIT 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 11 2x10s @ 16" on-center Existin Main Support Beam �P1ace 1/4" steel "I i Zhims as needed ' between existing Gray members are new. , beam & posts. Add 4x4 or 4x6 ___-----10' __. ~"""" ' ,: ': Securely attach dam . post on both.A'frkposts to beam w/ sides of existing ( '^' metal or plywood post or column. 4 brackets on :?'. ;' both sides of the beam. Concrete footing Existing Grade +..___ (Sketch Not Drawn To Scale) Elevation View of Bearing Failure Repair Bryan Y. Weight, P.E. ` s` OR #13939 Gtnr"t . ' Exp. 06/30/02 .•% 13933 ' , BW Inspection Engineers, Inc � " 311 B Ave, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 ," , r 503-697-0640 ' 0 '90tho,' 1+.:� Page 387 of 419 360 EXHIBIT 215 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego, OR Page 10 No th 214 (#35) (#39) "if i ' 2 tairs t 1M. X®226 U 221X X 223 222 -4218,219 16 +x'17 227 U ■ 225 ■ 224 ■ 228 2 X 229 ... X 239 41-238 (#34) (#38) 215 227 X ■240 ■ ■ U 4 I SIE 230 ' 202 U 203 211 201 XX204 U 21011 205' MI233 206'+~ (#33) (#37) 232 234x ■235 U 2C R 220 231 M 717 716 i• [—]7 40 e0 4,- BUILDING #5 Drawing Not to Scale C = Carpenter Ant C/S = Crawl Space X = Dry Rot or Pest Damage SOW = Soil-Wood Contact DW = Damp Wood Termite ST = Subterranean Termite WB = Wood Boring Beetle MA = Moisture Ant i = Plumbing Leak 0 = Puddles u = Sump Pump U = Post 201 = Photograph Number (#35) = Condo Number Page 388 of 419 361 EXHIBIT HOMEOWNERS ANNUAL MEETING: March 27,2003 7:00pm The Annual Meeting was called to order by President Paul Brockmeier. Board members present were: Sandra Ferguson, Dinty Moore, and Loretta Stephenson. Dennis Meyers was absent due to a family situation. 14 homeowners registered. Dave Schwindt and Larry Peabody were guest presenters. Clarese Ocker took the minutes. Approval of Minutes: Sandra Ferguson moved to accept the 2002 Annual Meeting minutes as written. The motion was seconded and passed. Loretta moved to accept the February 27, 2003 minutes as written. The motion was seconded and passed. Dinty moved to accept the March 13, 2003 work session summary as written. The motion was seconded and passed. Dinty moved to accept the March Transfer Summary. The motion was seconded and passed. Committee Reports: A. President's Report: Paul expressed appreciation to the Board for the work done in the prior year. He also expressed appreciation to Clarese and Ken. He said that the Association shows a good record of self- management.Paul summarized the written report. B. Finance Report: Paul introduced Dave Schwindt of Schwindt,Inc.who gave an overview of the 2002 Reviewed Financial Statement. Dave complimented the Association on its fiscal responsibility and achievements. He said we were unique among Associations of our size to be so well managed. Most large associations use management companies that add another layer of expense to be borne by homeowners. He commented that we are on track in spite of our loans and other obligations. Costs are rising for Associations,particularly for insurance. He said that the Board saved about$6,000 by doing the reserve study"in-house". He commended the Board on the quality and completeness of the study. Finance Committee Report Paul summarized the written report. C. Delinquency Report: Clarese reviewed the report. Three units are in collections with a balance of approximately$3700. She has no concerns at this time for any account. D. Construction/Maintenance Committee: Dinty reviewed the report. While problems still exist and work continues, "we are on the right track"he said. Paul introduced Larry Peabody of Superior Exteriors. He has been working to solve persistently leaking units. Larry spoke to the group. He also commended the Board for their unified focus on solving the construction problems on the property. He stated again that these buildings are not designed for the Northwest and his company was correcting the original design flaws that allow water intrusion into the buildings. E. Architectural Committee: No attendees or report. F. Landscape Committee: Sandra Ferguson reviewed the report focusing on the entrance enhancement project. She also said that all of the trees have been trimmed—this was a 3 year project. She encouraged homeowners with opinions and ideas to bring them to the Board for consideration. Barbara Miller has been working on some of the ideas for the Qwest installation. Paul mentioned the weather station website. G. Social Committee: Jay spoke briefly on the activities of the committee. H. Manager's Report: Clarese reviewed aspects of her written report. She said it was encouraging that collections are down to ''A of the previous year and late charges have also dropped. She feels this is a good indication of the financial stability of our homeowners. She spoke about the work involved in preparing the Reserve Study and the benefits of having an extensive and thorough analysis of the property and all its components. She pointed out that the compiled results of the annual"report card"indicate an increase in homeowners' satisfaction in all categories. These positive comments are very gratifying. I. Maintenance Report: Ken gave some highlights of his report. Homeowners were encouraged to call him first when interior maintenance issues arise. Paul called for the election count. Marty Dougherty and Evelyn Metzger had counted the ballots. The elected board members were announced as Sandra Ferguson, Lani Woodward and Dinty Moore. Open Forum: • A homeowner asked when Ken was going to get a new seat on the John Deere tractor. Ken said he would use the passenger seat as it is unneeded except for cargo. 362 EXHIBIT 51 • The homeowner from unit 145 reported a crack in the glass in the bedroom window. Paul explained that windows are the responsibility of the homeowners. • Evelyn Metzger said she has moss on her deck. She is to call Ken for assistance. • Marty Dougherty commended Clarese on her creative suggestions for problem solving. Paul thanked Loretta for her work and Clarese spoke on some of the specific areas where her business expertise was beneficial to the Association. The drawing for door prizes took place before the new Board was seated. Larry Peabody and Jay Sonnad assisted Clarese. Lani Woodward was asked to join the Board.Paul announced that the next work session would be April 3rd at 6:00pm. Old Business: No old business New Business: A. Dinty moved that Loretta be appointed as an alternate to the Board. The motion was seconded and passed. She was asked to remain seated for this meeting to fill in for Dennis Meyers. B. Paul explained the"Resolution for Excess Funds". This is an annual resolution and is required by the IRS and state. Loretta moved that excess funds be moved to the Reserve account per the resolution. The motion was seconded and passed after discussion. C. Sandra moved that we accept the proposal from Superior Exteriors to replace the 4 metal roof caps on the Rec center for$1389(option 2). The motion was seconded and discussed. The motion passed. D. Sandra moved to make the siding repair on building 25 per option 2 for$1428. The motion was seconded and discussed. The motion passed. E. No bid had been received for the work on 160. Tabled F. Dinty moved and the motion was seconded to allow Unit 190(Randy Palazzo)to rent his unit. Motion passed after discussion. G. The item to increase the fine for non-compliance on the"Maintenance Indemnification Agreement"was tabled to the next work session. H. Sandra and Clarese will attend the seminars on 4/12 and 5/17 sponsored by the Community Association Institute. 8:30: Paul adjourned the meeting. March 27,2003 363 06/20/00 TUE 06:17 FAX 294 0090 MICA PTLD OR EXHIBIT 5001 A..\ OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Suhinhiti... Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosueenit@gwest.net August 20, 2003 Mr. Steffen Estrada and Ms. Janice Vales 24 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Subject: Deck Enclosures Dear Mr. Estrada and Ms.Vales, With the advent of the winter storms and renewed water intrusion,we placed temporary covers on about eight suspicious top decks on the property. All the leaks stopped and have not resumed Our.caancluaionia.tbaLthere are design and maintenance problems on the top decks that allow water into the buildings. We had an engineer evaluate the situation and he made reommendations for repairs. We have repaired three decks. It has been extremely costly, Looking for alternate methods of repair and to deter future storm assaults on the top decks, the Board of Directors has decided the best course of action is to permanently cover them with glass and metal"sun rooms." This will save the expense of tearing up the deck, removing siding, removing doors, removing corner boards, repairing dry rot and then putting the whole thing back together. The average cost of this repair has run about$14,000. Covering the decks will save money which can be used for other work and upgrades on the property--painting, landscaping and so forth. Your deck has been designated as one needing a cover. The sunroom will be glass and metal and be consistent in appearance with the other covered decks on the property. It will have sliding windows on the sides and special glass that will keep the hot sun out in the summer and help the deck stay warmer in the winter. The manufacturer of the sunroom is Four Seasons_ They have an extensive web site at "four-seasons-sunrooms_corn". Unit 132 has had the cover installed and if you like, arrangements can be made for you to look at it. It turned out very nice and the contractor did an excellent job. Mt. Park has approved the design of the unit. The contractor who will do the work is licensed and bonded. The Homeowners Association will pay for the construction and installation of the sunroom. Although the Association will pay for the sun room, there are a couple of items you must agree to: • You must leave the shingles and/or siding in the existing color. In other words, you should not paint any visible components on the deck any differently than they are now painted. Mt. Park and the architectural constraints of our 364 AHICA PTLD OR EXHIBIT 0002 08/26/03 TUE 08:17 FAX 294 6090 7 community require this. The exception to this would be the material on the parapet wall (half wall facing into your condominium). • Your deck floor is concrete. You may not remove it, The integrity of the deck surface should be maintained. • You can only use electric barbeque gulls in the sunroom. • Although the sunroom should be totally water tight, any furniture or objects placed in this area that might be damaged by water and humidity will be at your own risk. The Association's intent is to protect the building and not necessarily provide homeowners with an additional room. • The Association wilt not be responsible for keeping the glass clean although the glass roof of the sunroom has a special coating called "kleencoar that is supposed to help shed dirt and water similar to RainX on a windshield. • Once the sunroom is installed, you will be responsible for broken glass—just as you would your regular windows and doors. _you absolUtely_must keep.the windows_closed during inclement weather, We must know immediately if you have had any leaks in your ceiling either recently or in the past. Our contractor will carefully investigate these areas to make certain all repairs are made prior to installation. Furthermore, if you wish to install a new patio door, arrangements should be made before the sunroom in put up. It may be impossible to install a new door once the deck is covered as there is no way to get the large door up to the deck. We hope to order your cover next week after all the details of the contract are ironed out. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project and answer any questions. The Board is asking that you sign and return this letter indicating you understand the restrictions and requirements of the sunroom and are agreeable to its installation, I have enclosed a copy for your records. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker-Business Office Manager cc: Board of Directors A ..!1►. , � ,1/YC�l4 74/LL---- 1, J 1(1� Name ��y Date , ' 365 EXHIBIT HOMEOWNERS MEETING: August 26,2004 edited (To be Approved) 7:00pm: The meeting was called to order by Vice President Sandra Ferguson. Board members present were: Polly Gray,Dinty Moore,and Lani Woodward. Alternate Loretta Stephenson completed the Board in Dennis Meyer's absence. 16 homeowners registered. Clarese Ocker took the minutes. Alex Sifford with the Oregon Energy Trust held a meeting at 6:30 with those homeowners interested in replacing windows and doors. Approval of Minutes:Lani Woodward moved to accept the minutes of the June 24,2004 meeting. It was seconded by Polly Gray and passed. Polly moved to accept the July 15th work session minutes. Lani seconded the motion and it passed. Dinty Moore moved to approve the June and July Fund Transfer Summary. They were seconded by Loretta and passed. Committee Reports: A. Finance Report: Paul spoke briefly on the financial reports. He again reported that through July,the income has been greater than expenses. Expenditures are currently under budget. A short explanation of the rationale for selecting earthquake insurance was given. It should be noted that we are insured by Farmers Insurance with the earthquake insurance being a separate policy. B. Delinauencv Report: Clarese reviewed the delinquency report. There was one new entry. Total delinquency continues to be very low at less then $2900. C.Construction/Maintenance Committee: Dinty gave a brief report. Clarese explained the history of the leak into Unit 15. The Association contractor determined that the door installation at 16 was faulty. The owner of 16 confirmed this with her own contractor and is making arrangements to repair or replace the door. D.Architectural Committee: Judy Schmidt announced a new committee chair-Amy Merrill. She reported on committee work on the lounge and suggested updating our Christmas lights. She also questioned the lock on the small door in the pool room. Ken put the lock on the door because people were propping it open and chasing from the indoor pool to the outside one. Clarese will investigate to determine if the lock compromises any state statute. E.Landscape Committee: There was brief discussion of the irrigation work that occurred on 8/16. A report from HK&T is expected. F.Social Committee: No representative G.Emergency Awareness Committee: Lani reported that she would be contacting the group in early September to set up a meeting. H.Manager's Report: Clarese presented highlights from her report. I. Maintenance Report: The monthly summary was entered into the record. 7:40 Open Forum: 1. Karen Risch(unit 103)distributed a letter with questions to management and maintenance. Chairperson Sandra was successful in getting Karen to agree to let maintenance into her condo with 24 hour notification.It has been difficult to verify any alleged interior issues because of time schedule. Clarese clarified that the problem she had on 8/22 was from a plugged scupper and flooded deck at 104. Dinty Moore explained the difference between changing window glass and replacing a leaking 28 year old window. 2. Delbert Grate(Unit 177)asked what was going to be done about the leak into the closet at Unit 180. Clarese reported that Ken said he would unplug the downspout. Additional work on the gutter system may be needed to correct the pitch. 3. Elizabeth Bowden(Unit 56)wanted the Comcast cable hanging over her window re-attached. Clarese explained that efforts to get it fixed have gone on for months. Furthermore,the cable belongs to Comcast and not Oswego Summit. It was suggested that Elizabeth contact Comcast personally. Elizabeth also spoke about the water that puddles at the bottom of her step. Suggestions to correct this dilemma were offered. She said parking continues to be a problem by Building 7. The Board will wrestle with all the parking issues at the next work session. 4. CJ Matthews(Unit 23)offered to lead the group interested in replacing windows by following up with the Oregon Energy Trust. The Board thanked her. Old Business: A. The letter from Mari Moore was entered into the minutes. She wrote about verbal abuse she had received from a neighbor when she was walking her dogs. B. Carol Higgins(Unit 51)wanted to discuss her proposed gate. The Board tabled this item because Carol had submitted a new drawing. It will be discussed at the next work session. New Business: A and B. Polly moved and Lani seconded a motion to approve the request from Units 135 and 26 to rent their condominiums. Motion passed. C. The letter from Brenda Keitges(Unit 207)complaining about the"disgusting"appearance of the lounge,"gym"and indoor pool was entered into the minutes. The Board suggested that she join a committee and become involved in working toward a solution. D. The letter from Dianne Wright(Unit 5)was entered into the minutes. No action was taken because the letter pre-dates a meeting the Board had with her neighbor and no new complaints have been received. E. The Board tabled the letter from Teresa Brown(Unit 125)concerning parking. The Board will deal with all the parking issues at the next work session. 8:07: Sandra adjourned the meeting. 366 EXHIBIT Managers Report: February 2005 Management: 1. Status of bids and work in progress on the following projects: a. Two bids have been received on Building 24 roof. I have been talking with Kevin Harker of Vial-Fotheringham on how to proceed with this situation. Researching the files has provided additional information on the roof and DuroLast. Kevin will be writing a letter to their local rep looking for more price relief then volunteered by DuroLast. b. Roloff completed the water test on Unit 68 and verified that the door and a small wall area were leaking. Homeowner has agreed to replace the door and we will pay for the wall repair. c. I got a bid from Power Plumbing to make the repair at building 16. However since Ken tweaked the valve, the leak has almost stopped. We may want to delay the repair since the price is close to$6K. a Window and door replacements are proceeding per schedule. It appears that the work is pretty evenly split between Roloff and Peabody. 2. Replenished office supplies. 3. HK&T have promised a bid on the proposed landscaping upgrades to the front and the QWest site. Bid will be brought to the board when available. 4. Scheduled Tom Jones to seal the decks where new doors had been installed. 6. Prompted Tom to give us bid for doing the south and east facing decks this summer. Bid on the agenda at the March meeting. 7. Followed up on the imminent foreclosure of 90. Someone redeemed the property at the last trump. Followed up with attorney as we continue to chase this deadbeat. 8. Coordinated contractor work for participants in the Oregon Energy Commission project. Seems to be going well. 9. Out for vacation for 3 days. Relation with Homeowners: 8. Processed service requests and maintenance notices and followed up to ensure completion. 9. Processed complaints and recorded action taken. Presented Board with complaint letters. 10. Received and responded to all regular homeowner correspondence. 11. Processed fees and assessments: Recorded fees and assessments in a timely manner. 12. Late fee and notices: Sent invoices for late fees (15 in January). 13. Maintained Directory: Maintained a directory of owner address and phone numbers. Expanded database includes all cars, pets, owner/rental status for accurate reporting. (Rental rate is holding at 41) 14. Maintained Files & Records: Financial, maintenance and administrative records were maintained in an up to date and orderly fashion and are readily accessible by authorized association representatives. 14. Paid Bills: Received, reviewed and paid all invoices in a timely manner. 15. Wrote, edited and printed monthly newsletter. 16. Handled parcels and packages for homeowners. 17. 0 lounge rentals in February 18. Notified numerous homeowners of maintenance in their building via memos. 19. Completed all the real estate questionnaires and escrow inquires for property sales and refinancing. There was 1 sale that closed in February. A "Welcome"packet was sent to the new owners. This contains all the necessary forms, payment coupons, a brochure, magnet, cable and Oregonian materials. 20. Encouraged everyone who contacted the office to vote for the new Board. Financial Reports: 6. Prepared monthly Income and Expense Statements. 7. Transmitted payroll and entered data in QuickBooks. 8. Worked with accountant to close February books. 9. Reconciled loan payments for February. Only one account remains paying off special assessment. 367 EXHIBIT Managers Report: September 2005 Management: 1. Status of bids and work in progress on the following projects: a. The Board approved installing the roof on Building 24. Our attorney will continue to pursue dialogue with DuroLast. He said it was OK to proceed with the installation. b. Attended the work session on 9/15. Followed up with correspondence and reports are required. c. Scheduled a water test for units 59 and 15. Only 59 was tested because there was no new evidence of water at 15. d. With Board approval, had Tom Jones caulk all south, east and top decks in phase 1. I feel very confident that this will help prevent leaks in the winter. e. Ordered "gutter stuff"to test if the product will help prevent backing up of some of the more problematic gutters. f. Continue to work with HK&T to see that all irrigation systems are working. I think we are about done for this year. g. Ordered paint for the fountain. We may have run out of time this year to get it done but we will have the paint available for the spring. 2. Replenished office supplies. 3. Had two more meetings with the Finance Committee. I entered and updated the information provided by previous meetings. Items were discussed and the Committee worked toward consensus to make a recommendation to the Board. 5. Sent caution letters to those who have not provided keys to their condos. Will fine in October if keys are not received. 6. Collections: I have encouraged 82 to try to sell. Unit going into foreclosure. She does not seem to be interested- wants to stay. 7. Researched a way to fix the flaking concrete on Phase II deck ceilings. Tom Jones has a product that he will try on Mike Salstrom's place. If it works, Ken can use it as needed. 8. A number of residents have been fined for continuing non-compliance of their garage. 9. The Board voted to accept the original recommendation for color for the lounge although nothing written has been received. I will try to arrange a "painting party"to see if we can get some free labor. Have a couple of volunteers already. 10. Continue to ask for volunteers to fill the vacancy on the Board. Very little interest. 11. Continue to answer numerous questions about the Mt. Park pool issue. 12. Met with Sandra almost every Thursday to review current events and immediate concerns. 13. Take numerous messages from homeowners on maintenance issues. Pass them along to Ken. Followed up if necessary and if I had the information. Relation with Homeowners: 57. Processed service requests and maintenance notices and followed up to ensure completion. 58. Processed complaints and recorded action taken. Presented Board with complaint letters. 59. Received and responded to all regular homeowner correspondence. 60. Processed fees and assessments: Recorded fees and assessments in a timely manner. 61. Late fee and notices: Sent invoices for late fees (22 in September). 62. Maintained Directory: Maintained a directory of owner address and phone numbers. Expanded database includes all cars, pets, owner/rental status for accurate reporting. (Rental rate is still 37) 63. Maintained Files & Records: Financial, maintenance and administrative records were maintained in an up to date and orderly fashion and are readily accessible by authorized association representatives. 63. Paid Bills: Received, reviewed and paid all invoices in a timely manner. 64. Wrote, edited and printed monthly newsletter. 65. Handled parcels and packages for homeowners. 66. 5 Lounge rentals in September. 67. Notified numerous homeowners of maintenance in their building via memos. 368 EXHIBIT 68. Completed all the real estate questionnaires and escrow inquires for property sales and refinancing. 4 properties closed in September. A "Welcome"packet was sent to the new owners. This contains all the necessary forms, payment coupons, a brochure, magnet, cable and Oregonian materials. Financial Reports: 37. Prepared monthly Income and Expense Statements. 38. Transmitted payroll and entered data in QuickBooks. 39. Worked with accountant to close August books. 4. Re-worked the Reserve study to comply with accountant's recommendations. 5. Kept the electronic lock system updated. Analyze activity on a daily basis. 6. Analyzed the bank accounts so the monthly review is faster(saves money). Note: The categories in this report and based on the job description on file. 369 EXHIBIT Date of Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost intrusion Gutters overflowing,water on the ceiling from 12/29/2010 1 1 gutters full and downspout plugged. $152.50_x Determined leak came from the atrium of unit 112/23/2010 1 1 above $110.00 x Inspect ceiling damage.Job not finished. Mold in corner next to window sill caulk has ben 1 2smeared over cracks in sheetrock. $45.00 x 1 11 2lTroubleshoot water intrusion ] $45.001x [ 1 1 2lWater intrusion,dry wal repairs 1 $538.72 x `Small patch of ceiling needs repair.Leak causing problems in the doors leading to the balcony.Scrape of texture,re-tape,float, texture at weiling and wall between sliding 9/28/2011 1 3 glass doors $270.00 x Troubleshoot water intrusion.Unit 4 slider 1/20/2012 1. 3 bubbling in unit 3s ceiling. $65.00 x Repaired door knob and secured door jamb. 4/3/2012 1 3 Paint did not match have to paint hole ceiling. $1,035.00 x 11 3Repair ceiling from water damage 1 $225.00Ix 1 3 Repair ceiling from water damage 1 $225.001x Water intrusion repairs Move furniture back to 1 3 original location. $90.00 x Troubleshoot water intrusion. Looked at window and found a pan.Have scheduled to 6/27/2012 1 4 repair slider.No work done $112.50 x Added flashing o roof,stain shingles and coat 1 4 deck $45.00 x Remove slider install door pan,patch deck 14 coating intall new siding $1,817.48 x Check moisutre in crawl space. No water 1 5 found. $65.00 x 1 5 Water ponding in crawl space,investigate $22.50 x After hours emergency response,Unit 6 hot 4/6/2011 1 6 water relief valve $465.63 x Ceiling above sidwalk leading to unit has bubbling paint between entry door and laundry room. Diagnosed leak. Re-caulked the cap.1/27/12 found maoisture under the kitchen window.Found back lapped 1/23/2012 1 6 felt.Window taped and resided. x Sheetrock repair.Window on fire escape 3/6/2012 1 6 rotted and needs rebuilt. $245.25 x 11 61 Water intrusion I $530.001x Iwal 1 61Paint ceiling above sidewalk $67,50x Page 395 of 419 370 EXHIBIT 55 iate o �`ater Service - Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Recaulked the cap to fix leak.Still needs 1/10/2012 1 6 sheetrocked $67.50 x 2010 4/15 Cecmoisture 0 / � 1 8hk /� o � $69.951x 1/6/20101 2 10JCeiling repair $954.58jx 2 11lTroubleshoot water intrusion I $132.501x 1/24/20111 2 11IWater intrusion $2,367.241x 1 2 11 Water intrusion.Sheet rock repair 1 $320.401x 1 2 11lAfter hours water intrusion I $84.38jx 12/14/20091 21 11 Sheet rock repair $941.381x 12/23/20101 21 11levaluate interior repairs needed lx Soft spots on ceiling of 11.Water damage 12/8/2011 2 11 from waste overflow caused to unit 11 $181.24 x Repair back wall and ceiling next to slider door, 2 11 Insulation to wall and ceiling.Sheetrock. $2,357.00 x Cut hole in lid, hang new rock and tape. Unit 1/25/20121 21 1112 caused damage x 2 11 Troubleshoot water intrusion No work report $45.00 x gutter to install flashing from the roof to the gutter,fascia board rotted and siding in bad shape.Installed vapor barrier,trim,siding 1/27/2011 2 12 fascia and reinstalled gutter x Soft spots on ceiling of 11.Water damage 12/8/2011 2 12 from waste overflow caused to unit 11 $155.00 x Water intrusion damage from 15 sliders. 11/20/20121 2 14 Troubleshoot only I $270.00x 11/30/20121 2 14Removed roofing I $483.751x 2/16/2011 2 14 innunit.downspoupt plugged4 on bill?Small drip $65.00 x 11/19/20121 21 141 Water leaking inside I ix After hours emergency response.Water 10/2/2011 2 15 intrusion 1 $145.00x 12/14/20091 21 15(Sheet rock repair I $941.381x 11/20/2012/ 2 15 Sliders are leaking where they meet the deck x Water intrusion,through dining room window, Not window, reset gutter and replaced 2 5/12/2011 2 16 gutter spikes $132.50 x Water intrusion.Fixed weep holes in slider. 11/29/2011 2 16 Window in dining room needs to be flashed. $123.34 x Removed roof tiles from above dining room 11/30/2012 2 16 window,added new felt,tile bars and shingles. $270.00 x Window leaking.Cleared downspout,re- 1/4/2012 2 16 sealed window,check weep holes $112.50 x Page 396 of 419 371 EXHIBIT 55 Date of Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Gutter&fascia siding need to be removed to repair.Water on both sides of dining room 11/20/2012 2 16 window,outside corner of deck. x Investigate onging leak. Large stains from 2/17/2011 2 17 previous leak,need to evaluate when dry x 2/18/20111 21 171Water intrusion $110.00 2/25/20111 21 1712 Missing unit 17&18 sing roof tiles above $110.001x � x 1 3/8/20111 21 171Ceiling repairs $752.50jx Troubleshoot water intrusion.Cleared gutters and scuppers.Do not see where a source was identified.Rebuildt jamb replaced dry rot framing.Pulled door intalled pan buildt new 9/28/2012 2 17 jamb and reinstalled. $697.50 x Instal cap metal and repair dry rot in strage 10/1/2012 2 17 room $180.00'x Hole in deck&tufflex failed in scupper box, 10/31/2012 2 17 temporarily caulked w/mastic x 21 171Water intrusion and wall ap repair $135.00fx 21 17jTroubleshoot water intrusion $45.00fx Troubleshootuwater intrusion and repaired 2 17 scuber $191.25 x 10/31/20121 21 17 Scupper leaking onto 18 I (x / removed &repaired scupper,install Tufflex 11/13/2012 2 17 coating $495.00 x removed larger areas of moss along gutter edge.Cap metal needs to be painted when 3/26/2012 3 18 weather allows x 110/31/20121 3 18 Back deck from 17 scuppers leaking onto unit x Intall door frame on fire escape and repaired dry rot.Cap and flash sill pan added to deck pan under door beams.Shingles above the wal were pulled and vapor barrier tied into the wall.Shingles installed over this and door reinstaled. New siding,casing and light fixture instated.Siding&roofing are stained and 3 19 painted. $2,174.18 x Water leak from above unit into ceiling of master bed near window.Found loose roof 3/1/2011 3 22 tile.Interior needs work $225.00 x 4/29/2011 3 221Adjusted plastic on 23,cleaned out gutters x 31 221 Water intrusion $112.501x 31 221Troubleshoot water intrusion + $65.00Ix Page 397 of 419 372 EXHIBIT 5 Date o Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Removed and replaced fascia and paint on side of garage. No mention of finding intrusion 3 22 point $360.00 x 31 23IReplace at chimney caulking m ne y chase I $90.00Ix n Exterior Leak repairs,both sliders have screws through the bottom.Tufflexedin pan metal to 8/8/2011 3 23 the deck,flashed the slider into wall. $1,528.81 x Exterior Leak repairs,both sliders have screws through the bottom.Tufflexedin pan metal to 8/8/2011 3 24 the deck,flashed the slider into wall. $1,528.81 x Check top coat for deck membrane installed 3 24 door knob on basement door $270.00 x Install garage door seal.Serious leak coming from the pipe in the garage.Mold and drywall damage notification only no fixes on those 4/26/2012 4 27 issues. $135.00 x Hole poked in ceiling where 34 scupper caused 10/11/2011 5 33 water to intrude $132.50 x Inspect ceiling damage from water intrusion. 51 33No work performed $67.50x Water intrusion.Scupper clogged,water above $ 5/31/2011 5 33 slider tracks. 133.52 x 10/11/20111 51 341Scupper leaked into unit 33 I Ix Scupper from 36 is leaking on deck at 35. Someone had been hosing something down on 36. Not the scupper.There is a sunroom above 5 35 and they must have been washing it down. x Water leak in laundry room.Checked and it 4/4/2012 5 37 was not leaking. Left 3 messages. x 1 11/13/20121 5I 37 Water intrusion interior repairs I $922.501x I 1 I 51 37 Water intrusion 1 $157.50x 1 Troublshoot water intrusion laundry room Regulator on water main leaking.Advanced 5 37 fixed it. $22.50 x 8/26/20111 51 371Staining on living room ceiling I $45.001x Treat water stain on ceiling.Sprayed ceiling. Notes that the slider above this unit is probably causing the water intrusion. No stop 5 37 to intrusion made $90.00 x Troubleshoot water intrusion.Atrium might be a problem,looks to be caulked into top cap on wall. No action taken waiting for it to rain to 5 38 chase with a moisture meter? $112.50 x 51 381Troubleshoot water intrusion,atriums I $90.00Ix Page 398 of 419 373 EXHIBIT Date of Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Shared wall between the hying room & bedroom.Water leaking again, HOA said it was a tile leaking.Slider repair is still being worked on in the unit above her.Repaired her celiing and wall and did a really terrible job,it looked terrible,they refused to re-do the work and 12/26/2012 5 38 she payed someone else to repair it { Water leaking inside living room again from outside wall. Deck above her is enclosed. 12/19/2012 5 39 Stopped for 5 years. x Install deck coating and door repair.Installed pans applied tufflex.Checked 43's slider reports that it does not need a pan in their 5 39 opinion. $1,533.58 x Troubleshoot water intrusion. Leak in atrium coming from top left panel where it slides under roof,leaking onto deck and down the 5 40 drain. $22.50 x Troubleshoot water intrusion,atriums. Did not 5 40 actually check this unit. x Storage room off deck has leak.Gutter sloped to dor and running over. Downspout and 1/10/2011 6 41 gutter cleared out. No active leak $65.00 x Troublshoot water.Unit 42 plugged 3/29/2011 6 41 downspout. $87.50 x 1/24/2012 61 41Mold from unit 42 water blockage lx 61 41Water intrusion f $175.001x 61 41 Water damage garage 1 $675.001x 2/23/2012 61 411Ceiling repairs lx 12/5/2012 61 411Repair spot leaking again Ix 3/25/2011 61 42JWater intrusion 1 $11.251x Interior repairs water intrusion.patch taped 10/7/2011 6 42 and floated,textured $793.33 x Storage area has mold caused damage to unit 41 in the living room Storage area had 2"of 1/24/2012 6 42 standing water from downspout clog x 3/3/20111 61 42ILeak from gutter. Billed on 52? 1 $22.501x 2/28/20121 61 42ISheet rock repair from storage area leak [ $112.501x 11/19/20121 61 42IBuildings 5&6 roof leaking 3/23/20111 61 43f Water intrusion From 44 slider [ $65.00jx 4/16/20111 61 43lRemove water/plastic from ceiling 1 $110.00lx 61 43Troubleshoot water 1 $32.50Jx I I 61 43Water intrusion.Caulking failed at slider 1 $132.501x Page 399 of 419 374 EXHIBIT iate o' a er Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Ceiling wet above exterior wall.Neet to pul trim around dining room window and flash or pan depending on window fin.Masticed small area as temp fix.Caulking separated under the 3/29/2012 6 43 slider of unit 44,weeps were plugged. x 6 43lTroubleshoot water intrusion,atriums I Ix 3/15/20111 61 43ILeak in ceiling.caulking failure [ Ix 1 I 6 43jWater damage repairs $628.391x 'Water intrusion.Check slider for moisture. Dry.Caulking had separated nder slider and 3/25/2011 6 44 weeps were plugged. $22.50 x Caulking separated under the slider of unit 44, 3/29/2012 6 44 weeps were plugged. x Intall pan underneath window.Slider pan 6 44 install $2,704.12 x Slider&window repair, remove gutter,fascia, installed trim,fascia,gutter&siding.Re- 10/29/2012 6 44 installed roofing around window x 2/11/20101 61 45 Water investigation report $30.671x 2/11/20101 61 45 Water Intrusion Investigation/Repair $1,073.981x 9/8/20101 61 451 Water Intrusion Investigation I $115.00Ix Investigate water ponding and running down 6 45 building $22.50 x 1 61 45ICheck scuppers Ix I 3/16/20101 61 45IDrywall repair $460.741x 2/11/20101 61 461 Water investigation report $30.67lx Leak in bedrom. Unclogged scuper and cleared 1/19/20121 61 46Idownspout x 11/19/20121 61 46 Water intrusion from unit above.Scupper Ix I 61 46 Troubleshoot water intrusion I $90.00Jx I 1 46 Check scuppers I Ix Leak stemming from 48 fascia wall cap.Tarp 2/11/2011 6 461off area $189.37x 11/19/20121 61 461Buildings 5 &6 roof leaking Ix 1 61 46ICheck slider for water leak Ix 2/11/20101 61 471 Water investigation report I $30.67}x 12/28/20101 61 47lLeaking above the slider. I $43.751x After hours response to hot water 9/19/20111 /19/2011 6 47 heaterleaking? $67.50 X Leak coming from hot water heater in Unit 47, Owner said she would replace soon. Laundry room repairs need to be charged to this 9/19/2011 6 47 owner.Replaced mising roof tile $78.75 x U 6 47�re aired it leaking. gwindo sheetrock needs fixed after 48 is 10/25/2011 p w X Page 400 of 419 375 EXHIBIT Date of Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion 6 47 Water intrusion repairs $3,341.93jx Water intrusion investigation from hot water 6 47 heater $90.001x This unit caused damage 3"of water standing 11/19/2012 6 47 on deck from uncleared scuppers to Unit 46 x Water intrusion repairs.Leak coming from window of unit 48.Also damage from a water 6 47 leak under the stair caing.Fix drywall $941.26 x 12/14/2010 6 47Ceiling needs to be repaired from leak from 48 $22.50 x 1 5/10/20111 61 4711nspect for sheet rock damage 1 $65.001x 2/11/20101 61 481 Water investigation report 1 $30.671x 2/10/20111 61 481Tarped off ponywall 1 1x Pulled trim and siding to acces window flange, 10/25/2011 6 48 installed widow tape,trim and siding. $1,160.51 x Cap metal on deck needs to be flashed int the wall at both ends. Damage to Unit 47 ceiling. Do cap metal repair and make sure that solves 12/14/2010 6 48 the leak issue. x Siding inside pony wall is rotting and bubbles in deck coating.Caulked.Ned to replace 12/28/2010 6 48 sheeting and deck coating. $43.75 x 11/13/20121 61 481Deck membrane $135.001x 1 1 4/11/20111 71 511 Water intrusion.Hot water overflow 1 $45.001x I 1 4/5/20111 71 52 Patch drywall inside storage area 1x Water intrusion investigation/repair sheetrock 12/22/2009 7 56 &dryer vent repairs $1,130.21 x Repairtrim board and recaulked window by 7 56 unit $135.00 x 71 561 Paint cieiling repair $45.001x 11/24/20091 81 571 W�t i,. Sion investigation $257.501x 12/8/20091 81 571 Water extraction service 1 $1,525.131x 4/28/20101 81 571Check moisture 1 $45.001x Water intrusion, 'temporary'repair storm 5/25/2010 8 57 collar $360.00,x 1 9/14/20101 81 571 Water Intrusion Investigation $166.601x Window checked, is dry.Rotten fascia full of 2/28/2011 8 57 water on roof,sheeting wet. x 1 3/8/2011 81 571 Water intrusion from Unit 58 1 IX Water is coming from the window of 59needs 11/28/2011 8 57 to be replace causing damage to 57&58 $290.00 x 1 1 8 57 Investigate water intrusion 1 $87.501x After hours response.Water intrusion from 8 57unit 58 Ix Page 401 of 419 376 EXHIBIT Date o a er Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost intrusion 8 57 Damage from 58 dishwasher x 1 5/25/20121 81 57ILeak in laundry room,plumbing pipes? lx j 9/14/20121 8I 57!inter ior repairs from water intrusion $416.551x Troublshoot water intrusion.Another leak 8 57 comin from 3"22 degree pipe.Seth repaired. $90.00 x 81 57lInterior repairs from water intrusion $180.00Jx 3/14/20101 81 581 Water Intrusion Investigation/Repair $651.401x 4/28/20101 81 58 Check moisture $45.001x 2/28/20111 81 581Garden window leaking lx 3/15/20111 81 58,Owner repaired dishwasher Ix Water is coming from the window of 59needs 11/25/2011 8 58 to be replace causing damage to 57&58 $290.00 x 8! 58 Hot water heater leak $175.001x 81 58lDishwaser leaking into unit 57 ] $360.001x 8 58 Troubleshoot water $32.50Jx Troubleshoot water intrusion from unit 57. 3/30/20121 8 58 Coming from toilet of unit 58 $180.00x 111/13/20121 81—m-58-Water intrusion interior repairs j $765.001x 8 58 Temporary repair for water intrusion,deck $118.751x 81 58Troubleshoot water intrusion $135.00x 11/1/20121 81 58 Deck walls caulked to Tufflex I x Window checked, is dry. Rotten fascia full of 2/28/2011 8 59 water on roof,sheeting wet. x Water is coming from the window of 59 needs to be replace causing damage to 57&58.Fin aroud both sides of the bottom of the window have been removed.Slider is also leaking, 11/25/2011 8 59 caulked as temp repair. x Water comin in through bottom of the wall need to remove siding&tufflex perimeter of deck to wall flashing.Temp fix done,flashing 11/1/2012 8 59 around deck broke loose. x 81 59 Temporary repair for water intrusion,deck $118.75 x 11/13/20121 81 59lRepair deck flashing $225.001x Installed pan under slider and window,stained 8 59 shingles and applied deck coating $2,472.71 x 81 59Install siding and stain f $922.501x 81 59 Patch Tufflex on deck $909.611x 9/8/2010 81 60 Investigate hole in stem wall $32.501x 81 60 Repair ceiling $90.00!x 2/11/2010 81 61 Water investigation report $30.671x 2/11/2010 81 61Water Intrusion Investigation/Repair I $1,073.981x Page 402 of 419 377 EXHIBIT 55 Date of ` Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Soffit needs repairs where there was a hole cut for the leak tracking.Ceiling needs repairs, thinks leak is back.Concrete damaged from the ice.Check moisture reading again,leaking on fire escape wall to cap metal.Temp 12/14/2010 8 61 caulking.Siding need pulled to install flashing. Leaking again.Exterior siding and decking 12/28/2010 8 61show moisutre,plastic off area $130.001x 81 61 Trou bleshoot water intrusion $90.001x Added felt to wall resided both sides,rehung 2/4/2011 8 61 gutters.cut roof tiles to add corners $1,399.18 x 2/18/2011 8 61IWater intrusion 1 $90.001x 3/4/20111 81 611 Wants chimney pipe covered in rock. 1 $67.501x Missing lead cover on topmost roof tile on E side of building at rear of the building above the side walkway.Tile pulled away from siding 7/26/2012 8 61 as well.Reset roof shingle and flashing x 1 84 611Reset roof shinle and flashed 1 $154.951x 2/11/20101 8 621 Water investigation report 1 $30.671x Pulled old caulking,recaulked,refelted one 2/16/2011 8 62 area $135.00 x 8/17/20101 91 651 Water Intrusion Investigation 1 $45.001x I Water drainning fron a small drain pipe on the wall of the stairs.Water runs across the patio. Vacant and the stairs leading up to the unit above#67 are wooden there may be a problem. Unit owner of 67 was out of town for a long period of ime and will return soon.Hot water heater in 67 needs replaced,relayed to 10/25/2011 9 66 office. x Troubleshoot water intrusion.Replaced I 9 67 mission flashing. $67.50 x 1 91 671Trouble shoot roof and window issues 1 $45.001x no moisture. Mike says stain is from old leak. recommends 2 coats of Killz be painted over 3/1/2011 9 68 stain to prevent it from seeping back through. $67.50 x I10 69 Troubleshoot gutter and downspout issues $65.00x Page 403 of 419 378 EXHIBIT 55 pate o Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Upper downspout needs to be pulled tight into the gutter.Gutter is not connected to the downspout.Need to add a small section, reconnected gutter to downspout.Drywall 12/16/2010 10 69 repair needed to this area. $112.50 x Moisture&mold in wall in bedroom.Leak 2/27/2012 10 69 coming fom the slider on unit 70. x x Repairs due to water damage.Advanced repaired leak in crawl space.Testing came back with no mold or asbestos present on the back of the sheet rock. used stock texture and 9/18/2012 10 69 mud to finish $165.00 x Downspout is still blocked and large amounts 11/21/2012 10 69 of water are flowing into the crawlspace x Water still pouring off of the roof,gutter not functioning,east side of building flooded on 12/4/2012 10 69 the outside,water pouring into crawlspace x 1 10 69 Troubleshoottesting stain on wall.Wall sent for mold $45.00 x 2/27/20121 101 701Caulked slider for termproary repair Ix Ix Instal slider pan and deck coating by slider. Superior extior replaced deck in 2003 and put an inadequate pan in,and Unit 71.Superior also redid the drain incorrectly,they put both scupper outlets into 1 connected drain. Does 10 70 1 not drain onto the patio below. $1,409.16 x Leak in the laundry ceiling.Cut out ceiling.73 2/22/2011 10 72 had toilets worked on.No moisture present $138.55 x Leak in the laundry ceiling.Cut out ceiling.73 2/22/2011 10 72 had toilets worked on. No moisture present $45.00 x His Unit has intrusion damage.Slider on the deck above him is causing intrusion.Back decks not draining properly on 73.Ask for 12/3/2012 10 72 evaluation of their deck for drainage. 74 x Slider repair in abov unit is still leaking into this 12/24/2012 101 721unit x 2/22/20111 101 731Toilet affecting unit 72 laundry ceiling 1 $4.271x Water intrusion.Checked toilet,was not cause 3/25/2011f 10 73 of leak $11.25 x 4/4/20111 101 731Water intrusion.Water pipe crack in Y 1 $177.501x 1 1 101 731Toilet is leaking 1 $45.001x 1 Page 404 of 419 379 EXHIBIT 5 Date of ' Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion 10 73 Water intrusion laundry room i $45.001x I 101 731 Water intrusion I $65.001x I 101 73 Clean carpet from water intrusion 1 $60.001x Water intrusion repairs and garage sheet rock repairs to garage.roof found to be source of intrusion by bank contractors.No mention of 11 75 fixing inrusion point. $3,490.17 x Garage Door is not working and light above the garage door is also out.Can physically pull 12/5/2012 11 75 open door. x 5/5/20101 111 761Cleared gutter,caulked window I $101.50jx 1 9/27/20101 111 76 Water Intrusion Investigation Ix Washer overflowed and intruding int garage. 4/19/2011 11 76 assess sheet rock damage in garage later x Mold on right side of the wall in the garage coming from the new window installed in the 9/19/2011 11 76 unit above $45.00 x Water intrusion.Caulking ha failed,screws through the bottom of slider.Covered with 11/23/2011 11 76 plastic $122.50 x I 11 76lAdjust plastic due to water intrusion I $45.001x Water damage repairs. Interior. Damage from 11 76 77 $900.00 x i Troubleshoot water intrusion.Bank contractors removed molded&wet drywall found source of leak was nail hole in roof sshingles.Leak is coming from above units window.Owner issue since the window is new. Window in unit 76 was improperly installed. 11 76 Need acess to 76 to install pan $382.50 x [ I 111 76 Troubleshoot water intrusion 1 $45.001x Moisture around the plugin in the garage.Unit 75.Center bulb has water in it.Overflowing washing machine caused water damage.roof 12/5/2012 11 76 leak in April. x Slider repair in above unit is still leaking into 12/24/2012 11 76 this unit.HOA won't return phone calls x Replace sheeting bats removed handrail and 11 76 I painted walls/trim $476.19 x 9/27/20101 111 771 Water Intrusion Investigation I $65.00lx I 111 77 Water intrusion? $122.501x went to the top but is still leaking. Leaking inside again.Come from the other side, not 12/4/2012 11 77 parking side on ladder. x Page 405 of 419 380 EXHIBIT 55 �a a o 'a er Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost intrusion:` 11 11'' 77'Removed slider installed new pan&tufflex $1,192.50 x I 1A 77.. pplied first coat of decking 1 $247.501x 1 11 7711Finish working on deck coating $90.001x 1 11. 77 Install first coat of deck coating 1 $157.50fx Painted around slider door.No action to repair screen door. Drape hanger needs to be replaced,they gave specs to the office.HOAM caused the damage and should pay for these 11 77 items. $121.50 x Water intrusion soffit.Cleaned deck above 7/26/2012 11 79 1 water tested and no leak. $225.00 x 111 79lTroubleshoot water intrusion $22.SOlx Unit 80 vacant scuppers causing damage to lower unit through sliding glass door,and a hole in the deck ceiling caused from 80. 11/30/2012 11 79 Messued 503-847-1761. Melissa 503-960-7675 x Water intrusion.Repair gutter,removed shingles at entry,window has no fins. Need to 12 86 pull windows and repair. $90.00 x Open up ceiling in laundry rom. Needs to 5/27/2011 13 88 scope the building stack $285.00 x Garage water intrusion from 89 leak under the bathroom sink,gel coat chipped off the tup 2/17/2011 13 89,around the drain. $45.00 x 1 1/4/20121 131 891Water intrusion Ix I 1 131 89lTroubleshoot water intrusion $90.00Ix Garage water intrusion from 89. New leak by 2/17/2011 131 90garage door. $45.00x Re-caulked window of Unit 90.Shutters 1/4/2012 13 90 prevent checking weeps. x LEAK IN LIVING ROOM CEILING,WET SPOT RIGHT NOW, HAS LEAKED BEFORE 2-3 YEARS 13 91 AGO x 1Water intrusion.Replace door jamb from 13 93 water leak in wall. $112.50 x I I 131 931 Water intrusion j $247.501x 1 1/12/20101 141 961 Water extraction service $1,159.361x Leak outside,wall on side leaking and cracked. Walkway above drain plugged.2x2 area of 1/14/2011 14 96 sheetrock above laundry needs to be placed $11.25 x I 141 96jPrepped deck for coating I $600.19Ix 1141 97IAfter hours water intrusion $67.501x ... I 141 97 Water intrusion caused from washer box on 98 $45.00 x Page 406 of 419 381 EXHIBIT Date of Water, Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Water leaking from washer,lots of mold and mildew,carpet soaked.Said would contact 6/4/2011 14 98 management company for repairs x Troubleshoot water intrusion.Ceiling leak in garage traced to washing machine box.Turned off hot water heater as unit is vacant..Toilet 14 98 bowl gasket leaks. $138.00 x 14 991 Water intrusion? $122.501x 2/13/20121 14 100 Troubleshoot water intrusion,repair interior $414.94 x Water intrusion.Sheet rock repair.101's slider 14 100 or from 102 Window $157.50 x 1 141 101 Water intrusion? $122.501x Water in unit by sliding glass door. 102 deck was'repaired'to fix this last time.I1OA states that they added felt to he lower edge of the roof,need dry weather&to pull the shingles& added felt all the way across the dining 11/19/2012 14 101 window.Needs permanent repair $112.50 x I 141 101 Troubleshoot water intrusion 1 $135.001x Same place as repaired last year water is dripping into the unit in the living room by the sliding glass door. Bucket is under the drip. Said it was the deck in 102 that was'repaired' to fix the leak in his ceiling.Door will be open 11/19/2012 14 101 please fix ASAP. x 141 101 Paint ceiling I $45.001x Window is leaking needs installed weather 1/19/2012 14 102permits x 14 102lTroubleshoot water intrusion 1 $112.50jx 14 102IReplace siding from dry rot 1 $517.501x 14 102IStain dining room window 1 $45.001x 12/22/20091 15 103Water Intrusion Investigation/Repair 1 $249.75jx 4/15/20101 15 103Check moisture 0% 1 Ix 9/14/20101 15 103lLeak Repair I $87.50jx Repair bedroom ceiling damage from unit above water leak.Core samples for mold. small amount in bedroom.sheetrock taped 7/25/2011 15 103 and textured $1,607.08 X Unit 104 is leaking into 103.Scupper (downspout)was completely plugged.Also, noticed a break in membrane on unit 104 patio,standing water on patio,water damage 11.8.09 15 104 to unit 102 stains on celing. x 3/21/20101 151 1041Remove&replace Tufflex on deck I $2,282.601x Page 407 of 419 382 EXHIBIT 55 Pate o ,, W 'a er ervice Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion -' 15 104 repaired hole in building facade deck $45.00,x 1 6/2/20111 1 10511nspect deck coating $65.O01x Check carpet and install fan&heater from 10/5/2011 15 107 water leak in building 15 laundry room $85.00 x 10/7/20111 151 1071check moisture $22.501x Assess damage from water leak.Spray kilz nd 10/21/20111 15 107 repaired tape lines $105.61lx 8/23/20121 15 1071Water intrusion&dry rot repairs $4,296.791x 9/7/20121 151 1071Water intrustion dry rot repairs $1,976.351x 1 151 1071 Water intrusion damage 1 $6,405.871x Dry rot project recently finished in her unit. Slugs are now entering the unit at the rate of about 2 per day. Believes they are coming in 11/8/2012 15 107 through window. Trouble shoot shoot water intrusion.Retaining wall 15 107 behind kitchen wall rotting. $67.50lx 151 1081lnvestigate hot water heater leak 1 $87.501x 12/12/20121 161 1151Trouble shoot water intrusion 1 $293.591x Moisture at bottom of slider needs water 12/5/2012 16, 1151tested x Troublshoot water onto deck.Cleaned gutters, downspouts. Bent lead flashing to divert water 16 115 to side off of the atrium $45.00 x 11/29/20111 1 1161Water intrusion I $123.341x Removed roof tile over dining room area. Repaired and redid the voer of the outside 12/7/2012 16 116 corner in ford flush &re-shingled x 12/12/20121 16 116 Trouble shoot water intrusion under roof tiles $45.001x 1 161 1161Water intrusion 1 $315.001x Scuppers filled caused damage to 116 12/6/2012 16 116 bedroom ceiling pouring water into bedroom x Mold in the bedroom closet. Reported last year no one has looked at it yet.Tenant Scott 12/4/2012 16 117 503-866-1571. x Troubleshoot water intrusion.Small drip in laundry room due to 120's water heater.No 17 118 damage. $22.50 x Leak in unit above the slider.gutters cleared. Caulk separated under slider on Unit 120. 11/17/2011 119 Temp caulk repair. $60.00 x 11/23/20121 171 11911nterior repairs from water damage I $1,118.801x 1 171 1191Ceiling repair lx Caulk separated under slider causing leak on 11/17/2011 17 120 Unit 119.Temp caulk repair. $60.00 x 12/12/20121 171 1201Trouble shoot water intrusion $180.001x Page 408 of 419 383 EXHIBIT Date of Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Slider door,tufflex.Also did gyperete in this 17 120 unit $1,350.00 x 1 17 120lPrepped deck for coaing 1 $202.50x H , 1 171 120!Installed deck coating 1 $135.00x I Leak is coming from 122's storage door.Gutter was overflowing dumping water down backside of the siding. Pull siding above door 1/4/2012 17 121 and re-flash x Interior repairs from water intrusion.scraped ceiling,replaced drywall paed float re-float 8/7/2012 17 121 clean up,textured. $691.51 x Leak into unit 121. Incorrect flashing above storage on deck. Removed gutter and siding, 1/9/2012 17 122 reflashed roof to gutter and wall above door $670.00 x Scuppers clear but there is still a water issue 12/4/2012 17 122 happening. x 6/8/20101 171 123!Water Intrusion Repair $233.751x Troubleshoot water intrusion.Siding needs to 2/29/2012 17 123 be pulled apart and flashed $45.001x I 171 123Repair popcorn ceiling $562.36x Removed siding and patched deck coating. 17 123 Reinstalled siding $1,478.69 x Hole in ceiling through living room light.Screw through 126 slider track at bottom.Slider needs pan added. High moisture readings.2° 11/20/2012 18 125 back from carpet.Troubleshoot $180.00 x water coming in from the ceiling. HOA Still dripping, Having his contractor come and give him a bid.Worst case$800 to fix the inside. HOA looking at 128 to fix the source of the 11/20/2012 18 125 overflow. x 6/10/20111 1 126f repair garage damage 1 $67.501x 48" Crack in tufflex deck,added fiberglass tape 11/28/2012 18 126 and tufflex. Needs top coat. x 11/28/2012! 18 1271Patched leak in deck of unit. lx I Water intrusion.Told owner to prime w/killz 3/25/2011 181 1281before repainting $22.50 x 181 128jMoisture test $175.00lx Water sponts in the living room ceiling, patch on top of roofing is peeling.Warranty?Area in 1/23/2012 18 128 entry needs to be patched x I 181 128lTrouble shoot water intrusion 1 $45.00Ix Page 409 of 419 384 EXHIBIT 55 Pa e o ffa er Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Wet spot on ceiling. roof repair?No one has been there to look at it yet.12/3/12 5 spots on 11/5/2012 18 128 the ceiling now. x Columbia river roofing repaired hole in 18 128 membrane roof $375.00 x 181 1281Primed water stain on ceiling $50.50 x Leak in Unit.130 slider is leaking.Caulked as 11/22/2011 18 129 temp fix. x Leak in Unit 129. 130 slider is leaking.Caulked 11/22/2011 181 130 as temp fix 12/7/20121 181 1301Repairs 1 $405.001x 12/7/20121 181 1301 Leak worse over weekend 1 $495.0O1x Stain in laundry room ceiling.From old leak. 12/18/2010 18 131 Cut out and replace sheetrock. $90.001x 181 1311Sheetrock repair laundry room 1 $120.001x 11/28/20121 181 1311Needs pan under right slider lx High moisture readings under roof cap. Removed tiles,repaired felt&flashed at 18 131 gutter, replaced tiles. x Need to pull fascia above the atrium to flash 11/29/2012 18 132 properly,termporarily mastic x Took sample of deck coat,went over new install procedure on all P-Tuff products.Need to have ultra quiet come to jobsite.Bought 11/29/2012 18 132 materials. x Repair Fence(billing wording).Work order for caulking slider of unit 134 as temporary repair 11/22/2011 19 133 to water intrusion to 133. x Repair Fence(billing wording).Work order for caulking slider of unit 134 as temporary repair 11/22/2011 19 134 to water intrusion to 133. $312.50 x Dry rot underneath cedar shack,goes into the firewall of unit.continue demo until rot is 2/10/2011 19 136 removed $380.34 x 11/13/20121 191 1371 Water intrusion repairs 1 $67.501x Leaking again in living room,above corner of siding from outside corner of deck,downspout was back flowing over back of gutter.Wrong flashing above slider re-layered felt. Found moisture in wass sheeting above porch light. 11/20/2012 19 137 Weathered in,added shingles.Troubleshoot $585.00 x 11/23/20121 191 13711nterior repairs from water damage 1 $522.801x Page 410 of 419 385 EXHIBIT Date of Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Took apart coating on deck,did not etch the galvanized metal and that is why it failed.Tore off deck coating at slider,weather up for door tear out.Installed siding above slider.Deck coating failed on slider,removed old coating 11/29/2012 19 137 and weathered in. $884.25 x Water intrusion.138 slider is leaking and 10 1371tarped I $67.50 x 191 137IDamage due to water intrusion I $287.14Ix 10/28/20121 191 137ISheetrockrepair I $382.50Ix Ceiling leaking again inside where it was fixed this summer.Same place it was leaking before the fix in the living room.Will be home most of the day,can come in if she is gone Keys are at 11/19/2012 19 137 the office. x 3/15/20121 191 138ISIider leaking into 137 Ix Ultra quiet instruct on the deck coating.New process in stallation. Pulled slider,panned and 12/6/2012 19 138 reinstalled. $292.50 x 112/12/20121 191 138IRemoved slider&installed pan I $1,874.611x I 1 191 138ISiider door,tufflex I $1,350.00Ix I 2/17/20111 201 139IWaterintrusion I $67.50Ix Repaired damaged sheeting,installed vapor 3/3/2011 20 139 barrier,residing.installed flashing and siding. $2,208.29 x ( I 201 139llnspectfor mold I $32.50Ix I 201 139ITroubleshoot moisture issue I $22.50Ix 2 leaks in unit.One in chimney and 1 above 1/20/2011 20 140the slider. $130.00x 2/17/2011 20 140 Water intrusion.Tested ceiling found no leak $45.00 x 201 140IWater damage repairs I $1,446.28Ix 12/16/2010 20 140ILeak at chimney and one above the slider. $22.50 x Leak started again.Fascia under the felt. Tarped off wall. Pull siding and fascia off fire 2/28/2011 20 140 escape wall also on 141 $135.00 x f Found flashing issue above the slider. reflashed wall into gutter.Pulled cap metal and siding on both sides.Reinstall roof tile above to the right of the dining room window, 12/15/2010 20 141 reinstalled downspout. $130.00 x 1 21 1451 Water intrusion.Tarped 146 slider 1 Ix 1 Page 411 of 419 386 EXHIBIT 55 sate a eater Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Troubleshoot water intrusion.Tarp slider of 146. 147 Had overflowing gutter.Most likely window flashing issue with 147 dining room window.Tarp on slider appears to be intact. When slider is panned also pull siding around 21 145 dining room window and inspect $67.50 x Water intrusion. Downspout above bedroom 6/2/2011 21 145window. $45.00x 1/18/2012 21 146IRepair sheetrock damage from leak 1 jx 1/20/2012 21 1461501 leaking,cleared scupper above lx 11/20/2012 21 1461Ceiling Repair,troubleshoot only 1 $472.50x 1 12/6/2012 21 146jLeak caused by 147's slider pan? Ix 21 146lTroubleshoot water intrusion 1 $388.75x 21 1461Repair soffit 1 $225.00x 21 146Repair water damage 1 $922.501x 21 146ITarped slider intruding 145 $22.50x Troubleshoot water intrusion.Tarp slider of 146. 147 Had overflowing gutter.Most likely window flashing issue with 147 dining room window.Tarp on slider appears to be intact. When slider is panned also pull siding around 21 146 dining room window and inspect x 211 1461 Water intrusion I $345.651x 1 11/19/20121 211 146lSheet rock repair. HOA picked up keys J lx Leaking ceiling. Middle unit a few areas in the main living space and dining areas in ceiling. Slider is leaking,has a window tarped. Leak is not stopping. Been leaking over the last 12/3/2012 21 146 month. x Slider leaking or wall adjacent to door. Need 11/20/2012 21 147 fascia&fire escape window and repair x 11/30/20121 211 147 removed tiles,added felt and flashing to roof. �x Leak from 145 Window?. Found leak under slider failed at original deck surface. Ultra Quiet purchase sausage plyurethane and top rivets. Pull door and redo, pinhole found 12/6/2012 21 147 where metal flashing meets the wall. $1,035.00 x 211 147lTroubleshoot water intrusion j $388.75jx Water intrusion.removed fascia,gutter,some 21 147 siding troubleshoot $1,320.22 x Remove door slider,install pan,reside deck 6/7/2012 21 147 and install tufflex $1,321.90 x Page 412 of 419 387 EXHIBIT Date o Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion`. Found deck coating did not adhere to existing 11/26/2012 21 147 deck,applied new coating x Tarped deck.Tried to repair light but couldn't. 12/3/2012 21 147Found leak under slider $1,012.50 x 211 147lInstall door pan and repair tufflex j $974.951x Leak in living room.Slider of 150 leaking put 1 11/29/2011 21 149 up plastic as temp repair $123.34 x I 2/6/20121 211 149ILeak in living room.from 150 slider pan Ix I 6/1/20121 211 149llnterior repairs from water intrusion i $1,126.081x Interior repairs and painting from water 6/5/2012 21 149 intrusion $1,034.96 x Water intrusion.150 Window is leaking. 21 1491Tarped $67.50 x 211 1491 Water intrusion I $67.501x Leak in living room.Slider of 150 leaking put 11/29/2011 21 150 up plastic as temp repair $123.34 x Slider repair water intrusion to unit 149, 2/6/2012 21 150 Installed pan,deck not re-coated $2,037.35 x 3/15/20121 211 150ITarped window leaking into 149 Ix Removed siding,fascia boards, upper rail trim, window and gutter to make repairs from water 21 150 intrusion $1,883.96 x I 211 150lAdjust trap due to water intrusion $45.00Jx I 211 150 Slider&deck coatig I $360.001x 2/29/20121 221 152 Leak in hall bathroom from 156 shower. Ix 2/29/20121 221 156lShower causing leak into 152's unit I Ix I I 22 156lTroubleshoot water intrusion $45.001x I Inside window ledge,coming in by the flashing at the top of the window frame.Letting water in at the very top of the frame.At the back of 12/26/2012 22 157 the condo.Significant amount of water x Water intrusion.Cleared scuppers.Caulked 2/20/2012. 22 159 outside corner on roof $90.00 x Drywal in ceilins has mold and water damage. 2/20/2012 22 161 Removed ceiling to investigate leak in garage $559.32 x Troublshoot leak in garage.Sheet rock, 22 161 repaired flashing above tile roof $405.00 x Painted garage door trim&repaired garage 22 161 door $225.00 x Ceiling on the left hand side of the garage interior has water damage&mold. Look at the lower weather stripping seal that was fixed 11/15/2012 22 161 previously,moved out of position. x 8/17/20101 221 162IWater damage to deck ceiling 1 $65.00Ix I Page 413 of 419 388 EXHIBIT 55 Ia e o �''�ater Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Bid repair garage. Remove 24"sheet rock,add 22 163 vapor barrier. x 5/25/20101 221 1651 Water Intrusion Investigation 1 Ix 1 9/24/20101 23) 170tWater Intrusion Investigation 1 $202.501,x cut drywall to make sure dryer venting is ducted.spun ducting around direc are from dryer vent,exhaust fan was working properly; Air being pulled out of the venting instead of 1/10/2011 23 170 pushed. $65.00 x Pulled siding off deck,cleaned flashing taped in with tuflex.Made window trim for dining 11/29/2012 23 175 room window. Intalled felt,siding and trim. x With all the heavy rains,there is water leaking into my living room. It appears to be infiltrating at the base of the wall under the living room window(SW wall,faces McNary Parkway).Carpet is wet from the wall in about 18"spanning about 5'. Please advise course of 11/26/2012 23 175 action as soon as possible. x 1/17/20111 23 Water dripping into fireplace.Chase cover I 177 stuck. $65.00 x II Water intrusion.from chimney chase.no work 4/11/2011 23 177 done,schedule for better weather $130.00 x Leak from chimney chase, repaired siding on 8/3/2011 23 177 side of chase $270.00 x Interior repairs,need permission to have 8/10/2011 23 177 wallpaper installer company repair $355.00 x 231 1771Moisture test $65.00x [ 231 181fTroubleshoot water intrusion I $90.00Jx 23181 Repaired sheet rock due to water intrusion $831.99 x 23j 181lTroubleshoot water intrusion $95.501x Water on ceiling in dining room.gutter above window just cleaned.small area around 1/14/2011 23 182 window opening need sheetrock repair $11.25 x 2/17/20111 231 182lcaulked window repair 1 $135.001x 1 Investigate water intrusion,repair sheet rock. 23 182 Gutter overflowing caused leak inside. $114.24 x 11/20/20121 231 182 Water intrusion in LR,same as before 1 $405.00jx Page 414 of 419 389 EXHIBIT Date of Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Inspected and sealed exposed corner on roof where it was separated.Seal edge of corner tiles where roofing was exposed.Pulled tiles found rotten sheeting caused by upper corner of Duralast to siding. Removed tile roof,dry rot deck and replace 10'of sheeting,felt and tile backs.Added flashing to upper roof line where duralast meets the roof.Sealed duralast 20-Nov 23 182 roof to wall corner. $1,136.25 x Testing texture for asbestos.Cleaned scupper 12/3/2012 23 182 boxes $135.00 x Testing texture for asbestos.Cleaned scupper 1 12/3/2012 231 1821 boxes $201.00 x 1 12/18/20121 231 1821Interior repairs from water intrusion I $215.87Ix Water dripping in dining room same spot it 11/19/2012 23 182 was fixed before.Will be home rest of the day x HOA guys took plaster to analyze and haven't gotten back to her yet.Leak from the roof. Lights in the garage will come on if you turn 12/5/2012 23 182 them on manually,but not if you drive in. x 24 186Troubleshoot water intrusion I $45.001x 241 190 Repair water intrusion garage I $130.001x I Water damage repairs,garage.Removed roofing on front&gack of garage, re-felted. 24 190 Fixed additional corner.Sheetrocked $1,279.16 x Mold on garage ceiling.From old water,will 4/29/2011 24 191 supply estimate $991.00 x 241 191JMousture test garage ceiling $67.501x 241 1911Prime new sheet rock $135.00jx Investigate leak.Garage bowed out. Estimate 1/4/2011 24 192 to be sent into office $65.00'x removed existing damaged water dam, 10/24/2011 24 192 prepped floor,have not installed anything yet $249.53 x Troublesshoot water intrusion.Dark spots in closet wall. No oisture is present show on celing and stain on wall could be coing through from old leak.Prime with Kiliz and r-paint?No 24 192 work done $90.00 x Garage leaking again, more sheetrock damaged.Window&siding above garage needs to be pulled,flashed&re-sided Almost all of the sheetrock needs to be replaced as 3/14/2012 243 194 well x Page 415 of 419 390 EXHIBIT S5 late o f't'ater Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion Build and install window.Tore off rot,flashed 5/18/2012 24 194 and applied Tufflex to garage. x 24� 194 Garage water intrusion.Only cleared gutter $45.00x 241 194Dry rot repairs $9,133.691x 241 194Install siding and replaced sheet rock $225.00jx 2/15/2011 24 195Water intrusion.Caulking on cap and flashing $65.00 x 2/17/20111 241 195 Water intrusion $225.00 x 2/28/2011 24 195 investigate.No sign Afterhours call.Leaking again,please of new moisture $135.00 x 1 241 195lWater intrusion 1 $130.001x Water intrusion 12/1/12.Friday night same as 1.5 years ago. HOA shaun told him someone would call him the next day.No one contacted him. He then spoke to a lady and that Sunday morning Mike would come out.Still dripping yesterday. Happens when it is really windy& rainy.What is the game plan on this?Don't 12/3/2012 24 195 have the courtesy to call me to schedule? x Caulked areas where caulking had failed on the flashing and exposed screws.aulked in 11/29/2011 24 197 terminations strips x 241 197 Water intrusion I $45.00jx Troubleshoot water intrusion,cleaned off roof, cleaned gutters above unit deck and caulked in 24 197 termination strips $360.00 x ' mm Eves above the corner of the deck.When it rains it poors in 1 spot and drenches everything. Pools at the bottom.Quite 11/19/2012 24 197 extreme.Going to damage the siding x 1/20/20101 241 198lWater Intrusion Investigation/Repair 1 $371.691x Fixed the windows,but they are leaking. Water from the new window is puddling up in the middle of the landing.HOA put in a couple 12/4/2012 24 198 of months ago. First landing from the top. x Garage roof leaking.Leaking inside and tape is starting to hang down. Back side not facing the 12/6/2012 25 203 drive area. x 12/7/20121 25 203 water in garage rotting back wall I Ix Troubleshoot water running issue.Checked 25 204 208, denied access.Want to check 212 $45.00 x 25 207 Garage water intrusion. Only cleared gutter 1 x Page 416 of 419 391 EXHIBIT 55 Date o eater Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion 1/9/2012 25 207,Repair sheetrock in garage $377.50 x [ I 251 208jWater intrusion I $45.001x 9/14/20101 251 2111Investigate garage leak 1 $45.001x 1/24/2011 25 211 Pulled siding off chiney,added felt and tape. 1 $1,052.981x Moisture Test,cleaned soffit,prepped/painted 3/22/20101 251 212gutter x Troubleshoot water intrusion. Look at garage. 9/6/2012 25 214 Need to pull sheet rock down.No action taken $45.00 x Install flashing to roof and install J pan.Garage. 25 214 Resealed transition area of roof. $1,636.83 x 3/4/2010 Skybridge�? Water Intrusion Investigation&Repair $483.951x Troubleshoot water intrusion/flash/ ash window $625.791x 1 713rd garlSeal is falling off the door frame. Ix Ceiling leak in lounge.Drains were permanently sealed. Horizon began drying 1/14/2011 Assoc All Hole in roof temporary caulking. $109.78 x Reinstall light fixtures/fans clean apartment 12/15/2011 Assoc all after repairs $270.00 x Maynard meet with WA,Charter,Gresham on II Assoc All clubhouse roof project $503.75 x !Assoc 'Apart !Repair sheet rock,install new popcorn I $1,931.871x Troubleshoot water intrusion Main roof drain Assoc Assoc was closed shut,water pooling on roof x 12/8/2009(assoc 'Club 1Water extraction service $1,525.13 lx [ 8/8/2010Iassoc 'Club 1Water Intrusion I $172.001x I Drain on club roof"clogged deep down-there was no debris on the roof surface".Inspeced& snaked out vent drain, removed water from 10/29/2012 assoc club the floor x !Water intrusion on clubhouse roof.Snaked assoc Club roof drain $416.25'x 7/27/2012jassoc jclub 1Flushed scuppers on roof of clubhouse lx Treat mold in atic above apartment from assoc Club dehumidifier not working,treat mold. $130.00 x lassoc club aRepair roof tiles I $22.501x lassoc klub !Staining Shingles&roof shingles 1 $457.321x 2"standing water in the south stairwell.Water 1/15/2011 22 getting into the storage unit of unit $167.75 x 1/24/20111 51 jSkybridge repair. Needs paint 1 $290.001x Replace laundry room floor.Cut hole in floor for drainage, removed concrete around leaking 1/28/2011 6 piped.Called advanced plumbing $773.24 x Page 417 of 419 392 EXHIBIT 55 Daao' YTaer Service Building `Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion 2/10/2011 6 laundry room repairs $1,297.00'x 3/30/20111 251 (Pump water from elevator pit 1 $135.001x 1 Repair ceiling in the building 10 laundry room. 8/3/2011 10 install drywall taped, primed $264.23 x Unit 57,58,59 leak. Pulled siding from window, not flashed properly.Taped window into felt.Refelted wall and siding,removed all and installed new on exterior of bilding. 8/24/2011 8 flashed upper fascia with metal $3,157.89 x Repair laundry room,put fans an heater in to 10/3/2011 6 speed drying time $110.00 x 11/22/20111 (Cleaned weep holes in 2 windows I Ix 25 (Water intusion I $45.001x 1 5 (Skybridge water intrusion I $90.00x I I 6 (Moisture test laundry room I $132.501x 1 2/9/20121 25 (Repair dry rotted fascia board 1 $292.50(x Water intrusion repars to panel room.round out crack filled with hydro cement,cut out wet drywall and siding. Removed rotten siding and studs and replaced with new.Was the 8/8/20121 23 intrusion point identified? $1,312.31 x 12/12/2012 24 Water intrusion after hour emergency call $236.251x Pull lower window install pan. Removed 12/14/2012 24 bottom glass installed pan. $66.48 mat.Cost $360.00 x 14 (Water intrusion in trash enclosure $90.001x 71 (Troubleshoot clogged gutter I $45.00(x Fire escape window troubleshoot water 1 intrusion $45.00x Remove window in fire escape and instal pan, repair dry rot and reside $270.00 x remove slider installed door pan,recoated deck and repaired light fixture $1,595.04x Remove tiles back to lap felt over fascia and 3/4/2011 23 onto roof. reinstall tiles plus fascia tiles $558.50 x 3/7/2011 101 Patch hole near ceiling. Notes say driveway $217.69 x 8/26/2011( 23( Repaired broken roof tile at garage 1 $130.00(x Dry rot from missing ridge cap. Replaced all siding corner pieces,nailed down roof flashing 9/8/2011 7 and installed roof mastic. $379.87 x 9/28/20111 231 (Replace broken roof tile ( $135.00(x 1 11/7/20111 91 (Replaced hip tile $208.751x float repair&install fire caulking in laundry 6 room $186.25 x Page 418 of 419 393 EXHIBIT Date of Water Service Building Unit Repair Made Cost Intrusion`-`. 1/4/2012 23 Replace roof tile $45.00 x 2/23/20121 161 Nile repair $90.001x 8/9/20121 241 lInstall deck coating to stairs.Tufflex I $100.751x Broken roof tile reported in BLDG 5,Unit 24 10/29/20121 5 can see it to help locate x Removed tufflex where it delaminated from deck ege.Purchased new tufflex&catalyst. Re 11/2/2012 applied tuffles to weathered in the area. x Missing flashin above garage,need to pull corner boards and install flashing. Missing 12/5/2012 20 gutter spikes 1 x 12/7/20121 !Cleaned etched,primed metal for sliders 1 lx I 231 JRepair roof Tile 1 $45.001x I I 31 'Repair roof Tile [ $135.00jx 1 i I 1 1$169,574.901 Page 419 of 419 394 EXHIBIT 55 395 EXHIBIT 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 k.i4,_,,foren4sVic hi th Portland OR 97223 503-297-0665 r' a 4; yi CNITECTt RG. PROJECT NAME: Oswego Summit Condos PROJECT#: OR11-310 FIELD REPORT Decks and Stairwells ISSUE DATE: Oct t0' 2011 Observation Date: Observation Weather Conditions Time: Start 9:15am During Observation: Oct 3, 2011 End 10:45am 53° Partly cloudy Observation Address: r f . �'� 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 7 Observation Attendees: Spencer Reid Western Architectural Nick Dente Western Architectural 'fix Maynard Tye President, CPM r Distribution (via email or fax) .t r Maynard Tye flQaynardCcr7hoafixot,corn As requested by the Oswego Summit HOA, Western Architectural (WA) performed deck and stairwell ob- servations of buildings 22, 23, 24, and stairwell observations of building 25. The following report docu ments our observations. This report will be followed by a scope of repairs and bid documents based on our site assessment. A. OBSERVATIONS: 1.01 Deck Observations: Location photo. Deck observa tions at unit 162. 396 EXHIBIT 56 1.02 Deck Observations: There was no traffic coating waterproofing applied to the s face of the concrete deck. l deck was sloped in most la tions. The slope of the deck the center was 3/8" per 1' in • positive direction. The slope the door threshold was 0" per Sloping of the deck should main consistent to properly sr water. 1.03 Deck Observations: Patching was observed abo Previous repair work had bE performed at the above deck. 1.04 Deck Observations: The center guardrail post IA not beneath the upper deck a provided no support. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www.westernarchitectural corn 397 EXHIBIT 1.05 Deck observations: Opposite of the patched repair work, the above deck was dam- aged and chunks of concrete were falling from the edge. The reinforcement bar was visible and heavily corroded. 1.06 Deck observations: The damage above and damage at the deck of unit 162 was lo- cated primarily at the edge. 1.07 Deck observations: Adjacent to the patchwork at the above deck, large portions of concrete have fallen off and ex- posed the embedded steel. The steel was heavily corroded. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www westernarch itectural corn 398 EXHIBIT 56 1.08 Deck Observations: Location photo. Deck observa- tions at unit 166. 1.09 Deck Observations: At unit 166, the guardrail post did line up with the above deck. The above deck also had a out- board gutter and far less dam- age was observed at the edge. 1.10 Deck Observations: There was no traffic coating or waterproofing applied to the concrete deck. The guardrails were attached directly to the deck. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www_westernarchitectural corn 399 EXHIBIT 56 1.11 Deck Observations: Saw-cut flashing was installed al the exterior wall of the unit. Por- tions of the flashing were cor- roded. 1.12 Deck Observations: Location photo. Deck observa- tions at unit 156. 1.13 Deck Observations: The guardrail post of unit 156 was not fully aligned with the above deck. The tube steel was exposed past the edge of the deck. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www westernarchitectural.com 400 EXHIBIT 56 1.14 Deck Observations: The deck above of unit 156 c not have an out-board gutti There was significant damage the underside of the deck. Lan portions of reinforcing steel w observed. The metal was hea ily corroded. 1.15 Deck Observations: Location photo. Deck obsery tions at unit 154. 1.16 Deck Observations: Cracking and damage was ob- served, primarily located at the edge of the above deck. There was no gutter installed at the upper deck. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www_westernarchitecturaI corn 401 EXHIBIT 6 1.17 Deck Observations: Access to unit 161 was not pro- vided, but photos from grounc level show extensive damage above the unit and at the deck edge. 1.18 Deck Observations: Access was not provided to unit 157 either. A large strip of con- crete was missing surroundinc the corroded structural steel. 1.19 Stairwell Observations: Location photo. Stairwell obser- vations of building 22. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www_westernarchitectural corn 402 EXHIBIT 56 1.20 Stairwell Observations: A traffic coating or waterproo agent had been applied to sc locations at building 22, bi was not consistent. Evidenct moisture migration was evic at locations with staining. 1.21 Stairwell Observations: There was no membrane of kind observed between the 1 ping slab and concrete strate. Organic growth I formed in some locations tween the topping slab and s strate. Cracking was present well. 1.22 Stairwell Observations: Some locations had an app coating as well as incorpore drip edge flashing. Areas this application were less di aged. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www westernarchitectural corn 403 EXHIBIT 56 1.23 Stairwell Observations: Damage at the stairs was pri- marily at the corners where the concrete surrounded the steel supports. The steel was heavily corroded. 1.24 Stairwell Observations: Staining at the surface of the stairwell suggests pooling water on the concrete. Areas that are not protected with a waterproof coating will absorb the pooling water and are at a higher risk of the steel corroding and then ex- ceeding the tensile strength of the concrete, causing cracking. The slope of the stairwell at the location shown here was 0" per 1", almost level. Past repairs at stair corners were observed at all buildings. 1.25 Stairwell Observations: Location photo. Stairwell obser- vations at building 23. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www westernarchitectural nom 404 EXHIBIT 56 126 Stairwell Observations: Areas of building 23 also did nc have a traffic coating or water proofing agent applied. Thi damages were similar ti building 22 and at the same lo cations. 1.27 Stairwell Observations: Location photo. Stairwell obser vations at building 24. 1.28 Stairwell Observations: A traffic/waterproof coating wa: applied at the walkways o building 24. Evidence of wate intrusion into the substrate wa: still observed. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www westernarchitectural corn 405 EXHIBIT 56 1.29 Stairwell Observations: The traffic/waterproofing coatin was not applied at the stairwell; 1.30 Stairwell Observations: Metal flashing was integrate with the traffic/waterproofin coating in some areas, but was not installed continuously Improper installation of th flashing created voids that alloy for moisture exposure at th concrete substrate. 1.31 Stairwell Observations: Location photo. Stairwell obsei vations at building 25. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 wwwweaternarchitechIra I corn 406 EXHIBIT 56 1.32 Stairwell Observations: Building 25 had a more rt traffic/waterproofing coatinc plied and the stairwells constructed differently ther previous buildings. 1.33 Stairwell Observations: Less damage was observed at building 25. Locations of the topping slab did not integrate edge metal. Water can get be- tween fascia and topping slab and expose areas of the topping slab that are not treated with a waterproof coating. 1.34 Stairwell Observations: Flashing was not consistently installed at building 25 and damage was present at termina- tion locations. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www westernarchitectural_com 407 EXHIBIT 56 1.35 Stairwell Observations: An exposed stairwell section depicts the layers of construc- tion. Less damaged at the sub- strate suggests the edge metal and layered construction has provided significantly more pro- tection then the conditions ob- served at buildings 22, 23, and 24. 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www westernarch itectural corn 408 EXHIBiT 56 B. CONCLUSIONS: Concrete is a porous material that will absorb water, especially installed as a horizontal surface. When water is absorbed by the concrete the steel reinforcement is exposed and begins the rust.The rust ex- pands the metal and when the expansion of the metal exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete,the concrete will crack and fall off.This condition is called "rust jacking". Rust jacking was observed at all concrete locations of buildings 22, 23,24.The decks were especially damaged and currently pose a dan- ger from falling pieces of concrete. In the next few weeks Western Architectural will compose a scope of repairs followed by bid documents that will describe the specific requirements necessary to repair the decks and stairwells of buildings 22, 23, and 24.The decks at building 25 were not observed and the damage at the stairwells was far less severe. Separate, less extensive recommendations will be made for the stairwells and landings of building 25.Western Architectural recommends that residents use extreme caution at the decks and avoid getting to close to the damaged areas. Caution must also be taken at stairs until the repairs can be completed. Thank you for choosing Western Architectural to assist you in this matter. Should you have any questions or require further clarification on anything discussed in this report please contact me at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, Spencer Reid, Project Manager Nick Dente, Principal C. CONSULTANT ROLE AND DISCLAIMERS: Our observation techniques consist of visually observing and sampling areas of the building where, in our experience, problems are likely to show themselves. However, because we do not remove all (or any in some cases)exterior cladding, windows, and other materials overlaying the structure, we may miss some or all of the damage to it; such damage would only be revealed if we removed all of the cladding and win- dows, and examined the surrounding surfaces. Thus, please understand that there may be damage to the building that we could not see and therefore cannot report. Western Architectural Forensic Architects and Engineers will not be held responsible for any concealed or undetected damage to your structure in- cluding microbial (mold)contamination. Because of the necessarily limited nature of our observations, any repair guidelines we produce as a re- sult will be limited to those conditions we actually observed during the inspection. This means, and you acknowledge,that our repair guidelines may not cover all repairs that are needed. This is why it is crucial that you retain the services of a highly qualified, detail-oriented contractor as part of your project team in addition to our professional services that dictate the remediation process should you implement an action plan. You also understand that Western Architectural Forensic Architects and Engineers is neither a guarantor nor an insurer of the adequacy of any construction, reconstruction or recommended action, and that our services are being rendered solely as a consultant. We therefore disclaim, and you acknowledge our dis- claimer of, any and all liability of any source or nature, to you or any third party, for any claims arising out of or related to the repair process. Western Architectural may only be held to the same standard of care imposed upon a professional firm providing comparable services. You acknowledge that any reports or repair guidelines issued by Western Architectural are to be used in light of the foregoing. You also agree that Western Architectural is in no way providing any assurance to you or any third party that any repair guidelines issued by us are exhaustive as to your project, nor that the project will be (or has been) completed in accordance with any particular plans or specifications, whether or not issued by, provided to or reviewed by Western Architectural. The responsibility for quality control of(and adherence to)the repair guidelines, specifications and plans is yours and that of your cho- sen project team. This report is strictly limited to your use and should, in any event, be used only in its entirety with this dis- claimer included. END OF REPORT 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750 Portland,OR 97223 503-297-0665 www westernarchitectural nom 409 EXHIBIT 57 y1 TERN ARCHITECTURAL forensic 3rclutectsa eareors ROOF CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT For: Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR, 97035 OR12-396 Inspection Date(s): 12/12/2012 12/13/2012 Report Issue Date: 01/14/2013 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 410 EXHIBIT 57 , gi'V j ff�- -5 1"FSTER, ARCHITECTURAL forensic arc haacta a appears Date: 01/14/2013 Charity Porter Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR,97035 Re: Oswego Summit Condominiums Roof Condition Assessment Dear Ms. Porter: Western Architectural (WA) was retained by the Oswego Summit Condominiums Homeowners Association to perform a roof condition assessment at the buildings comprising the Oswego Summit Condominiums complex at 215 Oswego Summit in Lake Oswego,Oregon.WA completed the associated investigation on December 13,2012 and this report contains the findings that resulted from that investigation. WA's building envelope investigations and condition assessments focus on three primary objectives: 1. Evaluate the current performance levels of the building envelope system(s) as currently installed. 2. Identify any defective construction conditions not in compliance with prevailing building code,manufacturer requirements,and/or industry standard practices in place at the time of construction. The body of this report describes the current condition of the exterior roof components based on our general site observations,and provides associated recommendations for moving forward. Applicable building code,manufacturer specifications and/or industry standards are cited as appropriate to demonstrate deviations from prevailing requirements.The following appendices also supplement this report: • Appendix A: Photographs of General Conditions Although WA cannot express complete certainty in all matters regarding weatherproofing performance due to the limited nature of our inspection methods,carefully reviewing this report will give you solid insight about the condition of the property and will help you to make the best possible decisions for proceeding with the resolution process. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 411 EXHIBIT 7 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 2 Table of Contents PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3 DOCUMENTS REFERENCED 3 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 4 1.0 Sealant 4 1.1 Failed Sealant 4 2.0 Flashing 5 2.1 Raised Perimeter Edge 5 2.2 Omitted Diverter Flashing 6 2.3 Improper Integration with Wall Assembly 6 3.0 Membrane 7 3.1 Membrane Deterioration 7 3.2 Pooling Water 8 3.2 Improper Integration with Wall Assembly 9 3.3 Improper Fastening 9 3.4 Penetrations 9 4.0 Miscellaneous Items 10 4.1 Skylights 10 4.2 Siding 10 4.3 Cement Tile 10 4.4 Gutters/Drains 10 4.5 Garages 10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 CONSULTANT ROLE AND DISCLAIMERS 11 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 412 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION irtRMWTO 10 Oswego Summit Condominiums r ' ,�,/ 215 Oswego Summit rr F�r�'�s'� /r'".�i..t' s'r1�';nr✓frmrs- ? 3 ,:'^ f„ 4ui { Wood frame ,f r , ', r is; 11978, Re-roof installed •in 1990. A pIt 1e tutit'x Cele Roof installation will reference 1988 UBC F'r t-,M rr,.,=�rr,-rsl.tir`r. .'s""f / 4 eR4 rI Sri Me ; 41 ��rrf��l`�''.%'� rte,-art" lix r,�J'�,��,.,�f�'�" ,„,r t 1 os { 25 Residential buildings f' * NA DOCUMENTS REFERENCED The following building code,manufacturer,and industry standards documents were referenced during the research and development of this report. • Duro-Last Roofing,Inc.Mechanically Attached specifications,dated 2003 (earliest publication available) • Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA) "Architectural Sheet Metal Manual" • SMACNA"Residential Sheet Metal Guidelines" • ASTM standard C 1193-00,"Standard Guide for Use of Joint Sealants" • National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) "Roofing and Waterproofing Manual" (Fifth Edition) • 1988 Uniform Building Code(UBC); code in effect during re-roof. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 413 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 4 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Following are the findings of our investigations.It should be noted that generally,each building was observed to have similar conditions,craftsmanship,and construction methods.The roofs at Oswego Summit Condominiums consisted of concrete tile and a low slope membrane manufactured by Duro-Last,Inc.The Duro-Last membrane was installed in 1990,and the earliest reference material found was dated 2003.Many of the standard details used in 2003 may not have existed in 1990 but will be referenced regardless,to explain resulting installation problems and for future roof repairs. 1.0 Sealant Sealant is an important building component that manages water infiltration at material transitions.Sealant is not a permanent component of a building and any application must be maintained and replaced.There were multiple examples of improper sealant installation and sealant deterioration at every building of Oswego Summit. 1.1 Failed Sealant Sealant failure can be described as cohesive failure,or adhesive failure.Both examples of deterioration were observed at Oswego Summit.Adhesive failure is often the result of improperly installed sealant; sealant that is not installed per the recommendations of ASTM C 1193 -00.Materials go through thermal expansion and contraction and these conditions put added pressure on the sealant joint and can result in failure.Expanding and contracting material,in conjunction with inadequate use of a bond breaker and/or primer,increases the risk of failure.Cohesive failure is commonly associated with the deterioration of the sealant joint.Many sealant applications at Oswego Summit were old and had not been maintained. Over time,these joints may crack or wear away,and will allow water to enter the roof assembly.ASTM C1193 -00,Standard Guide for Use of Joint Sealant recommends periodic inspection of sealant joints every 5 years,and to replace as necessary.There were several kinds of sealant used at Oswego Summit. Layers of urethane sealant had been installed over silicone sealant,which was then applied over roofing mastic.This condition suggests that many attempts at patching the roof were made just using sealant.Applying layers and layers of sealant to fix a leak is ineffective.If sealant must be used to correct a leak,the material must be cleaned and primed per the recommendations of ASTM C1193 -00.Failed sealant does not provide weather protection for the roof assembly and violates Section 3201 of the 1988 UBC.All of the buildings had locations with failed sealant and the list below indicates buildings with worse,or frequent condition. • Building 1, see photos 1.08 • Building 2, see photos 1.14,1.15 • Building 3,see photos 1.22 • Building 4,see photos 1.26,1.27, 1.29,133 • Building 6,see photos 1.50 • Building 7,see photos 1.54,1.55,1.56 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com i F:503.297.0757 414 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 5 • Building 9, see photos 1.68 • Building 10,see photos 1.75 • Building 11, see photos 1.84 • Building 12,see photos 1.95 • Building 15,see photos 1.116 • Building 17,see photos 1.130 • Building 18,see photos 1.136 • Building 19,see photos 1.141 • Building 20,see photos 1.149 • Building 21,see photos 1.156 • Building 22,see photos 1.161, 1.163,165,1.172,1.177 • Building 23,see photos 1.183 • Building 24,see photos 1.193 • Building 25,see photos 1.204,1.205 2.0 Flashing Membrane base flashing and metal flashing provide much needed waterproofing at transition points between roof and cladding assemblies as well as waterproofing at horizontal surfaces.The overall condition of the flashing at Oswego Summit Condominiums was poor.Every residential building,with the exception of building 25,had serious problems with the installation and condition of the flashing systems. 2.1 Raised Perimeter Edge Most of the residential buildings incorporated a raised perimeter edge metal at the Duro-Last terminations.The edge metal was poorly installed and did not resemble the methods of installation recommended by Duro-Last detail 3140 (Feb 2003),NRCA detail TP-2,or SMACNA details 2-6A or 2-6B.The raised edge was not significant enough to deter draining water and the metal was inconsistently fastened and many of the seams were not sealed or lapped properly. Some edge metal locations had fasteners penetrating the horizontal surface of the metal.Flashing serves as waterproofing for horizontal surfaces and fastening through the horizontal surface compromises the ability of the flashing to provide waterproofing. Improperly installed flashing does not adequately deflect water and exposes the seam terminations in the roof membrane. • Building 1,see photos 1.03,1.05 • Building 2,see photos 1.15,1.19 • Building 4,see photos 1.27 • Building 5, see photos 1.38 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 415 EXHIBIT 7 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 6 • Building 8,see photos 1.65 • Building 11, see photos 1.85 • Building 12,see photos 1.88,1.90 • Building 13,see photos 1.100 • Building 14,see photos 1.106 • Building 15,see photos 1.109 • Building 16,see photos 1.120, 1.121 • Building 18,see photos 1.136 • Building 19,see photos 1.139, 1.140, 1.144,1.145 • Building 20,see photos 1.150 • Building 22,see photos 1.174 • Building 24,see photos 1.201 2.2 Omitted Diverter Flashing As the title denotes,diverter flashing"diverts"draining water from the wall assembly.This is especially important because diverter flashing is installed at roof terminations,often at locations where building materials change,that are prone to allowing leaks.Diverter flashing was inconsistently installed at Oswego Summit Condominiums,and many roof to wall transitions exposed the wall assembly to water draining from the roof. SMANCA Residential Sheet Metal Guidelines figure 1-9A illustrates the installation and dimensioning of recommended diverter flashing. • Building 1, see photos 1.07 • Building 13, see photos 1.102 • Building 16,see photos 1.122 • Building 22,see photos 1.167 • Building 24,see photos 1.196 • Building 25,see photos 1.207 2.3 Improper Integration with Wall Assembly For flashing to function properly it must be integrated with the adjoining building components; this includes proper laps, sealant,and fastening.Every residential building at Oswego Summit Condominiums had improperly integrated flashings.This was especially evident at locations where the coping or edge metal flashing terminated into a side wall.The coping or edge metal should have a flange(often referred to as "saddle flashing") that laps behind the wall assembly. SMACNA figure 3-8D illustrates an example of a horizontal flashing terminating into a vertical wall.Lapping behind the wall assembly allows the saddle flashing to divert water away from both the wall and roof assembly.At Oswego Summit Condominiums,the coping and edge metal was on the exterior face of the wall assembly or WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 i www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 416 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 7 roof membrane and was applied with a poorly installed sealant joint.Improper integration of the horizontal flashing sections into the vertical wall assemblies compromises both the roof and wall assembly and can allow moisture intrusion,which is a violation of Section 3201 of the 1988 UBC. • Building 3,see photos 1.20,1.24 • Building 5, see photos 1.43 • Building 8,see photos 1.60,1.62 • Building 10,see photos 1.79,1.81 • Building 12,see photos 1.91 • Building 14,see photos 1.107 • Building 15,see photos 1.118 • Building 19, see photos 1.147 • Building 21, see photos 1.157 • Building 22,see photos 1.168,1.175 • Building 23,see photos 1.179,1.187 3.0 Membrane The low slope roof assembly was covered with a Duro-Last single ply membrane.The earliest publication available for reference (2003) describes Duro-Last as a polyester fabric coated with a thermoplastic alloy. 3.1 Membrane Deterioration Membrane deterioration was common at many of the residential buildings,some worse than others.Property management documents state the membrane was installed in 1990 and with 20 plus years of use.Deterioration had accelerated in areas of the membrane that were installed incorrectly,like the perimeters of the roof.The membrane was pulled tight and the membrane sections in tension were all showing signs of damage.All of the buildings,except building 25,had some level of deterioration and Oswego Summit Condominiums should budget for roof replacement.Holes in the membrane from deterioration were observed at building 7 and building 15,and require immediate repair. (Reference photos for location) • Building 2, see photos 1.12,1.13 • Building 4,see photos 1.31 • Building 5, see photos 1.40,1.41 • Building 6,see photos 1.45, 1.46 • Building 7, see photos 1.52,1.53 • Building 8,see photos 1.64 • Building 9,see photos 1.67 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 417 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 8 • Building 10,see photos 1.76,1.80 • Building 11,see photos 1.83 • Building 12,see photos 1.92,1.93 • Building 13,see photos 1.99 • Building 15,see photos 1.114,1.117 • Building 17,see photos 1.131 • Building 18,see photos 1.135 • Building 19,see photos 1.142,1.143 • Building 21,see photos 1.154, 1.155 • Building 23,see photos 1.184, 1.189 3.2 Pooling Water Pooling water was observed to some degree at every building.Pooling water was especially bad at the hallway roofs between buildings and at the lower roofs.Pooling water indicates the roof assembly does not slope to drain and this does not comply with Section 3207 of the 1988 UBC that states "Roof systems shall be sloped a minimum of 1/4"in 12"for drainage". Pooling water puts added stress on the membrane at transition points and at areas of the membrane that are deteriorated.Many of the roof penetrations had less than an 8" clearance from the membrane,which does not comply with Duro-Last detail 4010.Inadequate clearance at roof penetrations in conjunction with pooling water increases the likelihood of leaks. • Building 1, see photos 1.04,1.09 • Building 2,see photos 1.11,1.17 • Building 4, see photos 1.28,1.30 • Building 5,see photos 1.36,1.37, 1.42 • Building 8,see photos 157,1.61,1.63 • Building 10,see photos 1.74, 1.78 • Building 11,see photos 1.85 • Building 12,see photos 1.88 • Building 13,see photos 1.101 • Building 13,see photos 1.104 • Building 15,see photos 1.111,1.112 • Building 17,see photos 1.129,1.132 • Building 18,see photos 1.134 • Building 19,see photos 1.146 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 ( www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 418 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 9 • Building 21,see photos 1.158 • Building 22,see photos 1.162 • Building 24,see photos 1.191 • Building 25,see photos 1.203, 1.211 3.2 Improper Integration with Wall Assembly Similar to section 2.3,there were membrane termination locations that were not properly integrated with the wall assembly.There was no indication that any corner locations were installed per Duro-Last detail 1180,that requires application of an extra corner membrane section.Termination bars were not securely fastened and the membrane was reverse-lapped with the wall assembly.Bitumen staining was observed at a few of the buildings.This condition is a result of the plasticizers within self-adhered-membrane-flashing melting when in contact with the Duro-Last membrane.Duro-Last is not compatible with bitumen based self-adhered-membrane-flashing.All of these conditions can provide avenues for,and contribute to,moisture ingress. • Building 7,see photos 1.57 • Building 14,see photos 1.107,1.108 • Building 16,see photos 1.123,1.124 • Building 17,see photos 1.128 • Building 20,see photos 1.152 • Building 22,see photos 1.160, 1.169 • Building 23,see photos 1.181,1.182 • Building 24, see photos 1.192 3.3 Improper Fastening The roof membrane at many of the residential buildings was not fastened properly.Duro-Last specifies fastening requirements that prevent the membrane from billowing during wind gusts.A billowing membrane acts as a vacuum and will suck interior moisture into the roof assembly that will eventually deteriorate the framing and sheathing. • Building 12,see photos 1.96 • Building 22,see photos 1.171 3.4 Penetrations Many roof penetrations were not installed properly and had signs of deterioration.Duro-Last detail 4070 requires the use of a stainless steel draw band and sealant.Building 13 and 15 had plumbing stack vents installed inside existing mechanical vents.When it comes time to re-roof,the two vent systems need to be separated if they are both to remain active. Severely corroded penetrations should be replaced and included in the bid price for a re-roof. • Building 4,see photos 1.32 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 A www.westernarchitectural.com F:503.297.0757 419 EXHIBIT 7 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 10 • Building 6,see photos 1.47 • Building 12,see photos 1.94 • Building 13,see photos 1.103 • Building 15,see photos 1.115 • Building 24,see photos 1.194 4.0 Miscellaneous Items 4.1 Skylights The skylights on the south elevations of the residential buildings were not sloped properly and collected water at the cement tile roof eave.This is a poorly constructed detail because it exposed the eave and wall assembly to moisture.Extra effort will be required to maintain the waterproofing at the skylight transition locations. • Building 3,see photos 1.23 • Building 5,see photos 1.39 4.2 Siding Damaged siding was observed at several locations.Damaged siding exposed the weather- resistive-barrier to UV rays and water.Western Architectural will provide a separate report to discuss the current condition of the siding. 4.3 Cement Tile Overall,the cement tile was in decent condition.Many tiles were cracked,but that is to be expected after 20 years of use.The problems observed with the tile installation were at building and material transition locations.Poor detailing and massive amounts of sealant were observed at locations where the tile transitioned into the roof and wall assembly. 4.4 Gutters/Drains Strange gutter installations were observed at some of the buildings.The gutters appeared to be retro-fitted and tacked onto the siding.Gutters at siding locations that do not employ some method of counter-flashing serve no purpose.These gutters should be removed.The adjoining parking garages did not use overflow drains.Section 3207(c) of the 1988 UBC requires the use of overflow drains.When the garage roofs are replaced,overflow drains must be installed. 4.5 Garages The stand alone garages had small problems at transition points,but nothing that requires immediate replacement of the roof system.Considering the pressing need to begin planning for roof replacement at the residential buildings,targeted repairs should be sufficient to mitigate any leaks at the garages. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com i F:503.297.0757 420 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 11 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The residential roof systems at Oswego Summit Condominiums are in Poor condition.The condition of the Duro-Last membrane varies from building to building and all membranes (with the exception of building 25 and the stand alone garages) are approaching the end of their useful life.Western Architectural recommends the HOA budgets for roof replacement starting with the buildings that have the most damaged and deteriorated roof assemblies.Even buildings with roof membranes that are not severely deteriorated are still installed improperly and not integrated with any adjoining building component.Roof replacement must include flashings,drainage, penetrations,sealant,and sections of siding to properly integrate the new system. CONSULTANT ROLE AND DISCLAIMERS Our observation techniques consist of visually observing and sampling areas of the building where, in our experience,problems are likely to show themselves.However,because we do not remove all(or any,in some cases)exterior cladding,windows,and other materials overlaying the structure,we may miss some or all of the damage to it; such damage would only be revealed if we removed all of the cladding and windows,and examined the surrounding surfaces.Thus, please understand that there may be damage to the building that we could not see and therefore cannot report on. Western Architectural Forensic Architects and Engineers will not be held responsible for any concealed or undetected damage to your structure,including microbial (mold) contamination. Because of the necessarily limited nature of our observations,any repair guidelines we produce as a result will be limited to those conditions we actually observed during the observation.This means,and you acknowledge,that our repair guidelines may not cover all repairs that are needed.This is why it is crucial that you retain the services of a highly qualified,detail-oriented contractor as part of your project team (in addition to our professional services) to dictate the remediation process should you implement an action plan. You also understand that Western Architectural Forensic Architects and Engineers is neither a guarantor nor an insurer of the adequacy of any construction,reconstruction or recommended action,and that our services are being rendered solely as a consultant.We therefore disclaim,and you acknowledge our disclaimer of,any and all liability of any source or nature,to you or any third party,for any claims arising out of or related to the repair process. Western Architectural may only be held to the same standard of care imposed upon a professional firm providing comparable services. You acknowledge that any reports or repair guidelines issued by Western Architectural are to be used in light of the foregoing.You also agree that Western Architectural is in no way providing any assurance to you or any third party that any repair guidelines issued by us are exhaustive as to your project,nor that the project will be (or has been) completed in accordance with any particular plans or specifications,whether or not issued by,provided to or reviewed by Western Architectural.The responsibility for quality control of(and adherence to)the repair guidelines, specifications and plans is yours and that of your chosen project team. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Green burg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 421 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 12 This report is strictly limited to your use and should,in any event,be used only in its entirety with this disclaimer included. Respectfully Submitted, Western Architectural Spencer Reid RRO Eric Hoff,President Architect Nick Dente,Principal Technical Services WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com ( F:503.297.0757 422 EXHIBIT 57 W0, et, x,,,,, ,,,.,4; ,,,i,t , MEM\ ARCHITECTURAL forensic architects Eugmrs PHOTOGRAPHIC APPENDIX A: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Observation Dates: 12/12/2012 and 12/13/2012 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 423 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-2 1.01 Observations at buildings 1-3. 1.02 Building 1: Overall roof observations al building 1. 1.03 Building 1: Sealant was not used at edge metal flashing laps. This does not comply with SMACNA recommendations. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 424 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-3 1.04 Building 1: The lower west pop-out a building 1 had a large amount c pooling water resting on the membrane. Pooling wate increases the likelihood of Teak: in combination with othe defects on the roof, and it is nc compliant with modern cod( standards. 1.05 Building 1: Water draining from the roc membrane ran over the eave o the cement the exposing th( cedar siding.This location wouk be well-served if the parape walls were raised and a diverte was installed. 1.06 Building 1: What appeared to be some kin( of mastic/bitumen materia coated the interior face of th( edge metal. The purpose of th( mastic application was no determined. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 425 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-4 1.07 Building 1: There was no diverter flashin at the roof-to-wall transition. 1.08 Building 1: The sealant at roof penetration was failing both cohesively ani adhesively. Failed sealan provides avenues for moistun ingress. 1.09 Building 1: Some pooling water was present on the roof membrane. Pooling water indicates inadequate slope. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 426 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-5 1.10 Building 2: General roof observationE building 2. 1.11 Building 2: A large pool of water present at the connect hallway roof between buildin and 2. The presence of poc water increases the likelihoo leaks at the membrane membrane transitions. 1.12 Building 2: The membrane at buildin! was in tension around the perimeter. This suggests membrane was not insta properly. The sections of that were in tension had sign membrane deterioration. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com l F:503.297.0757 427 EXHIBIT 7 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-6 1.13 Building 2: Membrane deterioration wa common at the roof membrane The roof membrane at building was in poor condition. 1.14 Building 2: Pooling water and deteriorate( sealant were observed at the low slope to tile transition. 1.15 Building 2: What appeared to be roo cement had been applied a some flashing locations. Th( flashing was generally in poo condition. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 428 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-7 1.16 Building 2: At the north side of bt units 12 and 16, the sheathing was soft. performing an openi condition of the shi cannot be confirmE damaged sheathing is result of water damage. 1.17 Building 2: The static vents maintaii clearance from th membrane. This do comply with Durc installation requirements 1.18 Building 2: The paint was deteriol several tile installation lo WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 429 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-8 1.19 Building 2: The perimeters of the roof were not raised high enough tc prevent water from gettinc underneath the edge metal particularly in areas with poolinc water.At transitions between thE steep-slope roofing and thE membrane, the detail was no terminated in a way to preven moisture from entering the wal assembly. 1.20 Building 3: Both of the hallway roof: between buildings 1-3 were not draining properly and hugE pools of water were present This is especially worrisome when the flashing and sidinc have not been integrated with the roof assembly. This photc shows a reverse lap at thE coping flashing. 1.21 Building 3: General roof observations at building 3. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 1 www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 430 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-9 1.22 Building 3: The sealant at roof penetration: was in poor condition. 1.23 Building 3: Skylights were installed betweer some units. The skylights were not draining properly anc collecting water at the roof slope transitions. This is a risky areE to collect water because poolinc water can enter the siding anc expose the roof assembly. 1.24 Building 3: The roof membrane transitions were constructed poorly at all buildings observed. This photo depicts metal flashing reverse- lapped with the cedar siding and the transition protected only by a sealant joint. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 431 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-10 1.25 Building 4: General roof observatiot building 4. 1.26 Building 4: The transitions between the membrane and siding done poorly. The vei termination bar was fastened properly and installed over the gutter. / void created between termination bar and gutt large amount of sealant applied. The sealant a termination bar and nea gutter had failed. 1.27 Building 4: The edge metal at build was poorly done. The metE not fastened properly multiple sealant applicE were observed at sear sealant is to be used patching material, the ex sealant must be removec the substrate cleaned. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 432 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-11 1.28 Building 4: The static vents do not maintain adequate clearance from the roof membrane. The clearance at the vents was less than 3". 1.29 Building 4: Failed sealant was observed at horizontal wall penetrations. Failed sealant provides avenues for moisture ingress. 1.30 Building 4: Pooling water was present at some areas of the roof. This indicates the roof is not sloped to drain. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 433 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-12 1.31 Building 4: Unknown protruding objects are wearing away the rool membrane. Eventually these unknown objects will create voids in the roof membrane. 1.32 Building 4: The draw-bands around the roof penetrations were not tight and the sealant was showing signs of deterioration. 1.33 Building 4: Another example of failing sealant at a roof penetration. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Green burg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com { F:503.297.0757 434 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-13 1.34 Observations at buildings 5-6. 1.35 Building 5: General roof observations building 5. 1.36 Building 5: The roof was not sloped drain. Several areas of the ro were holding large pools water. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 435 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-14 1.37 Building 5: At the lower roof sections tr was debris collecting at drains. Regular maintenance required to keep these ar clean. 1.38 Building 5: Similar to buildings 1-3, edge metal was not rai enough to stop pooling w from getting underneath flashing, especially at locati that transitioned to the ste slope roofs. 1.39 Building 5: Similar to photo 1.23, the skylights were not sloped to drain and led to pooled water at the roof-to-wall transition. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P.503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 436 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-15 1.40 Building 5: Similar to buildings 1-3, till membrane was not ins properly. Sections of the were pulled too tight ar these locations the mem was deteriorating. 1.41 Building 5: Conversely, sections of were wrinkled and slack, indicating the roof mem was not installed properly. 1.42 Building 5: The static vents do not have adequate clearance between the vent and the membrane. This condition is especially troubling when combined with inadequate drainage and pooling water. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 437 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-16 1.43 Building 5: The hallway roofs betweer buildings did not drain properly and large amounts of poolinc water were present. This flashing-to-wall transition was not detailed properly; this photc shows the cedar siding it contact with the flashing. 1.44 Building 6: General roof observations al building 6. 1.45 Building 6: Mechanical fasteners protruded through the sheathing and are deteriorating the membrane. Eventually the fasteners will wear through the membrane and cause a roof leak. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 438 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-17 1.46 Building 6: Several areas of the r, membrane were deteriorat The roof membrane at buildin was in poor condition. 1.47 Building 6: Corrosion was observed at chimney stacks. No draw bi was observed at tr membrane-to-stack transiti this does not comply A industry standards. 1.48 Building 6: Portions of the siding were not properly fastened and falling off the wall. This photo was taken on the south elevation between units 41 and 45. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 ' www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 439 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-18 1.49 Building 6: Sealant was applied betweer the rake tile and the lappec cement tile. If the tile and roof assembly was installed correctly, sealant is not required at this location. 1.50 Building 6: The sealant applied at the termination bar was in poor condition. Failed sealant at the termination bar will expose the termination bar fasteners and can cause roof leaks. 1.51 Building 7: General roof observations at building 7. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 440 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Paae A-19 1.52 Building 7: The perimeters of the membrane were deterioratec 1.53 Building 7: At the west section of the there was a tear in membrane near the steep sl transition. Membrane to create avenues for mois ingress. 1.54 Building 7: Failed sealant was observe horizontal wall penetratic Failed sealant creates aver for moisture ingress. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 441 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-20 1.55 Building 7: There was failed sea roof penetrations. Fail creates avenues for ingress. Draw bands used at plumbing sty this does not con industry standards. 1.56 Building 7: Failed sealant was of mechanical penetrate picture depicts the r hood exposing the termination. Exposed terminations combi failed sealant create a moisture ingress. 1.57 Building 7: The membrane termi building 7 were doi This picture shows a t bar installed horizonts the cedar siding. The fastened properly warped. Water can er the membrane and e wall and roof assembl: WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 442 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-21 1.58 Observations at buildings 8-9. 1.59 Building 8: Overall roof observations at building 8. 1.60 Building 8: The coping flashing at the lower roofs was not integrated properly with the wall assembly. A large section of the right flange was only lapped with the upper layer of cedar siding. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 443 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-22 1.61 Building 8: The lower roofs are not sloped to drain. Large pools of water were observed. 1.62 Building 8: This is another example of the poorly-detailed transition points on the roof. The flashing is reverse-lapped with the siding and water can travel behind the metal. This does not comply with code. 1.63 Building 8: There was inadequate clearance between the static vents and the roof membrane surface. In areas with pooling water such as the one shown in this photo, this condition is at risk of allowing water into the roof assembly. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 444 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-23 1.64 Building 8: Portions of the roof membrane were beginning to deteriorate. 1.65 Building 8: Horizontal fasteners were nailed into the edge metal. Exposed fasteners create avenues for moisture ingress. 1.66 Building 9: General roof observations at building 9. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitecturai.com I F:503.297.0757 445 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-24 1.67 Building 9: The roof membrane was deteriorated. Many of these deteriorated patches will soon become voids in the roof membrane. 1.68 Building 9: Failed sealant was observed at plumbing stack vent penetrations. Failed sealant creates avenues for moisture ingress. 1.69 Observations at buildings 10-11. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 446 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-25 1.70 Building 10: General roof observations at building 10. 1.71 Building 10: At the northeast section of the roof, a membrane vent was found open. 1.72 Building 10: The vent was open for some TOW- time. The wood sheathing was deteriorated from moisture exposure. v f WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 447 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-26 1.73 Building 10: WA snapped the cap back onto the membrane vent. 1.74 Building 10: There was inadequate clearance between the static vents and the roof membrane. 1.75 Building 10: The edge metal was poorly installed. The metal was not fastened correctly and a myriad of sealants and what appeared to be mastic had been applied in attempts to remedy the defective installation. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 448 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-27 1.76 Building 10: The roof membrane was four to be deteriorated in sever locations. 1.77 Building 10: Several sections of the roof N sheathing that made crunchir noises when walked upo Active moisture intrusion generally indicated by sponc soft sheathing and witho performing an opening, tt cause and condition of tt crunchy sheathing could not t determined. WA recommends healthy allowance for sheathir replacement for any re-roofir project. 1.78 Building 10: The roof was not properly sloped and pooling water was therefore present at several locations. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 449 EXHIBIT 7 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-28 1.79 Building 10: The transitions between the roo membrane and the siding were done poorly. This photo show; an example of cap metal that not integrated with the wal assembly and a reverse lap wa: created. 1.80 Building 10: Between buildings 10 and 11 the hallway roof was holding large volume of pooling water The membrane was very deteriorated and it will soor allow the pooling water to entei the building unless repaired. 1.81 Building 10: As was typical with all the buildings, the transitions between the roof membrane and the wall assembly were done poorly. The metal in this photo was reverse-lapped with the membrane and reliant on a sealant joint. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 450 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-29 1.82 Building 11: Roof observations at buildinc 11. 1.83 Building 11: The roof membrane at buildinc 11 was in very poor conditior and requires replacement. 1.84 Building 11: Failed sealant was observed at roof penetrations. Failed sealant creates avenues for moisture ingress. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 451 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-30 1.85 Building 11: The edge metal was not raised high enough to prevent water from entering underneath. Sealant was applied at the transitions between metal flashings, but it has failed. 1.86 Building 11: The roof was not sloped to drain. Pools of water sat next to static vents with inadequate clearance and areas where the roof was deteriorated. 1.87 Building 12: General roof observations at building 12. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 452 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-31 1.88 Building 12: Horizontal fasteners were installed through the top of thE edge metal. Unsealed fasteners especially those driven througI horizontal metal installations create avenues for moisturE ingress. 1.89 Building 12: The roof was not sloped tc drain. Pooling water wa: observed at static vents witI inadequate clearance from thE roof membrane. 1.90 Building 12: The edge metal was not seamed correctly. The standing seam at the corner junction of this flashing was left open. An open seam in the edge metal flashing serves no function. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 453 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-32 1.91 Building 12: This photo shows another example of poor edge metal integration. The metal is partially lapped with one course of cedar siding, but not with any other component of the wall assembly. The keyways of the siding expose the reverse lap of the flashing and will allow water to travel behind the flashing. 1.92 Building 12: The roof membrane was pulled too tight at the perimeters of the building. Deterioration was visible at the edge metal. 1.93 Building 12: Other sections of the roof membrane away from the perimeters were also deteriorated. A deteriorated membrane will eventually allow for moisture ingress. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitecturai.com I F:503.297.0757 454 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-33 1.94 Building 12: The chimney stacks werE heavily corroded and one wa; leaning at a sharp angle. 1.95 Building 12: The sealant at the chimney chases have failed. Failec sealant creates avenues foi moisture ingress. 1.96 Building 12: Sections of roof membrane al the corners were not properly fastened and were billowing it the wind. This condition creates a vacuum in the roof assembly and can expose the sheathing tc interior moisture. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 455 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-34 1.97 Observations at buildings 13-15. 1.98 Building 13: General roof observations at building 13. 1.99 Building 13: The membrane was not installed properly and large wrinkles were present. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 456 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-35 1.100 Building 13: The edge metal at building 13 was not installed properly. There were unsealed seams and exposed fasteners installed through the horizontal sections of the metal. 1.101 Building 13: On the east elevation of building 13, the lower roof was backed up with debris and not draining properly. Regular maintenance is required to keep the drains functioning. 1.102 Building 13: Diverter flashing details were inconsistently installed at roof- to-wall transitions. Many locations do not have diverter flashing and expose the siding to a high volume of water draining from off the cement tiles. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 457 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-36 1.103 Building 13: Without further investigation it was unclear why the original contractor installed a plumbing stack vent through an existing penetration. This method of installing a roof penetration does not comply with industry standards. Plumbing stack vents have a separate exhaust and should not be combined with other mechanical exhausts. 1.104 Building 13: The hallway roof between buildings 13 and 14 was holding a large volume of pooling water. Pooling water puts added pressure on the installation method of the membrane, and areas that are deteriorated or not installed properly are likely to allow moisture ingress. 1.105 Building 14: Overall roof observations at building 14. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 458 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-37 1.106 Building 14: The edge metal at building 1, was poorly installed. The seam: were not sealed an penetrations were installer through the horizontal section: of the metal. 1.107 Building 14: The flashing, membrane, an wall assembly transitions werr detailed poorly. None of thesr locations properly lapped thr flashing behind the wal assembly and in this case, thr membrane was tacked onto thr wall; this can allow moisturr ingress. 1.108 Building 14: Another example of a poorly detailed transition. Thr membrane was welded agains the flow of water and thr termination bar was installer over the collector box, thu: creating a void behind thr termination bar that can alloy moisture ingress. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 459 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-38 1.109 Building 15: Overall roof observations at building 15. 1.110 Building 15: The edge metal was in the same condition as building 14, as shown in photo 1.106. 1.111 Building 15: The static vents at building 15 do not maintain adequate clearance from the roof membrane. This condition can allow moisture intrusion, especially in areas where the roof is not draining properly. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 460 EXHIBIT 7 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-39 1.112 Building 15: The roof was not slopE drain. Several areas of the therefore had pools of wate 1.113 Building 15: The roof membrane wa. properly installed. Areas c membrane were pulled too at the perimeter and in areas the membrane was and full of wrinkles. 1.114 Building 15: Various patches were installed and some of them were not fully adhered. Patches must be fully adhered to serve any purpose. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 461 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-40 1.115 Building 15: Similar to building 14, plumbing stack vents were installed through existing mechanical vents. This does not comply with industry standards. 1.116 Building 15: The chimney stacks are heavily corroded and the sealant at the membrane terminations has failed. Failed sealant creates avenues for moisture ingress. 1.117 Building 15: Between units 110 and 106, a large void in the roof membrane was observed. This needs to be repaired immediately. The sheathing at the void has also deteriorated. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 1 www.westernarchitectural.com l F:503.297.0757 462 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-41 1.118 Building 15: Every building at Oswego Summit had improperly-installed coping flashing. The metal flashing shown in this photo was reverse-lapped with the membrane and served no purpose at the wall transition. 1.119 Building 16: General roof observations at building 16. 1.120 Building 16: The edge metal was not properly installed. The seams were not sealed and the metal was not fastened securely. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 463 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-42 1.121 Building 16: The edge metal had little clearance from the rool membrane. Pooling water easily migrated underneath the flashing. Such a condition is concerning, especially al transition locations. 1.122 Building 16: Example of omitted diverter flashing at a roof-to-wall transition. 1.123 Building 16: Attempts at integrating the siding with the roof membrane were not done correctly. This photo depicts a nail fastened at the base of the wall transition near pooling water. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 464 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-43 1.124 Building 16: Another example of the roo membrane haphazardly installer at a wall transition. This does not comply with manufactures recommendations. 1.125 Observations at buildings 17-18. 1.126 Building 17: Overall roof observations at building 17. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 { www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 465 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-44 1.127 Building 17: Between units 120 and damaged sheathing was underneath the membrane. allowance for sheathing rE must be included in any roofing project. 1.128 Building 17: As is typical with all buildings at Oswego Surr the material transition locat were poorly done. Here, membrane was reverse-lap and not integrated with the assembly. 1.129 Building 17: Less than 3" of clearance provided between the st vents and the roof membr This is an inadequate amour clearance. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 466 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-45 1.130 Building 17: The sealant at roof penetrations has failed in many locations. This photo depicts a roof penetration and the risk of inadequate clearance combined with failed sealant. Water can enter the roof assembly at the membrane termination. 1.131 Building 17: Fasteners were found protruding at the roof membrane and will eventually wear through the membrane and cause roof leaks. 1.132 Building 17: The hallway roof between buildings 17 and 18 was supporting a large pool of water. This volume of water increases the likelihood of leaks at the vent penetrations and flashing terminations. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 467 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-46 1.133 Building 18: Overall roof observations at building 18. 1.134 Building 18: Similar to previous buildings, there was inadequate clearance between the static vents and roof membrane. Many of the static vents were located in areas of pooling water. 1.135 Building 18: The roof membrane was showing signs of deterioration. The lightly-colored spots in this photo indicate areas of the membrane that are beginning to thin. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 468 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-47 1.136 Building 18: Terminating edge metal was coated in several different kinds of sealant. If sealant must be used to patch a leak, it will not be effective if applied over existing sealant. 1.137 Building 18: Pieces of metal L-flashing were nailed to the cement tiles. The reason for diverting draining water was unknown. 1.138 Observations at buildings 19-21. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 469 EXHIBIT 7 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-48 1.139 Building 19: Overall roof observations al building 19. 1.140 Building 19: The edge metal was not fastened properly and the sealant between seams had failed. 1.141 Building 19: The sealant at roof penetrations was completely deteriorated or failing. Inadequate sealant provides avenues for moisture ingress. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 470 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-49 1142 Building 19: The roof membrane wa stretched and pulled at th perimeters. Inadequately installed roof membranes wi prematurely deteriorate. 1.143 Building 19: Although harder to see on white roof, there were man locations where the roofin membrane has deteriorated. 1.144 Building 19: Horizontal fasteners were installed at the edge metal. Fasteners installed at the horizontal sections of edge metal, especially at locations in the path of drainage like the one shown here, create avenues for moisture ingress. Paint (likely excess paint from the tile application) was sprayed onto the membrane as well. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 471 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-50 1.145 Building 19: Exposed fasteners were alsc observed at the apron flashinc installed at the membrane-to-tile transitions. 1.146 Building 19: The lower roofs of building 19 were not draining properly. The west roof resembled a swimming pool. 1.147 Building 19: Between buildings 19 and 20 the metal flashing was poorly integrated with the wall assembly. An exposed flange, as shown in this photo, does not direct water away from the building and can allow water into the wall assembly. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 472 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-51 1.148 Building 20: General roof observations at building 20. 1.149 Building 20: Roof penetrations with failed sealant were observed. Failed sealant provides avenues for moisture ingress. 1.150 Building 20: Th edge metal was not installed properly at building 20. Some sections were not fastened or lapped, exposing the membrane edge. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 473 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-52 1.151 Building 20: Overall, the condition of the roo membrane at building 20 wa: poor. The lightly-colored spots it this photo depict deterioratec areas of the membrane. 1.152 Building 20: Between buildings 20 and 21 there was pooling water and the membrane was not properly integrated with the wal assembly. The flashing wa: reverse-lapped at the wal transition and the membrane was tacked to the wall witf exposed nails. 1.153 Building 21: Overall roof observations at building 21. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 474 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-53 1.154 Building 21: The membrane was pulled tight at the building perimeter and beginning to deteriorate. 1.155 Building 21: Membrane deterioration was common at many locations throughout the roof. 1.156 Building 21: Many of the static roof vents were installed without enough clearance between the vent and the roof membrane. The draw bands were not tight around the penetrations and the sealant had failed. All of these conditions increase the possibility of roof leaks. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 ( www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 475 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-54 1.157 Building 21: The edge metal was poorly installed at most locations on building 21. Failed sealant, inadequate fastening, and reverse laps (as shown here) were common. A reverse lap in the flashing allows water to travel behind the flashing and into the wall assembly. 1.158 Building 21: At the eastern lower roof, there was a great deal of debris buildup. Regular maintenance is required. 1.159 Building 22: General roof and garage observations at building 22. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 476 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-55 1.160 Building 22: Various kinds of sealant were applied at flashing and siding terminations. At the southeast corner there was what appeared to be a section of polyethylene tarp. These conditions suggest several patch repairs have been made at the roof. 1.161 Building 22: Vertical wall penetrations in the Duro-Last membrane had sealant joints that were beginning to deteriorate. To prevent water from entering behind the flanges of the penetrations, these sealant joints should be maintained. 1.162 Building 22: Pooling water was present at several roof locations. Pooling water indicates the roof is not sloped to drain. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 477 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-56 1.163 Building 22: Failed sealant was present plumbing stack vents. Faile sealant creates avenues fc moisture ingress. 1.164 Building 22: Some flashing details wer installed with voids that were nc completely sealed. Voids in th flashing create avenues fc moisture ingress. 1.165 Building 22: Sealant was applied betwee the membrane and cedar trirr The sealant has faile, adhesively. Adhesive failure allows the passage of moisture. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 478 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-57 1.166 Building 22: The cedar trim did not maintair adequate clearance from the cement tile. Without adequate clearance, the trim wil prematurely deteriorate. 1.167 Building 22: Omitted diverter flashing wa; evident at the roof-to-wal transitions. 1.168 Building 22: Here, the coping flashing was not properly integrated with the roof/wall membrane. The flashing had a vertical flange, but it was reverse-lapped with the Duro-Last membrane and applied with sealant. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 479 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-58 1.169 Building 22: Bitumen streaks were observe( on the surface of the Duro-Las membrane. Bitumen based self adhered-flashing-membrane: are not compatible with Duro Last. 1.170 Building 22: Damaged siding was observed at building 22. 1.171 Building 22: The Duro-Last membrane was installed at vertical wall transitions. The membrane was not fully secured and billowed with the wind. Billowing membranes create a vacuum and can drive interior moisture into the wall assembly. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 480 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-59 1.172 Building 22: The sealant at scuppe penetrations has failed. There i also no clearance between thi gutters and the siding. 1.173 Building 22: Garage roof observations a building 22. 1.174 Building 22: The flashing at the garage wa not properly installed. Thi seams did not overlap and thi terminating bar of the roo membrane exposed the wa assembly. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 481 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-60 1.175 Building 22: The flashing at the wall transitions did not integrate with the wall assembly. The flashing was reverse-lapped and dependent on a sealant joint. 1.176 Building 22: Failed sealant was observed at vertical wall penetrations. Penetrations were less than 6" from the surface of the horizontal roof membrane. 1.177 Building 22: Failed sealant was observed at the Duro-Last membrane and siding transitions. Failed sealant creates avenues for moisture ingress. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 ( www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 482 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-61 1.178 Building 23: General roof observations building 23. 1.179 Building 23: The flashing was not prop installed at building 23. It not integrated with the wal roof assembly, as shown in example. The flange of flashing is reverse-lapped the wall assembly. 1.180 Building 23: Damaged siding, which exposed the underlying \A and wall sheathing, v observed at building 23. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 483 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-62 1.181 Building 23: Bitumen stains were observe( on the surface of the Duro-Las membrane. Bitumen based self adhered-flashing-membrane: are not compatible with Duro Last. 1.182 Building 23: The Duro-Last membrane war wrapped over the tile rake of the steep-slope roof. This is not proper termination for the roo membrane and water car migrate underneath the membrane and into the wall am roof assembly. 1.183 Building 23: Vertical wall penetration; through the Duro-Las membrane were not sealed anc can thus allow moisture ingress. PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.06651 www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 484 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-63 1.184 Building 23: Unknown protrusions were observed at the roof membrane. Over time, these protrusions will wear through the membrane. 1.185 Building 23: Observations at garage roof of building 23. 1.186 Building 23: The vertical parapet penetrations were only a few inches from the surface of the roof membrane. This is not enough clearance to prevent a high volume of water from entering the penetration. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 485 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-64 1.187 Building 23: The flashing was not properly integrated with the roof and wal assemblies. The flashing in this photo was reverse-lapped with the siding and dependent on sealant joint. 1.188 Building 23: There was only one drain at the roof, and no overflow drain was observed. 1.189 Building 23: A patch was observed with significant growth around the seams. Growth at the seams of the membrane will eventually compromise the adhesion of the patch and it will no longer function to prevent water from entering the assembly. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 486 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-65 1.190 Building 24: General roof observations a building 24. 1.191 Building 24: The roof at building 24 was no sloped to drain and large pool: of water were therefore present Pooling water adds stress to the roof assembly. 1.192 Building 24: The siding was not installed properly at locations integral to the waterproofing of the roof. This photo shows voids in the siding that have exposed and damaged the wall sheathing. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 487 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-66 1.193 Building 24: The roof transitions were poorl} detailed. The Duro-Las membrane terminates at thE trim, and sealant was installec between the tile and trim. The sealant was cracking and wil not provide adequate protectior against moisture intrusion at this location. 1.194 Building 24: A roof penetration was installec at the parapet. This is pool location to install a roo penetration and increases thE possibility of a roof leak. 1.195 Building 24: Strange gutter installations were observed at this building. This gutter installation does not serve any purpose; there is nc counter-flashing to direct water into the gutter. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 488 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-67 1.196 Building 24: Inadequate diverter flashing wa installed at building 24. Th flashing shown in this photo wi not divert water away from th wall assembly. 1.197 Building 24: Garage roof observations. 1.198 Building 24: A failed seam was observed the southeast corner of th garage. Failed seams can alloy moisture ingress. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 ( www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 489 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-68 1.199 Building 24: Exposed fasteners w observed at the parapet v, Exposed fasteners cre avenues for moisture ingr Fasteners were also inst< though the horizontal cap rr and this does not comply the requirements of SMACN, 1200 Building 24: The roof membrane was fully adhered to the scuppe the southeast side of garage. Failed adhesion at scupper can allow water travel back underneath membrane. 1.201 Building 24: The flashing transitions at the wall and roof assemblies were reliant on sealant joints rather than being properly lapped and integrated with the adjoining components. This method of installation is at greater risk of leaking because sealant joints fail prematurely when applied undersized and with metal. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 490 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-69 1.202 Building 25: General roof observations a building 25. 1.203 Building 25: There was some pooling wate near one of the scupper drain; of building 25, but overall the roof membrane was found it good condition. 1.204 Building 25: Some of the flashing transitions had failed sealant applications. Failed sealant creates avenues for moisture ingress. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 491 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-70 1.205 Building 25: Failed sealant was observed a the membrane-to-sidinc transitions. Failed sealan creates avenues for moisture ingress. 1.206 Building 25: At the north side of the roof, rectangular shape was founc protruding through the roo membrane. Over time, thiE rectangle will wear through the roof membrane. 1.207 Building 25: There was no diverter flashing installed at the roof-to-wall transitions. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 492 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-71 1.208 Building 25: The metal cap flashing at doghouse was not faster properly or sealed per recommendations of SMACN 1.209 Building 25: The flashing on the north sidh the roof exposed a portion of underlying fascia board. 0 time, the exposed wood deteriorate. 1.210 Building 25: Garage roof observations at building 25. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 493 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-72 1.211 Building 25: The valleys of the g� were treated with r sections of mineral The valleys did properly and pooling debris had collec mastic will eventually over time and alloy ingress. 1.212 Building 25: Intersecting valleys h� sections of lead fla exposed seams. complicated method and may allow wa underneath the recommends installir flashing without expo: 1.213 Building 25: Sections of the tile directly to the cedar detail directs large water onto the face o and will prematurely cedar. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 494 EXHIBIT 57 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page A-73 1.214 Building 25: A low-slope membrane transitions into the cement tile a the south garage. 1.215 Building 25: The low-slope membrane at the garage was reverse-lapped witl- the roofing underlayment. Any water getting underneath the cement tile will then trave behind the membrane anc expose the roof assembly tc moisture. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 495 V: I STERN ARCHITECTURAL forensic archacts 5movers r;Fa` BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT For: Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR, 97035 0R12-396 Inspection Date(s): 01/28/2013-02/01/2013 Report Issue Date: 02/13/2013 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 496 EXHIBIT 58 WEST R' ARCHITECTURAL forensic vrfir¢ a engineers Date 01/13/2013 Charity Porter Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR,97035 Re: Oswego Summit Condominiums Building Condition Assessment Dear Ms.Porter: Western Architectural (WA) was retained by the Oswego Summit Condominiums Homeowners Association to perform a building condition assessment,including 32 invasive openings,at the buildings comprising the Oswego Summit Condominiums complex at 215 Oswego Summit in Lake Oswego,Oregon.WA completed the associated investigation on January 28 -February 2, 2013 and this report contains the findings that resulted from that investigation. WA's building envelope investigations and condition assessments focus on three primary objectives: 1. Evaluate the current performance levels of the building envelope system(s) as currently installed. 2. Identify any defective construction conditions not in compliance with prevailing building code,manufacturer requirements and/or industry standard practices in place at the time of construction. 3. Identify the scope of damage from identified cladding issues discovered during the investigative process. The body of this report describes the current condition of the exterior building components based on our general site observations,and provides associated recommendations for moving forward. Applicable building code,manufacturer specifications and/or industry standards are cited as appropriate to demonstrate deviations from prevailing requirements.The following appendices also supplement this report: • Appendix A: Photographs of General Conditions Although WA cannot express complete certainty in all matters regarding weatherproofing performance due to the limited nature of our inspection methods,carefully reviewing this report will give you solid insight about the condition of the property and will help you to make the best possible decisions for proceeding with the resolution process. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 497 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 2 Table of Contents PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3 DOCUMENTS REFERENCED 3 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 4 1.0 Building Type1 4 1.1 Cedar Shake Panel System 4 1.2 Window Installation 5 1.3 Through-Wall Penetrations 6 1.4 Projecting Walkways & Decks 6 1.5 Scuppers and Gutters 6 1.6 Miscellaneous Flashing Details 7 2.0 Building Type2 & Building Type3 7 2.1 Cedar Shake Siding 7 2.2 Improper Integration of Cap Metal with Wall Assembly 8 2.3 Roofing Deficiencies Leading to Water Intrusion 9 2.4 Window and Door Installation 10 3.0 Deck Surfaces 11 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 CONSULTANT ROLE AND DISCLAIMERS 13 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 498 EXHIBIT 58 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ' Pl1V ' Oswe o Summit Condominiums ® ;; ® 00,00 ,gip 215 Oswego Summit ® ;• ' Wood frame �� �� r= 1978Off� � r fir ® 2� n 1976 UBC ' 1r~ F r � n < 25 Residential buildings ffl`?4e' DOCUMENTS REFERENCED The following building code,manufacturer and industry standards documents were referenced during the research and development of this report. • Cedar Shake& Shingle Bureau"Exterior and Interior Wall Manual" • American Architectural Manufacturers Association(AAMA) specification 2400-02,"Standard Practice for Installation of Windows with a Mounting Flange in Stud Frame Construction" • SMACNA"Residential Sheet Metal Guidelines" • ASTM standard C 1193-00,"Standard Guide for Use of Joint Sealants" • 1976 Uniform Building Code(UBC). MOISTURE TESTING METHODOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION WA utilizes the Delmhorst Model BD-2100 Moisture Meter,an instrument designed to take precise measurements of moisture content in wood and to provide comparative readings in wood by-products and various other building materials such as roofing,insulation,plaster,etc.The meter provides wood moisture content readings ranging from 6% to 40% for wood in 0.1% increments over the entire measurement range.The meter's remote or built-in probes are inserted into the wood at locations of invasive exploratory openings.Moisture content of 19% and greater in exterior wood components is considered elevated.Elevated moisture creates conditions conducive to organic growth and always raises concern that decay of the structural wood components may be taking place.Moisture content of 1% or more in gypsum will cause deterioration and delamination of the gypsum board and create conditions conducive to organic growth. WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 499 EXHIBIT 58 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 4 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Three distinct building types were observed in this development.Type 1 buildings,consist of the four largest buildings,including 22,23,24,&25.Type 1 buildings will be addressed separately, as they are clad with a different material and constructed with different details than the remaining 21 buildings.Type 2 buildings consist of 19 buildings,all with a relatively flat elevation on the street side,and a long pitched elevation on the back side,consisting mostly of roofing.Type 3 buildings are similar to type 2 on the street facing elevation.The back elevations of type 3 buildings consists of stacked decks and entries to the units.We counted 2 type 3 buildings. 1.0 Building Type1 Type 1 buildings are clad with a cedar panel system manufactured by Cedar Valley Shingles Systems.The following is a summary of findings from our visual and invasive observation. 1.1 Cedar Shake Panel System I. The Cedar Shake Panel System was observed to be in fair condition throughout the development,with some locations in poor condition.Overall,the shakes appeared worn, with a visibly worn grain pattern,indicating that the tannins (tannins are the natural occurring resins in cedar,that make the wood relatively resistant to decay)have bled from the wood.Cupping of the shakes is beginning to occur uniformly throughout,as a result of the tannin bleed,which is allowing the wood to absorb moisture.See Photographic Appendix:1.01 & 1.02 II. The absorption of moisture into the cedar shakes has allowed moss and other organisms to take hold on the cedar shake panels.Because the shakes are attached to a plywood panel,absorption of moisture is not isolated to individual shakes,but to much larger areas.See Photographic Appendix:1.03 III. Once the shakes begin to take on moisture,they wick the moisture up to the plywood panel.As the panel takes on moisture,it begins to bow,creating voids between the panels where additional moisture may enter the cladding assembly via wind driven rain.See Photographic Appendix:1.04 IV.Cedar Shake Panels were observed to be installed in contact with horizontal surfaces at most locations.This may not be an issue on interior walk ways; however,where the panel is exposed to the elements,we observed significant staining of the siding as well as visible moisture wicking from the base of the wall.We did remove a panel a one location and found that moisture has wicked approximately 2" up the back side of the panel. Flashing installed at the base of the wall has prevented moisture from reaching the underlying components at this location.See Photographic Appendix:128,129,130 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com i F:503.297.0757 500 EXHIBIT 58 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 5 1.2 Window Installation I. Windows are surrounded by wood trim that has been dado cut in an"L" shape, so that it fits between the panel siding and the window frame,then extends over the panel siding approximately 1/2".Without sealant applied between the siding and trim,voids are present that may allow water to enter behind the cladding assembly.See Photographic Appendix:1.004 II. The trim is installed tight around the window frame and sealant was not used in the original installation.This condition creates a void that will allow water to enter behind the cladding assembly between the window frame and the wood trim. Sealant has been applied in some locations as a means of stopping reported leaks,as we did observe sealant installation at random window locations.The current installation of trim,tight against the window frame prevents the installation of a properly formed sealant joint, making sealant application in these areas prone to premature sealant failure.ASTM C1193-00,section 14.1.2 states: "Under no circumstances should a liquid-applied sealant be applied in a joint opening that is less that 6mm (114")wide." See Photographic Appendix:1.05 III.Head flashing is installed above windows on building type 1,over the head trim; however,the panel siding is installed tight against the metal flashing,preventing the egress of incidental moisture at these locations.In several locations,we observed the application of sealant between the head flashing and panel siding,preventing the egress of incidental moisture.See Photographic Appendix:1.06 IV.We removed panel siding below one window installation and found water intrusion to be occurring at that location.The building paper was found to be reverse lapped with the window sill fin and saturated with moisture.The gypsum sheathing was found to have an elevated moisture content of 6%,was delaminating from the facing paper,and deteriorating due to extended exposure to moisture.See Photographic Appendix:1.08 & 1.09 V. Gypsum sheathing was removed at this location to determine the extent of the damage. We observed elevated moisture content of 21.6% in the wood framing at this location. See Photographic Appendix:1.10 VI.The metal window at this location was observed to have failure in the window frame at the mitered joints.This condition may be contributing to water intrusion at this location, as the void in the window frame can direct moisture gathered in the sill of the window frame directly behind the cladding assembly.See Photographic Appendix:1.11 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 501 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 6 1.3 Through-Wall Penetrations I. Through-wall vents were observed to be framed and flashed in the same method as the windows,with wood trim installed around the perimeter of the metal vent and metal head flashing above the head trim.The wood trim was dado cut in the same way as the window trim as well. Sealant was not applied at this location.Upon removal of the trim,we found that the metal head flashing was not properly integrated with the building paper.See Photographic Appendix:1.12 II. The building paper was observed to be reverse lapped with the head fin of the metal vent, creating a reverse lap and directing incidental moisture behind the fine of the metal vent. See Photographic Appendix:1.13 III.The building paper around the metal vent was found to be visibly wet,with areas of saturation.Removal of the building paper revealed significantly deteriorated gypsum sheathing.See Photographic Appendix:1.14&1.15 1.4 Projecting Walkways & Decks I. Where walkway or deck edges intersect with wall plains we observe the omission of diverter flashing,which is intended to direct water drainage over the walkway or deck edge and away from exposed wall surfaces.This omission allows water run off to enter behind the wall cavity at this location,as well as lets water run down the surface of the wall,where it may find another avenue to enter behind the cladding assembly.See Photographic Appendix:1.16,1.17,&1.18 II. Water streaming down the wall surface has caused staining of the siding and accelerated deterioration of the cedar shake panels in this location.We conducted invasive opening at two of these locations to determine the condition of the underlying components.We found water intrusion to be occurring at both locations,with elevated moisture content of 21.5% in the plywood sheathing.See Photographic Appendix:1.19,1.20,&1.21 1.5 Scuppers and Gutters I. Scuppers,which drain the roof surface through a through-wall penetration were observed to be leaking throughout the development.We observed large saturated areas of siding around most scuppers as shown in the referenced photographs.Also noted,were overflowing gutters,which caused similar conditions. See Photographic Appendix:1.22, 1.23,1.24 II. Siding was removed below one of these scuppers to determine the underlying conditions. We observed the back side of the panel siding to have visible moisture staining as well as saturated building paper.Moisture has reached the gypsum sheathing in this location, causing the gypsum to delaminate from the facing paper.See Photographic Appendix: 1.25,1.26,&1.27 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com i F:503.297.0757 502 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 7 III.In several locations,were observed large areas where water was flowing from the roof surface down the wall surface.At most of these locations,the water was flowing over the parapet wall or over the gutter.See Photographic Appendix:1.34&1.35 IV.Siding was removed at one of these locations,below a gutter and over the head of a garage door.We observed the head flashing to be reverse lapped with the building paper as well as reverse lapping of the building paper in the field.This condition will allow water to migrate behind the building paper,where it can damage the underlying components.See Photographic Appendix:136,1.37,1&1.38 V. Following the path of water,we observed that the water was leaking from behind the facia board.The plywood sheathing at this location was found to have an elevated moisture content of 35.7%.See Photographic Appendix:139 1.6 Miscellaneous Flashing Details I. Where garages abut to the buildings appropriate flashing was omitted,leading to leaking into the garages.L-flashing was installed at these locations to stop the leaking from occurring.The flashing has been sealed to the horizontal surface of the parapet flashing on the garage. Sealant has failed and standing water was observed on the cap flashing, creating the potential for water intrusion.See Photographic Appendix:1.31 II. We removed some siding at this location to find that the L-flashing is improperly integrated with the cladding assembly and that water intrusion is still occurring at this location.See Photographic Appendix:1.32 &133 2.0 Building Type2 & Building Type3 Type2 &Type3 buildings are clad with a cedar shake siding over plywood sheathing The following is a summary of findings from our visual and invasive observation of these buildings. 2.1 Cedar Shake Siding I. Cedar shake siding was found to be generally in poor condition.We observed cedar shakes that are cupping due to the absorption of moisture,along with cracking and missing shakes.In numerous locations,the shake has weathered away or section have broken off,leaving keyways spaces up to 1" wide.Deep grooves in the grain pattern indicate that the natural tannins have worn away,eliminating the cedars natural ability to resist water absorption and decay.See Photographic Appendix:1.40,1.41,&1.42 II. Typically,sealant was not applied at the transition from cedar shake to wood trim,nor around window frames.Instead,siding is abutted directly to the trim or window frame. Trim at outside corners is treated in the same manner,with trim abutted directly to the opposing trim without the use of sealant.See Photographic Appendix:1.40 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 503 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 8 III.We observed several locations where wall appeared wavy and shakes were visibly worn. We suspected water intrusion may be an issue at these locations.We opened the siding in one of these locations and found that bulging framing was likely the issue,as no evidence of water intrusion was observed.Based on the age of the building,the settling likely occurred in the early years after construction.If that is the case,we dont feel that this is of major concern;however,if the wavy walls are a newer occurrence,we would recommend having the area inspected by a structural engineer.See Photographic Appendix:1.43,1.44,&1.45 IV.Upon removing shakes,we were able to observe the profile of individual shakes.It is here where we were really able to view the level of wear the shingles have undergone. There is a drastic contrast to the area of the shake that was covered by the shake above and the exposed surface.The covered surface is still relatively smooth,but the exposed surface is visibly worn down,with deep groves in the grain pattern.See Photographic Appendix:1.46 V. Cedar shake siding was removed at two randomly selected inside corners.At these locations,we found that moisture was infiltrating between the siding and trim and that water has saturated the building paper,which is showing signs of decay.Elevated moisture content as high as 20.9% was detected in the plywood sheathing at these locations.See Photographic Appendix:1.47,1.48,1.49, 1.50,&151 VI.Cedar trim at outside corners was found to be in poor condition throughout the development.We observed cedar trim that has warped and checked,creating even larger voids in the cladding assembly.At one location we did remove siding,to find that the plywood has visible damage,however did not detect excessive moisture content in the plywood at that time.We should not that there was not building paper present behind the cedar shakes at this location.See Photographic Appendix:152,1.53,&154 VII.Cedar Shake Siding was observed to be in installed in contact with horizontal surfaces in numerous locations.This has caused the shakes to absorb moisture,leading the the premature deterioration of the first 2-3 courses of siding.We removed siding at three of these locations and found that water intrusion has occurred at all three locations.Elevated moisture content up to 39.3% was observed in the plywood sheathing,as well as visible deterioration of the building paper and plywood sheathing.See Photographic Appendix: 1.55,1.56,1.57,1.58,&1.59 2.2 Improper Integration of Cap Metal with Wall Assembly I. Sheet metal cap flashing is installed over all privacy walls and pony wall surrounding exterior walk ways.We observed inconsistent treatment of similar details,but found that most appeared to be improperly integrated with the cladding assembly.The coping or edge metal should have a flange(often referred to as"saddle flashing") that laps behind the wall assembly. SMACNA figure 3-8D illustrates an example of a horizontal flashing terminating into a vertical wall.Lapping behind the wall assembly allows the saddle WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 i www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 504 EXH I BIT 58 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 9 flashing to divert water away from both the wall and roof assembly.At Oswego Summit Condominiums,the coping and edge metal was on the exterior face of the wall assembly or roof membrane and was applied with a poorly installed sealant joint.Improper integration of the horizontal flashing sections into the vertical wall assemblies compromises both the roof and wall assembly and can allow moisture intrusion.See Photographic Appendix:1.60,1.61,1.62,1.63,&1.64 II. We removed siding below three locations where we observed improperly installed or integrated saddle flashing from privacy walls.At all three locations were observed water intrusion that resulted in the deterioration of the building paper and elevated moisture content in the plywood sheathing.See Photographic Appendix:1.65,1.66,1.67,1.68, 1.69,1.70,&1.71 2.3 Roofing Deficiencies Leading to Water Intrusion I. We observed numerous locations where water staining covered large areas of siding below tiled roof edges and/or gutter systems.At these locations it was apparent that water was either overflowing or bypassing the gutter system and/or draining off the side of a a roof surface rather than the eave.This portion of the investigation was not to diagnose issues with the roof surface,as these issues have been identified in a previous report produce by Western Architectural,but rather identify the effect those issues are having on the building envelope.We removed siding at several of these locations to determine if this was affecting underlying conditions.See Photographic Appendix:1.72 &1.73 II. Siding was removed from an area directly below the rake of a small area of roofing at two locations.Water staining on this elevation indicated that a significant amount of run off was flowing over the side of the rake,rather than into the gutter.Upon removing siding, we observed omitted building paper in this location,which has allowed incidental moisture to reach the plywood sheathing.Additional siding was removed,and building paper was found to be wrapping the corner from the opposing elevation.The building paper was observed to be reverse lapped; however,which directs incidental moisture behind the building paper and onto the plywood surface.We did not observe water intrusion at the second location,though the cedar shakes were visibly worn from exposure to excessive moisture.See Photographic Appendix:1.74,1.75,1.76,1.77, 1.78,1.85,1.86,&1.87 III.As noted in Western Architectural's roofing report,diverter flashing is omitted in most locations throughout the development.We removed siding at one locations above a gutter end and two below a gutter end to observe the underlying conditions. Siding removed below the gutter end,revealed that the omitted diverter flashing is allowing water to bypass the gutter system and run down the face of the cladding at that location.We observed that some of that water is getting behind the cladding,as the building paper was found to be wet and deteriorated due to exposure to moisture at both locations below the gutter.Plywood sheathing was visibly wet at these locations,with an elevated moisture WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 i www.westernarchitectural.com i F:503.297.0757 505 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 10 content as high as 29.0% observed in the plywood sheathing.See Photographic Appendix:1.79,1.80,1.83,&1.84 IV.Siding removed above the gutter end,revealed that step flashing is improperly integrated with the cladding system.We observed step flashing installed over the starter course, rather than integrated behind the building paper.See Photographic Appendix:1.81 & 1.82 V. Siding was removed below a gutter under an eave to observe the underlying conditions. At this location,we observed incomplete installation of the building paper; however we did not observe moisture under the cladding assembly.Cedar shakes were observed to be visibly worn in this location,showing signs of deterioration.See Photographic Appendix:1.88&1.89 2.4 Window and Door Installation I. We observed an array of window types and installation methods through out the development.Unit owners have been able to hire their own contractors to install new windows,without following a standard practice for window installation.We observed that all original windows and many newer windows have been installed without the application of head flashing above the window,nor the use of joint sealant around the perimeter of the window.We did observe areas where building maintenance has applied sealant as means to stop a reported leak.See Photographic Appendix:1.90& 1.91 II. We removed siding below diamond shaped windows installed in the stair wells.From what we observed,all of these windows are original metal framed windows.Generally, these windows were observed to be in poor condition,with visible damage to the window frames observed in numerous locations.From conversations with the community manager,we understand that several of these windows have leaked,as apparent by sealant heavily applied around most of these windows. Sealant application at these locations has failed in most places.Upon removing siding below one of the diamond shaped windows,we found the building paper to be reverse lapped with the window fin at the sill.See Photographic Appendix:1.92 &1.93 III.We removed siding around four additional windows,with two openings at the window head and two at the window sill,all believed to be second generation installations.We found installation methods to be inconsistent,with 3 of the 4 windows installed without the use of self adhered membrane flashing.Head flashing was omitted from all four window installations and some degree of water intrusion was observed.Based on what we observed,water is infiltrating the cladding assembly primarily at the window head, where siding is in contact with the window frame.Water is then pulled to the building paper and/or window fin at the head,where it has no where to go but down the sides of the window jambs.At that point,reverse lapping of the building paper at the sill is allowing water to move behind the building paper and onto the plywood sheathing.See Photographic Appendix:1.94,1.95,1.96,1.97,1.98,1.99,1.100,1.101,1.102,1.103, 1.104,&1.105 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 i www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 506 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 11 IV.Siding was removed above the head of a door threshold leading to a stair well.Head flashing was installed and properly integrated with the building paper at this location. Though water is getting behind the siding at this location,the metal flashing has prevented water from reaching the sheathing at this location.Because there are not end- dams at either side of the flashing,it is possible that water is going down the jambs of the door where there is still the potential to cause damage to the siding.See Photographic Appendix:1.106,1.107,&1.108 3.0 Deck Surfaces I. Building type 1 decks were observed to have visible spalling or"rust jacking"as previously reported by Western Architectural.The issue appears to be the result of untreated or coated concrete slabs with,elastomeric coatings on the bottom side of the deck surfaces.This condition causes water that infiltrates the concrete to stop when it reaches the coating applied to the bottom side of the concrete.At this point,the water is forced to move horizontally,which is what the majority of the damage to the concrete decks is located at the deck edges.Repairing the damaged concrete so that a traffic coating can be applied to the deck surface is going to be the best solution to this issue. See Photographic Appendix:1.109,1.110,1.111,1.112,1.113,&1.114 II. Decks on building type 2 were observed to have a number of complex issues.These decks are entirely exposed,an therefore must manage draining much more water,which must pass through a single drain installed with a 2-1/2"pipe.The 2-1/2"pipe then appears to attached to a downspout which is married to downspouts already dedicated to draining the roof surface,installed at a 45° angle.We believe that during heavy downpours this drainage system is insufficient to support the load,which is why decks are backing up.The overflow system just passes the water to the deck below,further overloading the drainage on that deck.See Photographic Appendix:1.115 &1.116 III.When water backs up on the deck surface,improper detailing at the door threshold,is allowing water to infiltrate below the deck surface,as the membrane was not properly integrated with a sill pan at the door threshold.See Photographic Appendix:1.117, 1.118,1.119,& 1.120 IV.The membrane surface was observed to be delaminating in several locations.We believe that this may be the result of improper installation; however,based on the condition of the concrete surface,it is possible that the concrete has become so deteriorated,that it is no longer stable enough to support the installation of a waterproof membrane.See Photographic Appendix:1.121 V. We observed improper detailing at the deck perimeter where the deck surface meets the wall surface.Treatment of the detail at this area was found to be inconsistent,and we also observed staining indicative of materials that are not compatible.When this occurs, chemicals in the incompatible materials react adversely,and lead to failure.See Photographic Appendix:1.122 &1.123 WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 507 EXHIBIT 58 Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 12 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS At this time we recommend setting up a meeting to review our findings with bo. or comity overseeing building maintenance,in order to discuss a plan of action and/or ions !Mons with the purpose of implement our recommendation. Our recommendations ar- •t� . .gib,, sed for construction but only to illustrate our findings. SIDING: Water intrusion was observed at nearly every opening made during.,aur ob vation.The major issue is improper detailing at windows,doors,roof to wall transi�io ashing details.Those areas could be addressed or"spot repaired",to reduce or eliminate -r from entering behind the cladding system.The siding itself,however,is at or near t � ffi d o. is expected useful life, which makes spot repairs unpractical,as the cladding syste " �.goi to continue to deteriorate, leading to further issues.At this point,our major :conce .0 : ,that may have or is going to occur to the underlying materials,such as the sheathin•_ ,_r. �� :,and interior finishes.For this reason,we recommend that the association develop a ' to re -de all buildings in conjunction with roof replacement,and deck repairs,so that the c/fen stems can properly be tied into each other in a weatherproof manner. WINDOWS: Windows were found to be contributing to - in sion,as most were found to be improperly flashed.We recommend that all windows, years old,be replaced and that windows less than 10 years old,found to be in go•, cons 'on,be pulled and properly installed per a standard set of details,with proper flashi" wi •w trim,and integrated properly with the weather barrier.Windows installed i 0 'r °s need to be replaced with square windows or eliminated entirely. DECKS: Type 1 Buildings: We recommend conductit' e. doper concrete repairs prior to applying a deck coating to the walking surface of the d1 withroper flashing around the perimeter and integrated with a metal pan at the door ��es"`r e also recommend installing a metal drip edge at the ends of the deck surface to . water to properly drain away from the building. Type 2 Building • Fes' The deck surf.+es selves were found to be in fair condition.Most of the issues were found at the door t . . old and the detailing at the transition from the deck surface to the wall surface. Installing . .per " hing around the perimeter of the deck surfaces and integrating the membrane ,'th a etal pan installed at the door threshold would eliminate leaking to a certain degree. ' i�,. '" issue with the deck surfaces revolves around drainage issues.The decks are diffic '/ s in order to clear debris from the scupper drain,and the drainage is insufficient WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 i www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 508 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 13 to handle peak loads.For these reasons,we propose removing the privacy wall ayire• ••fing section installed in front of each deck,extending the deck surface out to the existin cia,and allowing the deck surfaces to drain into the gutter,which is already in place. wit's v-y, eliminated the hidden drainage system,which has caused so many issues.W- ould :move the concrete slab and replace with a plywood deck surface that is sloped to dr,• t all new guard rails at the ends of the deck surfaces. Type 3 Buildings: There were no reported issues with the decks on these buildings.D k are livered and facing away from the windward side of the property,which is why they . 44, .7 less issues.We recommend installing a door pan under the sliding door,when the - comes to replace the deck membrane. CONSULTANT ROLE AND DISCLAIM Our observation techniques consist of visually observii, . an. pling areas of the building where,in our experience,problems are likely to sho ; e elves.However,because we do not remove all (or any,in some cases) exterior claddin;,..- indo ,and other materials overlaying the structure,we may miss some or all of the damage; • i � damage would only be revealed if we removed all of the cladding and windows,a d d the surrounding surfaces.Thus, please understand that there may be damage to •- ing that we could not see and therefore For cannot report on. Western Architectural Fok *- ects and Engineers will not be held responsible for any concealed or undetected to your structure,including microbial (mold) contamination. Because of the necessarily limited nates - • •bservations,any repair guidelines we produce as a result will be limited to those c• .itio we actually observed during the observation.This means,and you acknowledge,that o repa, guidelines. may not cover all repairs that are y needed.This is why it is crucial that ain the services of a highly qualified,detail-oriented contractor as part of your proje, am (in addition to our professional services) to dictate the remediation process should ye i ,p ,u-nt an action plan. You also understand that hitectural Forensic Architects and Engineers is neither a guarantor nor an insurer the aracy of any construction,reconstruction or recommended action,and that our servi are -ing rendered solely as a consultant.We therefore disclaim,and you acknowledge ou pis4;arr of,any and all liability of any source or nature,to you or any third party,for any ;. f arising out of or related to the repair process. Western Architectural may only be held to the sit standard of care imposed upon a professional firm providing comparable serv/$es. You acknowledge thny reports or repair guidelines issued by Western Architectural are to be used in lig -ii-,,foregoing.You also agree that Western Architectural is in no way providing any assura e to ye,, or any third party that any repair guidelines issued by us are exhaustive as to your • : that the project will be (or has been)completed in accordance with any particular ,,for specifications,whether or not issued by,provided to or reviewed by Western WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 i www.westernarchitectural.com 1 F.503.297.0757 509 EXHIBIT Oswego Summit Condominiums Page 14 Architectural.The responsibility for quality control of(and adherence to) the repair guidelines, specifications and plans is yours and that of your chosen project team. This report is strictly limited to your use and should,in any event,be used only in its entirety with this disclaimer included. Respectfully Submitted, Western Architectural Justin Barnhart Project Manager Eric Hoff,President Architect WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL PORTLAND OFFICE: 10200 SW Greenburg Road,Suite 750,Portland OR 97223 P:503.297.0665 I www.westernarchitectural.com I F:503.297.0757 510 EXHIBIT 58 F ESTER ARCHITECTURAL forensic architects a engineers INVASIVE BUILDING ENVELOPE PHOTOGRAPHIC APPENDIX For OSWEGO SUMMIT SUBMITTED TO OSWEGO SUMMIT HOA By WESTERN ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING SCIENCE CONSULTANTS 10220 SW GREENBURG RD. PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 INSPECTION DATE: 01/28/2013-01/31/2013 ISSUE DATE:2/13/2013 PORTLAND OFFICE lozoo SW Greenburg Road,Ste. 75o Portland,OR 97223 503.297.0665 www.westernarchitectu ral.com 511 EXHIBIT 1.01 Building Type 1: The following general conditions were observed during our visual and invasive observations of the building envelope. Building Type 1 includes buildings 22, 23, 24, &25. 1.02 Building Type 1: Buildings 22, 23, 24, & 25 are clad with Cedar Valley Shingle Panel system. Generally, shin- gles installed in exposed areas are in fair to poor condition. Shakes are loose and beginning to cup in some locations and the tannins in most shingles are are visibly worn, leaving deep groves in the wood grain. This condition indicates the shingles are near the end of their useful life. 1.03 Building Type 1: Elevations that are shaded from the sun or by large trees or vegetation tend to have visibly weather-worn shingle panels. The shingles tend to be covered with organic growth in these lo- cations, further deteriorating the condition of the singles. Page 2 of 42 512 EXHIBIT 58 1.04 Building Type 1: Extended exposure to moistu and wind has caused many the shingles to begin to cul diminishing the shingles abili to repel water. When moistu compromises the panel, ti plywood tends to bow, as visib in this photograph. This condition was observed numerous locations. 1.05 Building Type 1: The majority of windows ( these buildings are surround( by wood trim, which has be( dado cut to fit over the siding. Sealant is typically not appli( between siding and trim; ho) ever, sealant was observed some areas, presumably whe leaking has been reported. 1.06 Building Type 1: Window trim is installed tig around the windows, without ti use of a sealant joint, allowir infiltration of moisture at the: locations. We did find locatioi where sealant was installe presumably where leaking h been reported. Page 3 of 42 513 EXHIBIT 58 1.07 Building Type 1: Metal flashing is installed window head, above the however, the siding abo) typically installed tight ac the flashing, and ins cases sealant has also applied in these locations, In both cases, this con, prevents the egress of incic moisture. 1.08 Building Type 1: We removed siding at or these conditions on Bui Type 1. Building paper was visibly upon removal of siding anc at this location. 1.09 Building Type 1: The building paper was fou be reverse lapped with mounting fin of the window. has allowed moisture ent above the sill trim to get bE the building paper and de rated the gypsum sheathing 6% moisture content was served in the gypsum sheat Page 4 of 42 514 EXHIBIT 58 1.10 Building Type 1: Elevated moisture content 21.5% was observed in th wood framing at this location. 1.11 Building Type 1: Sealant was applied around th window, between the frame an the trim at this location; how ever, because the trim is it stalled tight against the windoN frame, a properly dimensione sealant joint could not be it stalled and the sealant joint ha failed. The window frame was of served to be visibly damaged a well. 1.12 Building Type 1: Vents are treated similar to wir dows, with wood trim install& tight around the metal vent an, metal flashing installed abov the head trim. Page 5 of 42 515 EXHIBIT 1.13 Building Type 1: Siding and trim were removed a the head of the vent. The meta flashing installed above thE head trim came off with the trim indicating that it was not prop- erly lapped with the building pa- per. The building paper was found tc be reverse lapped with the meta flange of the vent. t14 Building Type 1: The building paper at this loca- tion was found to be saturatec with moisture. 1.15 Building Type 1: Behind the building paper, thE gypsum sheathing was found tc be deteriorated due to extendec exposure to moisture. Moisture content of .6% was observed in the gypsum sheath- ing at this location. Page 6 of 42 516 EXHIBIT 58 1.16 Building Type 1: Balcony and elevated walkin surfaces were found to have improper or omitted diverte flashings at deck to wall intei sections, allowing moisture tc infiltrate behind the cladding these locations. Two openings were made i similar conditions to examin the underlying conditions. 1.17 Building Type 1: Typical balcony condition. I some locations, sealant ha been applied at these locations. 1.18 Building Type 1: Opening #1: Omitted diverter flashing at the deck to wall tran- sition have led to staining of sid- ing and damp conditions overall. Page 7 of 42 517 EXHIBIT 58 1.19 Building Type 1: Opening#1: Siding was removed di below a second level wall Siding was found to be we on the interior face siding. 1.20 Building Type 1: Opening#1: The building paper was fot be visibly wet. Moisture N grated behind the building and saturated the ply sheathing. 1.21 Building Type 1: Opening#2: Omitted diverter flashing at the deck to wall transition as well as a leaking downspout have led to staining of siding and damp conditions overall. Siding was removed directly below the walkway. Elevated moisture content of 21.5% was observed in the plywood sheath- ing. Page 8 of 42 518 EXHIBIT 5 1.22 Building Type 1: Scuppers and gutters were found to be overflowing or leak- ing in numerous locations. This condition has led to the siding having extended expo- sure, which has deteriorated the cedar panels and created the potential for water intrusion. 1.23 Building Type 1: Leaking gutters over stack of windows increases the potential for water intrusion at these loca- tions. 1.24 Building Type 1: Water was found to be leaking from behind scupper collection boxes. These areas are highly vulnerable to water intrusion because they exist at a through- wall penetration. Page 9 of 42 519 EXHIBIT 1.25 Building Type 1: Siding was removed below this scupper to determine if water intrusion was occurring. This condition was observed in several locations. 1.26 Building Type 1: The plywood shingle panels were found to be damp on the interior side upon removal, indi- cating moisture behind the clad- ding. 1.27 Building Type 1: The building paper was ob- served to be visibly wet upon removal of shingle panels. Further investigation indicated that the gypsum has been ex- posed to moisture and is dete- riorating due to this condition. Page 10 of 42 520 EXHIBIT 1.28 Building Type 1: Plywood shingle panels were found to be installed in contact with grade at numerous loca- tions. This condition has caused the panels to absorb moisture, which has led to staining and deterioration of the shingles 1.29 Building Type 1: Flashing installed at the base of the wall was found to be revers lapped with the building paper. 1.30 Building Type 1: Plywood shingle panels re- moved at this location had water staining approximately 2" up the back side. Continuous contact with mois- ture behind the panel creates conditions conducive to wood decay and organic growth. Page 11 of 42 521 EXHIBIT 1.31 Building Type 1: Where garages are abutted to buildings, we found flashing de- ficiencies that are leading to wa- ter intrusion. Metal L-flashing has been in- stalled at these locations to pre- vent water from penetrating be- tween the building and the ga- rages. Flashing was lapped un- der the siding and sealed to the top of the cap flashing of the garage. Sealant has failed at these loca- tions. 1.32 Building Type 1: L-flashing is not integrated en- tirely with the Cedar Shingle Panel System. The flashing was found to be lapped 1/4" under the shingles, but not the entire panel system. 1.33 Building Type 1: Plywood behind the flashing was found to be visibly wet down into the wall cavity. Water appeared to be entering both above and below the flashing. Page 12 of 42 522 EXHIBIT 58 1.34 Building Type 1: We observed numerous loca- tions where shingle panels were not uniformly wet. Large areas of siding were found to be stained wet in areas directly be- low a roof surface or deck sur- face. In these locations, the siding surrounding the area was not a damp as the area in question. 1.35 Building Type 1: Typical area of water staining on the shingle panels. At this loca- tion, moisture appears to be sourcing above the scupper not below, as with the scupper loca- tions previously mentioned. 1.36 Building Type 1: We removed shingle panel sid- ing above a garage with a simi- lar water staining pattern as the locations above. Page 13 of 42 523 EXHIBIT 58 1.37 Building Type 1: Panel siding was removed above the door head. The build- ing paper was found to be visi- bly damp and reverse lapped with the metal flashing above the door head. 1.38 Building Type 1: Building paper was found to be reverse lapped in the field. 1.39 Building Type 1: The source of water was found to be entering at the eve of the roof surface. Further investiga- tion is recommended. Elevated moisture content of 35.7% was observed in the ply- wood sheathing at this location Page 14 of 42 524 EXHIBIT 58 1.40 Building Type 2&3: Building type 2 & 3 will be lumped together because of similar materials, and the fact that there are only 2 type-3 buildings. These buildings are clad with cedar shake siding and an array of different window types be- cause replacement of windows is the owners responsibility. All units have concrete decks with a urethan traffic coating, as well as entry walkways with similar coatings. 1.41 Building Type 2&3: Cedar Shake siding was found to be in poor condition through- out the development. We ob- served cupping and curling of the shingles throughout the property. We observed individual shakes that have split in numerous loca- tions, often with a portion of the shake falling away from the building, leaving exposed key- ways of 1" or more, and subject- ing the lower shake and its fas- tener to weathering. 1.42 Building Type 2&3: Throughout the development, we observed the cedar shake siding to have experienced ex- cessive tannin bleed This means that the organic resins naturally present in cedar, which protect the wood from water ab- sorption and wood decay, have washed away, as visible by the deep grooves left in the wood grain of individual shingles. This process is expected to occur over time, as a natural aging process of the material, indicat- ing that the shake has neared the end of its expected useful life. Page 15 of 42 525 EXHIBIT 58 1.43 Building Type 2 &3: We observed areas c wall, that appeared 1, removed siding to ii the cause. 1.44 Building Type 2 &3: The first opening we c the floor line betweer rage and first living le building.We found that walls are the result of the building, which ha walls to bow. We did not find eviden ter intrusion at this loca 1.45 Building Type 2 &3: Cedar Shakes around showing visible signs o Page 16 of 42 526 EXHIBIT 58 1.46 Building Type 2 &3: Removal of the upper cedar shakes shows the shakes are. The portion of the shake worn down to the poir groove has formed at I line. We can also see the in the grain pattern of ered portion of th (smooth) vs the expos of the shake(grooved) 1.47 Building Type 2 &3: Because sealant was at inside corners, we observe the conditior dourly selected insid locations. 1.48 Building Type 2 &3: Upon removing sidin the 1"x1" inside corn became apparent th water is getting behinc ding at this location. The wood trim, wl barely visible when s installed, was found tc elevated moisture c 26.3%. Page 17 of 42 527 EXHIBIT 1.49 Building Type 2&3: A second, randomly selected inside corner. 1.50 Building Type 2&3: Upon removing the cedar shake siding, we found the building, paper to be visibly wet. 1.51 Building Type 2&3: Behind the building paper we observed some organic growth on the building paper, and an elevated moisture content o1 20.9%in the plywood sheathing. Page 18 of 42 528 EXHIBIT 58 1.52 Building Type 2&3: Typical outside corner trim stalled with no sealant betvk the trim pieces or between siding and trim, leaving I; vertical voids in the cladding We observed warped • throughout the development. 1.53 Building Type 2&3: Upon removing cedar sh, siding, we observed no buil paper installed behind the c ding. Visible moisture stai and some minor dry rot v observed at this location. 1.54 Building Type 2&3: Moisture content in the plywood sheathing was found to be within acceptable levels, though visible moisture staining could be seen behind the gutter, where the probe could not reach. Page 19 of 42 529 EXHIBIT 1.55 Building Type 2&3: We observed cedar shake sid- ing to be installed in contact witl- grade in numerous locations. This condition has led to ex- tended exposure to moisture foi the lower courses of cedar shakes siding, causing staining and deterioration of the material. This condition was observec above elevated walkways anc concrete flatwork. 1.56 Building Type 2&3: Siding was removed at this loca- tion to observe the underlying conditions. 1.57 Building Type 2&3: Siding was removed at this loca- tion, revealing a visibly damp building paper no less than 18" up the wall. The building paper was significantly deteriorated. The plywood sheathing was found to have an elevated mois- ture content of 26.6%, with sig- nificant deterioration of the ply- wood sheathing. Page 20 of 42 530 EXHIBIT 58 1.58 Building Type 2 &3: We removed cedar shake sidinc at additional locations and founc similar conditions. The plywooc sheathing at this location wa; found to have an elevated mois- ture content of 39.3%. 1.59 Building Type 2 &3: A third location was observed where an elevated moisture content of 22.2% was observed in the plywood sheathing. 1.60 Building Type 2 &3: Building type 2 contains ele- vated walkways, such as the ones shown here. The outside railing walls are capped with a sheet metal cap flashing. Page 21 of 42 531 EXHIBIT 1.61 Building Type 2&3: Where the railing walls ter nate into the exterior walls found several different cot tions. We suspect that that cap fla ing has been integrated Ni some form of saddle flashinc the wall termination, and I over time, sealant has been plied at some locations, f sumably to stope a repor leak. 1.62 Building Type 2&3: In most locations, the sheet metal cap flashing is lapped and sealed in the field. We observed failed sealant at numerous loca- tions, creating conditions for water to ingress under the cap flashing. In most locations, we observed cap flashing to be installed level, with visible standing water on the horizontal surface of the flashing. 1.63 Building Type 2&3: We also observed areas where flexible flashing has been inte- grated over the top of the metal cap flashing. This was primarily observed at roof conditions, as shown; however, we did ob- served this detail at wall condi- tions as well. This flashing method has left visible voids in the flashing ma- terial where water can ingress. Adhesion to the metal flashing was failing at this time. Page 22 of 42 532 EXHIBIT 58 1.64 Building Type 2&3: Similar to the walkways, the are also small roof bump-oi on type 2 buildings, which e flashing in a similar manner the walkways. The differen being that a small section single-ply roofing is installed the inside of the parapet ce approximately 2"-3" below t highest point of the cap metal. 1.65 Building Type 2&3: Here we observed saddle flan ing applied over the cap met with sealant applied as the a hesive. Sealant has failed at tl location, creating avenues I water ingress. 1.66 Building Type 2&3: We removed siding below tl cap metal at the location d cussed in the previous captic The building paper was found be visibly wet and deterioratii at this location. Page 23 of 42 533 EXHIBIT 1.67 Building Type 2 &3: Water was observed on the ply- wood sheathing, but no dry rot was observed at this location. We also observed reverse laps of the building paper in the field at this location. 1.68 Building Type 2 &3: At this location, we found that the sheet metal cap flashing has been turned up at the wall ter- mination, to form a integrated saddle, though it does not ap- pear that the "saddle" is fully integrated with the cladding components. 1.69 Building Type 2 &3: Looking closely behind the cap flashing, it is obvious that water is finding its way behind the saddle at this location. Siding was removed below the cap flashing, where moisture damaged plywood sheathing with an elevated moisture con- tent of 34%was observed. Page 24 of 42 534 EXHIBIT 58 1.70 Building Type 2&3: Here again, the saddle flashing has been lapped over the metal cap flashing. Screws are in- stalled in the sides to hold it in place. We removed siding directly be- low this location. 1.71 Building Type 2&3: The building paper was visibly deteriorated due to exposure to moisture. The plywood sheath- ing was found to have an ele- vated moisture content of 18.1% along with dry rot of the ply- wood. 1.72 Building Type 2 &3: A tiled roof system is installed over the back elevations of type 2 buildings. We wanted to investigate the conditions at the sides and ends of this roof system. Page 25 of 42 535 EXHIBIT 1.73 Building Type 2 &3: Typical condition: staining and dampness was observed com- ing off the sides of the tiled roof system. 1.74 Building Type 2 &3: This detail exists on both sides of type two buildings. One, at the end of the walkway, and the other over a bump-out roof. Diverter flashing is omitted at most locations at the roof to wall transition. 1.75 Building Type 2 &3: Siding was removed below the location mentioned in the last caption. We observed the build- ing paper to be deteriorated due to extended exposure to mois- ture and an elevated moisture content of 40.0% in the plywood sheathing at this location. Page 26 of 42 536 EXHIBIT 58 1.76 Building Type 2&3: We removed siding direct) low a roof section, where ing and damp conditions observed off of the side roof system. 1.77 Building Type 2&3: At this location, we founc the building paper is omitte the plywood sheathing t visibly damp. 1.78 Building Type 2&3: We removed additional siding to reach the corner, where we did find building paper wrapped around the corner; however, the paper was observed to be re- verse lapped at this location. Page 27 of 42 537 EXHIBIT 58 1.79 Building Type 2&3: Siding was removed b gutter. No diverter fla installed at this location 1.80 Building Type 2&3: We found the building be deteriorated due to to moisture. The sheathing was visibly this location. 1.81 Building Type 2&3: Siding was removed a gutter to observe the it of the step flashing. N( flashing is installed at 1 tion. Page 28 of 42 538 EXHIBIT 58 1.82 Building Type 2 &3: We found that the step flashing is improperly integrated with the cladding system. The step flash- ing is installed over the starter course of cedar shakes, and not lapped behind the building pa- per at this location. 1.83 Building Type 2 &3: We removed siding below the gutter and roof assembly at this location. Visible staining on the siding and leaking downspouts were observed at this location. 1.84 Building Type 2 &3: Upon removal of the siding, we observed the building paper to be deteriorated due to excessive exposure to moisture and an elevated moisture content of 29.0% Page 29 of 42 539 EXHIBIT 1.85 Building Type 2&3: We opened a random section o siding, directly below a roof sec- tion to determine the underlyinc condition. 1.86 Building Type 2&3: Visible moisture was of on the building paper. tannin bleed in the cedar was observed. 1.87 Building Type 2&3: Plywood sheathing w served to be dry at this to Page 30 of 42 540 EXHIBIT 58 1.88 Building Type 2 &3: Cedar Shakes were removec below gutter to observe underly- ing conditions. 1.89 Building Type 2 &3: Underlayment was found to be incomplete at this location, how- ever, we found no evidence of water intrusion at this location. 1.90 Building Type 2 &3: Typical window condition: Win- dows have been randomly re- placed by unit owners. Page 31 of 42 541 EXHIBIT 1.91 Building Type 2&3: Most windows are installer without trim, with cedar shake: installed tight around the win dow frame. Head flashing wa: observed above some windows but was not typical. 1.92 Building Type 2 &3: These angular windows are i stalled on all type 2 buildings, stair wells. Sealant has been appliE around the window frames stop leaking at these locatior Sealant was observed to be ft ing in numerous locations. 1.93 Building Type 2&3: We removed siding around angular window to observe u derlying conditions. We observed building papE reverse lapped with the flange at this location. Page 32 of 42 542 EXHIBIT 58 1.94 Building Type 2 &3: We removed siding around a vinyl window. This window is installed with cedar shake sidin installed tight around the win dow frame. We did not observe sealant o head flashing at this location. 1.95 Building Type 2& 3: Upon removing the siding wr observed the building paper tc have visible moisture and sign: of deterioration due to extender exposure to moisture. 1.96 Building Type 2 & 3: The window fin did not appear to be set into a bead of sealant. Page 33 of 42 543 EXHIBIT 58 1.97 Building Type 2 &3: We removed siding at the heac of this vinyl window. We did nor observe head flashing installec at this window. We could observe water enter- ing behind the cladding assem- bly at the head and runninc down the jamb of the window, a: indicated by the water staininc on the shake. 1.98 Building Type 2 &3: Sealant applied at the head o- the window has failed adhe- sively, losing adhesion to both the cedar shakes and the viny window frame. 1.99 Building Type 2 &3: Building paper was observed tc be reverse lapped with the win- dow fin at the head of the win- dow. We did not observe a beac of sealant behind the windm fin. Page 34 of 42 544 EXHIBIT 1.100 Building Type 2 &3: We did not observe head flash- ing a the head of this vinyl win- dow. Sealant has been applied around the entire window frame and siding. We observed adhe- sive failure of the sealant around the perimeter of this installation. 1.101 Building Type 2 &3: Adhesive failure of sealant at the window jamb. 1.102 Building Type 2 &3: Siding was removed at the win- dow head an jamb of this win- dow. We observe visible moisture and deterioration of the building pa- per at this location, due to ex- tended exposure to moisture. Page 35 of 42 545 EXHIBIT 58 1.103 Building Type 2 &3: Self adhered membrane flashing was installed in a weather lap fashion over the fins of this win- dow, preventing water damage to the plywood sheathing in the immediate area. Due to the limited area of our openings, moisture damage may be occurring below this window. 1.104 Building Type 2 &3: Siding was removed below this window. Sealant was observed around the perimeter of this window; however, flashing at the head was omitted. We observed the building paper to be installed incomplete, leav- ing areas of plywood exposed. 1.105 Building Type 2 &3: The moisture content of the ply- wood sheathing was higher than what would be expected at 17.3%, but was not at elevated moisture content levels. Page 36 of 42 546 EXHIBIT 58 1.106 Building Type 2 &3: We removed siding above an entry threshold to observe the underlying condition. 1.107 Building Type 2 &3: Drip flashing is installed at the head of the threshold and the building paper is properly weather lapped over the back leg. We did observe visible moisture on the building paper. 1.108 Building Type 2 &3: Staining on the plywood indi- cates that the plywood may have been exposed to moisture at some point, however, we ob- served the plywood sheathing to have acceptable moisture con- tent at this time. Page 37 of 42 547 EXHIBIT 1.109 Type 1 Buildings: Deck surfaces are generally un- treated or coated on the top side. 1.110 Type 1 Buildings: Siding installed in contact with deck surface. 1.111 Type 1 Buildings: Planters on deck surfaces could be contributing to damage. Page 38 of 42 548 EXHIBIT 1.112 Type 1 Buildings: Typical condition: metal flashing is installed around the edge of the concrete decks. This flashing will not prevent water intrusion, as moisture can move through the concrete. 1.113 Type 1 Buildings: In some cases, coating has been applied around the base of the wall; however, moisture can still move through the slab and enter the interior of the building. Once again, this material is ap- parently reacting adversely to surrounding material. 1.114 Type 1 Buildings: Most deck surfaces were found to have minimal to no slope. Page 39 of 42 549 EXHIBIT 1.115 Type 2&3 Buildings: A single scupper provides drain- age for most deck surfaces within these buildings. The over- flow drain engages after ap- proximately 1" of water has ac- cumulated on the deck surface, which in most cases is higher than the door threshold. 1.116 Type 2&3 Buildings: The scupper system drains into pipes as shown. This system is extremely prone to obstruction from leaves and other organic debris. 1.117 Type 2&3 Buildings: Deck coating lapped over door threshold. Coating has failed at the joint between dissimilar ma- terials, allowing water intrusion to occur. Page 40 of 42 550 EXHIBIT 58 1.118 Type 2 &3 Buildings: Deck coating lapped up to and terminated against the door threshold. 1.119 Type 2 &3 Buildings: A deck membrane lapped over wood trim, leaving voids at the deck to wall transition. 1.120 Type 2 &3 Buildings: Deck membrane lapped under door threshold with now pan. Smaller photo indicating similar condition. Water may travel un- der threshold to interior of the the unit. Page 41 of 42 551 EXHIBIT 1.121 Type 2&3 Buildings: Delaminating deck mem observed. 1.122 Type 2&3 Buildings: An unknown material us, some locations, apparently ing an adverse chemical tion to surrounding material 1.123 Type 2&3 Buildings: Deck membrane lapped up to and sealed to the siding. Page 42 of 42 552 EXHIBIT H12480 SW 68th Ave. _ ConsuLting ngineer5 Tigard, Oregon 97223 .tructural Engineering Fane 503-968-84444 December 12, 2013 Charity Porter Oswego Summit Home Owners Association 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Re: Roof Tile Support- Report Oswego Summit Condominiums Project #13059.01 Dear Charity: At your request, a representative of Hayden Consulting Engineers performed a structural analysis at the property address listed above. PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this analysis was to provide structural feedback on the existing framing and its gravity load carrying capacity as it relates to the use of concrete tile roofing material at the sloped roofs. This report addresses buildings 1-21, which we understand were built in the original construction phase. OBSERVATIONS There are (4) different building types with building types 1-3 closely resembling one another. Building type 4 has similar construction but a different layout with minimal areas of sloping roofs, We are mainly interested in the sloping roofs and the concrete tile. The analysis was therefore performed on building types 1-3. 1. Analysis was performed utilizing the permitted structural drawings by Burgstahler Holmes Carlson dated February 22, 1976 and stamped and received by the City of Lake Oswego February 25, 1976. 2. The majority of the roof framing that is sloping and has concrete tile is at the backside of the buildings near the decks and along the side at the unit stairs. 3. Per sheet S6 of the original structural drawings,the criteria used for design is per the 1973 Uniform Building Code and is as follows: a. Snow Load: 25 psf Hayden Consulting Engineers, Inc. 553 EXHIBIT Page 2 Oswego Summit 12/12/2013 b. Floor Load: 40 psf c. Wind: 25 psf d. Seismic: Zone II 4. The design criteria we used to evaluate the existing framing members is in accordance with the latest edition of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code which has comparable floor and snow loading criteria. 5. The gravity framing is mainly comprised of conventional wood framing with a few areas of steel construction and concrete spread footings. 6. The lateral resistance is comprised of plywood and gypsum sheathed shear walls. 7. A variety of reports pertaining to past field observations, repairs, and recommendations were reviewed.These reports are as follows: a. Mega Pacfic Inspections dated February 19, 1991, February 29, 1991, and March 1, 1991. b. Walker/ Diloreto/ Younie Inc. Investigation dated February 25, 1991, February 28, 1991. c. R&H Construction Co. Scope List for repairs dated in 1997. d. Engineering calculations for beam repairs by Looijenga Limited dated July 1 1997. e. BW Inspection Engineers, Inc. regarding deck reconstruction and dated October 8, 2002. f. BW Inspection Engineers, Inc.report regarding a structural observation and moisture intrusion dated April 12, 2002. g. BW Inspection Engineers, Inc. letter regarding deck reconstruction dated February 13, 2003. 8. The existing structural and architectural drawings show a metal roof in lieu of the existing concrete roof tiles that are present. 9. The existing decks have a concrete topping slab that is not shown in the existing structural or architectural drawings. ASSESSMENT A. The built up 2x10 beams under the exterior wall leading to the decks at the 2nd floor and 1st floor appear to be overstressed when code level loads are applied as shown in our calculation pages 37 and 48, enclosed herein. B. Many of the deck joists appeared to be overstressed when code level loads are applied as shown in ar calculation pages 17, and 35, enclosed herein. C. Based on our review of the past reports,framing at or around the existing decks have experienced problems from water intrusion, excessive deflectian, and settlement due to wood crushing. CONCULSION & OPINION Based on our analysis of the framing elements in regards to the concrete roof tile, we have the following opinions: Hayden Consulting Engineers, Inc. 554 EXHIBIT 59 Page 3 Oswego Summit 12/12/2013 1. The existing structure does not appear to be originally designed to support the weights attributed to the concrete roof tile and concrete deck topping. While much of the framing problems highlighted above and in the previous reports reviewed can be attributed to the concrete deck topping, the addition of the concrete roof tile only adds to the problem by adding even more weight to some of the framing elements. 2. The weight of the concrete tile will add seismic forces to the structure as seismic forces directly proportional to the building weight. The building was originally designed to the 1973 UBC standard and seismic zone II, which is a relatively low seismic zone relative to today's required design seismic forces. The seismic hazard in this area has undergone many building code revisions and is now considered a high seismic zone. Because of this, the existing design may be inadequate to resist the current code level seismic forces. Analysis of the lateral resistance of the building is beyond the scope of this report. if the decks did not have the concrete topping, the existing framing may be able to support the concrete tile for code level forces. However as it stands now with the concrete deck toppings it is our opinion that the framing cannot support the additional weight of concrete roof tiles. LIMITATIONS The assessment and opinions made in this report are for general informational purposes only. The general opinions and assessment made in this report are intended to assist you, our client, in determining the repairs or alterations necessary to address the use of concrete roof tile. Due to the limited nature of this assessment, this report may not address all and/or hidden defects which may be present at this property. This includes any changes and/or variations from the original drawings, or its conformance to construction code requirements or standards of practice. The majority of the structure was not visible during a site observation, and the original construction drawings were used for assessment If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. PRav Sincerely, � E 5 y, � N w� 18 .5 Hayden Consulting Engineers, Inc. f� ' 092'ey , 0ti2 '�N R. NPS EXP: 6/30/ 15 By: C/% �i .�' -� By . i�. Curtis McFeron Darron R. Hayde S.E. Principal Hayden Consulting Engineers, Inc. 555 EXHIBIT 59 Structural Calculations for Limited Gravity Analysis @ Oswego Summit Condos Lake Oswego, Oregon December 12, 2013 DESIGN PARAMETERS 2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code Roof Snow Load 25 psf Floor Live Load 40 psf ,veacifirk14 Scope of Work: 40 PROIE These calculations are for the analysis of the existing framing members that ., N4G 0 NI 4._ .1 support concrete roof tile, Neither a lateral analysis or full gravity analysis ------ 40 :.. - ' A was performed_ lip" ., •- ,z•Lti rdlig .01 R. ir0:7° 444b1V EXP: 6/30/1S"' .1[1 EIDate: NI By: Chk: Date: Consulting Lngineer5 .5tructuraL c._ngineering Jab #: (503)968-9994(phone) (503)968-5444(fax) Sheet: Of: 556 EXHIBIT 59 (IL w IP, 4, UAD 2140 Z-E3ps 43111: .1,2,pc- - I .)- 1z000 C*54z1(rz-ocsSps vzv z.-zp$T /4w. : mettAiewl: 1.2-psc I tr. 15.ps'c FL-cog .44VeLe00=0: 40v51. ',L;; DeAtl Za4 y9C- 54.'"Pts4.6" vip ZlIsC 1144 tAwitietecr Wata 2," tout, SipsC _ BY DATE 12- "4',T7T 7 5''EN 05UJ 44 42r Con5utlng C..rigineREV DATE JOB 140 I 3' otructuraL c_.ngineering 05S01 (503)968-9994 p (503) 9... —4 f SHEET I OF S 557 EXHIBIT 59 .w 1 'v .�, Ate 1 :- 1 zY i,5p c t _ { I 1 x` /per : Z2, s V. )5*Om ,,,i' i ' « 1 i i_ 15 act 10- IL ,. `4w ,'} f 7.-----r:::1; 6Y C DATE ^1 REV DATE Consulting .ngineers ., ruc±ural Lrigineering JOB NO 14)0Sq43 4 {503)968-9994 p (503) 968-8444 f SHEET OP 558 E3( B 0T. 5 • _.� . . . . -: C5 , ,.. .•: -.4 , , . ..,„ . :..,„1 - �4 YS kOR. • 'f YPrtr G STRU•...... • Pill : [? ; il . 'trKJ i i _ - CP , �std NGR..�..,. � ink I, .. - ••.+- .• .rte - ,. f- •l , - . .. . . _S Z'rto , Ha *NV �` - • • 6-;) i , 2 ,. _}, ..0011111. .::..:....*.....:.. .•?..i.. a 4.14.4 r I . 1 ...TA ' q 11 ,, • 11 . • { !, 1. ! ; Ill K `c27 di - - -. 0 • . 1 ,, - 1 .., . . , ........r.......,....._ ...:. f pr 8 T" � 1.6,64 404.23,A14. elk CV r.•S.EE 6TRUCT. _ - A ES • �.iT EJ�ti5� r— 711 is r --- i LI CP • W _ 21.40CP140 —4 • • { -11 4.8{FDC, s :5 • • ti .. i + 1-1,. ROOF TRAM 11.J6 PLAN . \--IE�UILD{N�t TYP: 1 . - 'n.-, &WW leo") rr,4 4A4PE, c�oFI 6Us1.4 Bf,DU11.1•UP To 7Roosr4 RIGA. 559 , EXHIBIT 59 .. -.. ,..E .. _ __ - ._ -- - z.___ _-,- 3 i I 1 i �,� 4 I r € 3 AA t. f n , w ( . Y.5,-,(v�). 3Orrt 3 %r I. = I 4 t ., 0 Sec E5 1 .. - - - - - - - - - I. -- ----<-A k 1 - _E E { seems i z _ r ---',--1 pp - _. - ...-.. ...._.. ,....., -......e.«.._......_.�--e.w....-.ee..-.v.,�-.�sa_..�.._._-e.-.e-��.+-�.o-...��e.a.s.-i..-,d.� " V p, £ ,,r 4 BY C044,,, DATE 1 t'f4 G Can5ulting ngineer5 4, REV DATE €ruc±ura1 c..ngineering JOB NO I (503) 968-9994 p (503)968-8444 f SHEET OF 560 -1.. EXHIBIT 59 .--- - - 1 ,(1;,k,,, 0 544 ; ')(,1 0 ; . 4i)1 - * • (-iii/' lett* ' ''" .S.' '104 5' P ' L1/411.7 C • Z,S,..) ,,, DV*/ -;106 , --e ( 1,00,0t iol._ ti,1'._ - Jr? - i A . _ . . , . 6 ta '' tWTOCYZNY' Z' , r-Te5411J, *7-31 elf-, -' ,.. MO +3EXZi - re . _ . I . ot -,, • i , ------,-- -4- - --4-4 i , 4 ' flz 41.Se 4-4totet' , , . , 1 • i , ; . - . - , 'i ) ' ,. 4 [Ni CON, DATE re.7‘2`41. : i ) 7 Vt, [i i. EN .. 4.,t. ' REV DATE '.. , : Ji' Consulting engineers 6fructura I. g_ngineering . JOE NO 4.4444k, (503)968-9994 p (503) 968-8444 f SHEET S OF 561 EXHIBIT 536 tAti 1' 12 ' rr 4- 7r?t� rt tvt w CW42-5)(t'1 8= ;114/61 4 Iii./Pr ok 4104. + 4100 04 ee ,ec IJP 4x3 _ - 3 1 l BY e DATE a—a-.t' , d r . ;. Cr�ra5uLtNrtc� Lngineers �� �� �� .174. REV DATE okructuraL Q.ngineerhig JOB NO_t % (503}963-9994 p (503) 968-8444 f SHEET 4 OF 562 ..... --- — - A \''' S 1 -, , xx EN Project Tine: Engineer: EXHIBloTti59 ..,., Project Descr: ,1..-, Consulting Lngineers 3truclural Lngineering . 4,,,, ,i7i;-q,'iiir5k*'::.I',I*:Z,/OC4aa-i'-sitiiiyxii;ii ,i::- f4tr(:::i;i,lg4aofs4,y-;;;;, .:;,41,3,77.,..:4:,-,a.,:,,,i.4;4 !1=1;'1,',' LiC.#;KW-06005:543 ' .' ' Licensee;haydenZonsuiting engineers • 'ption: R.1 4.i p•z,"•.v.,I. rt Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis method, Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Cornbirwic ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ehend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-Pit 1.350.0 psi Email:end-xx 580.Oksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625,0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32;2100 Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling Repetitive Member Stre.i,,,Increase D(0.027) S(0.033) ' '-,,,,,,, ,,,,..,.•••,. , ...,.,,,....-6.0v ,,,,,,,,It.,..,-. .,.--. , '-..'.:.':',0-k--,,t,','‘'::';',5k":47i#p-,F,•,•',1,,,.-,.•-,-' ...,,.K-wof Ol,',1:0;4g,,!"1,:',2,::tr"•;(;:r"-lelA C''"•""' .",.,"'',". ,-, •;.:4-•::,,,',41."Vifi/A4-"%%;fy ,, " . .-,,,,:%;;•.",,-„,-,•',:',.,'4,',. ";;""t''',1':`"','1, ',"'',," 5 , ,':.:... cW&%%Rf,, . ; .;V",,'.•",,,",k.i:.'4,'•,,S ,,,ic°,1,',,,57:-?•••-,,;';,•.,•.,:.,,,,...iL,;4•‘;70440,,.4,,kz,I,Alf4,;k2„,, ,;,...-,;,.,".,„' ";,,,..,••, ;#011434%;`,Itigt&6','":,;':•lf,'', .„.. ,•;;;',,,,, ,'.4'',,t,g-g'j-:,'',,', , • Z . 2x6 Span = 9.0 ft : AP *1-aatto - .. - ...„., ;.,: f. '' -'' ' Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load: 0=0.0270, S=0.0330, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.623 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.215:1 Section used for this span 2x6 Section used for this span 2x6 ft-,Actual = 963.97 psi fir:Actual = 44.43 psi FE3.•..Allowable ir 1,547.33psi Fv-Allowable , 207.00 psi Load Combination +0+54i bad Combination +0+541 Location of maximum on span = 4.500ft Location of maximum on span r 8.573 ft Span*where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span 0 where maximum Occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.147 in Ratio= 733 • Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.268 in Ratio= 403 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0 <180 .• • • i• ,• • c,•••,.',• %i tki4,-1101 Deft- :i.,y'/.4•Detetteree Lead&;..., Load Combination Span Max.'-'Deft Location in Span Load Conibinabon Max."+"Deft Location in Span 04-S 1 0.2677 4533 0.0000 0.000 Yintkiat-';--, WI - •''••C-'. '/. - ;:•.`k Support notation:Far left is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 OveraWairnere 0.270 0.270 D Only 0.122 0.122 S Only 0,149 0.149 04-S 0.270 0.270 7- 563 ___ ___ . 7 'Tr '' ' ' EN. 1 , A % , 1 , xx Project Title: Engineer: EXHIBTS9 Sc JL ,..,1 Consut-big Lngineers otructural Lngineering copE_RgFER. fifica, Calculations per NOS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Sat:ASCE 7-0:5 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Caw 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0kai Fc-P.M 1,350.0 psi Eminband-xx 580.0ksi Wood S t vl,-,i :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fy 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.2100 Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.03) S(0.038) * * * V * . `frA0,1?,WirA'‘45, 4;%-ki:,..,4v4101,0,a,01,*9.V•1,•': 4C%,.:A:',, :,',.,..• 2 ,-,4§1,5,:i4ifg:VAW,,c ,‘n4,--,,:' . . •,J,,;,;,g,On%',1,‘,,";i'',:': . Ovemrs:441:,,,,y.,•-•,;-,e„,.„;•eidowtfo.,,,.,,:,,v/07,‘:,,..;,. ,,,•,,,,::',.:p.,0-,:ot :e>.?,r,•.;,•:i.,-_.,,:,,e, • : .,::;,r,,v,4,::-',,,,-,:. , ,„,-..,- , , 1 , . • .•• 2-2x10 Span= 10.0 ft ..: ,. . ,, Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Unifoim Load: D=0.030, S=0,0380, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Maximum __ . Bending Stress Ratio = 0.209 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.075:1 - Section used for this span 2-2x10 Section used for this span 2-2x10 lb:Actual . 238.42psi N:Actual = 15.56 psi FB:Allowable = 1,138.50psi Fv:Allowable . 207.00 psi Load Combination +D+S-1+1 Load Combination +D-i-S44-1 • Location of maximum on span . 5.000ft Location of maximum on span = 0.000ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.027 in Ratio= 4417 : Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio"*.- 0<360 i Max Downward Total Deflection 0.049 in Ratio. 2468 . Max Upward Total Deflection 0:000 in Ratioii-. 0<180 . : Pie - on*-U r a'.;,.,. Of* 1..earlDorebinallon Span Max.°:..*Deft Location in Span Load Combination Max. +'Dell Location in Span DS 1 0.0486 5.036 0.0000 0.000 If• l',i. '-----,013*LW-0.- -., : , ' Support notation:Far left is al Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0.340 0.340 0 Only 0.150 0.150 S Only 0.190 0.190 ID*S 0340 0.340 8 564 -- A --.., _ ---- 'I' IT Project Title, I i xx Engineer: Project Deser. EXHIBITti59 otrucEral Lngineering Description: R3 V" Calculations per NOS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900,0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 745 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebert-xx 1,600.0 ksi Fc-Pill 1,350,0 psi Erninbend-xx 580,0ksi Wood Species Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210pcf Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.15) S(0. !,4.027) S(0.033) * * * * * 11110 . -\ 2-2x6 Span = 9.0 ft 40W Loads ' . .',,..' Service loads entered.Load Factors will he applied for calculations. Uniform Load: 0=0.0270, S=0,0330, Tributary Width=1,0 ft Point Load: 0=0.150, S=0,1B0 k 04 3.0 ft iii,_iiii Maximum Bending Stress Ratio i= 0.719 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0207: 1 Section used for this span 2-2x6 Section used for this span 2-2x6 lb:Actual - 967.52 psi fv!Actual .. 42.82 psi FB:Allowable = 1,345.50 psi Fv:Allowable = 207.00 psi . ! Load Combination -4-i-S+1-1 Load Combination Location of maximum on span = 3.0221i Location of maximum on span = 0,000ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span*1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L÷Lr+S Deflection 0.138 in Ratio= 781 Max Upward 1...4-Lr+a Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.249 in Ratio= 433 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 • Overall Maximum Deflections-thiaLioled Lost* Load Combination Span Max."••••Deft Location in Span Load Combination Max.'+'Dat Location in Span DiiS 1 0.2493 4.336 0.0000 0,000 86failticit i!'!.!olt 4181-UrtfOiCteried , „ ''., !!!:'!. !! Support notation.Far left is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimurn 0.497 0.383 0 Only 0.222 0.172 S Only 0.275 0.212 04 0.497 0.383 et 565 . -ep-w .m—p• . , .t .11 ' 'A ' ' 1 1 EN Protect Title: Engineer xx Project Desor ,J., ,I, Con5utifing Entji -ers 6trucEiral Engineering Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900i0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,800.0ksi Fc-Pik 1,350.0 psi Erninbend-xx 580.0 ksi Wood Sm,es :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625,0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 150.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32210pcf Beam Bracing ; Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D{0.12)S(0.2) .,.- -.•:,,F:,,,-•f.:-„., , :•••, 4.0M:,lieWV —_ ( ‘......— , 2x10 . . Span =3.0 ft ............_J APPliett‘eada , ,,,, ,. ,, ,,, ,,,,,,,h, , ,.., Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load: 3=0.120, S=0.20, Tributary'Width=loft E,':i .8', Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.177 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.123:1 Section used for this span 2x10 Section used for this span 2x1.0 fb:Actual = 201.06 psi fv:Actual = 25.38 psi - FB:Allowable . 1,138.50 psi Fv:Allowable :. 207.00 psi Load Combination +D-i-S41 Load Combination +0+541 Location of maximum on span = 1.500ft Location of maximum on span = 0 00011 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs - Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,002 in Ratio= 15542 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,000 in Ratio= 0<380 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.004 in Ratio= 9714 Max Upward Total Deflection 0,000 in Ratio= 0<180 • . ....._: CS POO MallintiM 0:-' '-' lans4UnfAciamOL, Load Combination Span Max."-'Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max.'+"Dell Locaton in Span 0+8 1 0.0037 1511 0.0000 0.000 Ye , ',','.., '',:,-,.. 4J,,,)-,.• --;; , , 44V- Suwon notation.Far leftis Si Vidues in KIPS Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall VLAXimurn 0480 0480 0 Only 0.180 0.180 S Only 0.300 0.300 D=S 0.480 0.480 to 566 _ ...... ...,. _. -rr 17 EN at xx ProlProtetot Title: Engineer:ct Descr; EXHIBITI59 , ei- Consulting Engineers 6frucLuraL ' eering . Description; 10 ;`71'' REF07 4. :$: Calculations per NOS 2005, IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900,0 psi E:Moaulus af Elesivity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-Pill 1,350.0 psi Eminbenct-xx 580.0 ksi Wood Species ,Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625,0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210-rd Beam Bracing t Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.01)8(0.017) * * * * D(0.02)S(0.0331 . • D(0,03)S(0.038) * * * * * ' , poLol .1. (1111 (0.127) * * * D(0.181 S(0.3)V D'asint,,Vk:ohig..--&-**47y,,,,o4-espgRenr--i.1-:a•cw.may.m#0,7,04,,,,,,,,,04,0.,,,,,_ ,„,,,,,,„,,,.,:..„.4w2,,,,.,.,„,,,,m,o,worifarNefAivpomev::,-.!. . ,,,,-,',4ig.,/,,,,k4144,,,4,,,,, v%;,a,;(0Froof6, .?,;',.•,::;,,,:ii094045*11,0,f,4en,;;,:,':•A:%:?).z:2;.,,A,-;,;',q4:4840;PON.awX„,,',,g(ge•';',,,,v:-.7,4,-,,,'::%,..,..'.:.:0 3-2x10 A Span= 18.0 ft -- -- - ,, , , , Aopited Leads _ ' -, Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: 0=0,000, S=0.1130 Mt,Extent=0.0->>3.0 k Tributary Width=1.0 h Uniform Load: 0=0.030, S=0.0380 Mt,Extent=3,0-->>13,0 it, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Uniform Load; 0=0.020, S=0.0330 IA,Extent=13,0-»18.0 ft, Tributary Width=1.011 Uniform Load: 0=0,010, S=0.0170 kit Extent=0.0-->>13.0 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Nit Load. 0=0,1130, S 4:0.1270 X tiZ 3,0 ft Point Load: 0=0.180, S=0.30 k ft),13.0 ft ,-..P-g,SIN:'",;,...,_„..;.7.:',..-Z":"2:„.,:-._':".„_: .LL ,- Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = (Lan 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0237 : 1 Section used for this span 3-2x10 Section used for this span 3-2x10 fb:Actual = 1,019.81 psi N:Actual . 49.16 psi FB:Allowable = 1,138.50 psi Fv:Allowable = 207.00 psi Load Combination 40+S-i-li Load Combination +04641 Location of maximum on span = 9.328ft Location of maximum on span = 0.000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0407 in Ratio= 530 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0,694 in Ratio= 311 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 OViiiii'i *Asian Deflections- =1,toads Load Combination Span Max.'.,"Oat Location in Span Load Combination Max.'4"Del Location in Span 0+S 1 0.6936 9.066 0.0000 0.000 AlifOrtil_ R;,'...OM-filliaCt., , Support notation:Far left is#1 Values in lOPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Ov i MAXimurn -1381) 1.095 D Only 0.655 0.438 S Only 0.875 0.657 1 1 567 , Project Title Ernear: EXH 1 mrs9 YDEN 1 H li Project Descr I I Consul:I:h.-1g Lngineer5 otruclural Lngineering ve Values tr,,C DS Support notation:Far WI is 41..d ,1 Rea :., 5-Unfidered support I Support 2 load Combination D.S t530 1 095 1 Z 568 'T IT Project'Me: I xx En9ineen EXHIBITS9 Protect Descr: i,---, oiitilL Con5uLting Engineers 6truchiraL Ligineering ;OPE REFERENCES ., Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900,0 psi E:.Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-NI 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580:0 ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade : No.2 Fv. 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Densaly 32.2100 Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.05) S(0.067) * le 'It V ,.....1 2-2x10 Span = 16.0 ft Ap.: . Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for caiculations. Uniform Load: D-0.050, S=00670, Tributary Width=1.0 ft DESIGN sti'I.,'.-y.,, Maximum Bending Stress Ratio -- 0.922 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio . 0-221 : 1 Section used for this span 2-2x10 Section used for this span 2-2x10 lb-Actual = 1,050.18 psi i'v i Actual = 45.79 psi FB.Allowable = 1,138.50 psi Fv:Allowable = 207,00 psi Load Combination +D+544-1 Load Combination +DA-S41 Location of maximum on span = 8,000ft Location of maximum on span -.7 15.241 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span 4 where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.314 in Ratio= 611 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<350 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.548 in Ratio= 350 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 Overall Maximal *i:'',.., OM-Utlfaettifeti toes z Load Combination Span Max.Max.'-`Dail Location in Span Load Combination Max."4"Doti Location in Span D+S 1 0,5451 8 058 axiom 0.000 Vertkat Reactions.Unfact'.', / " ' Support notation:Far aft s#1 ValueKIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXirrium 0,936 0.936 0 Oniy 0.400 0.400 3 Only 0536 0 536 D+S 0,936 0 936 IS 569 Project Tit e. * : I Efti xx Engineer; EXHIBITH59 . . .. Project Descr 1-., C011541tir1g Lngineers -5tructuraL Lngineering CODE-J , "i4 MS , ' " z Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 9000 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Lo-oi Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900,0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-Pril 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180,0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210pd Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling • st* . ) S(0,01'7) D(0.4) ',....k,,:Nb* D(0.12) S(0. ) ,,,.:‘,,'4,2;'; /".•, ,..../,;., :,';,.; ', ' .., 1 '_,.' • 0 . 4x10 Span=4,0 ft AOPlied Wad, ' Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: D=0.120, S=0.20 kift,Extent=0.0—»1.50 fi, Tributary Width=1.0 ti Uniform Load: 0=0.0130, S=D.0170 Mt,Extent=1.50--»4.0 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: 0=0.40, S a-0,5360 k 0150 ft Stlit.ti'''I si Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.220 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.169 : 1 Section used for this span 4x10 Section used for this span 4x10 tb.Actual = 273.16psi fv:Actual = 35.00 psi FIS Allowable = 1,242.00 psi Fv:Allowable e 207.00 psi Load Combination 40-1-S-i4-i Load Combination -D+S+H • Location of maximum on span = 1,504ft Location of maximum on span = 0.000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,004 ip Ratio= 11293 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.007 in Ratio= 6590 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio' 0<180 Load Combination Span Max.":DO Location in Span Load Combination Max.".+i Deft Location in Span D+S 1 0.0073 1,554 0.0000 0.000 VeitiCat-.,- m7.03-Lintz*,Pk Support notation Far left's 41 Values in KIPS LoadCombination Support t Support 2 Dvorak MAXimum 0.998 0.493 D Ority 0.406 0.206 S Only 0,592 0.286 D+S 0.998 0.493 14 570 , , A '- EN ,,, ,, 1 . Project Title: Engineer EXHIBIT159 E ,. - - Project Descr: ,j, Con5uLthg Engineers otyuctural Lngineering r•firia:, -,- ,,,,g, Calculations per NOS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 114aterisi Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Cornpr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-Prti 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32210pcf Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0 A)4) S(0.05) * * * * * va,,,,I.g4.,,,,,,.. 4 ,,,,v .,,t,4-0,-1,,,,,, ,- •••,,,,,:,-fofm.,, ,,4,,,,fr;,,,o,,,,,,iv:4, ,,,,,,,,..-,',x,,` Q0e4 40Aemfr,!-IT"7 .':4-.•;,-*V45;`:',T,'•..`,..: Ck'45,60,040r0a0V%05„',:;;'-'.•',,,*,:,-',',:,-,;•:.•„ '",,*'VW,f,,,, ,•:,„:;;;;,'?'7•,,:--',, ,,,,: - •;004407'.;;<'%,:t4'','1'',•,,,,''',,,',`,',''WXft N,. ','-4,„-Oe,0 : Zneat,M•g,A:',434,%We'W,a,;:igaK4i#1 :(60*'' ';'• :,5•i: ;;a,,';‘"i ••:.k.;•11,41,00,50P'Wir=,.,•;':.:;•-•,-,•';.,:•,,:;: ;4, ;:•46ii,4gr.'•":r):',•:::•INVUOY , ( ) • 7r\ : 1.,..._ . . 4x8 1 . • Span = 10.0 ft 400 Leads : , , '/- '' /"/ /,'' Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations, Uniform Load. 0=0.040, S=0.050, Tributary Width-1.011 Lli CI ' '.'-.MX,-.---,,,-4.,,.....2L.,__: - -,.., Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.327. 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.113:1 Section used for this span 49 Section used for this span 4x8 fb:Actual = 440.29 psi hi:Actual . 23.49 psi FB:Allowable ..,. 1,345.50psi Fv:Allowable -,,, 207,00 psi Load Combination 40A541 Load Combination +0+841 Location of maximum on span = 5.00011 Location of maximum on span = 0.000ft Span it where maximum occurs .., Span#1 Span#when:maximum occurs - Span#1 • Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,064 in Ratio= 1885 • Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.115 in Ratio= 1047 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio F 0<1.80 OVarti ,"'4 urn 44'"iOnS;Uflf•= y.toads Lead Combination Span Max."Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max.1..4 Dell Location in Span DI-S 1 0.1145 5.036 0.0000 0,000 Ver110 Ree P.1 -LiefaCtered- /., ,, , Support notation:Far left is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall 1iMairriirm 0.450 0.450 ID Only Ci.200 0.200 S Cniy 0 250 0.250 0+5 0,450 0.450 Is 571 EXHIBIT 59 , . , # # . � ► i � '!s 170..ZriG+ �; ; . ' �� tai �s3 L._ ..�.� ..� .__..V mow,,.. .. ..�, .3* �,. " _ ;.". :sr.,.."'W'''. ,. t. cap'' ., . ,, '' = C. 1.7 i ,a . a' , '� CiiiiVZ° 046 i iklOr i jL.24F 'car/1�tGs .-- A� ` I K , ,i 7 1 (z).. ..a_ .z..!ivvi, ,,, 11 ' . . i .. ., .. , 1,411 - - �� F gym. I.i CIFI: "44" _ L _ JTfrr FL moi. s - 1 +4 &,I i . k 1 ri PF 11 1(41: 2�! fJ a7 t ;,. ' # _ ass. : .„ 5i vet wa4�, _ �' t . ! i °''4i 6E P pi..oaz p Atvlita(4, 16. 572 EXHIBIT . °„nu*. . tell t 1614 , 3t 9 $ 2: (1.0.-1.40).(164)--_fit rr- . - .. I R,s' 370 4- e 7,7 i d ._. SI ikhf '''''' '' '''''''+''''''ma'm 1.St ''''''rni LIS.''' (5),(12:), qb*pr , t #- 3 r ' tC3 ? 934° Ola i>t rawa 4 - ' 1001, Q. . tc'°i0, ',Ali tomb .4Net-5,1 s ,c 'W16.1 ,i 4;WALL r = E a c ..' 'F CM DATE E't`i'�.`�IS Cansut$ing nyineers REV DATE 5ruckural Lngineering J©s NO a`t' 9.01 ( )968-9994 p (503)968-8444 f SNEET /7 OF 573 E XHIBIT 59 g - .yip ... -. .. .. ..........._ c, • d4 V61-Sab 5ee ps ZI 541„00, gAelteS g0,6 rir" ;100 eg)Ivy ISO 19© - u..w�i..� ��.����, �,.,�uW 4 �o. YW4Nu�" oi��vu�,,, .u..,,���,.i..wWwiYwWJu1WW�WWw�w'wYduuJWW���WY�.,Nw�wMru+�wW11tl4�uWu.��u...�w.✓ �ueruu+l.".,•.� �..,•�..�� yWy.��..�^••.WIItlYWY�W�w.�..���„"•.,,. �W�wuea�.�u��o•� .IwYu � ue�uww .,u dew . 3y w M QY e..,4". DATE !Z f IMI Consulting L niineers REV DATE 6{-ructural L..ngineering JOB NO of (503) 968-9994 p (503)968-8444 f SHEET cap 574 EXHIBIT 59 ,G- 12, f `1 ZKi2 § I i ., tit)*( * 2-S4X 16o 1'44't-11114— .a. I f i i P is 4 ,19( it.. -, R1 via, * 1 _ - -_. 1 .IA 11111f I V ,�w 1�d� � X28 e - - `= 1 S0 4710 1 1 2 . Ito** q- 15 °+' 1 i} ct.'") * - - - i i ..xm a w,,._ •-....... ..wW w .... .... .. "...w..x.., -. -xyu .u.wr.r.exu. +uwuuuu.wwuw - '' s ° '2"----""ENT .. -"" ( BY CA", DATE 1�'-" 'll C®n5a�Lting E_ngineers 45 + REV DATE Structural l ngineerinrg JOB NO r10.54,01 (503)968-9994 p (503)968-8444 f SHEET ICI OF 575 ,—.-_. EXHIBIT Pr IS)( �z)+ 4j ( ' 4-C C ") - , - _, ?=t05 r II..lOtt zsa' b "L. M f s tS' z') 4-(3544-3)06Q)4-(6)0i) )51% 64411 - e - a ._ * wi_iiih tj, s+40)( t+. s t ----4.. & t---- 4.1 - (25-44pY5'54)x'54) .t(8)024+01)64-'"'")---91-P-4-14:61_ t Vtlk. 6410 115 V2,;-`_;. T�SO 40 i� -i i t s 8 104 Viz¢ qko1.5 7 es ii -4N-; _ a BY AA DATE 1 VIa-1'tt CsuL irig Lngineer5 y t - REV DATE 3tructura1 Engineering JOB NO I liAq.0 I _ 1503)968-9994 p 1503)968-8444 f SHEET W OF 576 I Project Title: , • ,„ ' , ," , - i xx Engineer EXH I :* .Tc159 Project()esti Consiting .. .-ers ,5tructuraL or; eering ,-:,./Vrflt5<:,',4,;-A-1'-::;::",q-g2;:,i: Lic.*i kW46005543 ‘ Licensee.hoyden consulting engineers Description; 3rd tkor framing-deck 4.4'• '''''.7': *4 :CES Calculations per NOS 2005,IBC 2009,CRC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination'ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900 psi Ebend-xx 1600ksi Fe-PrIl 1350 psi Eminborid-xx 580ksi Wood Si 4-$;°'` ;Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180 psi Ft 575 psi Density 32.21 pet Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase D0D(0.051) L(0.053) i .1-2e) * * * * D(0.033) L(0,053) liV1017A1MiXiiiiii'-' 'X''''••i''.• -i'''!ir*:•:':!,!%M''' 'Z',004,V4•An!iriii,i•i!!.:,!ii,., ,,•,„i.iii.,„-,•,f.,,,i„t •iiii,,ai„iA:iii•i3,0ifemmic,?,,i.-i;i,ii.,.., - , .•,...,,,•,,,ii,,,, ,ii,iipivisgo tiftWige1i4ign%Z.1•''',,i.‘-',-.'!,'i'-':','":•.iii !. .iiti,;:•!i;',i,';'0, 1!.iri,.'ii3."..'iiii. !,.`i.,',!.,!,i,•-';,,-,..-;:i1i11:, i'.,•t!; ..;,-;,,,,<%!P-;,,tri. .,.! i • - .i i...s;,, f; :',•-'-'%1 ;*441P2•:,;';',r,,,-/,.:-:-..-,.;4*x," •40%'14%.•••CI',"5*0;‘e-.',-;::::,..,-".:1-,..,,:'",;;;•..r#4141Ati,k,-4A,:i/,'1.--*;'.• :": .--..,•,.;.,•,•:,::,,5,„. --..*:VD,,-,...: ,i. 11111 . „......\ . . 2x10 ,• Span = 12.50 ft Ap,,.. Loads „ ' i ' ' Service loads entered.Load Faders wilt be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number I Uniform Load: 0=0,0330, I.=0,0530 Mt,Extent=0,0—>>3.0 ft, Tributary Width=1,0 ft Uniform Load. 0=0.0510, L=0.0530 kilt,Extent=3.0—»12.50 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: D 0,1280 k 0.3.0 ft Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 1.077 .1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0383: 1 Section used for this span 2x10 Section used for this span 2x10 fb:Actual ia• 1,226.09 psi fv:Actual a 68,86 psi F13:Allowable = 1,138.50psi Far:Allowable = 180.00 psi Load Combination +0+L+H Load Combination Location of maximum on span = 6.022ft Location of maximum on span = 0.000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.185 in Ratio= 810 Max Upward Lirtr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.393 in Ratio= 381 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 all hi 3 UM DiefieCtle11$41iikettiltd Lii•-.:i. _ ! !ll Combination Span Max."Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max."+-Deft Location in Span D+L 1 03927 6.204 0.0000 0.000 Vertical IV+ 'ons.Unfactored ':,;":: f'1, Support notation:Far left is It1 Values iri KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MA.Ximurn 0.700 0.674 D Only 0.369 0.343 L Only 0.331 0.331 DA-L 0.700 0.674 2\ 577 YDEN ,,. ,, ., xx Project Title: Engineer: EXHIBIT159 . . Protect Descr .-rii.-, Consulting ' .-ens .5tructural C...ngineeriig CODE - - - , ES Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Lop.Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Cornpr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-POI 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0ksi Wood Species : Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210pcf ani Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase D(0,096) * * *D(1.1051)trL(0.053) * * . D(044-26) * * D(0.033) Q0.053) 7 , * * I I * • * ittmv;<+,y;wevortp,:vw,,,,, ,4,•-•:.;,••:-.:•••,-4;,,,,,,Q,Aktwolr;,,,,,1•••.*,•.•,.,,-,-..,:••. ••'•,-'..,.:•:•• ,..,..;-A,,,,,.•,•,•:-•,,,i,•,,,,„::,,,,!;.•• ,•,,,, .•.•,,,, . • 2x10 Span = 12.50 ft Applied LOada ,' 4 z ' ' Service loads entered.Load Factors wil Pe applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: D.0.0330, L.0.0530 Mt,Extent.7 0.0-->>3.0 ft, Tributary Width.7 1.0 ft Uniform Load: 0:.,00510, L=0.0530 kilt,Extent=3.0—»12.50 ft, Tributary Width:.1.0 It Point Load: 0.0.1280 k a,3.0 ft Uniform Load: D 7-7 0.0960, Tributary Width,7:,1,0 It .-.-.. Maximum Bending Stress Ratio . 2.00a 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0,701 : 1 Section used for this span 2x10 Section used for this span 2x10 tb;Actual i= 2,277,113 psi fv:Actual. = 126,15 psi FE3 :Allowable = 1,1 38.50 psi Fv:Allowable -_, 180.00 psi Load Combination 40-4-L+H Load Combination +04L+H Location of maximum on span 7. 6.11311. Location of maximum on span -. 0.000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs --7 Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Defection 0.185 in Ratio= 810 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= U<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.728 in Ratio it 206 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio III 0<180 . „ 11 I.' -,f Maximum '- - *.ris.LlafattPtlidl-POIr4 Load Combination Span Max,*-,ff Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max.`+`Dell Location in Span 0+L 1 0 7275 6.250 0.0000 0.000 VertiitiA -,-;i ons-Untact., ,. , Support notation'Far lofts#1 Values in KIPS Lir i Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAkimum 1,300 1,274 D Only 0,969 0,643 L Only 0.331 0,331 D+L 1.300 1.274 578 _ 11C,III Project Title: 1 KIM xx ....4., _ Consulting Engineers En9ineer: Project Dieser . , . EXH1 . Ti159 6-1-ructural 0*, -erhg "44.,--4-';',--4,',-,„'.- --vs' ;,,,- ...,;„:„,-,71>;:,"'-'4,e,,''',-,,,- '''' ,,,,,,,'.,•,;;,./. '` /,„4"''',/,',0;,4//`;/ '',7,'-fe40.0,`,,,,'v,.',,, ,'''',,,'t...,,,-;;,,r1rA7r,4',11, r 1.-..i 10i4vpt trr., ,'...r.,,' :WY vi'l a. - ; ‘ ' .i../..4,,,z,<„,r;,,,,,,,e,":4,,-,,,,,-,-/-, ,..,*,...t/71-*,./-,4.,,,,.,-.,,,y,„,t,,/'.',,,,,,,, „: „... /5.,,,,.-,- -fe,,,,,),?,--- , /.--„rn lei',•:4011.-?1,,,e g w----''..----,-/: ''.-,‘.4. rf..9,, Lib.#:KW-06005543 Licensee: ni k.:L '' ';offing engineers Desaipdon: 3rd door framing-3f1 CODE REFERENCES. Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Materiel Properties Analysis Method. Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Er Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebencl-xx 1,600.0ksi Fe-NI 1,350,0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 kg Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fe-Perp 825.0 psi Wood Grade :No2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210pcf Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase ... . .. _ ... — ;_ D(0.027)S(0.033) ill 4111 . .• 2x4 : Span = 3.0 ft E. , , APPIttd Loath: , 1 '';-:././-''..y. ' Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load: 0=0.0270, S=0.0330, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.14S 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.101 :1 Section used for this span 2x4 Section used for this span 2x4 lb;Actual _ 264.49psi fv:Actual 1-- 20.83 psi FB:Allowable ..,„ 1,785.38 psi Fv:Allowable = 207.00 psi Load Combination 4434-S41 Load Combination +D+S+H Location of maximum on span = 1.500ft Location of maximum on span = 0000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span If 1 Span 4 where maximum occurs r-- Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Li-Lr+S Deflection 0.007 in Ratio= 5102 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0 c360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.013 in Ratio= 2806 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= U<180 Overall Maximum *-' 4infractoPaci Loactk, Load Combination Span Max.'-'Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max..+"Dell Location in Span 13+5 1 0.0128 1.511 0.0000 0.000 'it- - -iss, . '''''' ' ., ' "., ./. Support notation'Far left is al Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0.090 0.090 D Only 0.041 0.041 S Only 0.050 0.050 Di-S 0,090 0.090 Zs 579 — ,, . Project Title: Engineer:escr EXHIBIT,59 Project D ......_ Call.Stithtg.C—ngineers oinictural Engineering CODE REFERENCES Calculations per NOS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design , Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fo-Prli 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx. 580.0 ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fe-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210 pcf Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase 0(0,027)S(0.033) 1 * * * r * ,r,,,,,,..,,,N,,,,,f=A,P,a1/2PvAvgWv, eW,;,--'•,-,',',;n,. -W,A ' :',."',,,, 00,5AW;4P4, ;',XVManeaT'P.,51 tf2,tAlittattAM*46KInatirg„:,,;:‘,,,4,42$24tiagAiagli::: ‘A AtliailiZfeige , ) 2x10 / Span=8.0 ft AWN/Lads / Service loads entered.Load Factors will be apoiied for calculations. Uniform Load: 0=0.0270, S=10330, Tributary Width=1,0 ft _MP SAL ,!,:Y Maximum Bending Stress Ratio i-_- 0206. 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.102:1 Section used for this span 2x10 Section used for this span 2x1 0 lb:Actual = 269.28 psi fv:Actual = 21.02 psi FB:Allowable = 1,309,28 psi Fv:Allowable -.:. 207.00 psi Load Combination +0+S±H Load Combination Location of maximum on span * 4.000 ft Location of maximum on span = 7.241 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,019 in Ratio= 4967 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,000 in Ratio= 0 <360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.035 in Ratio= 2732 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 „ . $ v- JI Maximum Deflections.Untutored toads Load Combination Span Mex.'-'Deft Location in Span Load Combination Max."+"Dell Location In Span 0+3 1 0.0351 4.029 0.0000 0.000 V : ::ReiliCtiOfHt-Uri.,,*- ,.., Support notation:Far left is#1 Values in MPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0/40 0240 0 Only 0.109 0,108 S Only 0.132 0.132 049 0.240 0.240 2-4- 580 - . . ,.. .4.0.4 ...41.i. wrs Ica/ I ,LIF IICIIM, xx , ..,*... Consulting Lrigineers. L Project Title: Engineer: Protect Casa- EXHIBiT159 otrucl-uraL Lngiieering :7.,',-.'%.7'.f z-"-'-',;:-..';',/4 4,,,---JeOrs%;<!-',cr,f-/'; :,/ ;,,,,,,,,-'), --- ,',., /',:,.. ,„- - '77:-..n;:,,i,,,,,,:y.>,,-1A.,,„.,.:',-,•44.),*,,',,ii,,, TA-1,:2,-.:',:„.. ,,, .;-7,:,„„Y,,Floy 4?-:;,--..z.„ Lic. ' '''"-ii '543 Licensee;hayden ataisulting engineers Despn.iir : 3rd floorframing-3f3 CODE REFERENCES Calculations per NDS 2005, IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Pb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Lead Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900:0 psi Ebend-xx 1,800.0ksi Fe-FM 1,350.0 psi Eminbencl-xx 580.0 Itsi Wood Species ;Douglas Fir-Larch Fe-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210nd Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.03) S(0.038) * * * * V lyr,F4v--y.,,,,,,,,,,,w,,,s,,,,ft,;,,lo:ai,,m°,,,s., ,.,,A.4.,•;,0-,,,,..,-.,,,,,,:,w,,050-v.,,,t,,,:i.i!c.,.,, .-..:.. ,,,,,,,-..,,,,,.4..v:A;;;;,,,ez,,,,,,,,,:,.4..-,::,•.' . :•;:ip, , ,,, . . . • i%,,f,ii.giAii:44',;iiiiiii4itii,16';:innii.iiiiliiiiagiaiiiiii,iiii,:iii,i:4,,,i.:,,.i..,,,iciiiii.w{grwMg,**4•Wayge,:40;'-z., :,,,,,w,),,,i,,,,,,,bAxiviW.,,J„,b,,,,,w--,:',',,",'lowii, A 2-2x12 Span = 10.0 ft , „ APPitid Loads ' / - Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for caiculations. Uniform Load: D=0,030, S=0.0380, Tributary Width-,-1.0 ft Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.156 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0,060:1 Section used for this span 2-2x12 Section used for this span 2-2)(12 lb:Actual = 181.19psi N:Actual = 12.35 psi FB:Allowable . 1,035.00psi Fv:Allowable a 207.00 psi Load Combination +04-S+1-1 Load Combination 40+6+1-1 Location of maximum on span = 5.000ft Location of maximum on span = 0.000ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span 111 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.015 in Ratio= 7947 Max upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio.--" 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.027 in Ratio= 4440 Max upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0 080 Dv.'- `....' MAKtrourn 0011941161*-t.iiilfa00010.titiOilis:!, Load Combination Span Max.'-"Defi Location in Span Load Combination Max.'+'Deft Location in Span D+S 1 0.0270 5.036 0.0000 0000 Vertk ''' '-'- ''' S.'Unfartared,. .,', //' ,:: :- Support notation:Far tett is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0.340 0,340 D Cmly 0 150 0 150 S Only 0,190 0.190 0^4iS 0.340 0,340 581 A VD — xx ' ' ' Project Title: EnOneer EXHIBff t59 1 J. ' - Project Descr: _ Consating LAO neers tructural Livileering APES Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set i ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Ailowabie Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Shand-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-Pdi 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0* Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.2100 Beam Bracing : Beam Is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.03) S(0.038) V * * if V -.:,,,,R.p-,,,,*a*P*;::mohwilAilw°,40,, ,,vml-q;,4,,,, gp4041o1A,Ab,4,: ' :',',-, :,,,,A6,,,,4,,,,,,,,k4,4,,,w,o,,,,,,,:•.----.,,i,e0,4,,o, 1,.._.., 2-2x10 • Span = 12.0 ft ApPtted: .--,- - Service loads entered,Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load: D=0.030, S=0,0380, Tributary Width=1.0ft . DE,- ,, . i„ , , 'Y' Cit414 ' o'' Maximum Bending Stress Ratio . 0.302 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = Q.093: 1 Section used for this span 2-2x10 Section used for this span 2-2x10 lb.Actual .,.., 343.33 psi fv:Actual = 19.32 psi FB:Allowable = 1,138.50 psi Fv:Allowable ,.-,.. 207.00 psi Load Combination 40+S+H Load Combination Location of maximum on span = 6.000ft Location of maximum on span = 0,000 ft Span it where maximum occurs = Span if Span if where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,056 io Ratio= 2556 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.101 in Ratio= 1425 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio' 0<180 ,9Ve1011 Maximum Deffections,,UM, .. - Loads„ —Load Combination Span Max ':Dell Location in Span Load Comb:Wm Max."4-*Dell Lacallon in Span 13-1-S 1 0.1008 5.044 0.0000 0.000 7,:.;,, . ..,,„-li 1,,.1 4 ';E,, :',, / Support notation:Far left *1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0,, 4 0.408 0 Only 0,180 0.180 S Only 0,228 0228 Di-8 0.408 0,408 ZCie 582 Project Title: 'TT ,I A '',71116l1,,_ ,,Intl Illal' I 1 ' ' I LIP 111C1111 xx Engineer: Project Consutting Engineers otrucLural Engineerhig .,„:„.„,,,,,„:,,...:%,,,,,,,,4,44,,,,A1-4-64*, ..., Lc.#:144364/ LI „, , censee:haconsulting coulting engineers -.4. /44 : 3rol..,0,framing-3f5 CODE „RgFER. tNCES Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASC 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Fc-Pill 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 j:4 Density 32.210 pef Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(.0.15) S(0.19) D(0.013) S(0.017) „„ . ....,„,,,,_,„„,,,,,,,..,,,•' • ,, • • • •, ,..”.••1.• i'•"•?;.:V•iagi 4$4ag.A0';.3•,";','1,',2';,,••,''''',AA'ft...r',..'.i*.''''.‘4.'•.•'•''',.'•...,••' ,'•'. *'• '•• .',•''..4•'''/•t!' • • • te$04,,.,;••:,,,::::10;:;.•;;;:.(A'AieVA;•%,na(Ovr.,-,:,•-,7:•-.'..,':.•„,3,:',A,-;<,,.;,,,,,,,,,-• -e,'i,,..',,,,,,,,,,A,w,,v‘,', afsz,.,zi, IP ) 2-2x10 a, Span = 8.0 ft ,• — — APOSed ...,, ,, -- -„,, /, ,'' Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load. 0=0.0130, S=00170, Tributary Width=1,0 ll Point Load: D=0.150, S=0.190 X A 3.0 ft ...„P,..7.1./- '': Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.212 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.081 -.1 Section used for this span 2-2x10 Section used for this span 2-2x10 fb;Actual = 241,73 psi fv:Actual = 16.74 psi FB.Allowable = 1,138,50 psi Fv:Allowable = 207.00 psi Load Combination 4-04-S+1-1 Load Combination Location of maximum on span = 3.007ft Location of maximum on span = 0.000ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span I/1 Span If where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward LeLr+S Deflection 0.015 in. Ratio= 6317 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<380 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.027 in Ratio= 3546 Max Upward Total Deflection 0,000 in Ratio= 0<180 Me* ;- '. :I um "--- II Cira'.-U1datkOrici Lalltis Load Combination Span Max.Il,"Deft Location in Span Load Combination Max.l-i"Deft Location in Span DIS 1 0.0271 3.825 0.0000 0.000 Verticiai.."4-:•,..1,115,,Lin,,,,., ,•. - -,, Support notation:Far left is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0.333 0.248 D Only 0.146 0.108 S Only 0 187 0,139 04•S 0.333 0,245 Z4 583 ...... , ... .......,_ .......... ..... .. AYIE__ ___, xx - ' Y 1 EN Project Title: Engineer: Project Descr: EXHIBrrftS9 Consulthig Lngineer5 otruct-ural c_ngineering CODE REFERENCES Calculations per NOS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-G5 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900,0 psi Eberid-xx 1,600.0 ksi Fc-Pit 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.Olts4 Wood Spades .Douglas Fir-Larch Fe-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No,2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575,0 psi Density 32110pd Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling 0(0.18) S(0228) D(0.013) S(0.017) * * * * * ,,,.•„;,,,,,,,p00;44000•••,,,,,,,,,,,,z,,r,4,w,..w;vP.;:•541Rity,4,,,,,,?„‘mr.,.?,•,-:•-,:,,,,,..i.•'-:,.,,,ii„,--,-,,,,,.* Ofte5:',VN%':,.S,;4',W.4441.3105WAttl§*. .,,',...;:,.„.:,..,,2'0.,,,,,,;44'.•x•a*V'*,,W4:-4'2f,4Xt'al.%•0, . L...\ 2-2x10 1 1 Span = 8.0 ft 1 ........thd °;—;- ' ' , '' ' ....: LService loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations Uniform Load: 0..:t 0.0130, S=0.0170, Tributary Width=1.0 fl Point Load: D 0.180, S=0.2280 k 01 3,0ft Plti_Mici ...,..,i3O , 'r.' _ ..,.._;,:ii..„.„...;_., Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0144 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.092 :1 Section used for this span 2-2x10 Section used for this span 2-2x10 fb:Actual 277.44psi fv:Actualri_ 19.04 psi FB.Allowable 1,138.50psi Fv:Allowable . 207.00 psi Load Combination +0+S-ll-i Load Combination .40+S-14-I Location of maximum on span = 3.00741 Location of maximum on span ..-, 0000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span ft 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.017 in Ratio=i 5587 Max Upwardl.frir+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.031 in Ratio= 3123 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0 <180 Overall ,, mum r,., ;am.Onfactared Wade- , ' ,., ., Load Combination Span Max."-"Deft Location in Span Load Combination Max.*+"Des Locatan in Span E/1-r-S 1 0.0307 3.706 0.0000 0.000 R ,,, $-unfactied ' , '' Support notation:Far lefts#1 Values in KIPS ....;,ii Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXinnum 0,375 0273 0 Onty 0,165 0.120 S Only 0.211 0.154 0+5 0.375 0 273 Za 584 , Project Title: TJ A y x., Engineer:scr EXHIDP IB59 Project De 0211.511blig Lngineers 6tnictiral Lngaieering Lic,#:Kw4600554J ' ' Licensee-,layer consulting engineers i-i,ption; 3d',.* fra CODE REFEROCfS Calculations per NDS 2005, IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method. Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:.Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,800.0 ksi Fc-Pill 1,350,0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fy 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32,210 pcf Beam Bracing .. Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling .1:)(0".1,41 it D(0.143) L(0..064) V 1 * * V V ,;,,,:',,,,,„: „4,g,',-::,,,,,,/, ‘',,-,w,-;;;', g/ . '-,/,;Ig-/.10, /,,,f,,-','4,-,li,'.-,g;-',:-- • ''' '' . f' ,Vg‘ '4e,:4' F-tVg04'-v-*:-//r/,‘,:"4;,,,,,':‘,,r ,.. ,-,,,,,kr//9-4-*5;..-,:;;;.,.01'A--:/p",,;.; .•.•" "; ,',.-, , - .. ,',pe'g',,,',‘',.‘//‘ '' ID , 4x10 Span = 10.0 ft ........_....,.. Applied ,,.,..- , ,.., ,; Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load: D=0,1430, L=0.0640, Tributary Width=1,0 ft Uniform Load: D=0,040, L=0.050 kift,Extent=0,0-»1,0 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: D=0,20, L=0.250 k a 1 Oft 1)Eftli$,,, , ,'Y Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.632 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = O334 : 1 Section used for this span 4x1 0 Section used for this span 4x10 lb-Actual . 683.02 psi fv:Actual 60.13 psi F8:Allowable . 1,080.00 psi Fv•Allowable = 180.00 psi Load Combination 40-1-L+H Load Combination 4-0-4-L+H Location of maximum on span = 4745ft. Location of maximum on span = 0.000 ft Span 0 where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span A where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.047 in Ratio r•-* 2539 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Detection 0,141 in Ratio= 849 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0 080 * ..,ii itiaxillettfil.6;"-- lass.Uniaistsearf Load Combination Span Max."?Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max.***Dell Location in Span 0-IL 1 0.1413 4.964 0.0000 0.000 V, p-J,,,,, -„,,, ion-Watt., . Support notation Far left is#1 Values in KPS Load Combination Support I Support 2 Overall MAXirnum 1.526 1.085 D Only 0.833 0.737 L Only 0.595 0.348 04_ 1.526 1 085 Z.,Ct 585 ._,_ -, , _ . -,•••••[ vo-..---.....---,...-rmaiseut r Project Title: 77 A. yliEN xx Engineer: EXH1BiTti59 Project Descr: i,i. C01151-ketrIg Engineers 6fructurat. C..ntgineering CODE REFERENCES Calculations per IVDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set-.ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900,0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7.05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600,0Itsi Fc-Pi1I 1,350.0 psi Erninbenci-xx 580.0kei Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade ;No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210 pci Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0151) L(0.064) * * * * $ :VW,',S,4,'W,,,,?al,'.W .'N,:fxl'I',;',' ,,,‘7,Y.:,9,101,',5/SV*,''',W,7;','"'',;-::,4''' ' , ,,,,,.. "='',,Wsp,,r4,1P,'::',4t0P"''','., ',• , ,A1;14,''' 4x10 I.,. Span = 9.0 ft APPIted toads / Service loads entered,Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load: 0=0,1510, L-7-0,0640, Tributary Width=1,0 fl It SUMMARY_ Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0,489 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.207: 1 Section used for this span 4x.1 0 Section used for this span 4x10 lb'Actual = 523.38 psi fv:Actual = 37.30 psi FB,Allowable . 1,080.00 psi Fv Allowable = .180.00 psi Load Combination +D+L-14-1 Load Combination A-D4L+H Location of maximum on span - - 4.500 ft Location of maximum on span -= e,245 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.026 in Ratio= 4197 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0 c360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.086 in Ratio m- 1249 Max Upward Total Deflection 0,000 in Ratio 4.. 0<180 Ovii .ii, ,- ii,unt Defections-Unfactorad Loads Load Combination Span Max.°-.'Dail Location in Span Load Combination Max.°-1-'Oat Location in Span 041_ 1 0.08M 4.533 0.0000 0.000 Support notation.Far left is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0.968 0.968 0 Only 0.680 L Only 0.288 0,288 0-4. 0,968 0,068 lei 586 1 . . _., DEN .11 1 , ,/A y EngiProject Title: neer: Project Descr ..?.. CA f EXH1 . T 59 ....__, _ Consulting C_ngineers 5-L-ructuraL Lngineering Description, 3r11 floor framing-3f9 COPE g,,..,. 1F-Rekre'S Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009, CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-`Tension 2,400.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Clamor 2,400.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,800.0ksi Fc-PM 1,650.0 psi Eminbend-xx 930,0ksi Wood Si;,ii.,:ii :DF/DF Fc-Perp 650.0 psi Ebend-yy 1,500.0ksi Wood Grade :24F-V8 Fv 265.0 psi Eminbend-yy 830,0 itsl Ft 1,100.0 psi Density 32.210/0 Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(1.19)141,8q) D(O.545) Laren 41)1 (Cl 1ST D(0,33) L(0_418) D(tt „ 0.35) i.(0.56) I 7 D(0.027) L(0.033) * To Y 1 Witt:"61,vei-M4:::,-,r‘N'i -:,,w,•-,-.-,-,,,g-;-:,:',.,.„:.i0,44%0',i',.,:'-n--1 .--..L-.j,IiPiAgg;70-6N-i4-,VP:;:„„ - :',:1:,- ' ,--",,,.--41A"i : 5.125 X 11.250 A 5.125 X 11.250 Span =9.0 ft Span = 3.0 ft Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: 0=0,350, L iii 0.560 iiiift,Extent=0,0--»3.0 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 Fl Uniform Load: 0=0.5450, L=0,560 kill,Extent=3.0-i»9.0 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: 0=1.190, L=0.i. k A 3.0 ft Point Load. 0=0,410, L=0.590 k 0,8.0 ft Load for Span Number 2 Uniform Load, 0=0.0270, L=0.0330, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: 0=0,330, L=0.4160 k fi9,3.0 ft ,--0EWN, 'il , „! i,,,i,,,, , _,„„,_,,,,„,,,` ,Aif., „,„,,,,„,„,iii' - stint.' l Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.547. 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio ' = 0,563 : 1 Section used for this span 5-125 X 11.250 Section used for this span 5.125 X 11.260 lb.Actual = 1,551.90 psi Iv:Actual = 149.24 psi FB:Allowable L- 2,400+00 psi Fv:Allowable = 265 00 psi Load Combination +0+L-+H,LL Comb Run(L1 Load Combination 404..44,LL Comb Run(LL) Location of maximum on span = 3.972ft Location of maximum on span = 8.095 ft Span#where maximum occurs ',._ Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.099 in Ratio= 1088 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection -0.104 in Ratio= 688 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.186 in Ratio= 581 Max Upward Total Deflection -0.184 in Ratio= 392 011eTan -i,'i'urn Eta,ftleCt, 1,0fli-V111#000015.0.0# Load Combination Span Max,°-*Deft Location in Span Load Combination Mex.'4P Deft Location in Span 34..LL Comb Run(11 1 0.1857 4.425 0.0000 0,000 2 0.0000 4.425 0+L,It Comb Run(1.) -0.1835 3,000 Vortical,ki i. one-U 4 ;,r ored Support notation:Far left is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Support 3 Overall MAXimum 5.859 7.565 II 587 A ENProject Title xl Enlqineer EXHBffe59 Prowl Descr efb , -, Con5athg Lngi1eer5 6tructtral. Emineerrig' , iteactons- Support notation.Far left is#1 vaiuda in KIPS Load Combination Subpar!1 Support 2 Support 3 D Only 2 680 3.651 L Only,U.Comb Run(1) -0.156 0 673 L.Only,LL Comb Run(L") 3 179 3.341 L Only,L Comb Run(U.) 3.023 4.014 04i.„U.Comb Run(1..) 2 525 4,323 0+1,LL Comb Run(1) 5,859 6.992 D+L,LL Comb Run(LL) 5 703 7.655 -;Z 588 y!, it • . . 0 •-.... .. , . , - • ©ik .71 4114 ,vitob-,:,..„411 • - 4„k4"`flitt s�i , e ex ,,,,,c - yI� i Of 0+: - 0114• I.@�' ,� 4.434.4.1:,.--:' � 1 s:';'..: . • �.yiw'�. .. i } 1 5 111.4-----Ttalli ' w '.- .. ti , •#� .z:;.:. ` .... - 41-41111 V•411W I ''' \ * el"'244.14 • ' - (4, y % i w<�. 5 i lid. 'Y tiG.tar Tar 4 z ...tor.iGk-.. --r' k •.i S.. ... • • i \ 3. • Al : , b mac G + f Alp w,$0,.t..,k,,o,1517 \ ••"°' ieil ',\,C9 'V` ,�SAW 4 . etttti '. ,j1i 'PA .......„........r.1417`.:'''''*".". 6., ,,,,p,.. , 0,4, ".46,---...:::,..-.,:-.;, ,... ,..,.• . . ,...„--,---, gai, ,1/4.,, ....._ .. .-• ..• ..,. .,•,,, ...-_, ,, ...,, . ,. . - • \ . - ...,......:•. ....-...,:•=•....-.: ..,..:, .:,...::„........ ...-.........„.......... . r „:„ s\. _ , . „.. .... . ., . . ' ... ..,,,,,,,,,...,4........ •,, \ ,.•t , „mt. of,.......___. • .. .:• ..• \\\g ....V, . .. z ' $,1C Zeta�° ; 9 . .„ .. . i ,: •• ' : • -- ', 7 tieA,.1-,7°-- ,- illr.‘K\ „ ....--.'. .-- • • ;' '+ \ d _ ' • • . ,.- 2.0 ' �., • ; • • 589 w� EXHIBT 59I .._,.... . ! . _ . , 1 FZ, . . I tre- i I , i . ,, • , , i - t ) 41 1 Wr( K Vt., : 30-s. 3 - 1 , 1 . i _ 1 _ . 1 1 - - 1 lifir D " tirft 4.0:-.7-(204..V5V1166 I 4- SS ' 9,4e, eg- 81 € 1 60. t , 1 ' i tik) i ?4 leo 4rIziN i _ I - - 1 . i i Cf> 2,1410 dik— , . t .„, --, t - , t t - . 1 , , t 1 '- 1 ' 47- 1 EN BY e....". DATE 127i241 1 r2 , . 7 , --————- -— - ConsuLting Lnginer5 03 s, Sv t, REV DATE 5tructural. E.ngineering JOB NO 1,• °,5C143 (503) 968-9994 p (503) 968-8444 f SHEET 7>4- OF 590 EXHIBIT . . ° x 1. r 99 2 P % i t#- 9-t } . , �e 4. 3 4 • f L1/4),= C VIZ): J r - .r1_ itmai rzi r PPC C ' , s , ,, , ., , , . - - I 4 I'S . z' , 6,644 .,.„rte-,- t :: �.1- k : ' BY DATE 12"a®1 . l� .. _ _ Consulting Oneers b REV DATE `Jtruckurca.L c ngineeringg JOB NO 910540$ (503)958-9994 p (503) 968-8444 f SHEET 35 OF 591 EXHIBIT 4 i x ^t Ste, ' Q. ' 7' 5 'r r "�`"r t E - ( :Z.sX&/ 4 9 f(2 ' ( ?.) oto s 2. °Y‘ a = # 1 r. quo 4 A1C) ,.4 , ( lii)('Zcii Zi)4 (" E3o' 4 %4 = 11th r}iZbtfit. 1, Ft, 1 'x _ i 1)00. 3 I i I S _ J Mi Yi 3 EN •.".....,-, ��.� r�:�'Y "u.LL... .Ww4� •.:,—�-•.w't�.�uuWwwuuuuw.,,.- �. wry4ruu'uunuuwuu. yWnuWuu+W+WNu�wu�wiwWi°""" BY `/►+ti. LATE tZ-- 1s ' Consulting Lngineers *. , ..,� :,fes REV DATE otrueturaL engineering JOB NO i'A-1k (503)968-9994 p (503) 968-8444 f SHEET IC OF 592 EXHIBIT i zrck 16')*'—ii ... i mh.} 1)� f ' 1 1. - soft • 1. ye I t .-g # + '.', - = _ c13.). _ is ._ 8 4rs ; _ , _ T' rt4 (8)(1i) doir . z. t i 0+ 470 /PI: "7::::::::::t 35-e) ''''" .„.. ..: Zo40 4 a4o . 111 `t BY CPA DATErt-ka Consulting c.ngineers ' , REV DATE 5ruauraL Lngineering JOB NO '°S/3 •C3 t (503)968-9994 p (503)968-8444 f SHED" 7 OF 593 - „..... _ , , 1 , yDEN , A ,.. 9ineProject Title: Ener: Project Dascr: EX H I MT.!59 — _ ronsuaing 1 eers otruchtral, Engineering .0.,,, zna noor training-2f3 Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900 psi Er Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900 psi Ebend-xx 1600 ksi Fc-Pill 1350 psi Eminbend-xx 580 ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625 psi Wood Grade :No.2 FY 180 psi Ft 575 psi Density 32.21 pet Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced ..i.tainst lateral-torsion buckling D(0.027)S(0.033) • 2x10 Span=6.0 ft Service!cads entered Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load: 0=0,0270, S=0,0330, Tributary Width=1.0 ft 1„..: :„.....--N-: ::'i - " -/ '/. .,:i' %. Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.133 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.070 . 1 Section used for this span 2x1 0 Section used for this span 2x1 0 fb:Actual = 151.47 psi fv.:Actual = 14.49 psi FB:Allowable = 1,138,50psi Fu:Allowable „-ii 207.00 psi Load Combination 40+5+1-i Load Combination Location of maximum on span = 3000 ft Location of maximum on span = 0.00 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#I Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.006 in Ratio= 11774 Max Upward L-i-Lr+S Deflection 0,000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.011 in Ratio= 6476 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 Ove*Maximum .--:--'4;.” - ;VAIL Load Combination Span Max.'.."Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max.''+'Dell Location in Span 0+5 1 0,0111 3.022 0.0000 0.000 V. ,i.:,;,, 7,i fl)ii'.OM"UTtf, '., ,"" -;:! ,/ '...,,, :/' Support notation'Far left is*1 values in MPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0 180 0.180 D 0* 0.641 0.081 S Only 0.099 0,099 D+S 0,180 0.180 .7.-...6 594 , 11T. IT- Project Title: , -- xx Engineer . EXH1BtiP59 PnoOct Desc. ,..1., ,..iii. Consulting Engineers otrucbrat. c....ngineering Calculations per NDS 2005, IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity *1. Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Cornpr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600,0ksi Fc-Pril 1,350,0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 626.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fy 180,0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32210pci Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against laterat.torsion buckling D(0.18) S(0.228) D(0.027)1S(0.033) II . .......... _...,,,. 2-2x10 Span =6.0 ft 41ilied1..oads .. ' Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load; D=0,0270, S=0.0330, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: D=0.180, S=0 2280 k itt 3,0 ft ''' ' ' ' ,,i,i ' Y__. .z , I. 1,:i' Maximum Bending Stress-Ratio = 0.217 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.088 : 1 Section used for this span 2-2x1 0 Section used for this span 2-2x1 0 fb:Actual . 247.40 psi N:Actuai . 18,27 psi F8:Allowable = 1,138.50psi Fv:Allowable = 207.00 psi Load Combination +D+S+l-1 Load Combination 4-D+S+Ei Location of maximum on span . 3.000ft Location of maximum on span , 0.000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span it where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Detection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.009 in Ratio--- 8287 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0,016 in Ratio= 4605 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio 4° 0 <180 -- -- —- . Ovlafa MaXiIMUM W9010118•IhTladaied(-00/3 ,, Load Combination Span Max."--'Deli Location in Span Load Combination Max.'+'Defl Location in Span D+S 1 0.0156 3.022 0.0000 0.000 ens,UtlfaCtItred Supped notation:Far left is#1 Values M KIPS Load Combination Support I Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0.384 0.384 D Only 0.171 0.171 S Only 0 213 0,213 D.S 0.384 0,384 341 595 IF D 'A c• .-4 ,,_i ft 1 , , )0( .. Project Titie: Engineer: Pmiect Descr: EX li 1 BIT59 _ , . comuifing Lngineers 6tructural Lngineerirtg copE REFEREices" ' Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009, CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb.Compr 900,0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fe-POI 1,350.0 psi Erninbend-xx 580.0ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fe-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575,0 psi Density 32.210pcf Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase D(0.038) L(0.04) D(0.025) L(0,0R °1364) * + * * * * * * * regANNWAwfSforgxectomm,r,K;. ,44"wwwwraggorioAmtmv,I,Kpv,: :,,,;,,,•-•:::::!:•••-:-;,:.;:,,,,r.qam*Imt,,,,kg•, •emprs* :VIVoc•W•441*ZfKilOixeraXii:OV'',"!. •,$/i'•-Mea',WKWAVOIMOTOMOOM:,•.n: ":'•'--',,, *.:--`:"-'-;".... '•,-,i3Ogtit*I"'l':*='/,''-':•'-:,;,-. `4. ;,u,,,,,,,,,44 :,-,,,,,moso-4,1 ,01.-iwz'1' &'•1,t',,'MW;.',•. ,-,•o-0:047?3,,A2v--,%;„Aty•, ,o6,400wv:.:,,.••,,,,-1..•-;,. :..,:1,j1,!$:.:;‘.- ,..s:,4*W14V-, , ' '.,%,."',.,.1 tr(VMPMAI=ei9gegand f0 sn,'os.. .1'00,,r,f4A..,0t•t.,".:' ,..*.ngiV;VtdAr'',A4smw...kaur,,,f.oveiw,,,,,,,(..,,tx8s1,54.0,.k,.. .,;•.f,...,,,,, ,,;:0,,#.4,..•.44'4.4,41,x, ;,;.....r.,-,-.,-,-.,....,,' • , • /..... . 2x8 Span = 12.50 ft PPliedtedds % .%" Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: 0=0.0250, L=0.040 kilt,Extent=0.0-»3.0 ft Tributary Width=1.0 ft Uniform Load: 0=0.0380, L=0.040 luft,Extent=3,0-»12,50 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: 0 ti 0.0640 k 10 ft pfiRtistimMARY , ,.. k - - =--- -- Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 1.1711 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.355 : 1 Section used for this span 2x8 Section used for this span 2x8 lb:Actual = 1,452.82 psi fa:Actual = 63.90 psi FB:Allowable . 1,242 00 psi Fv.Allowable = 180.00 psi Load Combination +041..+1-1 Load Combination -1-0+L41-1 Location of maximum on span =,- 6,113f1 Location of maximum on span = 0.000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span it 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.290 in Ratio= 517 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.592 in Ratio= 253 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 OVeil48 Millitimuni 0 v'ions.U .--- 0 ,- Loads Load Combination Span Max,Max,'-"Del Locator in Span Load Combination Max"+"Deft Location in Span Nit. 1 0.5925 6.250 10000 0.030 V,-J 0—,- .13.,-,.;.ns-UsLi'',red ' ' z' Support notation:Far left is 41 tikes inlOPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimuin 0.502 0.498 0 Only 0 252 0.248 L Orgy 0.250 0.250 D+L 0.502 0498 40 596 ._._... . ...,......... ____..„ ",,;„ , , , Protect Title: A Engineer: EX H I BIT 59 '.:,„. ,„:, , EN xx Protect Dew: I . ''''t—• ` . ' . ,i .....1, Con5tifing 6.rigneers 3fructuraL Lngineeritg i...iI.,---KiW04'1410r. :: --' --”' Licensee:hayden r..-oitsultintlertyineers- Description'., 2nci floor framing-216 ''';'?....:. Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Comer 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-Prii 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :.No.2 Ey 1.80,0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32,2100 Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling Repetitive Member Stress Increase . , D(0,019) L(0.02) * * , * D(01:13C0.013) L(0.02) . . . . .. . ... . rwr-c;,w,,,,*„.„...,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,„,.,„„„,..,,,r.,.,..r.-.,4,,,,,..-../......,,,,,...,,,,..w.A.0.0rm.,014,,,,,,k,,,....,...,. .,..,.;,:,. ......r...,,-,..4g,gowmoorr.•.-:r:..,r.,........-,..,-....-.,.:i.,,z,l, . ,,,,,,,r,..07,0r.,,rAor,,,,,:,:aaggivftiozu(.4*,,w,:,-:,•,.:<,:0:,.:' ,qAt,T.,, A'f.a;400,*wg.,.,gm;&;,:,,,,„.. ,',,,,.,Q,„-:,:-. .,3voi.,.::w;golgo.,04',A,.,,,' ;,,-,„,,,,''A;,:,..,,',,,,,'oo*;:g , W:''ilj/§4041AN',400giONPUNPV:V4:gaMIWWWW,NAgadiltA14:*.W%,: ,,,•• ;.41Q.,'.,2ezqut*Atvguoz,,,e4,,wg,;.,,,,,...,,, :,„:,.,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,, : 2x8 A • ........ ! - Span = 15.0 ft ., „.„.. - — ' -,..S.," ', - Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: D=0.0130, L=0.020 kit Extent=12.0->>15.0 It, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: D=0,0320 k(CO,12,0ft Uniform Load: Dr 0.0190, L=0.020 k/fl,Extent=0.0->>12.0 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.832 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.216 : 'I Section used for this span 2x8 Section used for this span 2x8 : fb:Actuai = 1,033.42 psi fir:Actual .. 39 FB:Allowable = 1,242.00pal Fv:Allowable = 180.0080 psa ii Load Combination +0+L+H Load Combination -40-1-L4-1-1 Location of maximum on span . 7.609 ft Location of maximum on span = 14.34 ft Span 4 where maximum occurs Span#1 Span 4 whore maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lni-S Deflection 0.301 in Ratio. 598 Max Upward Lftr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio' 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.507 in Ratio= 296 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 OVOill 14.01inti....:::'''..",':„one.rUtlfackt,'! 1-0.0 toad Combination Span Max."-"Deft Location in Span Load Combination Max.'+"Dell Location in Spw D-ii_ 1 0.6070 7.555 0.0000 0.000 -'... i. -i 1;3.10M• ' l"i'''0'-''''.! ..., , Support notation:Far left is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall I'mum 0.297 0.302 0 Only 0.147 0152 L Only 0,150 0.150 Dit 0.297 0,302 Ak, 597 _. Project Title. .., Engineer: EXHIUTIE59 yDE-N1 . , , , Project Descr ,.,... I Cati5Lktirk3 Lngineers 6tructural Lngirteering oDEREFERENas Calculations per NOS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,800.0ksi Fc-Prli 1,350.0 psi Erninbend-xx 580.0ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210 pcf Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling . . _ ... D(0.257) L(0.127) 1 D(0.12) L(0 .15) * * * * * I D(0.04) L(0.048) ,,,,nr.fir,,,,,,...-wn:4,;77'*7,W,'444,*,,40:0,,07,7i.:V*:-:,,“7,,,,:7 7.::,.A,777,0*fri.,,f,,,.4;,,-';'sss''' ' s, ' •-,s'sss ss,s'sV'''"''''?''''' -;,'ss"';' ,70ASsCS'?'ils'.'4 ,S4gs, '..s'z..,A.-r--,1-,,,,,,s„,',,;,,;,,,,42::::,,PsWelsr"iss .':1,,,,,,"7, : ,,,,y,.f,‘;‘,c,,,w'-1,,,, ,, •,• —• ;,:;:,. 4x10 • • Span = 10.0 ft . --- , thadi .z, ' Service loads entered.Load Factors wit be applied for calculations_ Uniform Load; ID=0.040, L=0.0480, Tributary Width=loft Uniform Load: 0=0.2570, L=0.1270 kilt,Extent=7 0—»10.0 ft, Tributary Width=1 Oft Pointload: D-=0,120, L--0,150 k a 3,0 ft ' Maximum Bending Stress Ratio ..,_ 0.53a 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0,293:1 Section used for this span 4x10 Section used for this span 4x10 lb:Actual = 581.08psi fv:Actual = 52.75 psi F8 Allowable a 108000 psi Fv:Allowable = 180.00 psi Load Combination 4-D+L•14-1 Load CombinatiOn Location of maximum on span = 6.058ft Location of maximum on span = 9.234 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span il 1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.057 in Ratio= 2110 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0,000 In Ratio= 0<380 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.123 in Ratio, 977 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 M Ratio= 0<180 . , ovoratilseximum s&-. „.7 Upfactored Lads Load Combination Span Max.*2 Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max.°+”Deli Location in Span D+L 1 0.1228 5.182 0,0000 0.000 VIVOCi0-r," - ons.dint:,.. -. , Support notation.Far left is#1 Values in KIPS L.,.Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall li4AXeriurn 0.802 1.500 10 Only 0.400 0,891 L Only 0.402 0.609 0+L 0.802 1.500 598 irr ENE Project Title: if 7 xx Desc Engineer: r: EXHIBIT-S9 Project Con,uLth nç err 6-1-ructurat Lngineering .7 1 .11'7i1; ,;',./14F40,41'.44,11.00:00:14a P‘Ve:4 Ora.# KW-06005543 Licensee.hayden consulting engineers Description 2nd ftem framing- COBE r1 NERENCES Calculations per NDS 2005, IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi if:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-Frit 1,350.0 psi EnXrityand-xx 580.0kst Wood S,:::.:7"es :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210pd Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.049) L(0.0581 z_\ 4 x 0 Span=8.0 ft 4*d Service loads entered,Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Uniform Load: D=0,04GO, L 0.0580, Tributary Width=1.0 ft SUMMARY Maximum Bending Stress Ratio 0.191: 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio 0.089 :1 Section used for this span 4x10 Section used for this span 4x10 lb Actual = 205,80 psi fv Actual 16.07 psi FB Allowable 1,080.00 psi Fv Allowable 180.00 psi Load Combination Load Combination 404.41 Location of maximum on span 4,00011 Location of maximum on span = 7,241 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span 4.where maximum occurs Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L.+Lr+S Deflection 0.015 in Ratio= 6594 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0,027 M Ratio 3574 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 °vend, ui DefleCtlarie Unfactoied to*di Load Combination Span Max."-'Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max."4''Deli Location in Span 1 0.0269 4.029 0,0000 0.000 Urftatft:, Support notation:Far left it#1 Values in FOPS Load Combination Supponl Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0.428 0A28 0 Only 0.196 0.196 L Only 0.232 0232 0 428 0.428 4S 599 „, ,, 7-7 NDEN Project Title A Engineer: EXH 1 BITS9 1Project Descr: Consulting .', .er5 5tructural Lngineering ccoE REFERENCES Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set-,ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-Pril 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-YX 580.Oksi Wood Species : Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210pd Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.359) L(0,2 ” P:'MO 288) ' . D(0.1) L(0.047) \ X 3-2x10 Span = 12.50 ft ,. ,-..., Leads LL' L Service loads entered.Load Factors will tie applied for caiculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: D.0,10, L 0.0470 Mt,Extent=3.0—>>12,50 ft, Tributary Width=1,0 ft Uniform Load: D=0,3590, L.02590 kik Extent,:r 0.0—>>3.0 ft, Tributary Width=1,0 ft Point Load: D rr 0.320, L-.0.40 k 0.3.0 ft Point Load: 0.0,680, L=0,2114 k 0,4,0 ft ,,... ,..?..'" 10 ,/,,'..-t — _ .,„. ;, .,..:,, Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = tsta I Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.584: 1 Section used for this span 3-2x10 Section used for this span 3-2x10 th:Actual = 1,502.96 psi Iv:Actual = 105.10 psi FB:Allowable = 990.00 psi Fv:Allowable = 180.00 psi Load Combination +04L+H Load Combination 4-D+L4+1 Location of maximum on span = 4.015ft Location of maximum on span . 0.000ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span Si 1 Span Si where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Le Lr+S Deflection 0.164 in Ratio= 915 Max Upward L-i-Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.437 in Ratio= 342 Max Upward Total Deflection 0,000 M Ratio= 0<180 0 *all MuktuSIVeillSetirslit,r U, r-,.00 4044- Load Combination Span Max."!!"Deli Location in Span Load Combination Max."1-'Dell Loestim in Span D+L 1 0.4374 5.839 0.0000 0.000 Vertical •,-..:,.tie-Untutored ' , Support notation:Far left is$1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 3.368 1.571 Er Only 2.014 1.013 L Only 1353 0,558 044_ 3368 1.571 44 600 Project Title: i : xx Engineer: EX H 1 BITG59 f Project Descr. ,---, .1i, Consulting Engineers. 6tructural Engineering .,-CODE REFERENCES , Calculations per NOS 2005,IBC 2009,CSC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Comor 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Fc-Pril 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi WoodGr.. :No2 Ri 180.0 psi Ft 575,0 psi Density 32.210pcf Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling -------------"-: D(0,299) L(0.18) D(0.086) L(0.03) D(0.93y1.(176wmu*Zi) * * + * * V V i Y. ,.,10.,:moua,,y4w,(e2,,,,m,,:::,,wmxv.,44,,,,44xmoisw,,,,,,,o.4.,,,,,,,a,<.w.,,,,,,,,,1444o•syt.,*;,x,:davift'lz,w,,,,,,,,,, :-,,,,,,,,. ''‘silg',M;1;g21,0A%';';' ,,,,,, ,;',..,'''%,••''''',,:t'W.:0#;'''' ,.....,. PR IP ..N. 32x10 A Span = 15.0 ft • Ap.', ...Loads ' ' ' Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: D=0.0860, L=0.030 kit Extent=0.0—>>12.0 tt, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Uniform Load: D=0.2990, L=0.180 kift,Extent i=120--»15.0 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Point Load: D=0.940, L=0.60ka11.0ft PointLoad: D=0.160, L=0.210k 0,12.0ft ,„4,41"*.$ i, .._ARy ;*.,..,z, :,....„:2L sesi it Maximum Bending Stress Ratio -:: 1,714 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio t 0.582 :1 Section used for this span 3-2x10 Section used for this span 3-2x10 fb:Actual = 1,697.25 psi fv:Actual = 104.80 psi FB:Allowable = 990.00 psi Fv:Allowabie = 180.00 psi Load Combination 4-Di-L+H Load Combination Location of maximum on span = 1.004ft Location of maximum on span = 14.234 ft Span#where maximum occurs Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Maximum Deflection • Max Downward L+Lr+5 Deflection 0.251 in Ratio= 718 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.707 in Ratio= 254 Max Upward Total Deflection 0 000 in Ratioi,-- 0<180 Overall Maximum Deflections-Unfactomd Loads,,c,.. ' Load Combination Span Max.':-°Dell Location in Span Load Combination Max."4,Deft Location in Span 0+L 1 0.7067 8.047 0.0000 0.000 1R,•..,. Ions.Lint, - en - Supp•ort noiabon:Far left is#1 Values in 10PS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 1,464 3.275 0 Only 0.992 2.037 L Only 0.472 1.235 0+1_ 1.464 3.275 4S. 601 _____. -.:-..,........--,==._,...,--.--,..z.,...i 41 w ! 1_4_ . t•t.to 1 u. a St s , 41.it `= . I . ` �- I 6• .. I'iUommiem Pl,,,Illi inlnnimm�r _ ..�__ Hsc.za�2 6 b. Zi fitK 11 to • II ` <1%/Pe. s III �aR VAsA31 N 1lS Dr •ti t) I _ « 9Pf.t.z.-e,i.-S J 2 ;i .51 y-3fUL 4s+Au 7*aC�s:: s`tt? ti��5c �a!W �La+ 2�8 u�� _..... j )�3 2 Gt'1..7 0 rn •ca, I? Lam•7+t UsJt' +lJL1, y i 1 W ni • AFI �. . z�sac IA. Zito cv 12 0 J • ..0._ —0---•-- - --,-. „if?... . t_..' , ..._1 [ ilga, it . 1 CO t i1 054t+tOW/I•os10M jjr ti -4 SO 4-dTs)s' P 1. 1. .- tt?I;".. is 'tom LG S- di� in #jt _ , x_ t ti1.1EAs2 we u. *EA.412k I ON 1 < t C/347-C-5,{TEN/ "S i .4 w If y iVie�tf. Zxso[FIli LxO Ib i + � Y` t -—� r 1,4 .! f AE, **tort A.w59 , af'UNDEIL&A. a 0- QIP I1 it vtigkJ, JAMB mrd Y+ -..21- %.4 ),;: ' VI in 6.,1 2 a 0 ! k 'M1 . o 4 , 1....,.,.., . .a , i 1 j_ 1 1--1 (n!T r.: 0 a w 3 Y • f ,*.14:' 411 !I I I Ell !! t! I a I !, 1 i • n 1 y ni-jr.R. 471 LN'1',t�(� Vii?E. z ii - 1 , mmntr,,,,,p,,m4,m44m,mn4m4m,. N 0 4 . CD EXHIBIT 59 . nuotz 4 zr 1 -4` $°`I U (a5 )1'° 4) ( ` 4t %4 .toot) tu ,, t? z--- )00.4- i..14(36415)0%4) 4 710 + '"'` f err f3 64, 5 ea_19 (16/4)(ZAD4 zS\1- 2744-1'r° . ''ptr I6gt- 2,a Z_Ya Q 16 ' ok. 5e % ,° BY CM DATE 12-121" °-"i 1 , ' 1 0 ..r Con5uLting n�-ineer �° SREV DATE ructus[. C nc ineering JOE NO f$05,4 o‘ (503) 968-9994 p (503)968-8444 f SHEET 41 OF 603 j EXHIBIT 59 _ - R, ? - 064'47 1304rei _ x C ? f 171. 53 t , _....f_ „...._,....._____i i T : _ __._ _ ._�._ 1 y _ `-j BY DATE k . 12 Con5uiting 6neer5 , , REV DATE rucEuraL C_ngineering JOB NO 1505 q.ti14 (503)968-9994 p (503) 968-8444 f SHEET I.V.3 OF 604 DEN ic< Pr°iectineTTe E X H I BIT 159 - =,, Consulting Lngineers : A Project Descr: 3.1-ructural Ltigineering „,, ... ., , °-'4..tr:'iw:0g06.s i4434''''t4v14' - ' -: (:,i ,0 ' d' .4"1* .'” LiZe;:ee,t;aiden,,,,,,,turig engineers i:,...*'pbon.: lot floorframin9--111 ,.., Calculations per NOS 2005,ISC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Basficily Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Fh-Cornpr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 itsi Fc-Pril 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-)oi 580,0 kst Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade :No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210 pct Beam Bracing : Seam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling D(0.1 13) L. * • ; * ; ''''''il ,L.(0 232)v * • D(0.094) L(0..043) * * * * 1 • :,,,,,,,, ,..0,,,,,,,,,,,;a:m:4,:mp,,,,,.::„,,,,,,,;,4;„..,;:g,,,,,,,,,-:.,,4:,,,,momq.,‘:.,7,„4,,,., . „, ..,. ,,;,„,;„,,;,.s,.,;;;:ko wen::'P'rv--'..'.' _..,.,,.., .--;: , e4.,,.4,-.4.m%-wko/.4,,:;,1::-‘,.•,,,,•.,..• „...::, :•. *w,i,o0,i.bglige4:Ws<:,,r,.:. ,, ',,,,'; '.9A,- 440.9',049‘9 ,' 9.-;'.'9 .,99W 949n,a,A744,9A ditRgelgtaM9:.f.; 0:49fAnt4P41*Vagy,699;.; 9:.',...r.9•9' .;-994q,,.. ..999,,,,,-4so 4,99;o099.49...9-;. . — ; - . . 40 2-2x10 Span = 12.50 ft APPtedt. .'.°.:-' ' - ://./:5; -Ar:4,' - -,. Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: D=0.0940, L.0.0430 kift Extent.30.->>12,50ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Uniform Load: D-.01130, L=0,0580 ktft,Daent.-0,0-->>3,0 6, Tributary Width=1,011 Point Load: 0.0.1960, L 0,2320 k R.3.0 ft I-''' I.'' LY: ,/ ,,,-, 2;:',.....221 : , Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.975 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.344 : 1 Section used for this span 2-2x10 Section used for this span 2-2x1 0 fb:Actual = 965.61 psi fv:Actual = 61.97 psi FB:Akmmble - 990.00 psi Ev:Allowable ,i 180.00 psi Load Combination -1-04-L+H Load Combination -1-D4L-44-1 Location of maximum on span = 5,429ft Location of maximum on span = 0,000ft Span*where maximum occurs = Span*1 Span 4 where maximum occurs = Span*1 Maximum Deflection Max DOWnWard L+Lr+S Deflection 0.113 M Ratio= 1324 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0 <380 Max Downward Total Deflection 0,311 in Ratio= 482 Max Upward Total Deflection 0,000 in Ratio= 0<180 OVe4ti VXiMlitrit bin' r-i i.1‘34 i., ,i- Load Combination Span Max.`-`WI Location in Span Load Combination Max.°+"Dalt Location in Span 04 1 0.3109 6,113 0,0000 0.000 V:, ,i'-i-ER-:-.,iriatinfariored, ' :;,.. - Support notation:Far left*#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 1.271 0.971 0 Only 0.787 0.641 L Onty 0485 0,33c 0-41. 1.271 0,971 605 , i ' , i Y1 I A YDEN 1 1 Proiect Title: Engineer: Project Descr EXH1B1rs9 I Constifing Livineer5 6tructural Ligineering CO REFERENCES Calculations per NDS 2005,IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Load Combination ASCE 7-05 Ph-Cornpr 900.0 psi Ebencl-xx 1,600.0ksi Fc-PM 1,350.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0ksi Wood Species :Douglas Fir-Larch Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Wood Gr.,*- i No.2 Fv 180,0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210pd Beam Bracing : Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion buckling - i D(0.027) S(0.033) -,,,,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„4,,,,A,,,,,,,,,,p,„,,,,,,,,,;,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, .,,,,-0,,,...r..,..1:,,.,,,‘;',4;,f,j,.; , ,-,,,v uo,,‘x,,,f;tf,,,- ..--‘;.,''•,64,r,c4-;, %, ', . '7'‘-0,,,,:.40,,Lm4,,,,,,:po,f,e‘;,/,i ) sr 2x8 A Span = 12.50 ft ..,i4pled - - __ ' ' , ' `;: Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: 0=0.0270, S=0.0330 klft,Extent=0.0--->>12.50 ft, Tributary Width=1.0 ft -...$' i• '...$11P4',-/,_.„,„,,,.."...,....._,_ _„, a'''':.,i:'H.,'41 't.. Maximum Bending Stress Ratio r- 0.862 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio •=i 0.226 : 1 Section used for this span 2X8 Section used for this span 2x8 lb:Actual ii I,070,15 psi fv:Actual . 46,82 psi FB:Allowable . 1,242.00psi Fv:Allowable = 207.00 psi Load Combination 4046+I-1 Load Combination +O+S+H Location of maximum on span ... 6.250ft Location of maximum on span = 11.907 ft Span it where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 • Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.239 in Ratio= 627 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<360 Max Downward Total Deflection 0,435 in Ratio'-'-' 344 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0 <180 Olefin Maximum #-if, iorts-U i i-i.i toids ' Load Combination Span Max.'-'Oen Location in Span Load Combination Max.Max.'*'Dell Location in Span 0+8 1 0.4390 6.296 0.0000 0.000 ,,,...ra.tint.(.. Support notation,Far left is#1 Makes'in KIPS - Load Combination Support I Support 2 • ii iii MAXimum 0.375 0.375 D Only 0.169 0.169 S Dirty 0.206 0.206 DiiS 0 375 0.375 .50 606 -' ' 1 HAYDEN n Project Title: Engineer: EXHIBITH59 Project Descr: ......„ Consating '4 -ers .5tructurai , dr*, eeriv [111?P.7-.7 !,,,,,WVAOVg-*O'Ar&k00'' LIC.#:Kw-0600554:f, Licensee.hayden consulting engineers Description: lstfloortraning-1f2 CODE'-..."'' '''.2`x,ES .. ,..,,. ,w Calculations per NDS 2005, IBC 2009,CBC 2010,ASCE 7-05 Load Combination Set:ASCE 7-05 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb-Tension 900.0 psi E:Modulus of Elasticity Lo...Combination ASCE 7-05 Fb-Cornpr 900.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Fe-Pill 1,350.0 psi Emhbend-xx 580,01isi Wood Species .Douglas Fir-Larch Fe-Pep 625.0 psi Wood Grade .No.2 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Density 32.210ed Beam Bracing . Beam is Fully Braced against lateral-torsion budding D(0,086) L(0.03) D(0.267) L(0.1431 * * ' V L)(0ApL(0.4) if * V * i , - pl.gmfm,,,,,,q,,,,-,-,:s.-::-.7,-,:,,-.--....-0.-mvw,,-0,;‘,,,,‘,. -.::: ,,..:„0:-.„....,,g,-,,,,;,,,,,,, •:.;Z43>u'...w, ,,,4,1%#,,ww•--;,:.•,,,,%,,x,,•..,.••,. -.- ' ,:•, '..-);/;i:-,,,,,•• :-.. :., tfOOP',.*V.,.°0044Ciekl4Z-41%,"•,$1.'i-.M„,:',';'''. -1.:;,,,%04*&;',4#1402;,,,0941g.4•. :,`;?2°'''" ;:.,,:•.,;04.-'.:41c.:',,444'';;;Aela4.?'%;' ..''' ., .,',.%40 . A A. 2-2x10 Span = 15.0 ft , .. Appired ....4 ; ' ;%, :,'/ :%. 1, , Service loads entered.Load Factors will be applied for calculations. Load for Span Number 1 Uniform Load: D=0,2670, L=0.1430 kit Extent=0.0—>>3.011, Tributary Width=1.0 ft Uniform Load. 0=0.0860, L=0,030 0,Extent=3,0--»15,0 it, Tributary Vligrith=1.0 k Point Load: 0-=0,40, L=0.40 k(CP 15.0 fl .'.......,...„,_ .--.,... „,.,„... ...' L;1.6' Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 1.121: 1 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.405: 1 Section used for this span 2-2x10 Section used for this span 2-2x1 0 fb:Actual = 1,110,07pSi fv:Actual = 72.95 psi FB:Allowable .., 990.00 psi Fv:Allowable ,-. 180.00 psi Load Combination '4)4-i-i-1 Load Combination +D4-L4,1-1 Location of maximum on span = 673411 Location of maximum on span = 0.000 ft Span#where maximum occurs = Span#1 Span#where maximum occurs = Span if 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.147 in Ratio-= 1223 Max Upward L+Lr+S Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<380 Max Downward Total Deflection 0.520 in Ratio= 348 Max Upward Total Deflection 0.000 in Ratio= 0<180 Otter`MaXirrititti i• "i:i. Of .9nfactoredixadL Load Combination Span Max.'-'Dell Location in Span Load Combination Mat"+"Deft Location in Span 04 1 0,5199 7,336 0.0000 0.000 VaftiPSI',... *OM-Unfactored ,,,'zr support noistiori:Far ett is#1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall firlAXimum 1.664 1.758 D Only 1134 1.098 L Only 0.530 0.659 D+L 1.664 1.768 it 607 608 Exhibit 60 0 IA. 3 4„,,j, a vitt 411), El' allit I MO \NW .s.4.11 --- elk,n 7*- er-tci N LI rt r" -711:77. c/.,.....,,..---, N,,,_,,1,.i.,,,,,t,---.;,. ,,N.,...,,,,,,T.J.,.... ,...)/„...:::,,,,,,,,,,,,:c.,/7(4, .41'/, ,,i,.,_,.,•\,:ats:amt:..\'':\; j. .p,v://,\, 9 '7 . 7-50*"" . i_ 1B .„512.7;42. GO : prw "ifit NI Infl %.% is . 4ft IL ".,..,„et.Ill _ . .... . ..., • ` c.....,„..._7„--- ----, ,- „. - . _. = qh.„1„.. r, , v• ' ' k• -• 411AT: ,ki,..4404,4 „„, ..4 t'.4 ' , ---- ..,14 AN •itNox,„ , •-"<„,_,:ati.. Vit 111111‘ tyi 1"\444Z Dab,11.,it , . ---- • .h..„"Fq-- ---Y-13 s **4-!„- • ,4017-1,1175 f 4„ olio , (4,..., ""4 C),..0' — ,,, ,,. „1,,,e, of , .„ -.. A ) 441.41 trt - ' 1 k.i. 3.'C all is , \ , 1 - .. . .4 mi Mk P-1' rIZPr .11%, nu ,,. 1 ---1:13", - 1_,.-..„ _ „1. (1.7). , „ k _,._.., , :g tr)Vr.", ..„„,,, . c.--9 N. -NJ., tYt .InJ Lr-.) "j '-"-- ball --\ 771--Fs .701 Y iLLJ 7,,0 i. I , il"..- -- 41, . - „:...-L. ,, ,,,, Pvt,,,T)‘:, .71 -1-: ',,,, -\ \s. 7 - i i";(.7"kr1......... ,e.„..-1 / \.„ ,:,,,,,,..„:.k, ._ 0.,..' : Q lr ktrs' 1"--/7' }— .‹.-. '..-1,,,,..,,,f,:.4.. , , f I k \I\i' / , /17' ”" v- '-' ,,,,,,, i i V\ '' i !,,,,, \ A\v N 111140 1 a..— . 1--- , k, / ,..) ,.. ,,z, i I ...,... - Ea / „L./ -- , i /,,- 0 1 iry ' / 'N. ..--,T7 -.. N... -..„., * k...... c),. - , I/ M. * 7/eI„) * . I C. / `„, • '1/4.),.. ik'VII ' * .4.., 01:4% Et ipti, ,.„4,4',...,,, N.....,,,,.. N.' I fa* 40/-4 ' iiisql/tH',.,;.:,,,., ,.... .\\\.. NN ?°) N --- 41Ib , VA5-41o.,,a`. • C.)04,' 4 • 4. • Ai • ,f, ,. ,i . ,...• ..,,, oeit . 't , ,1"lilt, • 609 r - l,,,t(Di hibit 60 _ r, 7 meqq-f `; "4" A * p. AN a t lei+ 1 (4)0,',7,, .(4‘,8, „,,,,,,,,* ,4406.,, ,,,,, ,,_(--:„..t.s.....\..... ,..41\--\,,,, ...,,:-.. .,.*.,,,,,,..,'1,. ,...,______:,_,..._,;;?_1.41.1;,,,'4_44:11,.,h;114:,N,.,,,,4'.....:,,,,:r."Iii.:0,:i4::,,,,,:gi;._:,::.:11.,:a,,,, vs1,,,z,,,41.--',,,,,,,,,,:ttiltp\,..0a1444:114.,_1..v° At 4 i .}► per A Nt .. 7,....„4,. iir:itet 411,.110,00,'-'0, ,, :I. ,, .47715' 4,. ___---- 1,1. ,,,,,,;, ,....7,,,,,,,,,,,,,si:#4.'4,07; --,,,,, ,., 46 1: Lia --viii.../H7:7.-;, . :11,-.\,..:41111 — Ili,*,;.‘14, - 0 .. A , , : - *' :I:„...:A.,1:11,4 _ . ,trl kts,44 3 ;,,..,st--:ILS,i willap +.4, _11 lir '"'I'd --.1 44 .V.'`.44..4'"' .4t4 (Pkg. /\,,, , r' . 1lb ill (..-,,,t'' % * A Eli i 0 167''''' '-',/ '. iticti'' . ..Y 14 44,"411 ' . 4,4 P4PAri:$4* *"..\,.... „‘C,..1\---\\,,, / ,....... M litip ' ;6'ilrefd 414P4P4op } ..-AN, *'N,,'-''''-,„ '--,, It fAi,4 ":t. / 4:4 4,41,P;#0 I. \r v:////1)* ,. ,..A._ ':',j= „i„,),_ • N.N.....,,,,,,,,,„NN, t 4 / i__ 4 ' 4 la.,y,' '. / --) c--_ „ 6,-1 .6, 46kevor \793 4 Aiiii; 14?-4' 'r° --...., , r .C.,„..7”"Iii• `.ri _ 4411/ 1 g a `4D r 610 Cif) J "'; Exhibit 60 L11 , ,.... — r 76 ,IB ' , * - ___.),,,,, ► a'° 1,-- -4-' r ''' '''" ft-e-,174*1--‘1' ' -:' - —1-, --- ' ti ' _ c)6\10.,...:41,4'-'141' , '., itto-,...1.;,,,-..,tisqkrilio- %- iltiv) -4R- y ifite 'y ee *41*.r c 4-ivrt kid 6m. r/ lc , 4.4.04,,... illo um ..., %kw'1044 t '4' 1:11 — N ,• 4 t P* -< 9'4:4'1-* ��. J , gpi., , - .� 14., 4ir a -1,--,7'... .'4,*- " -,,---/-— ro4iw- / I , � � '''''`-( ''', R. ,..-0 N. 6tv i 446 0* ttN44 • � �\ t, ..''' 74,;,,,,,L...,,,,( ..a 1,..\0\, i ___ ..„.„...*** 4,,,, #, i ' . (C) • it,..9 i di i IA \\\. ai... 1 ' ''4' Odii6,4',‘ ' ,4lie ilt 4 ;\st. ..,,‘ 4*Pthil ' ,„44,11410, w4p4ip ' 1°4,# ..' m iii 1t ;- - ? f,6.',',V I., * .0,6 am � ► sX 1� , :`. 4 b / , '44.* ' tir • A 44 s Aviv- .1,46 . ., ..,,,..,„., _v ioNAPP-0 -4. � s iftio • I a3 , 4 * it It.;4 10<tde IR101 I .ot„ _ .;111 x r 611 ---- _' ' Zlez,, i's ""),N ?"1.51' • 4> 'ci.' ,Q, 7. T.,11'1, 41010, , 11111, cit' "0 o Illr:' Cil', .4,4) it.m • Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 0 ci Unit: Owner/Phone no.: 1--a171 .014 Scope of Problem: 2 i d 2 4-13757 IA CLZa 41e-4,A_,,J - 71h c:. d LAAA -14 tj Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: tr\A1, Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 613 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Tirne of Event: (7 Unit: Ur-1( II"C-(-)°L Owner/Phone no.: ._ci 7 - S - Scope of Problem: t s A„ti_. .„' q --) `4.1.rtJLL /C )1 7-7 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 614 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: f D'— 0 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: C, et n (k — L-0 q 1 fLi Scope of Problem: yy t2,o L1 AA4_ Vt�., 04,7I -C- Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 615 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: (114A GrD Unit: -3 Owner/Phone no.: ----Aicuti , a. 7 Scope of Problem: Tierz-eIA17-'- .?14,1 ti 1:1 ?"N 1,0CL4 i VIA_ &I(Al kils, Ct9-14 -N. A J z 01 L-t) LeA ) /1 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: 44-, (.1 /iijjj , L./ Construction: 1 e; rYlk Itt,yt,... 4-10 Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 616 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /D- 3/, 0 Unit: \-3 Owner/Phone no.:' A Scope of Problem: /44_, 0"" e % 6.„, C AO' ‘' 4 I 1-C4 /el (4) 4/ _ m Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 617 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / - U - d Unit: 3 5 °AAA 1,4-1 Owner/Phone no.: S i../t& r--, Scope of Problem: f F 1 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 618 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: o215summit@es.com November 30,2001 Mr. Ernest Hebert 4 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Mr. Hebert, The realtor for your neighbor in Unit 3 repotted some leaking into the ceiling during the last storm. We determined that your old sliding glass door to the deck is the cause. We have attempted a temporary caulking repair but this is only a band aid. These buildings are now 23 years old and due to settling and age, the windows and doors just wear out Homeowners are responsible for replacing the doors and windows. Please make arrangements to replace the sliding glass door as soon as possible to minimize damage to the lower unit. As you know, this unit is on the market and the owner is anxious to sell the property. I remember that you inquired about replacing the doors and it looks like that will be the only solution to this problem. We can put a tarp over the deck if the repair is delayed. I have enclosed a card from a window company familiar with the unique installation specifications on this property. You may use any licensed contractor but they must install the door with the want, flange intact. This will cause some damage to the deck surface, so Pacific Surfacing has to come and repair that area. This charge is minimal and has run about$50-$75 for the deck. Unfortunately, the damage to the ceiling in Unit 3 will be your responsibility to repair. Perhaps your insurance can help you with this problem. If you have any questions,please call. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 619 Exhibit WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: — c=2(2 0 f Unit: Owner/Phone no.: at/i if (0 4+ 7 V 0 Scope of Problem: (D 1,09:1( A ) 4 /14, 47 4 eo Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: f, 'S e /7 4 I H Construction: 1 ö IA0 0 Committee: , Office M (Af ! Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 620 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: t' -3-: 0 -7 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: A- -1 C .'t►t Scope of Problem: "O ,. � , tA,0 Aw..) (,) 1111 iA UO2.64,4A.,± Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: o II Ian itt Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 621 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / czkel Unit: / Owner/Phone no.: ,e,--(/ Scope of Problem: I - eAl.,474 t y., Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: IV P e(..] Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 622 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: Unit: CI Owner/Phone 4 ti Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mar: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 623 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 11 Unit: / 4 Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: ts*---14 LA_ Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 624 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: --- C q Unit: /1 Owner/Phone PULL-C-1U -7 06)- 3 Scope of Problem: IAftAJq4--n7-1 (TC Li A _) -4- ,j1 k_e A CCIIA C;tC,),--41-,, tA (5 - 1 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: ) 1Le4 \ I ALA:k ,4 , Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 625 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I -7 - cjq Unit: LI I 6 „plicNI 5LL, Owner/Phone no.: -Trsty) „I — Scope of Problem: „et") PA/cio, ct)(0---( ArA-- 764A-dt- , le 0— vkifdri Yial Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: I Alta) .2e-4(24-ie-, Board: Owner Contacted: 626 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: X00 7 Unit: S Owner/Phone no.: 1 -414/44,1 +4 #` a 9 Scope of Problem: � (2„ Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: * Nr' e :! Construction: ,�; , 4reitZed4 Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 627 Exhibit 60: ]. •• = WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - 0 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: P-61)- --1- () I st, Scope of Problem: to P • 61 at ka, t.j Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 628 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: l— 3 Z- Unit: j , Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: leak_ /? .h) \--incetoo Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 629 Exhibit m9 - Y WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: timiq Unit: 1) Owner/Phone no.: I 3 (aci Scope of Problem: -mem- 0 Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 630 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date,Time of Event: — I 1-7 0 to Unit: Owner/Phone no.: jL a j. . .. t 3 — Scope of Problem: ded- t 4f Follow-ups (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 631 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: ( 3 0 Unit: / ooRROP,4044414=0......." Owner/Phone no Irti i/h 4 (j 3,g- 74/47 C Scope of Problem: P LiA " 3 4 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 632 Exhibit 60 IT WATER INTRUSION REPORT: / Date/Time of Ev; / I— D 3 Unit: 1 (4- ,-- Owner/Phone no.: CLLI r1/4 g Scope of Problem: i P• • - Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 633 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: t -,- - 0 7 Unit: Owner/Phone nn.: ) .,i..1— f.`x i Scope of Problem: i , OPPri24,..., .0_ _,.4_ A (1,40.1 4. trzrtri ni. k ` iF i Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: C.:4 Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1l-99 634 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: [ — 3 - o Unit: I c Owner/Phone no.: 1 4'1 C� — y Lit-9 Scope of Problem: fb - --3s-YY \ /hi A) A e IAA . L, .l -z-"L" Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 635 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 7/ -- - I Unit: S - Cl� v ,' 3 - � Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: r Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: r Office Mgr: I— I I ,_. P 'r' MAIA/14 •^ -- U Board: Owner Contacted: 636 Exhibit 60 ts .- Ili , 7 , .,,, , , I 4 i ii , I i, r , ..,A. i i Ati ----' Gloria Waterman -''' • 1 , i 1 , j, VI r , Board of Directors ' Oswego Summit Home Owners Association. if 6 Dear Board: ...-- Catherine Allen unit 15,came into my office furious on the evening of November 18. She demanded her key to her unit because she did not trust us. We told her that her by-laws state that the Association requires that a key to her unit along with the other owners be kept in the office.She started yelling"You are so flicking stupid and I wantnly key",We fePeateAthe,sameas before. --- . ...., ; \m Bill also told her that we do not intend to listen to her foul language in this office.She said she didn'fcare. We ,i. asked her why she didn't trust us and she said that Bill verbally attacked her on the phone when he told her for the third time,"Please do not call the office after we have told you that your leak is the responsibility of the owner above you". rA, ti/ We have been informing Ms.Allen as we go along about the situation of her leak.After the Construction Committee,Bill Morley,Jeff Ferell,from R. H.Construction,John who works for R.H.fixing leaks,and D.&F. Windows all assessed that her leak is due to a faulty window(sliding door)put in by D.&F.The owner of unit 16 has been contacted by Management,and D&F has been contacted.D&F stated that they have to order the window through the manufacture,that they do not stock them. Ms. Allen wants the hole in her ceiling fixed now. We told her that AST Drywall will not go in and repair the ceiling until they are guaranteed that the leak is fixed, We have told Ms. Allen all along that we understand her frustration,but that it is out of our hands and that the parties responsible have been contacted. Again she told us we were"Fucking stupid and you don't know what you are doing. Why did you take this job if you didn't know what you were getting into"?She then said"Are you just trying to get rid of me like the guy below me? You're trying to get rid of him because you just don't like him". We have been nothing but professional with this person. We've kept her informed and simiathized with her situation. We can not help what has gone on in that unit in the past,and we are trying our best to make sure that her situation is being taken care of so she can get on with the business of her carpet being laid. But we are not arbitrarily going to have work done that is not the responsibility of the Association and charge the Association because Ms.Allen thinks we should.Once the leak was finally determined that it was not the responsibility of the Association,we contacted the parties involved as a public relations move for Ms.Allen so she would not have to contact the people responsible. Obviously that was not good enough. We feel she owes us an apology,in public, because when she was cussing us out the Board President walked in.She's the one who made her unprofessionalism known. , Sincerely, ,,.. 0 637 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: DatelTime of Event: I .7;1-.- Unit: t Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: 4 .. ° je., Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: �.,,(x� � ez). } Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: .. Board: Owner Contacted: I1-I1-99 638 Exhibit 60 Oswego Summit Condominiums 0rF4 215 Oswego summit I 97 305 .1 Oswe +OR. ^�,. Phone .5113 635 0954 Faxt r N vp 1 t. December 8, 1998 Board of Directors: On about December 1, 1998 while installing plastic covers over some of the decks with John Stevens of R.H., we returned to unit 16 after it was reported that the plastic I had installed,came loose. Upon arriving at 16 we discovered that the plastic had been reattached with the use of lath and 16d(16penny) nails. It was further indicated to us by Catherine Allen(15)that a friend of hers who was a contractor,had done the work of reattaching the plastic. A 16d(l6 penny)nail is about 3 and one half inches long and will penetrate the siding,felt paper,and the sheeting.This makes an avenue for water to enter the wall,especially when the wind blows.There were about 15 of these nails driven into the siding. On December 7, 1998 Ms.Allen called and indicated that she still had leaks near her air conditioner and fireplace.She wanted to know what we were going to do about it.She was referred to Joe VanGulik,as Joe informed us,"if there were any leaks after decks were covered in plastic,those units were to call him." also informed me(Bill Morley,Maintenance)that the sliding door on the deck of 16 above,had been , tinged and ) that i should take the plastic down.This was before D.&F.got back to me about the door change. d before# 16 had a chance to report if the leaks had stopped. On December 7, 1998 Ms.Allen called Joe VanGulik and told him she no longer had any lea This was total contradiction from what she told me on the phone. On December 8, 1998 Joe VanGulik called and said that he wanted the ceiling fixed in unit 15 and the popcorn texture replaced,and that he wanted it done this week.AST Drywall was called and Herb Smith indicated that he can repair the drywall in unit 15 on Friday December 11, 1998, in the afternoon. Also,after inspection of unit 16's slider, it was evaluated that it needs extensive caulking. Plywood is visible along edge of trim. This inspection of the door was done by myself and Marty from C.C.&L,This could be a possible of further water intrusion. In my conversation with Joe VanGulik on December 8, 1998,i toldhim the Date AST Drywall would be out. He told me that he didn't want the hole ceiling replaced with popcorn texture,but"just to make it look good". 639 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: ' Unit: 1 CI Owner/Phone no.: &11Q. til '` 5 + ` '" Scope of Problem: --A/4 4.,,,matif .6.0612, - 0 ,- Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: t COL ( .I Construction: C. .e ., Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 640 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I Unit: 1 61 Owner/Phone no.: � tU_4v 1 i"- qiiy4z Scope of Problem: LL').CUL (37,-, (10 C-o,stAa.4Ce.et . w , Follow-up: (date. time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 641 Exhibit 60 ' WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: ii q 0 Unit: I 61 Owner/Phone no.: 11) s IL) 4 S 7C —961 Sle) Scope of Problem: 1 i A 414.1! 4 A r •• • • • Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 642 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: o215summit@cs.com October 31,2001 Via e-mail: Juliet_xia@yahoo.com Juliet Xia 20 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Dear Ms Xia, The unit directly below is experiencing quite a bit of water leaking into the living room ceiling. The cause of this is your deck door which is directly above. This is a common cause of leaks and may require that you replace the door. The doors and windows of the condominiums are the responsibility of the homeowner to repair or replace. We have checked the deck and ruled out other possible sources. You should get a repairman to come out and look at your door. I would encourage you to have him come by the office so I can explain to him the results of failing doors or faulty installation. AS your leaking door is ruining the ceiling below, Ken will be on your deck on Monday November 5th to put up a tarp to stop the damage until you can get it fixed. Please feel free to stop by with your questions. If you need the name of a window installer, please give me a call. Thank you for taking care of the problem. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 643 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS, 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummit@att.net February 12, 2001 Juliet Xia 20 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Dear Ms Xia, I wrote you an e-mail in October about your leaking deck door. We put a tarp over your deck in November to protect the unit below you. You indicated that you were having your insurance company investigate. You have not responded to the business office since that time and your neighbor would like to repair his ceiling. Furthermore the blue tarp is a very unattractive presentation on MeNary Parkway. Without a doubt,the doors on your deck are causing damage to the lower unit and you are responsible both for replacing the doors and repairing the damage. Please respond to this office by the 1s2 of March telling us of your plan to replace the doors. If we do not hear from you, the Association of Homeowners represented by the Board of Directors will replace the door and you will be billed. This is a fairly expensive repair so you should give careful thought to how you wish to proceed. I will be looking for your response. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or stop by. Sincerely, s1 Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 644 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I — 2- q - Unit: ? r`- 6. Owner/Phone no.: (%ô1 [ J Scope of Problem: a -- 1 -3 5 ° Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: v : c Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 645 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: I_' f Date/Time of Event: /2-4, 0 Unit: - Owner/Phone no.: (' . 6007)/1 S lD 3 ( - .R ! Scope of Problem. - . 0 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 646 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: DateJT ;. w -Tell- D-3 - '''''''t)..,,t4 • ` r lPhon. .. /.. /t ) Ae„,,,,,14,-„,), 3 Scope of / (_a Problem: '1r t P �t4 4t_:sj:ditt4 , ...Qt.( -i---Lats .1 4 U rr, t / 6 \ 4 t, )..."--7s ( L_L„,,,,,,,,,,,) r P -- 't t mgt '124,-1 l't i.� ,, ! ,. v t � &' lL41te 441, d /$ '�t .,.,!-47 -._ .. -t 1 ' Oltr/71, 6-40 i Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: cy LL f 1 d( , LI Office Mt rr:41-2 4- rl.,ti a J 4 ,j A iv kef Board: Owner Contacted: 647 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event / -11 - 0t, U Unit: ,.�_ Owner/Phone no.: ( !'..., *4, .) r ( c Scope ofProblem: 6 . 13 I, M Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance; Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 648 Exhibit 60 - I WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: c Unit: Owner/Phone no.: flat ks ���`l�C � -�°C Zrc 3 i q £ �� Scope of Problem: w, 0,3 3 44 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: tr,/Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 649 Exhibit 60 - WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: fQ00q Unit: Owner/Phone no.: T 1, 0 _ 1 DI Scope of Problem: I A, ), 11V16't:, i. - 1 14/ Lp Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: • Construction: Committee: t -eY OfficeM : I f: •, Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 650 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: f, 3 0 Unit: \34 Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem:0 (C - g 6 n — a-e-c(L a-ata, C" 3 5 U i Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 651 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / 0— 0 c)- Unit: 3 ST- / qq' a Owner/Phone no.: 3 9 Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: IA -• 4, cw-) a Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 652 Exhibit 60A 11 March 22, 2002 Joe Van Gulik Re: Leak Unit 35, Oswego Summit Here are comments regarding the leak in Unit 36. 1. A tarp was placed over the deck of unit 36 from late December 2000 and left there until May of 2001. During that time, we experienced no leaks. 2. When the new sliding door was installed in May 2001, there was an immediate extensive leak which was attributed to the lack of caulking around the new door. When Ken placed some caulking there, the leak stopped, but then continued again Iater. 3. Due to dry weather, we had few problems until December 2001 when it again leaked quite badly. We now experience a leak in the same place every time it rains hard or a combination of wind and rain. 4. Due to the above, I feel the leak is still coming from the door area. I think we should completely eliminate that area as a source of leak before focusing elsewhere. Thank you. WandaVan Gulik 35 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 653 Exhibit 60 March 21, 2002 To: Whom it May Concern From: Joe Van Gulik Re: Comments relating to Leak in Unit 35, Oswego Summit We kept notes of the circumstances under which our leaks occurred. They are on the attached memo. Further to this, I have the following comments: 1. The tarping of deck 36 from December 2000 and May 2001 resulted in no leaks in unit 35. 2. If the leak is due to the dining room window of 36, why did this not result in a leak during this period. 3. Do we have any record of leaks in other units during that same period -was this a dry period - can we find out from the weather information? 4. Tom Jones has in the last few weeks repaired the deck cover close to the door. 5. Comments from Bryan during the inspection indicated he did not think it was likely that it was he slider but that it was most likely the dining room joint - vertical - close to the deck which was causing the leak in unit 35. 654 Exhibit 60 3- } WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: // 6- 7 _tt unit: 3 5 — ZiL(1 Owner/Phone no.: IA ..)6 / A 10-4AL-6,7L 3 6 , Scope of /2 Problem: k_ JFAyirry-w) R ° eAA, , If f. A e j 7 ;LP= t Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 655 1 Exhibit 60 v4,, y- c ' ,,,) WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / I — / 6, – 0 1 Unit: 31 Owner/Phone no.: fliA.,„„,til - (3 6-6 tk., - CO 3 6 -6, (,,,, s-":3 Scope of Problem: 4,7,2yrej a-a /A ) d 1 1014'4 14A.,44 ielL,-11 ..eltAlM Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: 441(1 C ile ff i OZtei41...) IT ' Construction: L i /V(LI / 4 0. -3 21, - - Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 656 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I— Unit: 31 -- Owner/Phone no.: q 1 0 0 Scope of Problem: U V irr -4- dimek cd Follow-tip: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 657 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: // / A Unit: 3 /P-4-A di? Owner/Phone no.: attittt — 3 C 66/ S. 3 - Scope of _do Problem: 0-1-0 ' 7.) d cu/4,<, a 1-( , L"rii /Ma CzA/ItLei.t- 1)(1-102:iv_1,1 74. g AL/ Faiow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgi:, / 11- el / L41,-Li Board: Owner Contacted: 658 Exhibit 60 (01,V WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - Unit: 3 Owner/Phone no.: alit.54C Scope of Problem: h4 141A4* Ll , Follow-up: (date, time, actions) tlit44.4 tht) Maintenance: (a) 41) Construction: Committee:Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 659 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 1A SIT act. ca- Unit: 3 q Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: ehlTe..-A bL Construction: \,/y4..ASU.k:a1 601" • Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 660 1` Exhibit 60 1 1 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Eveot: lei I , I . A 0 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: (I, Scope of Problem: 0 1/ 74' „ iO A 4 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 661 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Ev-�� t: 3 1 - ® 3 Unit: b Owner/Phone no.: ��•�-�✓ Scope of Problem: a f L( I f di LAPP �-- L A k . - R k-t hi, J S Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 662 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I 4 -1 a-- Unit: 1j Owner/Phone no.: �f., _JI r J 6-Y ) (0 99- Scope of Problem: Qik ct4 -- r Follow-up: (date,time,actions) // (l � Maintenance: 6P_, C ,T�tJ tend `- A-6-0-711 Deutz u Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 663 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: ) Date/Time of Event: /4 - - 0 7 Unit: 411 Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: Oti (...4 • "I.4_1 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 664 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of&Hit: Unit: Owner/Phone no.: A 31 I\o, U Scope of Problem: t:AAA A„ k, Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted:, 11-11-99 665 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: q /UJ - OP-- Unit: Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: PP „at `76--&-, 7)-611) U C) Follow-up: (date,time, actions) &A Maintenance: LkJ _ � J U a r Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 666 Exhibit 60 , - WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - 2 (74 Q 4). Unit: Owner/Phone * /) ,41-e / 17 LI (1) Scope of Problem nu, „ — 41kiirMi J4 IA 7-0, kixt-,41., (1 trfAj 4. d (4,.) 111. - Nt A Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 667 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: = p Date/Time of Event: 4.0-0 ci Unit: Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: LIAO)_ ) A A el / („3 o \ J. Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 668 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: — Date/Time of Event: 1 0 S O (0 Unit: 14 - ‘ Owner/Phone no.: 1 S q 44- RA. Scope of Problem: al° Abrf cr 411,6 Ae, f A Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 669 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Dateir ime of Event: 11—e_.. / 0 V reALAAA42_, Unit: `fs- Owner/Phone no.: ett,C4 efeliLe 3 87— 6-7(0 7 Scope of Problem: II 84(1 ae4 I-. 12. Oeti,utic' Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Q(,,01/472 OrW (A I Gliamtcsit 4v-Art / 1_ 0 )_ U Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: / /1- 11-11-99 670 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: f— J._67) q Unit: 6. Owner/Phone nO-.7. Ykj&1L4 I - -4N A S Scope of Problem: Irt 16, 1 A—() 11. ' 1111‘ Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 671 Exhibit 60 ( R 4 1✓.P✓✓ WATER INTRUSION REPORT: ` Date/Time of Event: /c3 -/ (.o - Unit: 4/ 1-0 Owner/Phone no.: 4 / I (./) Scope of Problem: I g" Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: ` Q.G, `�. , 4 u 4 4 &I- .1.4 4-64 1 111 Construction: Cis. Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 672 Exhibit 60 2: 7 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: Unit: 14 1 Owner/Phone no.: ( t 6Lti, ---46-1\1-0/k (0 7 ST_/ 7 g2— Scope of Problem: „ j t -f Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 673 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: if q E3-7 Unit: 1 &Owner/Phone no.: �� w. Scope of Problem: 6.„,„ L. „d",(-(6.4 rot a, :4 4 --- , ,16(431/V--) Awell,-61t t Q Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 674 Exhibit 60 F WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / — I- Unit: 14 ? Owner/Phone no.: 1:0)1/41 it h C -tAA,_ 014A, -1) Scope of Problem: it tf. 1 0 ki A -ri i ---- - 1 1 kr)0 friT\ ‘ A . ...-' „ ( i Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: L--- i\--t !!? J _ Committee: i\ t') Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 675 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /4 - /4 - Cy g �j unit: I —_ Owner/Phone n : ` \Oi.' � -' /q1.)-- J She of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 676 Exhibit 60 , sY WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 0 — 0 C) Unit: LFC7' Owner/Phone no.: 6-341 '' rY1.4 q Scope of Problem: k!--CM14atiCA4:31 "7. ) (Lu/V5 C6-LUYI 614_3( 6-1-1--( t (1,4-4A Cx6 6,C,L) (-7 Li Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: 61) Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 677 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event I f i„ I Unit: Owner/Phone no.: LL)(A t Scope of Problem: A._ Zta /AA_ di A b-t a 40 re 5 D ; *e_n_74.ryi u 4 4, Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: I 1-1 1-99 678 Exhibit 60 1,1 ( WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I? - - 0 7 Unit: Owner/Phone no,: , Scope of Problem: X e „fix, - kaLei Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 679 Exhibit 60 t WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / — Unit: 6") Scope of Problem: ie. g (3_ /14„..4- Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 680 Exhibit 60 l t i#I ,l(Ar OS EGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-40043 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503--535-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummit4att.net January 22, 2002 Mr. Daniel Block 59 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ref.: Dining Room Window Dear Mr.Block, There have been extensive leaks observed in units 58 and 57. Our contractor has been working with maintenance to determine and fix the cause of the leaks on the property. They have discovered that your dining room window has been incorrectly installed. During installation it was retro-fit into the building and had the nailing flanges removed. Without the flanges, water enters around the window, travels under the siding and leaks into the lower units. You should make arrangements to replace the window as soon as possible to prevent additional damage and personal liability to the lower units. While we don't recommend any particular window contractor. we can provide you with a couple of names of companies that have installed windows and doors per Oswego Summit specifications. Please call the office if you would like their names. Whoever you select, please tell them to stop by the office and I will provide information on acceptable installation parameters. Thank you for handling this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the office. Please keep me informed as to when you will replace the window. The lower units would like to have their ceilings repaired and that cannot occur until the leaking has stopped. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Os),Aego Summit Office Cc: The Board of Directors 681 Exhibit 60 4f1a- s� v .g 2F� WATER INTRUSION REPORT: i Date/Time of Event: /s - 3 Unit: b �� L/01 L4-' Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: atiiri_e he�, (tat0 0 -�— )` cui l /_..! 6LtvitsyI L--(1,40 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 682 Exhibit 60 f, WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: i i — . c 0 Unit: Owner/Phone no,: M ft92 Scope ofProblem: t . #..A. LULL., '4)La" ltlitteet 021-61,44. 4-Zak/I, -5-711 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 683 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: N LI - 069 Unit: S Owner/Phone no.: - Scope of Problem: at" P.- • Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 684 Exhibit 60 . , t r\ iii { { -°c Si 4t' ', { t IJ } z'1. OS EGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 4 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Luke Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummitna.att.net January 22, 2002 Mr. Daniel Block 59 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ref.: Dining Room Window Dear Mr.Block, There have been extensive leaks observed in units 53)and 57. Our contractor has been working with maintenance to determine and -the cause of the leaks on the property. They have discovered that your dining room window has been incorrectly installed. During installation it was retro-fit into the building and had the nailing flanges removed. Without the flanges, water enters around the window, travels under the siding and leaks into the lower units. You should make arrangements to replace the window as soon as possible to prevent additional damage and personal liability to the lower units. While we don't recommend any particular window contractor, we can provide you with a couple of names of companies that have installed windows and doors per Oswego Summit specifications. Please call the office if you would iike their names. Whoever you select, please tell them to stop by the office and I will provide information on acceptable installation parameters. Thank you for handling this matter. Ii you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the office. Please keep me informed as to when you will replace the window. The lower units would like to have their ceilings repaired and that cannot occur until the leaking has stopped. Sincerely, /---/~ Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Office Cc: The Board of Directors 685 1 Exhibit 60 • OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Sumo& Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummit@attuet December 6,2001 Mr. Gregory Friesen 58 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Mr. Friesen, This letter is a follow-up to our conversation yesterday and my call this morning. As reported by our maintenance man, your deck doors have had the nailing flanges removed during installation. Furthermore, to secure the door in the aperture, nails and screws were used. Removal of the nailing flanges allows water to enter around the sides and go into your neighbor's ceiling. The use of screws and nails also compromises the integrity of the door frame and channels more water into the building. I called Milgard Windows this morning. They no longer show Northwest Vinyl in their contractor listing. I recall that this company may no longer be in business after trying to find them in 1999. This is most unfortunate since you reported that they installed the doors. You should really try to locate your purchase and service orders from this work. Perhaps there is a name of someone who is now doing business under another name. If you find anything, I would be happy to search for them on the web. I would also get in touch with your insurance company. They often have remedies available to help in these matters. Again, it is with regret that I have to write this letter': As we disc ssed,you should make arrangements to replace the doors and repair the/C9iling below. I jam fairly certain that your insurance will help with the extensive damage to(unit 57. You may use any licensed contractor of your choice however I encourage\you to have em come to the office to discuss the installation Retro-fitting the door just is not-adoption. It must be installed with the flanges intact and then the deck surface retifurici Thank you for handling this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the office. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Office Cc: The Board of Directors 686 Exhibit 60 1 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /t—c) ei— qei Unit: 5g X21-61 Ce • Ar Owner/Phone no.: 'Itguro'lLA_.eA-e4.1) 3 1?6 f Scope of Problem: /24,:tA,47,.. j-t-ttAR.--et. 4111 I # 621-CA f(17/0S- USIL12"-• f ) Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Ccsitte— &or -C Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: 1— MILL Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 687 Exhibit 60 11 3/18/02 To: Oswego Summit Board of Directors From: Dan Bloch #59 Please accept my apologies for not answering your letter regarding the dining room window sooner. I have been rather stressed lately. My work situation has been rather meager this last year. My father passed away in mid February. I then had a bout of pneumonia a week or so later. My health care professionals have told me that any of these events could have been enough to lower my resistance,allowing this to happen. I am still recovering at this time. I called the contractor who installed the window Friday and asked that he address the issue immediately. He has agreed to come and survey the situation on Tuesday the 19th. May we come over and meet with you on this day? I thank you for your patience and understanding in this matter and will do whatever is needed to remedy this unfortunate situation. incerely, an Bloch P.S.You may save the price of a stamp and address any further correspondence to me at danbloch@telenort.com if'you so desire. 688 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUNIS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummit@attnet January 22, 2002 Mr. Daniel Block 59 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ref.: Dining Room Window Dear Mr.Block, There have been extensive leaks observed in units 58 and 57. Our contractor has been working with maintenance to determine and fix the cause of the leaks on the property. They have discovered that your dining room window has been incorrectly installed. During installation it was retro-fit into the building and had the nailing flanges removed. Without the flanges, water enters around the window, travels under the siding and leaks into the lower units. You should make arrangements to replace the window as soon as possible to prevent additional damage and personal liability to the lower units. While we don't recommend any particular window contractor, we can provide you with a couple of names of companies that have installed windows and doors per Oswego Summit specifications, Please call the office if you would like their names. Whoever you select, please tell them to stop by the office and I will provide information on acceptable installation parameters. Thank you for handling this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the office. Please keep me informed as to when you will replace the window. The lower units would like to have their ceilings repaired and that cannot occur until the leaking has stopped. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Office Cc: The Board of Directors 689 Exhibit 60 • WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: IT et, 6 q Unit: (0 I Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: - • I At &Ai 6 aim..< .4.A t r A .# Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 690 Exhibit 60 ; • - WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time o f Event: I— 3O Unit: (0.3 Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: 4 ) LO 64-1 — 040 JO-ea—q Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 691 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: q4 k„t Date/Time of Ey:it: I 1 1 - /1- 0 ...8 Unit: 0 LI Owner/Phone no.: ,(1,t_ )tL4r (0 g g, (D 'l' S Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Loud.o. iL °f t Q- Cb-1,A,/ A Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner 0 S Contacted: 11-11-99 692 Exhibit 60 ,• I WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: it— Unit: 11 Owner/Phone no,: (it Scope of Problem: riC0/171,-1, 3 C/1 AIVALA ) LAAAM'ad:\ 4') #19 A 4- A Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: ef A Ais1/41 , -4- (4 t ii A, u Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 693 Exhibit 60 a 1_ 4 - Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit LAO Ostvag0 OR.97035 -, Phone 503.635A000 Fax 503..635.0954 , - , July 09, 1998 ' Fred Rormau 65 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,Or.97035 Re:Sliding Door Replacement Dear Mr. Rortrtau: The Association of Homeowners,Oswego Summit is ordering a sliding door to replace the one in your unit. The cost and it's installation will be charged to unit 65 and the billing included with your regular assessment.This is allowable in the by-laws as has been explained previously. As of June 11,there is still water leaking into unit 64,below you,and the moisture is entering the structure at your sliding door- , Ati..„--ir/1-:-------- Paul Brockmeier President,Board of Directors cc:Ms.Gerri Hack,unit 64 D F Tripp,Attorney At Law .,----- 4 e--- ..---f-, 7 oc2,0 ---(1) .,.\( Y.1"- ,- 694 Exhibit 60 i WATER INTRUSION REPORT: a f a Date/Time of Event: //— a. — Unit: (0 4— (2)e At Owner/Phone no.: .©AiC, ‘7•16.<./Z- - (f9Q i - 147 O b Scope of Problem: U Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: i 12 I c Construction: Committee: /� Office Mgr: t' . (-- I_. . Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 695 11/23/1998 10:22 6350954 OSHOAA eittrkit 81) 1-2-3'4g ' - "64 -30E. 14A)41‘)11 k AFTe*,Q --1;42.14,AJ6 t,(»TH Act‹. 4 0 Ad) 1- Mi ' / Re.p.,Q I es uo Fourx0 -77144-1- -D /0 poor MY 4 Li •*-4.4...) Tel', 'TIM CoytiT/Zol-17.t* t.-/64 4S -"C°I.v*- -1-4/s 11-11, 00 oP R•SaDFb::16,. IN) VI/ tri F4c To "BAk. ciA) - 14-0To Ate 4.5070 GL,61ife.pc._ por 4,\JI) vo6., T14 E ateeRtOcort,sAxtrac,4":1;› THA TP 4)1r wpf 5 irusmdbi.z i77 Lt 647— 0..v THE LiP1gt2.. P407-0 esozz, FiZove. 1(4e-- LA-)4Z-1<um-Y. Dis&)06/-40) EW itA,LErzii. _0".) -P407-c.)- / Me ti-) y SpAz..K or on) 014yekro&iv C7 17-bei7 P1-40T0 ."Akfp 114e flo'L,).17-- (Am4s "RfEm.0\is . VIA-10WEuirtA-2, ( cTcr LacT(Oc- eo) /1057-AkZ46,6 Tlif Pt- Cowie DU 1i D DAPF t'4 1,4,4447- To Lbed< Foe., (d)o/8„n„, -771-141 ut.)o)(2X LiOAS -Dor,-)e.., A Ai ev1Pri kfirvuipor_fe_ "Time_ Di 0Af-r- 5Fie,01 '70 -131 Vki61/406 AAA/Arr: "rscti 696 Exhibit 60 01 i, A\ OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-63541954 E-Mail: e215summit@cs.com October 31,2001 Mr. Robert and Lynn Thompson 2332 SW Chelmsford Portland,OR 97201 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, nanI in #67 has\ The neighbor of your te been reporting leaks during the rainy season for the last couple of years. e deterratn; ild that your old sliding glass door to the deck is the cause. We had attempt&4 tempordry caulking repairs but they no longer are working. These buildings are now 23 years old and due to settling and age, the windows and doors just wear out. You are responsible for replacing the door. Please let me know when you plan to do so as your neighbor's patience is wearing thin. She would really like to have the leaks stop so the ceiling can be repaired. If you have any questions,please call. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker- Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 697 w..,-,,r. ,f,,-f.�s..ao4,,,,,,p.,... ear sem,,,Now-srewi` ,Nomr.,,0400' ,,,,,,x,4004" ` ,.,>>_�r.„f r ,",�' r,�, �.. :.3,a'7:, . F"' (;)- MAINTENANCE REQS s M A R A T H ON" 1 MANAGEMENT INC. ❑Off-Site Maintenance Li On-Site Maintenance D to 1 Time. Taken 6y: / / - ' ''` ilil3� � I Property/Apt.#: Requested by: Phone: ues Maintenance Re. ted: � ,� ��`�. .- � 1 µ 1 IA4r v I :r � x . , " Pp t Resident's Approval to Enter Maintenance by: F J / 1. Start � arg , e. Maintenance Performed: 8 r gg gg Manager's Approval: r unt Cr9 Summary of Charges., Resident Complex t Labor Charaed: Hrs.Charged: x$ Rate $ $. '- 1 Material/Services Charaed: 34 I RO.#'s: i W/O and Charge Back#: I $ I $ _ 1 TOTAL I imple.,. toBackst 'de White(original)-Accounting(payroll) Yellow-Maintenance Supervisor Pink-Operations Department Photo Copy-Accounting(AIR)if Applicable Photo Copy-Manager ) ©Copyright 1993 MARATHON MANAGEMENT INC. Rev.10/22/97 698 q�P � � v J v C QinlG� GJreI` G � =)<c\ 5♦ ti"' SoGGV In house repair Contractor � '� MASTER WORK LIST FOR LEAKS 2 Living Room x slider covered and to be replaced bottom flange removed at 8 and caulk failed. Sealed but 7 living room x ower to repair 9 Bedroom x bad spot at end of caprall. Think its fixed 14 old leak at corner board area from#16 deck x 23 Slider 39 center of LR slider I x sealed slider at 40. still leaking below corner boards 41 LR and Bedroom tamed 44-D&F install 0.AQ4 9 7N 42 livin room tarpedi �'j ) 44-D&F install 43 Slider tamed 44-IMF install is Bedroom and living Both sliders at 58 without flanges, Sealed. DR window 57 room x at 59 leaking, I 58 x 59 tamed !� 83 Living room x Think it's stopped-not sure of cause t Living Room-2 spots x caulked slider @65-new slider with flanges X S 87 x sealed slider-leak stopped,old slider should be replaced O C) co Exhibit 60 Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego OR.97035 MAINTENANG.-M.ANAGER REPORT BILI,:MORLEY-bLORIA WATERMAN March 1999 I. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE: A.Routine pool maintenance. B. Dump mail binds twice a week. C. Replace lights out. D. Hired Labor Ready to clean bathrooms in Rec. building. Also hired labor ready to clean around dumpsters, both once a week. II.PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE: A. Gary from Automated weather is starting to get the storage doors and delivering.them on the decks to be replaced. B .Pool and Spa House fixed 3 cracks in pipes having to do with the Spa. Waiting for parts. C. Joe VanGulik approved repair on roof on building m 23. Buckaroo Thermoseal. D.Tom Jones of Pacific N.W.Resurfacing called out to reseal slider unit 71. E. Tom Jones to reseal around sliders C units 39 and 40. III. DEFERRED OR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE: A. Windows changed and slider changed in~atlit•65_ B. AST Drywall scheduled to fix unit 67 ceiling C. Fire Alarms checked,passed. D. Scheduled AST Drywall for unit 165. E. D&F Windows out to measure unit I-44 for windows. Window and door arrived,to be installed by D&F. F. AST Drywall out to fix unit 67 ceiling: G. AST Drywall out to fix ceiling in unit 165. FL Vital Signs out to fix black numbers on building 24&25. 1. Highridge scheduled to be out to do landscaping on flower beds. J. Pool&Spa House out to fix sauna,left bid. K. Nelson Electric out to fix electrical problem building 23. L. R&H Construction worked on and water tested units 91,92,93.94,69,70,71.63,64.65.142.143,144,37,38,&39. March 10-17. M.Next on the schedule for R&H to water test,9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19,20,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,63.64. 65, 111, 112, 113, 139, 140, 141.As soon as R&H can let us know when they want to start we can give notices. 3-23-99. M.Nelson Electric out to fix short in wire,building 20. IV. EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE: A.Gutters being replaced as needed.Interstate roofing. B.Nelson Electric out to fix electrical on building 16. Braker switch broken Short in wire to alarm system. C.Standard plumbing out to fix leak in pipe on shut off,building 18,outside. V.MANAGEMENT: L OFFICE: A.Meeting minutes typed. B.Paper work sent to Equity Home. C.Paper work sent to CPA that Paul Brockmeier signed. D.Letter sent to unit 71 from Paul Brockmeier. :k_ 700 12 ti ' Exhibit 60 • 41,--...'-T-7%. —mit Voting box in the office. t ` z. paper work on three more leaks to Bob @ R&H. 3-5-99. lJ , .f Thee oids for security lightings. wstettet. ` .GROUNDS: :A.. Clean Sweep to clean parking lots.Wed. March 3, 1999 B. Lights changed out where they were burned out on property. A F FAY C. Lights changed to more wattage in different locations on Property. D.State inspection of pool and spa,passed. 1, E. Three bids obtained for security guard. ' F.Three bids obtained for extermination of ants/bugs. NT V G. U.S.West put in a lock box at our request so they can have a key to the storage rooms when needed. r_ , h' H.Landscape Monitor Sheet faxed to Marathon.3-9-99. I. Highridge Landscape has started mowing some of the grass.Blowing walks. J. Lights changed around pool that were out. K. Complete Pest Control out to look at bug problem and leave a bid. L. Fence built unit 125. VII P[11�I�IC RELATIONS: A \ 1,6, '( "V ,fix :[Unit 15 report�d not leaking. ji 44„n f:" ,% B. Unit 66 reportdd not leaking. C. Managers Unit no longer leaking. 1D.165 reported not leaking. E. 145 reported not leaking. • F.62 Reported not leaking. G. 130 Reported not leaking. H. R&H working on units and doing water test on days when it is not raining for at least 3 hours. With the most i crucial units.first;-i.�ceilings falling in and units with stains last. I.COtfRTESY CALLsittilumt}rntnm+llrin11111, 1. Unit 66 clkout toilet,told him how to change seal.20 nun. 2. Ot it-171 changed out broken outlet. 15 min. •3. Units 198 & 194 to help resolve running toilet problem.30 min. 4. Unit 175 checked garbage disposal. t0 minutes. I v 1 A' 1, Y rl, ;!',,-j: i 4,''1t 3 it i LA . 1 701 Exhibit 60 F.All complaints and questions about leaks are being turned over to R&H Construction and unit owners are being given R&H phone number. V.MANAGEMENT: I. OFFICE: A.Meeting minutes typed. B.Newsletter out. C. Letters typed to units that have not changed their windows or sliders out. D.Time set up for unit 127,her contractor,Joe VanGulik and Bill Morley to meet and determine if her windows or slider are leaking. E. Letters were sent out to owner's that have not changed their windows or old sliders.A lot of owner's feel that it is wrong for the Board to tell them that they are coming in to replace their windows. F.Ballot proxy typed up. G. Candidates proposals typed up and sent out with proxy. H.March Newsletter started. VI. GROUNDS: A.Cleaned,swept and shoveled around all dumpsters. B. Blow entry ways Phase II. C. Sprayed all moss on sidewalks and stairs Phase I. D. Changed lights buildings 3, 16, 15,25,22,23,24, 18. E.New photo cell building 3. F. Bush replaced in front of unit 66. G. Garage doors are being put in as needed. VII. PUBLIC RELATIONS: A. Unit 15 reported not leaking. B. Unit 66 reported not leaking. C. Managers unit no longer leaking. D. 165 reported not leaking. E. 145 reported not leaking. F. 62 Reported not leaking. G.R&H working on units and doing water test on days when it is not raining for at least 3 hours. With the most crucial units first, i.e.. ceilings falling in and units with stains last. 702 o Summit Condominiums Exhibit 60 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego OR 97035 MAINTENANCE-MANAGER REPORT BILL MORLEY-GLORIA WATERMAN • December 1998/January 1999. 1. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE: ', A. Routine pool maintenance. B. Dump mail binds twice a week. C. Replace lights out. D.Clean Office building. E.Constantly cleaning out garbage from cardboard recycling bin around building 22. F. Blowing stairwells and cobwebs. II. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE: A. Gary from Automated weather is starting to get the storage doors and delivering them on the decks to be replaced. III.DEFERRED OR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE: A.Numberious calls and meetings with John from R.H.to try to track down the purpose for various leaks. B. Decks were covered to determine if the source of the leak could be decks.The decks were then caulked and the plastic removed. If they were still leaking then it was not the deck but another source. C. Gip-creet replaced in unit 18. D. D.&F. Industries out to evaluate unit 58 and 59 peep holes in sliding doors. They found that they were plugged. E. AST Drywall out to fix unit 140's ceiling. F. Building 25 steps common area,west end stairwell were resurfaced and stopped by N.W. Resurfacing. G. Window delivered to unit 24. H. Myers and Son contacted for bid on retaining wall. Has not contacted us. I.Garage doors are being replaced as needed. J.,Metro Rooter out to unplug outside drain unit 481. K.State Farm adjuster out and checked out ALL leaks and storm damage. Summary to follow. L. D.F. Industries out to seal new door(slider)unit 16. M. Waiting for heavy blowing rain to evaluate water intrusion. N. C.C.&L.scheduled to be out and fix roof on garage. O. Interstate Rooting scheduled to be out with R.H.Jeff Forell to go over the work that was suppose to be done. P. Outside water faucet turned off. Q. Ice melt out 3 weeks before Christmas. R.CCL& Interstate roofing out to recheck the work they did a year ago. S.RH Construction is now taking plastic off decks.It was determined that only 3 leaks were stopped. RH Construction caulked up underneath the plastic while the plastic was still on the decks. It is our understanding that with this being done and the unit is still leaking,then it was not the sliding door that was causing that particular leak. IV.EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE. 1°i i)' R H.: ( ! I A.Caulked around windows unit 16. B. Corner trim rotten caulked around flashing at gutter. C. Reseal fire escape door.Caulk scupper at I40's gutter. D. Replace missing siding unit 67.FiXed bad corner trim and bad flashing at deck above. E. Unit#71 Gutter clogged could no;/reach flashing detail at deck,gutter bad. F.Unit 12 Fixed loose plywood at_seupper deck,replace bad caulking at window. 703 Exhibit 60 E Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego OR.97035 Maintenance/Manager Report Bill Morley/Gloria Waterman August 1998. Talked with owner of 182 about damage in his garage to be fixed.Set up appointment with Tigard door to take garage door opener off so AST Drywall can fix ceiling.Assisted in removing brackets. Talked with owner in 64 to set up time to do work. Broke up pool party at 2:30 a.m.alcohol involved.They returned to unit 107. Contacted Howes Construction to follow up with paving drive way after pipe was fixed by Highridge Landscape. Assisted in preparation and help dig out trench. Went over remaining work to be done by Diamond Construction and the clean up. Rinse down stairs and wipe down railings from power washing. Called in storm Drain cleaner to snake drains by building 13 and 18. Met with Jeff Ferrel and looked at units 143& 144 to check if there were possible leaks from 144's deck. Extensive pool treatment. Hosed down dumpsters areas. Assessed units 126& 127 for possible leaks from 127. Assessed ceiling damage in garage 0 19 and#20. Delivered paint _. _ ,,Reattached cable wire,#67.Assessed ceiling. Rehang shingles Building# 12,and# 117. Removed barriers left by Diamond Construction. Washed all windows,office,and downstairs. Hand watered all plants around office until irrigation pipe was repaired. Typed up letters for President of Board. Typed meeting minutes,send to Marathon. Took pool samples to Pool and Spa House. Address issue with 112 about a complaint that was never dealt with.Turned it over to Board President and Construction Committee. Check out side lights and replace. Start on September News Letter. Cleaned around dumpsters. Power outage,called P. G..and E. after they said they couldn't do anything about water leaking from a conduit. they sealed it. Computer down.Took it in to be repaired or to see what was wrong with it.Turned out to be nothing major. Called window washer and set up a time to assess washing the common area windows. Set up time for Sundance Cleaning to come out and assess cleaning elevators and shampooing each elevator carpet. Elevators cleaned and shampooed. Contacted Diamond Construction to come pick up the old end boards where the garbage dumpsters use to be. Corresponded with a possible new owner that was referred to by a recent owner about moving to Oswego Summit. Contacted an excavator to get a bid on working on the retaining wall where it is still leaking. Also referred him to the Construction Committee. Edged area with concrete edging over by building 8&9.Put in top soil and replanted bushes that were removed due to construction and concrete work. Edged with concrete,area on the side of building 22.Put in top soil. Hosed down entire area where mail boxes are. Washed all windows. Clean bathrooms,vacuum recreation areas,empty trash,and mop floors in lounge area bathroom and kitchen. Hosed down deck on out door pool.Washed down patio furniture. Paper work to Board President and Construction Committee from R. K.Construction so they could be paid. Check cut from Marathon Management to G.Jenkins so the storage doors can be installed. Constantly cleaning pop and beer cans from newspaper recycling bins. i. 704 06/01/99 1 :21PM;jareg__67x0iiii3Pi.r go 2/2 503ase4170 -. • A du H CONSTRUCTION; PaOe 11 TO 2243636 P.91 4 f Al / '''''''.. -- 643 Third Street take Owe%Orem' V41141) /3 P:07, trfU34-30g5 (5133)6354734 (000)6354734 Van GuiliclOtiver,Inc / (7 (/ , Far($03)635417e &lower. /1) ! i 7 ( / — / P1-1: 246-5528 , . FAX: 224-3638 P 4 ' 1 / (},- AL ,,,, '' ' . .0 L- t-, Ion would like to retain RH Construction to 'niniums as listed below, We would like you to Iny to make repairs as some of the repairs +ere not ctre=meetly. or two bedrooms that really need attention, one witn experience. er 1!hoiss fd with mud without any proper laces in condominiums where walls have to he wall and the ceiling should be redone. A it have to have all tree popcbro scraped off to rfy redone and backed by the standard - \\ The following units to be repaired are: 1 1 -,, , r,ka—,` 38, 39, 42, 69, 7O, &,123. 137, 140 k c -- --ide, — Ac 4,- 1 As you realize, we have to cove 24-hour notice to the people before we do the repair so 7 fl'^' -' c--"--t•h- the repairs have to be cooreinated with the manager of Oswego Summa in order to give '3----- -1,, evaryene proper notice. lie-,e,e , - ,,i /I would ateo apezeciaZe it if you wouldnew let me kWier',the approxima;efy cost will be, `k ‘3 i V I = if/toisiely //4 may; Dewey Meazel; 016,5 Dennis Meyers#142 Dinty Moore#73 • ... , . , . 4 4, 705 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 6`Z) V Unit: t 0 f Owner/Phone no.: Le J64,C tit) it Scope of Problem: 1 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 706 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: YS Date/Time of Event: . Unit: 10 CI Owner/Phone no.: ,(11,:t Scope of Problem: 0.41e— C./et QAG 44) 8,4 a M 4 40 /0 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1. 1-99 707 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: )i gr. aQ(,4--1A Unit: tl� Cf Owner/Phone no.: ())61.44,_.• Scope ofProblem: o `7 U rl1 -04 � ��c ,a_ P Or , C otfLe./ _. _ ( u Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: U}e-Al dL'L 1 D Construction: JLc-8\ Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 708 Exhibit 60 - = - WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 6 Unit: (0 q- &4QI Owner/Phone no.: )0.--(1-14 61,t A g-44.,..pt d 71- - 6621 Scope of Problem: /7°I / .17,4 /C.A0 A -,t71,/-1 L-7 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: 1144 - 4-6,1 ihr.d xjc ;5:1, J-141.1e- U (.11 Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 709 Exhibit 60 I WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 1 r)-(lb Unit: 10 Owner/Phone no. r) a-1k --0-"-&-it_KCI1-1 (tP 36 -9 (..(.3 . Scope of Problem: ) / el 7 A/ e t krV t vi a 1,41 ; Li Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: 1 15)Ntk, Construcuion: 4 ..Callagft410=. it(Al Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 710 Exhibit 60 (r '* WATER INTRUSION REPORT: 3 i Date/Time ittme of Event: x a - -. Unit: 17 13 '---)10 Owner/Phone no.: 44 clitt I Scope of Problem:al ie., s y ° ,,....r rt .. . 1 _ .... ,, 4A )1 a, t Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 711 Exhibit 60 . - WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: i1 — 1.4:7 ;71 02 Unit: 1 Owner/Phone alt Cletest 3ea - t s k Scope of Problem: tft 44.44,•-e—, • ie. Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mg: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 712 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: 1 Date/Time of Event: a. - r -- Q Unit: , / I Owner/Phone no.:1Y). /1 � Scope of Problem: 1 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 713 Ehibit6O To: t rego Summit Homeowners board Members Oswego Summit Managers R and H Construction From. Martha Dougherty, 70 Oswego Summit,Building 10 Phone: 636-9343 Work Phone:731-8585 Re: Leaks in my ceiling and above one door Since the wind and the rain I have developed three leaks,two which have appeared before. One leak is in the middle of my living room below the sliding glass door to unit 71. The leak is one that R and H Construction worked at to resolve during Oswego Summit's big reconstruction period. They tried many things including taking out and returning unit 71's aluminum door to it's frame and caulking extensively. I understand the new owners say that door leaks water in during heavy winds. The above leak is right in line with a teak above my living room sliding glass door. The leak in the sliding glass door has a small stream which flows on the living room side to the door when the wind blows. I believe there is water in the walls and above the top part of my window frame because I have a hole in the frame for my alarm system and this is where the water comes in, This area is also directly under unit 71's wall with the scuppers in it and it appears from the outside that water is coming from there unless it is blown in under the tiles or from the gutter to the overhang. The outside wall above my sliding glass door is a little damp Unit 69 below me also has a leak in her bedroom which might be in the same area. My neighbor in 71 tells me that rainwater shoots off the tile towards the roof and over shoot the gutter above his sliding door and the tile next to his deck_ It hits his deck railing and splashes back at his sliding door. The third leak is a stain in my kitchen which showed up several months ago after the weekend the new owners to 71 moved in. The unit had been vacant for a year or more. They believed it might have been from their replacing their hot water heater two weeks previously. I sealed the stain and painted over it. It has not reappeared beyond the area I painted, They do not know anything in their kitchen that is leaking and suggest it comes also from wind and rain. They say they do not use their dishwasher. We are stumped how to tackle this problem. My plumber just looked at unit 71's kitchen and says it is dry under the dishwasher and the sink, He sugeests water is coming in my stove vent, We may need to cut a hole in my ceiling in the near future and look around. I am asking for assistance to resolve the above. Joe Van Gullick was kind enough to respond quickly and look at the leaks. He told me that some action would be taken on Monday, 11/23/98, dee , /7/ -7 ("/ // t 714 Exhibit 60 /21 TO: Gloria and Bill, Oswego Summit Managers Joe Van Gullick ego Summit Home Owners Association Board of Directors R& I-IConstruction Fro Martha D.ugherty 70 Osweo Summit Date: 12/11/98, 7:30 AM It is raining. It is windy. My ceiling is dripping form the large areas previously marked on the map where the plaster is coming down/ I h ave collected about a gallon of rain water this morning between 5:30 and 7:30 AM 1m a nearby area, it missed my container and some of my carpet is wet. 715 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / (L Unit: vL Owner/Phone no.: 61171 f L . Scope of Problem Jliet /L % DYn _.., Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 716 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: — I — Unit: Owner/Phone no.: 63-44-0-11 Scope of Problem: - i 6161 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 717 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / — Unit: Owner/Phone no.: .` xr" 3 Scope of Problem: rt Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: I1-I1-99 718 Exhibit 60 4 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: 1,1 Date/Time of Event: / - Unit: 1 I I/ D Lt. Owner/Phone no,: 4 lt„, Scope of Problem: (.7 -1. ern/4/0 Yi 1_174 Y.: //)._ ar) (v.4 a -I s4-6 ,oA 7 5 14-440_114_, 2A-t,,...2 -"IA...4 A I2ia-4A- '/ 411.4i ClkAi Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: ik .„,ta tf Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 719 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 2. 3 - 0 1 Unit: _._.... _ 1A1,,,AAALtti1/4-- et( Owner/Phone no.: .._ Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: '" cte„, Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 720 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / . 1 "-U2) 4 Unit: I Owner/Phone no.: . !Va (.4 - q G� Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 721 Exhibit 60 ut WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / /— d Unit: a- Owner/Phone no.: 7141D7 - 6-CS- IL��; UU / J Scope of Problem: �l Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 722 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - Unit: e5,-,) /54/.4 _., t--/ Owner/Phone no.:/ t jc4 ' Z 3jq 31i95 r Scope of Probs: 447-t-tf-) i> ‘7/4,,re. deci 7.:3,6) o-ge-b_Lp-01 1--e - Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: q4 -Nay Li,di e,4714-e 4/0 / Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 723 alt,645-4-. 0-1) B -16- rLID CP. DI ize<---3-6.,e_s Z.) ..-- 6,5 -0 61- 2-/ - .), OSDoe-y , Stx0,-)nill--- 1, w f ,,,„_,.„.., O'r .,: „„,_ ___, ',,, „..„....„,....„,„, , , . ,,,. , UN r r 4"r c9 4 1 5 FxpealeAic.hk) A. ZeA- PO Ott, LiVIA:Pcs Rom C AI' S A Root RDL) ---irli 50,61A:D '?,,,E: te)e) 6,0 ) NTo T ‘...c). e iii z , 4 i --B;L L 1114.0(ZIA! 1/1,AlAt 1\17-, i $ 724 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: ` "' Unit: 4 _1 Owner/Phone no.: q .. . b a.. Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 725 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /1- ,/ ‘iq /0: ov Unit: I AU/ ) 2-- ti 3 Owner/Phone no.: ATYWA igiS — (fi 3 D47- 4)afr 0 s--, Scope of Problem:___LI2A/1 51004,1,„ (ix I I (zdzamdT Leak Gt Go va Oii C_W 4 6A,Itk 40 0 0.1 , 1 • doyo eka.S 6 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: t )1,,11.411)LL',) CLk Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: /1 - -f- ILL4,414 6C, Board: Owner Contacted: 726 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I I 0 0 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: N 6-4.-- tv/ , Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: ll-1199 727 • Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 3 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: fi la-e 4(?-- aA43-0-4A-d--- .0.1 1,4-c-d-0-0 U -u - 01-ift A-t-tik-t—tez Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 728 Exhibit 6Q' WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: ' – r , U?) 3 Unit: 11 i Owner/Phone no.: ele,.e. et, ktitti-1,1 ,–�'"'' U/ 3 — `j / T 7 Scope of Problem !j Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 729 Exhibit 60 ;41 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I / 0 — 0 4, Unit: Owner/Phone no.: 6-1-'&11.4 41‘ J..40 Scope of Problem: LC) 1/4=2 10 41 C--"-C44411.t.4 = .1/4J Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 730 Exhibit 60 , I WATER INTRUSION REPORT: 'P Date/Time of Event: f -/w -- Unit: a Owner/Phone no.: eiaLettki Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) 1, ri iLrOMaintenanceY\ Cti ft-ca) '().7)-tr-) t-cAtt ' Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 731 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummit@att.net January 16,2002 Ms.Elaine Spooner 94 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Subject: Deck Door Dear Ms. Spooner, This letter is to follow-up my phone message of this morning. As I said, the unit below you is going to be listed and the water damage to the ceiling is an obvious detriment to the sale. In the past I don't believe it was an issue because neither the renter nor the owner seemed to be troubled by the leaks. However, the door on your deck is the original fixture and is now over 23 years old. It has failed and without replacement will continue to cause water intrusion into the lower unit. Per the by-laws,this is your responsibility. Please advise the office when you plan to have the new door installed. Be very certain that your contractor understands that it must be brown vinyl and must be installed to Oswego Summit specifications. This includes leaving the nailing flanges intact, installing flashing and a trim board over the nailing flange and installing the door so as to create an adequate seal against leaks. I would be happy to talk with whoever you select to do the job. Once the door is installed, please notify the office and I will have Pacific NW Surfacing repair the deck. This expense is about$50 -$100 but without this step, water can still intrude. If you are unable to replace the door we will install a tarp to protect the lower unit. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors G. Sweeney—93 Oswego Summit 732 Exhibit 60 M` it t F WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /0°"' .3l-- 0 Unit: ci 6) 4 Owner/Phone no.: �. ; .... , U Scope of Problem: �� I - FAA_... 4 4 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: ie-4...31:101.4.A 4.444 7< (4...th..44 — Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 733 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: r Date/Time of Event: I 1 0 6- Unit: Owner/Phone no.: • Scope of Problem: bOlt4if At, 1,1,04) 0 1 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 734 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 14- Unit: ! 1 I Celt-1-4-44 Owner/Phone no.: C., Scope of Problem: , 4-6 .(?(Lei Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: A/ # L,Ltit) Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: ii I 1-99 735 Exhibit 60 A ;),.. .1):t J ‘) WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 7 x - IS - o '7 Unit: / 0 1 ownerhone no : dfs,„4„,,,4,„ 0 Scope of Problem: rx4o 04e MA j 4 CI"troks J2da 8 - e. ,,),.....d...„) ,,,k ,,,d, 46.14.4, A.....d.- W .47.10 4-- ....... i 1 'i u„,„ . 4_ A_ I 1 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 736 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I 0 q Unit: / o3 Ownerhone no.: -tAl C14-3 Scope of Problem: 4 i 1 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 737 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: C Unit: /0 51 Owner/Phone no.: (kLe4J24 _- U O Scope of Problem: q& 9- y // I ® (o n (e- (114.AA-U\.. 06(.,1 I- KA attia- v r �i " Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 738 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: Iq. 9,0D 7 Unit: 0 Owner/Phone no.: �X * Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: i •Construction: . . — Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 739 Exhibit 60 � t WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Evait: i I— C3 - o 3 Unit: I b 61 Owner/Phone no.: (P9 " / 3 Scope of Problem: cbo Arift,cU Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 740 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I --- / — 0. 001 Unit: ( Owner/Phone no.: (71Y\a/1445(A \--htt-i d 3 C Scope of Problem: It! Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 741 Exhibit 60 ji. tl ,f :v - r,� 4 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: lee Date/Tune of Event: 0 LI Unit: _... Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: u v Follow-up: (date. time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 742 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: //-� / n 4 Unit: i/ Owner/Phone no,: da4 Scope of Problem: , gg tA AS*. r Ai) , �A , /iv f 1 _ Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 743 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: I Date/Time of Event: /— 3p. .- 0 (e Unit: 76 a ) Alli/t /I - Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: ch/i £ L. � . otxet ) Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 744 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - 3 0 0 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: * Scope of Problem: L . I / IA • Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: II-1 1-99 745 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: L .2_00 — .„ Unit: / Owner/Phone no.• '—jR ,0„" &71/416,..6e„...4. Scope of Problem: //>> Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: l Construction: Gbh eco' � r - i,, r/-r�e�� � .� _ Committee: LA- =,-',..,n.e.evd Office Mgr: Board: • Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 746 Exhibit 60 (42 - r ` WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I -[ 7-" 4 7 Unit: / ` -37 Owner/Phone no.: ,QR Scope of Problem: /O C ? " !,444" Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: a iceittoU /g_14-4A--) I U Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-i1-99 747 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: f -2 Unit: i g.,3 Owner/Phone no.. Q , 1a Scope of Problem: 4 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 748 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: (- 3 C Unit: /a ' — Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: f P- 41 / t ± 4(6 ( Lt i/)),?,-±- 11 A .,.. af-Q Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 749 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION *ORT: Date/Time of Event: (1- c unit: "k 4 "wisp, Osfincr/Phone no.: A A I cope of 11 -1-11 kik\ Ceci tt,t ( Jyrktn fkk I t kkkI ftikket-41 ( 4„. .- fickt-Y/ 1 tt, Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Tat a t. eir, ILA V21 0 Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 750 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: Unit: a Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: C _Q-.Q a 12- -- Q.4- 0 L.1/vim,, U Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 751 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 1- a OO Unit: ti a 6- Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: t IFIAJ * t 7,? 41-1*4 - - I r 1---te Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 752 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - Unit: 1 - Owner/Phone no.: A 01 99 - Scope of Problem: 14A VJ (AA to4tIfi-Lreit-to 447,--471 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1141-99 753 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: JoD , Unit: / Owner/Phone no.: Oh j, „A' 531 (e, ...... I I Scope of Problem: • i1C1-1,4- A Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 754 Exhibit 60 , WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /1- q ; 0 Unit: eflai - /3"--4 L6- / Owner/Phone no..1:7(es L A LY:ta 1. 42:eA44-77-7---- 63i 7 Scope of Problem: t (LcAe.. • _ Jiff ,,,febif _44 1;:t4 6 eL6a ( Ai (1-ktr, kwA,C1 kw- ,0 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 755 Exhibit 60 ; = WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: — / Unit: f7 Owner/Phone no.: ".1 (1_4 thus, --- 3 — 3 (‘ 0 (I Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 756 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Daterrime of Event: / / -", S-- — cieg / e ; cei Unit: 51 7 7 ) ' Owner/Phone no.: 4---e- 6 9 cl - /9 q cii Scope of Problem: („, A V 1/1 a Ay, -,1 it 4 ty (.4", y5 y/Y y , _ cr ' 4,i — Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 757 Exhibit 60 n OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummit@att.net • May 6,2002 Mr. Bruce Jensen 127`Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Mr. Jensen, As you know, Building 18 has been plagued with multiple leaks over the course of the last year. The patience of a number of homeowners has worn thin as we have struggled to find the cause of the water intrusion. Many components were suspect and we hired a structural engineer to evaluate the building. Brian Weight of BW Inspection Engineers was here during March. His report was received in April and I have been contacting those homeowners affected by the information. Mr. Weight indicates in his report that the sliding glass doors on your deck should be replaced.\The doors are original equipment and a probable cause of some of the leaks below. Unit 128 afso • has a failed slider and the owner of that unit is making arrangements for replacement -It appears the failure of all the upper doors has resulted in continuous leaks to the lower units. I would have to say that those homeowners directly receiving the leaks are prepared to take aggressive steps, including legal action, to see that the problem is resolved. That would certainly be expensive and detrimental to all of us. Therefore, please let me know when you are going to replace the doors. I have specifications in the office and Ken Jacoby is available during the week to cover installation specifics with your contractor. I cannot emphasize enough the need to leave the nailing flanges on the doors and windows. The windows and doors cannot be retrofit into the building. They will fail if so installed. Also, please choose windows and doors with brown vinyl exterior finish. I have the names of contractors who have worked on the property and would be happy to provide them if desired. Let me know if I can answer any questions or help you with more information. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker-Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 758 Exhibit 60 ... WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /— / cZ) Unit: Owner/Phone no.: L W.L o Scope of Problem: L a - A N 7 A Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: • Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 759 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 January 11,2002 Ms. Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ref.: Dining Room Window Dear Mr. Heitzman, Thank you for answering my inquiry regarding your dining room window. You told me that a previous owner had installed this window. Unfortunately, whoever that person or contractor was did an improper job. There have been leaks reported in units 129, 130 and 131. Our contractor has been working on your deck this week and discovered that your dining room window has no nailing flanges. It was retro-fit into the building and without the flanges allows water to enter around the window, travel under the siding and leak into the lower units. We have made repairs to the area as a temporary fix. This temporary fix should allow the ceilings in the lower units to dry out so we can have them repaired. However, you will need to replace your window as soon as possible to prevent future damage and personal liability. Please advise the Board of Directors as soon as possible regarding your plans to replace the dining room window. Damages to the lower units after we have fixed the ceilings will be your responsibility. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker--Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 760 Exhibit 60 t WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I 7 'a 6 o3 Unit: t A r) liht 1)) Owner/Phone no.: .11--)t))-4 — Scope of Problem: -01 4;' ( 1% 4 4- 7ry., 4 3 , Follow-up: (date, time,actions) AAMaintenance: tt../.14.)))450 ? — Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 I-11-99 761 Exhibit 60 = `' WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I S- I to C D-- Unit: Owner/Phone no.: 1x.-4A....,,,.,Z, rlY1 Scope of Problem: (2 1.Q,l AA/P' OA_ 11-6/1/a Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 762 Exhibit 60 „§-- OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 January 11, 2002 Ms. Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ref.: Dining Room Window Dear Mr. Heitman, Thank you for answering my inquiry regarding your dining room window. You told me that a previous owner had installed this window. Unfortunately, whoever that person or contractor was did an improper job. There have been leaks reported in units 129, 130 and 131. Our contractor has been working on your deck this week and discovered that your dining room window has no nailing flanges. It was retro-fit into the building and without the flanges allows water to enter around the window, travel under the siding and leak into the lower units. We have made repairs to the area as a temporary fix. This temporary fix should allow the ceilings in the lower units to dry out so we can have them repaired. However, you will need to replace your window as soon as possible to prevent future damage and personal liability. Please advise the Board of Directors as soon as possible regarding your plans to replace the dining room window. Damages to the lower units after we have fixed the ceilings will be your responsibility. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 763 Exhibit 60 . WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / ;141– q q Unit: / 37 — 6e1c Owner/Phone no.: .. e1K,L.,4„.( — 3 g- Scope of Problem: 4. N40 -)f3L( c1 - _AM Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 764 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / �� ' ,441U 7 Unit: / 3 / Owner/Phone no.: /._1 L144�%Gc Scope of Problem: /v1A &96-11-- t k n ' Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 765 Exhibit 60 �g�jJ�� ff464~ WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: � a (SU a-- unit: /31 Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: • Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: •iii ,10+ € 13 d Construction:__AQ.'V. O L%.1" Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 766 Exhibit 60 , - _ WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / q Unit: (3 / '&4a Owner/Phone no.:Cr'--71 Scope of Problem.. 17,4 .12--/ ,VU-7Z/LX).. 0 -- Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1141-99 767 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 January 11, 2002 Ms. Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ref.: Dining Room Window Dear Mr. Heitzman, Thank you for answering my inquiry regarding your dining room window. You told me that a previous owner had installed this window. Unfortunately, whoever that person or contractor was did an improper job. There have been leaks reported in units 129, 130 and 131. ` Our contractor has been working on your deck this week and discovered that your dining room window has no nailing flanges. It was retro-fit into the building and without the flanges allows water to enter around the window, travel under the siding and leak into the lower units. We have made repairs to the area as a temporary fix. This temporary fix should allow the ceilings in the lower units to dry out so we can have them repaired. However, you will need to replace your window as soon as possible to prevent future damage and personal liability. Please advise the Board of Directors as soon as possible regarding your plans to replace the dining room window. Damages to the lower units after we have fixed the ceilings will be your responsibility. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 768 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 January 11, 2002 Ms. Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Ref.: Dining Room Window / Dear Mr. Heitzman, Thank you for answering my inquiry regarding your dining room window. You told me that a previous owner had installed this window. Unfortunately, whoever that person or contractor was did an improper job. There have been leaks reported in units"129,, 130,anc 131 Our contractor has been working on your deck this week and discovered that your-dining room window has no nailing flanges. It was retro-fit into the building and without the flanges allows water to enter around the window, travel under the siding and leak into the lower units. We have made repairs to the area as a temporary fix. This temporary fix should allow the ceilings in the lower units to dry out so we can have them repaired. However, you will need to replace your window as soon as possible to prevent future damage and personal liability. Please advise the Board of Directors as soon as possible regarding your plans to replace the dining room window. Damages to the lower units after we have fixed the ceilings will be your responsibility. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 769 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I 0 7 Unit: 3 Owner/Phone no.: ,. C L(A as, Scope of Problem: yileA:COA at -1 .i4 .41,7e1.6,„Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 770 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: II1 a 0 0.1 Unit: /3 Owner/Phone no.: lth 0..4 r ,` .. Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 771 Exhibit 60 1 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: — ! .- b Unit: Owner/Phone no.: � . ,... . d Scope of Problem: rfe 44A., 4 *6411/4„ *mq Ks.. 4 " nom. 4-0 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 772 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Dateffime of Eve t: 6_= N i 0 Unit: 71.) A A 'I Owner/Phone no,: ) _ . Scope of Problem: � ,. 014 A vI 3 4 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: A PA. g ireC) )) / 1 Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 773 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Daterrime of Event: 11- (14- qg Unit: I 3 - Calk --- Owner/Phone no.: 7(1.-4,4L-1 — ‘2.) Scope of Problem: 4 41.444„-, 114/4h4, — )4 „, e/v e-ce ;., tekr- /ma\ Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 774 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: t;t. - • 0 7 unit: it 3 de Ow-ner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: „.49.1 k • ;OA 3 * — AAA 4- etAtLaKA,ce, Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 775 Exhibit 6.0= WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I - 3 G O c4- Unit: \-0 1 3 41 ~ � 7 Owner/Phone no.: � ! ' � 7 "' Scope of Problem: t jutio n Un 4--LCchA — QA Li , . ;i�-( re . f�c� -� L )c ..t4 u is V u - Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 776 Exhibit 60 r WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: -Lift) I ) . ;1-GT unit: 4 ) 7 Owner/Phone no.: ilk Scope of Problem: ite / ) s-- Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: e„.4A,....1 V.421 1 35 4 ,kast A. Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 777 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /1- J5'1 eic; Unit: / ac, /5 -572 Owner/Phone no.: Scope of / Problem: (77g, L.( 2,14, Follow-up: (date,time,actions) /Opt, i" — Maintenance: # kt.t// J7 JJ} 7 Construction /1# — - 4— A-c/auA 71(4y.„4:, — Committee: Office Mgr: Board: &-r"---c Owner Contacted: ge#/ 778 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone; 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fat: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosununit*att.net December 6, 2001 Ms. Linda Gardner 135 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Ms. Gardner, This letter is a follow-up to my report from our maintenance man that your deck doors have had the nailing flanges removed during installation. I believe he has already discussed this situation with you. Removal of the nailing flanges allows water to enter around the sides and go into your neighbor's ceiling. The use of screws and nails also compromises the integrity of the door frame and channels more water into the building. I do not have a record of the installer of your doors however you should try to locate your purchase and service orders from this work. The contractor is responsible for the faulty installation and should replace your doors. I would also get in touch with your insurance company. They often have remedies available to help in these matters. It is with regret that I have to write this letter. Although Ken has made a temporary repair, you should make arrangements to replace the doors and repair the ceiling below. I am fairly certain that your insurance will help with the damage to unit 134. You may use any licensed contractor of your choice however I encourage you to have them come to the office to discuss the installation. Retro-fitting the door just is not an option. It must be installed with the flanges intact and then the deck surface repaired. Thank you for handling this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the office. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Office Cc: The Board of Directors 779 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I i . a 0 0 Unit: I Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: ''`. a .. ` . Qs- s . c . e K - -_. ..�......._. ..�......E � .. Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance; Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11.99 780 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 1 / r. 4.7 ` ' Unit: i Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 781 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / — /— Q CD 4r Unit: _ Owner/Phone no.: ,.,.4 ai il _. . ----4) I 0LAA i-e14,— tg (a Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: i I ,...._ , ,- , i , i V Ci Office Mfr,r: i<ki i , % , tel. '-`) ' fl,4 1 ---2'. 0-----' 0 f: / Board: Owner Contacted: 11-I 1-99 782 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - 7 Unit: Owner/Phone no,: AiNgNg Owner/Phone no,: 71"- et( Scope of Problem: d / ateL Ciast te, 0 4 __It/L(6A ezif- t tin ALIA' dark) ulcErCk. 440 Q. Qj. A,°_ 1 ' 4 + a Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 783 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /1 -°- :71 0 b 7 Unit: 1 3 7 Owner/Phone no.: tiW4 i$—iu67 Co V l Scope of Problem: AA " tblik itooliA, 4- 4401Ak ' , ( 42-- . �...,, 1 • iisi " ii /1 —, -11 A. I '' (1) -V Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: ,- Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 784 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I - — Unit: t31 Owner/Phone no.: Coq -7 ce Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 785 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: //- Unit: f3 Owner/Phone no.: 11) ri/ A4 67A — 9 - U Scope of Problem: (\/6 $tJM - 84„). • Ir Jr AL,) h41-- is,.N..) 11,1 414 ---- Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 786 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SIJMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummit@att.net March 13, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Ryan Steen 138 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Ryan and Anna, Your neighbor, Jay Sonnad, has had leaking into her unit in the living room ceiling in the proximity of your deck. We have determined that your old sliding glass door is the cause. Ken did a temporary caulking repair but this is only a band-aid. These buildings are now 23 years old and due to settling and age, the windows and doors just wear out. Homeowners are responsible for replacing the doors and windows. You should make arrangements to replace the sliding glass door(s) as soon as possible to minimize damage to the lower unit. As you know, this unit is on the market and the owner is anxious to sell the property. The caulking will only hold for so long and Jay is in the process of remodeling and redecorating. I have enclosed a card from a window company familiar with the unique installation specifications on this property. You may use any licensed contractor but they must install the door with the nailing flange intact. This will cause some damage to the deck surface, so Pacific Surfacing has to come and repair that area. This charge is minimal and has run about $50 - $75 for the deck. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, �. Clarese Ocker—Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 787 Exhibit A WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I - 6?al 6). Unit: q Owner/Phone no.: CleitA.A. all _41.C.e-u • Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: •'(11--e-S\P N41 (AA, / (:‘ Construction: • Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 788 i � yU�o'1lute gerl6a1 L�z561-11 xhibit 604 fl pe 5 i ' `- REpORT ON LEAKS Unit 139 7 1/19/09 ATT: Clarese Ocker—for your file The recent rain storm(late December,early January)caused ceiling material to fall from a previously repaired section of the bedroom which had been opened up by Oswego Summit(Dinty Moore and Joe Van Gulik) some time ago (During the occupancy of Frank and Wendy in the unit above). As I considered that leak, I took a look around the •writ and found other leaks and stains.They are numbered on the accompanying drawing: 1. Dining room at the corner where the foyer meets the outer dining room wall. This spot is approximately 5"long progressing toward the Dining Room window. There is evidence of damage to the vertical drywall(tape is showing under the paint) approximately 14" down the wall. 2. Living Room-there has been since 1 moved in nearly 14 years ago a dark stain on the ceiling running parallel to the outer wall. At one point some years ago,I had to move furniture and put a bucket underneath the leak. For that last 2-3 years it has slowly and steadily been getting darker in color and moving farther out in the room. Last summer when I moved a large painting off that wall I noticed there are watermarks running down the wall exactly parallel to the ceiling leak.There are also small square protrusions showing under the paint approximately 6-8"down from the ceiling.The location of the leak and damage matches a patch done by Oswego Summit(Dinty Moore and Joe VanGulik)after the ceiling was opened to inspect cross beams.This work also encompassed the bedroom,so there are also signs of damage there. (See#5.) 3. Bedroom—in the corner of the bedroom/living room wall there is stain roughly 15" running parallel to the wall on the ceiling,and another narrower stain roughly 38"above the bedroom window. These have been there for some time. 4. Bedroom—a new stain—oh happy day! —running at right angles to the outside wall. It corresponds roughly with east end of the bedroom window and runs about 56"into the room, although the worst of the stain is probably 18-24"from the window. 5. Bedroom--new damage to the popcorn that was applied when the hole in the ceiling (see#2)was.closed up. This is a small hole,roughly 6"in diameter approximately 12-16 inches from thebedroom/living room wall. Like the living room, there are also 2 small square protrusions in the paint similar to those in the living room.No signs of water running down the inside of the wall. a 789 Exhibit 64 '+ C ° -.� ., ..mc:..,v :.c,,,... ...,Wry._,,,. rc. _.,v,,.. it«.;u.--i • --: �• - t,.`s ...�,,.M.!_,...,. -`'.� e. REPORT ON LEAKS Unit 139 1/19/09—page2/2 ATT: Clarese Ocker All of these are unsightly,but with the exception of the damage in the bedroom ceiling, no popcorn or wall board has fallen down. Realizing that there are any number of residents in worse shape,I haven't been particularly aggressive about pursuing them. But now there are at least three reasons to ask that theses issues be addressed: 1. I am planning to redo the ceiling in late summer/early fall of this year. I would like all leak issues to be addressed before I remove the existing popcorn and add soundproofing to the ceiling. 2. The clear evidence of interior damage to walls in the living room and the bedroom— approximately the same locations on the common wall concerns me more than the ceiling leaks. 3. The fact that the existing repair in the bedroom has torn open and I have ceiling material falling onto the floor and furniture. I can move the furniture, but this is a new leak, as is the very puzzling new leak running at right angles to the window. I appreciate your time and attention and will be most willing to work with you and Ken to resolve the issues. 16 790 Exhibit 6Q MOUNTAIN VILLAGE APARTMENTS UNIT "A" DECK AT UNITS A-1, . ____ 4=77= r. II - 11 PATI®/®ECIC „ 03 *,, 1 1 µ1. s ,:r o F ec 4 ,,.,....2 .., 0 ,,.;,_ .,, ., I-I' I., NG R0CM ? 14/ 4C `': /----7-1 2/° X 13/° ct, 5 ..r I a 0 ] 1 I U DINING KITCHEN r� BATF-� 8/6X8/6 8/ X8/ -i--- MI — -A ' L 0 it, :,--. ' F 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH, LARGE DECKS , SELF-CLEANING OVEN, SELF-DEFROSTING REFRIGERATOR, LARGE WALK- IN CLOSET, PLUSH CARPET, DRAPERIES, ACCENT WALLPAPER, BEAUTIFULLY COLOR COORDINATED, 740 791 Exhibit 60 A 9 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 1 '2- Unit: 1 3 et Owner/Phone no.: a At APIL, Scope of Problem:44f It 01/4", Futiow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mar: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 792 Ehibit 60 Y C. WATER INTRUSION REPORT: 7 Date/Time of Event: )1 — Unit: Owner/Phone no.: 4C4 AA 4 4,4St,L4-19,-"_, (i)31,0 7 a Scope of Problem: :ILA" L4A-, OS.43 k (fi . • Li., 4_ k 141. /Lit et7fA Wit gli Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 793 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: ti Date/Time of Event: c --. /—, 0 l Unit: l3 q-- C-NSAi AM (',4 Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: �I r r/In k. !� - t2.. enc yt # 6.,„„, ,....,zi ,.[„, ,,( I , (...-4_AA, 01..ii ;A 4, ---- 116d€A v Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 794 Exhibit 60-• • WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /_ / (— 4 p7 q. Unit: 14 L) Owner/Phone no.: ( V Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: � � ��w; re. � Committee: . , F - Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 795 cot+ Ea 0,t, , WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I - ' r - C..., 7 tio Or Unit: I (-/t. C) .-- ‘I'Att— Owner/Phone no.: I LATvrkiLitiril(t.4„,f) 1/6 Scope of Problem: , v , -Aflk -C -liA Qt_- tttiCLAlit.-1-171V14-4, 7 A t 1.... 1 ' 6 U -'17 li Or L dt 0 LA/ULA'LL4 0-.L&O - Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: /), OfficeMgr: / •- 0 i'''— 40 '' aiii4.4.-..c1 Zt.„...., tit)tiaZatil ..1.__ -r--- '4 ta(.4 tLeit ' fj , Board: t/tC, ./SCLA:x4,_, 11---OV ‘.../Atp_cl Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 796 Exhibit 60_ ,:f .1 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: ,r) Date/Time of Event: /i-- a2 q Unit: /1/0 Owner/Phone no.: ) .-ct kryv) Scope of Problem: \ j I • (V. t 1 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: --/-r) 14) „Lek,456' Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 797 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /— ( c? 9 Unit: / ` Owner/Phone no.: LIA $ Scope of Problem: 3 Lr' , r , 1.4 1 rj Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 798 Exhibit 604 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: it- 0 6-- Unit: /I 4 Owner/Phone no.: S -1' .37--(II 4.1 A Scope of Problem: LA A .27-t" k„) U Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance, Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-11-99 799 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: //- 2 /I- R Unit: L -- 4 0 Owner/Phone no.: /friLt A- „Uj s — c z Scope of Problem: OMPA/�- lit-t, ���i(/ h �.�Q�(, `/06/4t-‹ Follow-up: (date,time, actions) --SMaintenance: i< ? t tr./3A/14. i) A . Construction: Committee:'a : Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 800 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT; Date/Time of Event: eig— Unit: LI - U4e-,1 Owner/Phone no.: 97 559C .17 9- 41c, Scope of Problem: 49 //4 , Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 801 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: : Date/Time of Event: // e201._ Unit: Aedc„. f Owner/Phone no.: Ora-aui lagq- Scope of Problem:j AL'ei41341A • 4144:6 =411 -tArtte /Li-4i „4-efe-L1.4 4 tti-? a, 1 00 t< L4 Follow-up: (date,time,actions) -A-41kt- 44..) Maintenance: /I — 214- Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 802 Exhibit&9 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / P Unit: fr - Owner/Phone no.: P„,,(„uryl h — c e — 5- (--) Scope of rie Problem: "1,21/7- Al I uur 4,1 „s /51 ra}A (11, — A ) ,-011 41/4a rtlf, uM /1. 1:5 P / 11+ tfeitt,- brit.)xiii„ A;A e get — tit r7,4; 14 _ Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: - I.r — Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 803 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 E-Mail: oswegosummit@att.net May 6, 2002 Ms. Stephanie Rosie 147 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Stephanie, You were in the office last week asking about the engineer's report on the units in your building. You wanted to get the tarp down. I apologize that I was unable to isolate the information about the building at that time, The engineer's report is a bit challenging when it comes to extrapolating information about specific areas and situations. However, I did go over the report this afternoon and as we suspected, your deck door should be replaced. He has dialogue and photos showing the problem areas on the failed door. You indicated that you were already planning to replace the windows and doors. You said that you have a family member who is a contractor who will do the work. I gave you some installation specifications and we discussed vendor options. I think it would be very advisable to proceed as soon as possible with the deck door. That should stop future water intrusion into your neighbor's ceiling. Please let me know when you are going to replace the door, Ken Jacoby is available during the week to cover installation specifics with your contractor. I cannot emphasize enough the need to leave the nailing flanges on the doors and windows. Also, please choose windows and doors with brown vinyl exterior finish. Let me know if I can answer any questions or help you with more information. Per your request, Ken took off the tarp. Sincerely, Clarese Ocker-Oswego Summit Business Office Cc: Board of Directors 804 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION/REPORT: Date/Time of Event: ` 0 7 Unit: / g Owner/Phone no.: C1116,. 6.-- t 0 7 — Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 805 Exhibit 60 <gel/7 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Daterfime of Event: /1- (-4 —qc Or-Ot Unit:_141' Owner/Phone no,: 5aitLiCa-,... 41' n Scope of Problem: "Ai AlA 4440 (119 911- A, - r cri43-P Ar-A 4-1,a1/4, --- 6 le) - - 141 b41 Liiy, 3 1 , ;if Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 806 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - Unit: if q Owner/Phone no.: 64,-Lted_is Scope of Problem: 81/4 I , , 1,\ 4 Ak.„. 12 „ tj.A TA, 11. Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: • Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 807 r.Aute Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: IX. — — 0 7 unit: Owner/Phone no.: 40...?( 64-4_614-S Scope of Problem: i(26 12± SNO Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr Board: Owner Contacted: 1-1 1-99 808 Date: November 23, 1998 v tztial To: Board of Directors Oswego Summit HomeownersAssociation From: Sandy Detroit; Unit 149 Re Continued Leaks On the storms of September 18th and during the on November 18th, the winds were blowing toward the condo sliding glass doors and on both occasions, there has been a leak directly below the center of the sliding glass door of the above unit. This is riot a new leak and has been discussed previously with the previous and present managers, the board, and the owner of unit 150 above. I would like to know what action needs to be taken to work toward fixing this particular leak. At present, the other leaks seem to be 'fixed" and I am very appreciative of the efforts to accomplish this! /71 809 Exhibit 60 Stephanie Starr Lolich 148 52 hlorthview Court e c- \ Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 G.) (503) 636-8117 phone ° (503) 636-8408 fax (Ve December 5, 1998 Paul Brockmeier Board of Directors Oswego Summit Condos 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, Or. 97035 Dear Paul Brockmeier, I have recently accepted an offered to sell my condominium at 147 Os ego Summit and during the inspection it was found that water is leaking in the wall c,ase 0 e fire escape. I assume this was part of the renovations which have been taking place and un ortunately was overlooked by the repair people. Please contact my real estate agent, Marcia Kies concerning this matter, I hope this will be repaired as soon as possible at our closing date for the sale of this unit is December 31, 1998. Don't hesitate to call me if you need any further clarification, Thank you very much. Sincerely, ) Stephanie Lolich 810 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: f - �, - 0 7 Unit: / g Owner/Phone no.: 1116 7 C Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 811 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: . / ,. 0 Unit: / ' Owner/Phone no.: l. / . kide-(71 Scope of Problem: OAA eitA) Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 812 Exhibit 60 tWATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 11- / 0 2 '"o 7 Unit: it' 41Owner/Phone no.: 1 t`-- Scope of Problem: W 41-- e LaAdoo, , A 01,4 lik44-c, (44-4-03._ I u 1r ,r ..4 10444A-"tC, 4a %141_ dam.+ Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: • Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 813 Exhibit 60 7 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / " ./ 671 Lf Unit: L (J/ U Owner/Phone no.: (X(- 't,L..i'v� _... � 1 Scope of Problem: 4 .- - 0_ V t CI } -1 jpy t Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: • Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 814 . 1/ Exhibit 60 r 1 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: Unit: _ .. Owner/Phone no,: (144j teitia-) 36- - 3 Scope of Problem: L ' 4 "- Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction; Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 815 Exhibit 60 FJ/II r WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: f — / _— Unit: CI t) c, Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: t . .40" 4, �.. if is , Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 816 Exhibit 60 ryir WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I - t -- 0.n3 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: ) Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 817 Exhibit 60 )12o WATER INTRUSION REPORT: , Date/Time of Eve t: 1. o o Unit: t 6 0 Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 818 Exhibit 60,,,o ,,/, i--9 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: — c2q q Date/Time of Event: 7/ q.-- Unit: he 0 — ,„641‹,- 2.2_ u Owner/Phone no.: a . -yhdefi(„L. (e) 3 c if 0 Scope of Problem: . 71"-WL-L.... COa-Z-A. 6-71A..-LAAP cAA....- - 4 's ) rL R-c-fir 1 ii.A --(:)c) tl r) I c'. lc-( ,,,,1 4< e ci-c:: 1;\i' 0 ,f1_1,„4 'f. 'tri:r4A 4 ,-,i 1 —1--- 4441,4 L., -7r ecyho -0-t',/, 3-- a-A e2ex.i,t I k( ''''' ---- ,- Q o , Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 819 Exhibit 60 Or WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I Unit: / 16t/ aa(,, 22 Owner/Phone no.C.-7: A A r id& Scope of Problem: (-WO < Occ Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 820 Exhibit 60 s WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /— /— 6 oq Unit: /(0 6 Owner/Phone no.: ) 61.t&t Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: r r,x Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 821 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: q e9:6YD Unit: Owner/Phone no.: .. �E g Scope of Problem: (.12,4/6 LAX " Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 822 Exhibit 60 U. A Vf` n WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /� / - 4 Unit: lfJ Owner/Phone no.: t hC-� k Scope of Problem: 4 1 #L„,{` ,y ) Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 823 Exhibit 6Q WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / ` I C q Unit: / 7 0 Owner/Phone no. 1: t (,y,) �t ) Scope of Problem: tc ' i W Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: ' Construction: Committee: Office Mir: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 824 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I -/ 0 Unit: /11 — –1/14iCarti/iY-Y-1 - . Owner/Phone no.:c-14,14-4 Scope of Problem: I rtbu .10-ekal("A . ct_Axt — 1 0 L4 LUCL-L-L. ‘8,1 ktAAP-1-Z-A-C.J (-) U Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 825 Exhkt 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: U—/ / C Unit: / 7) 2_ - Owner/Phone no.: /‹ 0 6141/) —* (/517 777 Scope of Problem j1 /2& — iocit0 te: itii,f 4 i&-ei „LI 17-X ci /77,111-t- 2 bi-) 4t...6 t. )r, it e " Ci 1 0 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: 4er beef"' e'; — 4,)a.27 e.et, ges.0_,Gt 1 0-eie„ Committee: Office mgr:(1 - 1 ti - L (( ii- 4, Board: Owner Contacted: 826 Exhibit 604 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I` /- 0 0 Unit: / 3 - 4/$ C. - 4-6A, Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: (tea ILA r ) ,)t ui_ t, ALL P_A A 4eletk Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 827 Exhibit 60 ittf WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /1— (370q Unit: / owner/Phone no.: lac, 4 1I ( 4).-1— . Scope of Problem: c4LA Y-„dtvl. 4 1--) ) ‘,41 f CI tt-itre", Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 828 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 1 -- - 01- Unit: rlS 4-0 4 ___i21 & abt Owner/Phone no • Scope of Problem: VCIi) C67n 40 Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 829 Exhibit 60 , , WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: " 7— Unit: 41 �- Owner/Phone no.: _ ( -M Cl 1� �� l Scope of Problem: / LA CAA a CO fet-L J Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 830 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / �4-0 � 0 C� a l i tL 1 7 Owner/Phone no.: r --- 6 7C- Sp C/ Uo Scope of Problem: A' — . coli-efLIAe A id , gt-ux Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 831 Exhibit 60 (1,1 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: -A 0"--/ Date/Time of Event: t el)q Unit: / 17 Owner/Phone no.: kt4 Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 832 Exhibit 60 dtiti7 e tlj,d, 3 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: F I ''.-I Unit: i q 0 ttkitidt ' Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: k ''''' -............. t C. 49(4 LA-Amt." I i Fzn---k i i a.... ....21-6(..„„) ... , _ j ....... u 0 , _ . Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: 1 I Construction: 1 i / 4 ' I Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 833 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: — C I1, Unit: 0 Owner/Phone no,: (lox Scope of Problem: 1/4 41 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 834 Exhibit 60 Pfit-t4. WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: 4./q Unit: L4 . ;2 3 r Owner/Phone no.: ' A 0 - / 7 Scope of Problem r4,44,41/41, f LirtArY1 /111-4 (.1 rcK0-4-.1 -bLif Itr4 )4 • 0* ° 6,(4 LJ aCki.A „Ai Olt ; 4 I)Pit" -1411t '"`"mteAfti 4 -) LottAA Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: (4-C-48‘4C, 1 — ktk.4) hirce-0 Committee:„.'b.4 AA C Lit Office Mg: Ii — :)(‘ 4161-4,,u Board: Owner Contacted: // - ft 835 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: fi Date/Time of Event: -"- l 0 (, Unit: Owner/Phone no.: Scope of Problem: ig 1C- 4 Ai Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 836 Exhibit 60 OSWEGO SUMMIT CONDOMINIUMS '71 215 Oswego Summit Phone: 503-635-4000 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fax: 503-635-0954 SUGGESTION/PROBLEM COMMENTS Name: A # cke7,4,44 /44, 4'4.4 Un it No. Phone: 6-36 --114(day) (evening) 1c) P /X/ / al( e C -‘;5 •77 A,P41-&-r( (11)) 4/: (:7—kAlic._ 7N:C( IA fj I ° CI AA cd 4- 'a d.,11"0 C-4-( tet t ( vci, 01-4( 61 4:_iitt't i/5- ei-e 1- 1( -CI 17 ./1 ° 4 F 56)1,4 0 P AA, e,A1,01 P I Please return to the office by the 3rd Friday of the month to be presented at the Board meeting the following Tuesday. 837 Exhibit 60 I WATER INTRUSION REPORT: a Date/Time of Event: /) - / 3 - U O-- Unit: /g.2 Owner/Phone no.: c Cr0 Cl1 (o - ciciao Scope of Problem: r t./1; ./(-5t' \ C L.6AP — -, Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: "V�� CtuAia rt C,�•� f l F` ' U Construction: &,j '144_2A --- Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: ` _ 11-11-99 838 Exhibit Ni4- WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: / 3.- Unit: 15 Owner/Phone no.: ko 5(A., Scope of Problem: ), ), p /10/ Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Co ntacted: 11-11-99 839 Exhibit 6 / WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Dateffime of Event: 07 Unit: q Owner/Phone no.: : € CLA Scope of Problem: a tit A Ctr Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-I1-99 840 Exhibit 602"(4:_ WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: O t) 7 unit: Owner/Phone no,: 01 S°. 41 Scope of Problem: L ad,4 Follow-up. (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction. f Committee: Office Mgr: Board: ........................._-.._ Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 841 Exhibit 601 64. WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: /--- /— a FO ( f Unit: / Q SV Owner/Phone no.: k--0-14, Scope of Problem: Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 842 Exhibit 60 (:,:0) WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: I 0 7 Unit: I q Owner/Phone no.: iO1t..) Scope of Problem: &irk L./Li& Follow-up: (date, time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-1 1-99 843 Exhibit 60 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: . Q ti Unit: Owner/Phone no.: 4tt. (.4 - — 3-7 i Scope of Problem: �~ . ,0„,,n 4 . .. 4 �, I Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: ). 1 ." _d ;.L +' Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 844 Exhibit 60 all WATER. INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: - I t) Unit: Owner/Phone no.: . _ , _' '\ C- 33 c Scope of Problem: `.s 111 ,L40, f} Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 845 Exhibit 60 liG„, kr-t,, WATER INTRUSION REPORT: )\5 Date/Time of Event: I— (2k1- a Unit: 02 0 q Owner/Phone no.: e Scope of Problem: . ,4 i e.., 6 41, inn cc4-1,14-1A.,t- /6 i' i i .. ssyk“) ,...m...•••••••• i ( ) (3 .., ku ,( Qtei 4e /14-0'fr V) el (LAJt-C, L---7 I Follow-up: (date, time, actions) . C. F) Maintenance: i'X' n k- s ,ei /Lc_ ,i.A___/),_ i . Construction: - —.. Committee: ' 6 Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 1 1-1 1-99 846 Exhibit 60 1;1° WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: ► -.7)- 0 I Unit: c t I Owner/Phone no.: A.. ACJ Scope of Problem: z Follow-up: (date,time,actions) Maintenance: Construction: —. Committee: Office Mgr: ....-...--.. Board: Owner Contacted: 1.1-11-99 847 Exhibit 60 /.1 WATER INTRUSION REPORT: 9-6-4 Date/Time of Event: / f — 3 ()NO 0 /7 Unit: Owner/Phone no.: Avir atr14 Scope of Problem: I 0-1-s °1 # tA 4'1 it *yip S 1 4 Follow-up: (date, time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: 11-11-99 848 Exhibit 60 A iti Cl WATER INTRUSION REPORT: Date/Time of Event: II-- 001____ Unit: ---.--::, Cn-i. Owner/Phone no.: '_ Scope of Problem: 011:14 it-, i 4P LL....)CA.J....,(. IAA,,a 4-- Follow-up: (date,time, actions) Maintenance: Construction: Committee: Office Mgr: Board: Owner Contacted: I 1-l I-99 849 850 08128 14:57 1997 FROM: 503 675 8718 TO: 1234567 PAGE Exhtit 61 8-23-1997 1 z 18AM FROM BOB PARKER 503 675 8716 P.3 Oswego SuTnfit Condo's ; -king Detail's . .4 (,PN 5To 015 r, 14 74,Lic it IA ..i. 40 1, € c. 111-N...tr. Alf 44?:r° Op re ' ,1454 Or d'u• id,A 11 008111 4.00- nati4lcirtid* 4109 I - lb:::1111) 40, , 11 41414 .14A04-"diAle; I W1 I ite:111; 644:11g1 /...).0 . ,c' rstie‘es,PS _._ ..... , itimv4 io Le. 11013* . _ k Ot ..0116110.1.110, 1 1 S. ." ..--...1_ Oill,"/I Mel I , s 0 :toti f 11, ,......, $11. i I i , Aa. ., ... . 851 08/28 14:59 1997 FROM: 503 675 8716 TO: 1234567 PAGE:EXFbit 61 8-28-1997 1 :20AM FROM BOB PARKER 503 675 8716 P.6 Oswego Summit Condo's Flashing Detail's j,4 5414 41 51•0.1,75 6-/Ass Doors uncQ,s,v A} rived BY - 852 08/28 14:56 1997 FROM: 503 675 8716 TO: 1234567 PAGE: Exhibit 6l 8-28-1997 1 : 17AM FROM BOB PARKER 503 675 8716 P.2 Oswego Summit Condo's Flashing Detail's .4.1:15- Ni: :...1. . . i 3 At1 LI 'Li 1 V 4-I, V.,, \,..>::.. , I. , J Aproved By 853 Exhibit,61 8=-2B-1997 1 :2LLAM FROM BOB PARKER 503 675 2716 t ,'..,�e • ; .. �y, \:,...-; - i4. •rte.:r gsegc Summit Condo's Detail's • J...) TcY • /� 7J' i i. • 1`i��, ,. s=:-.1;.'fix ! Z 3 r N j 4::;11 E:E I ii • ..J., ! 1 . • j • j • Aprcved y ._. 854 B=28-1997 1 :24AM FROM BOB PARKER 503 675 3716 Exhibip6,� - :: tOswego Sitondo's Flashing Detail's £ Y- ?AEtIt • ; `:: l :�::-;-4-11'4*.,.... _ -::::..,,,: A .2 ,y4,'',0.1.4 ir . z1l / 1, ir , T4 ;: ...,,,,,,,..2.: ,..! r 4-- -2 i- — .4 .ziee,,,,,,t pl„,-.. ! t w:; � � I A L ` l r ' +i�ye./ f dAi. A -� zX. ice' r � 's.� M r -'. y,f. .i 1 .{ ,tee s)'' .1. til I ic t � :. 0 , ,,,;-1.,:. ' - proveci By 4:' ' ' A ..; ri 855 , 8.-28-1997 1 :2BAM FROM BOB PARKER E03 67B 8716 Exhibit fg1 r f_ 4 .4 Oswego Summit Condo's Flashing Detail's ... . i.:4,'Y L. ': /47. 5 i ,4,5 t 24 as aver , "1";f,�k. 1 j , I --- - __-- r'' �__ ___ _________.---------._._.__-------- J, Aprovcd Fiy 4 -v ; 856 of'0 9/vci, 09:1 g 1997 FROM: 503 675 671 6 TO: 1 234567 PAGE: 2 Exhibit 61 Sep:-19-97 07:37A R 8, H - Oswego Summit S03-67S-8716 P.02 . ....... ——......... 1 ;.---, a i 1 i iii ;RaNC-CNSTRJCIION CO..!= 1530 SW Taylor Strad 4 Portland,Oregon 97205 • 503\226.71n • 7 AX 50319)4- .1 age ,,.., •,,,c,,h.& Hi. tk, ±--- 1.-Arz . 0 a y- ------ ' ...._ ..._, 1\ 14/ ... ,S N..4 .z. t 5 10‘.: i i ;I.% I , `•••,.... , . -.., • 1 i 1 f I tAil'Adot,) - 1 reA Ael 4- i i . I ! • I S- ct 1 0 1 0 ! NI.. IC 4,1 1 1 ' \i• 1*(____ ,1 a It OR Con-acmes Pttgistrztion No.38304 , WA State I cermg!Nn.RHCON••I 94P0 857 08/28 14:59 1997 FROM: 503 675 8716 TO: 1234567 PAGE:Exhibit 61 8-28-1997 12OAM FROM BOB PARKER 503 875 8718 P.7 • Oswego Summit Condo's Flashing Detail's • • DrA.%1 ire ✓'? Sevire5 . eqy� G • —1111t11;:z.„ 7o ers.ols way 1 ,. hoof 4frA - Aproved By 858 08/28 14:58 1997 FROM: 503 675 8716 TO: 1234567 PAGE:EXh.b.t 1 8-28-1997 1 : 19AM FROM BOB PARKER 503 675 8716 . 4 Oswego Summit Condo's Flashing Detail's A-3 Se..(Agpe.r- t)eidor'i ti it I' Wt(atd .Secivvi5 % ate . I, - T Aproved By .. ,. 434 859 08/28 14:56 1997 FROM: 503 675 6716 TO: 1234567 PAGE: 5 8-28-1997 1 : 19AM FROM BOB PARKER 523 676 8716 Exhibit i Oswego Summit Condo's la Detail's Over /ow 1 D ` k S SA < g 0,0, I\\\ 3 IIsi ,, s 4 err - +{ " moved fly 17/11 860 8—28—1997 1 :25AM FROM BOB PARKER 523 675 8716 Exhibit6411--- .:t.,,,,, 21....: , • ......,: 410:: -1Ik 2,.'!i:' ::.!'',. .6,: "•:• :',At Oswego Summit Condo's Flashing Detail's p :i -,,,-.-;;,'•;1'. •V; f.' 'W' . • i.,...',.:';z;';.% A."' ',..Pc....' -.t::i ,, :::,,,,.5:, 1 '•*.i^:',..R.Vi''1, ti irtilt;-. A.-5 ..ov ."-.7-•-i- i...p.A.0-...,.1r,r3t,',.._ el ,:',-;.... ....4e 172 4' ;i -.:a•,:,..,‘,4:;•„ItAi - 1 -..•.:1::, r-47 40- ic, ,,,, :„..,:.3,3r...... :::',',,i. N • • LII --- \ 1 \ -12/e ..- \ ; 7 i :31--A,„,,c‹- c S i-e-c-" .61../:: /,((:,,- ,,,'_ i_,-t. ;-4 _, .•.;i-.1,_•, 4 .7 ,---• ,.,,,. .:....:.2., '74 , _ , r-- - --- . 11 •. 1 / Il ____ 1 _ , ,, ..._,............ pt.l.......... 4 4.. . .. A.proved By '3// „ - . - 861 • ,3:28-1997 1 :2SAM FROM BOB PARKER 598 675 5716 Exhibit:, - < .24 ,erg,. Oswego Summit Condo's Flashing Detail's �;,,_ r+t 1,:,0 •`MS i° -, ,tiw Derr rl� Sou ri . 1g.E.4 13 r ;•s f_ , j44:;51i-, !1�Y. -fi. '4r 11 iA 14 f iiii L�Er�D 1 i (Cr-}-! I -7/1 °s1)i \ : -r— i \ ri _,.- .. r -74 3�i • j� it 1.1 il T li I ( .--- , —r4 •A graved By '1 862 lieut./ �c,A47c/ Exhibit 61 . WO L,',,c __ rt ti 1 11 — oUY Vow rt 1 ,/ \ ii5ft IL 1 w fro _. 3 `}74 / r' 0 i " ci% 11 j1-----) ' \--..._.±_t____---- , el v��OOT 1 V �)' �� A ! ).541". Aproved By Y--- f y 1r --- - '-) / ,4 _ � Sii--,.,z less S/c6/ 1 i S 863 Exhibit 61 ' 1y 8o, 1997 Oswego Summit Homeowners Association Board of Directors Re: Roofing To the Board: 1. Some of you seem to think that leaks are being caused only by poorly designed gutters, downspouts, and decks. You should be aware that there are definitely some exceptions. My own condo had a leak in 1991 and then another leak about one or two years later. These leaks couldn't have been from the above causes because there is nobody above me. It is my understanding that after the first leak the roof was patched, and after the second leak the roof was replaced. 2. Let's assume for the sake of argument that not all, but most leaks are being caused by poorly designed gutters, downspouts, and decks. In that case, I would like to know about the possible feasibility of fixing the gutters, downspouts, and decks before we decide what to do about the roofs. Why not fix these other problems and then see what sort of experience we have with leaks this fall before we make a major decision about the roofs. If we do indeed put off any major decision about the roofs, it would be prudent to set aside $440,000 for dealing with the roofs later on. That would be enough to cover Option 3 plus a 10%contingency. 3. There have been some comments from architects, etc. saying that tile doesn't leak. If that's true, then there must be some missing tiles, or water must be getting in between the tiles, or both. Maybe the water can't get in between the tiles unless they are improperly installed. Well then, if some of the tiles are improperly installed, we have to confront the situation, not deny it. So the tile itself may be fine and dandy, but if it is improperly installed it doesn't do much good. What other explanation could there be? The proof is in the pudding. To simply say, "tile doesn't leak" sounds like a serious case of denial. I do not want the Board making decisions based on comments and recommendations from people who are in such denial. If there is a problem we have to confront it honestly or we can't expect to fix it properly. 864 Exhibit 61 4. If we must make a major decision now about the roofs, we need to make sure we are getting value for our money. In order to get good value, we need to make sure of at least two things: a. We need a good warranty so that if major problems pop up after 5 to 10 years, we can get them fixed. That eliminates Option 1. b. We need to preserve our property values. That eliminates Option 2. All that is left is Option 3. If we are going to do this job, we need to do it right. We can't be penny wise and pound foolish. Option 3 is more expensive than Option 2 only by a little over $1,000 per unit. Yet Option 2 could cause thousands and thousands of dollars worth of decrease in the value of each unit relative to Option 3. Option 3, then, is the only one of the three options that makes sense. Sincerely, 97144/ ._ Len Martin 30 Oswego Summit /I m 865 07/28/97 22:12 FAX 503 503 3038 J.A, MKTG INC, 22002 Exhibit 61 July 29:1997 Interested Owners. Board Of Directors and Construction Committee Members Oswego Summit Homeowners Association 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Re: RoofRepairs 1997 Maintenance/Repair Prog-ram To Whom ft Does Concern. I am writing this letter in response to a request made by the Board during it's meeting of July 24, 1997 where much confusion existed relative to the proper alternative to use for roof repairs It was evident that decisions were being made without all costs and necessary facts Quality considerations in the decision making process were either not communicated or had not been used. Summary We must do the job right the first time. Of the three alternatives on the table,repair of existing roof tiles is the worst possible alternative from the standpoint of certainty in fixing the leakage problems, it has the worst warranty, aesthetics are impacted and Board liability is maximized. New roof tile,while satisfying all criteria, is too expensive. New composition roof meets all criteria for prudent decision making. While costs are marginally higher, unknowns are virtually eliminated with a very high probability of a good"fix", quality considerations are maximized,schedule extensions are minimized,warranties are fully acceptable,aesthetics are enhanced and Board liability is minimized. 866 07/28/97 22:12 FAX 503 593 3038 J.A. `iKTG INC. X003 Exhibit 61 There are basically three alternatives: (1) repair of the existing roofs at a cost around $160,000,_(2)installation of a completely new roof(where tile currently exists) made from architectural grade composition at a cost of around$180,000,and(3) installation of all new tiles for some$325,000. These costs may vary slightly depending on how costs associated with down-spouts and gutters are sliced, diced and allocated. The Construction Committee, chaired by Joe Van Quick, has indicated that alternative (1) is the recommended alternative. I find this recommendation to be unwise. imprudent from a business decision, perspective, and not in the best interests of Oswego Summit homeowners. Decision making criteria are considered individually. These are summarized in the attached spread sheet, Cost By using Alternative (1)Roof Tile Repair, savings over alternative(2)are (- absolutely minimal in the context of the total expenditures this summer. With all of the Z; shuffling of funds done thus far,the difference between alternatives(1) and(2)falls into the noise level of allocations and reallocations. While a Composition Roof shows a slightly higher cost, costs of down spouts and 5 gutters will be minimized relative to the other two alternatives, This is due to the fact we would be dealing with a conventional roof installation which minimizes specialty work in sheet metal. I also find it interesting that no evaluation has been made for possible sale of used _' tile to offset the installation costs associated with the composition roof. If 1 understand that market correctly, there is an active resale component for used tile. While this is not significant for tile from a home, we are dealing with a significant amount of tile and a market for this tile should exist. Even if we can only get$5,000 to $10,000 for our used tile,this offsets cost differences between alternatives. While the New Composition Roof,Alternative(2),shows a slightly higher initial cost,when costs associated with gutters, down spouts, flashing, costs for tile paint and on-going maintenance costs are factored in,it is my opinion that costs would be very close to Alternative(1)Repair Existing Roof Tiles. Realistically. I see costs between Repair Existing Roof Tiles and New Composition Roof alternatives as being very close. 867 07/28/97 22:12 FAX 503 593 3038 J.A. MKTG INC. 0004 Exhibit 61 Certainty Of Getting A Good Fix Certainty of getting a fix to our problem must be considered. To do this,we must eliminate as many unknowns as possible. Under Alternative(1)Repair Existing Roof Tiles, we keep nearly all of the uncertainties we have at the present time. These uncertainties include sub-tile tar paper/felt integrity,gaps in the tile, cracks in tile which cannot be seen, possible dry rot on the roof, adequacy of flashing material,who did what to whom from a warranty standpoint when any work is completed, and finally the cheesy two year warranty. Just remember. the contractor will only warranty such work two years for a very good reason. Alternatives(2) and(3)eliminate virtually all roofing uncertainties. Quality We must consider quality aspects of alternatives. I saw no evidence of this in the analysis presented at the Board meeting.. We must do the job right the first time. We have had problems with roofs and leakage since I purchased my first unit in 1978. Leakage has been significant. The Construction Committee could not, with any certainty, indicate exactly where leakage was coming from although The indication was that"most of it was coming from corners and edges." 1,submit to you that this level of certainty is not acceptable when our property values and sigrtifcanr amounts of money are at stake_ We must fix it right the first time and cannot select an alternative with a lot of uncertainty. We do not even know whether we have adequate felt or tarpaper under the tile in many areas. If you look around the units, one can see the shifting and movement of existing tiles. There are significant gaps in the tile, even in areas that are"whole". Much of our leakage comes during periods of rain and wind. This condition should not be rectified even with repairs of the existing roof. Any alternative that does not allow for a FULL inspection of roof,flashing, sub-roofing materials and corner/edge conditions should not be used. This is doubly important when incremental costs of doing a thorough lob under Alternative(21 are so low., Alternative(21 is the lowest cost alternative which allows for a complete inspection and repair of our roof. All problem areas such as tarpaper, felt material, roof damage, dry rot if there is any at the roof level,incorrect sealing at corners and edges,inadequate flashing,and any other problem will be readily apparent. Also,added costs for gutter and down spouts should be much lower with Alternative(2)as such work is much more conventional and difficulties dealing with shapes and angles associated with tile roofs will be minimized. This alternative is far superior to Alternative(1)from the standpoint of a worry-free, quality installation. 868 07/29/97 20:18 FAX 503 593 3038 J.A. MKTG INC. Z002 • Exhibit 61 The testing on a tile sent to Calgary to check for porosity was a total waste of time and money. Porosity and leakage through the tile material itself has never becn the issue. Schedule From the standpoint of schedule;there does not appear to be any negative impact by going with Alternative (2)New Composition Roof. On the other hand, I heard nothing at the meeting which indicates tile delivery would be either adequate or a detriment to our schedule. If I understand it correctly, our model of tile is no longer made and that tile from a demolition would be used. Quality of this tile would be an unknown. Schedule for Alternative(I) would not be impacted assuming an adequate supply of this used tile. Alternative (3)New Roof Tile should not impact schedule. Warranty From the standpoint of warranties, Alternative(2)is far superior to Alternative (i),the repair of the existing roofs. This should be of great comfort to homeowners. It was stated that none of the builders would be around in 15 to 20 years to honor their warranties. I cannot completely agree with this argument as we should he using well established, long-term local firms to do our work as well as a manufacturer who has a good track record. While a repair firm providing a two year warranty will no doubt be around for the warranty period, a two year warranty is not acceptable to us. There is also the absolute difficulty in determining what it was they fixed, and what they left as-is. From a warranty perspective, 1 do not see Alternative(1)as acceptable. Aesthetics From the standpoint of aesthetics, a composition roof would be a change. However, such differences would be quickly forgotten. If we patch the existing tile roof with new or even"new-used"tile, the roof structures will look exactly like a patch job. If this problem is addressed with some kind of tile paint, then additional costs are incurred. In addition, painting of roof tiles will become a periodic maintenance cost. Buyer confidence can be impacted with a roof that looks 869 07/28/97 22:12 FAX 503 593 3038 J.A. MKTG INC. 2006 Exhibit 61 "repaired". Buyer confidence translates back to decreased value and increased sales turnaround time. From the standpoint of aesthetics, Alternatives(2)and (3) are the only acceptable choices, Board Liability Both our Construction Committee and Board have responsibility for making business and technical decisions which will maximize the value of our dollar and preclude unnecessary costs at a later date. We place our trust in these decisions. There are legal considerations associated with this responsibility and trust. Prudent decisions must be made. Certainly Alternative(fl.Repair Existing Roof Tiles.has the Freatest notential for Board liability due to the fact uncertainties will not have been eliminated and the warranty is Practically non-existent. One has to question the prudence of selecting this alternative. Board liability for the other two alternatives is practically non-existent as uncertainties are minimized and warranties are considered acceptable. Other Regarding the use of Board member units For early evaluation of structural issues, that is a bad mistake. Just because there is a little more sagging in one unit over another is not sufficient justification to use a Board member unit especially when there is a very strong chance of such actions being seen as self-serving.. If my memory serves me correctly(and T apologize now if I have not recollected events correctly).Mr. Van Gulek threatened the Association in past years with legal action if his unit was not evaluated for dry rot. I believe nothing was found at the time. The cost to the Association was significant based on my recollection of verbal discussions with the Manager at the time. With this history, and resultant perceptions which are certain to exist,it would be prudent to use units other than those of Board members.The Board has to be held to a higher standard,especially when in a position to control information flow for the decision making process. The Board must not put themselves in a position where even perceptions of impropriety will occur. This is important to the credibility of the overall effort and integrity of the Board. Has the lending institution indicated a desire to be involved in our decision making process? Would they wish to see an alternative selected which has a very high probability of continuing problems(with no warranty after two years)before the loan is even paid off? 870 07/28;97 22:12 FAX 503 593 3038 J.A. MKTG INC. 007 Exhibit 61 I would consider a temporary restraining order against Alternative(1)Repair Existing Roof Tile if such is selected. I do not see Alternative(1)as a prudent decision. I feel that it would violate the trust T have placed in the Board. I would see such a decision as a violation of fiduciary responsibility. It is evident that Alternative(2) is the best.alternative when cost,schedules quality,warranty. architectural integrity/aesthetics and Board liability are factored in. 'ncerely, • : - Thomas J. Allen Units 40 and 75 rib Oswego Summit Tel: 541-593-7202 18)60 Cottonwood Rd, -No. 407 Sunriver,Oregon 97707 871 872 Lynne L. McDonald, Condominium Homeowner 27 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503-312-4131 nlisslindvsia(cicomcasf.net January 3, 2014 JA 2014 City of Lake Oswego CITY Design Review Board PO Box 369 C�ntrm err .y QeveiUa ent LIED . Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: I am currently a condominium homeowner at Oswego Summit and have been since 2000. Please consider my request that you approve the plans resubmitted by the Board of Directors of Oswego Summit. I have watched in horror as much needed repairs have been done using a piecemeal approach that has ultimately failed. The overall integrity of the units is disintegrating before our very eyes. This has resulted in much unnecessary stress, expenditures and depreciation of the units. While it may appear on the surface that a very vocal minority of condominium homeowners is representative of the majority, that is simply not the case. The homeowners have voted repeatedly in favor of the project and are willing to provide funding at a great expense. It is my understanding that in a representative democracy, the vote of the people is what counts—not the loud voices and complaints of the minority who show up at board meetings. Yes, their voices are important and need to be heard. They have been heard, loudly and clearly. They also lost a fair election. It is time that you no longer provide an opportunity for more stalling by allowing the vote of the majority to move this project forward ASAP. Thank you for considering my input. Sincerely, Lynne L. McDonald, M.S. EXHIBITG-138 LU 13-0042 873 874 TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, FILE: NO. LU 13-0042 RECEIVED DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Monday, October 28, 2013 OCT 1 5 2013 City of Lake REVIEWER: THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION COmmu;;iiy treVclOprWrtdpt City of Lake Oswego, OR APPLICANT: ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF OSWEGO SUMMIT 215 OSWEGO SUMMIT LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 REQUEST: A request for approval to modify several Development Review Permits (DR 8-75 and DR 33-76) in order to remodel the existing condominium buildings on the site. OPPONENT: CLAUDY LYNCH OWNER UNITS #66 AND #67 OSWEGO SUMMIT I, Claudy Lynch, resident-owner of condominium unit#66, as well as owner of unit #67, both situated at Oswego Summit, declare my complete opposition to the submission made by the Board of Directors of the Association of Unit Owners of Oswego Summit to the Planning Department, to the attention of the Design Review Committee of the City of Lake Oswego, on August 14, 2013 and the Addendum and Revision submitted subsequently on September 23, 2013 , as referenced in the above File No. LU 13-0042. I am in opposition to this "Request to modify the Design Review permits granted for the construction of Oswego Summit to allow for an exterior remodel of all the buildings on the site" for the following reasons: 1.0 As indicated in the City of Lake Oswego Pre-application Conference Notes PA 13-0052, item 7. , Development Standards (LOC 50.06.001), of July 25, 2013, under staff comments and recommendations: EXHIBIT G-200 LU 13-0042 !I poises • "the building design and exterior building materials for the condo buildings and club house were reviewed and approved in 1975 and 1976. • The wood shingles are high quality materials that contribute to the distinct character of the buildings and create a visually engaging façade and are an important aspect of the overall design. • Replacement of the shingles with horizontal siding significantly affects the quality and character of the design. • The lap siding that is proposed as a replacement in the remodel lacks the texture and visual interest that the wood shingles provide." 1.1 Repairs are urgently needed at Oswego Summit to deal with water intrusion problems that have occurred over its 30 plus years of existence, but sources and causes, as well as the nature of the damages that result differ from building to building. The situation warrants a more prioritized, focused, less invasive approach than the wholesale replacement and remodeling and redesign of the buildings as requested. Contrary to what the Applicant advances in its application for remodeling, repairs can be made to the envelope, if the essential professional mapping of the problems is carried out, followed by a custom-designed building-by - building repair scope of work. The complex as designed and approved at construction, as a whole, retains its integrity as to design, function and livability. Damages and problems are not occurring in every building in the same way or for the same reason. Therefore, the repair solutions warrant a more focused approach. There is no need for the destruction of the architectural integrity of Oswego Summit and its transformation into an architectural style that bears no resemblance to its present fully satisfying and functional design. Therefore there is no need to modify DR 8-75 and DR 33-76 as applied for. 1.2 The necessary repairs can be done at Oswego Summit without the need to request modification of the original design permits. As Development Standard LOC 50.06.001.5.1 requires, the buildings as they exist show "complementary relationship to adjacent buildings of good design with regard to materials, setbacks, roof lines, height, and overall proportions. 2 Scale and neighborhood character which are important have been taken into account when considering building design". Therefore, contrary to what the Applicant alleges, the buildings as they are conform to the criteria of good design set out by the City of Lake Oswego. 1.3 The proposal to change the design of the downslopes of the roof and the roofing materials from red tile to asphalt shingles, as well as the removal of several sections of downslopes and surrounds of the terraces, to replace them with metallic, factory-produced, open and transparent railings, totally destroys the distinctive architectural style of the whole complex and the aesthetics and ambient look of the community. Where it is now a small village of warm, mellow and colorful terraced houses with private nooks and hanging gardens, it will become a tenement style project. The proposed flat-faced balconied facades will hold no privacy or relief from the monotony of sameness and repetition, or of painted slabs of drab colors, inferior mass-produced materials, or stark shapes and lines. The introduction of a dominant pattern of cold glass expanses and of white metal frames is inappropriate in an old, well established and lush woodland hillside setting. • Therefore,the proposed remodel totally changes the architectural style of the buildings from Mediterranean terraced villa housing with high visual and aesthetic interest and replaces it with a contemporary box-like, monolithic, bland and apartment-style of architecture of much poorer design and quality. 2.0 Contrary to what is claimed in the Narrative submitted by the Applicant, the problems of leaks and their damages to the existing exterior at Oswego Summit do not require the destruction of the integrity and beauty of the site and wholesale replacement. In fact, even the cursory assessments of our leak problems by a number of architects and construction engineers with several decades of experience in diagnosis and repair of vintage buildings have assured us that we are looking at repairable situations or restoration opportunities. Contrary to most of the selective photo evidence produced by the Applicant of the supposed general and terminal deterioration beyond use of the facade and siding of our buildings, the 3 actual damage to the exterior does not add up to an irreversible end to the useful life of the shingles. The alternative solutions that "second opinion" experts propose are also financially sustainable and affordable solutions which the Applicant has refused to explore. ® Oswego Summit, with its unique appearance and significant aesthetic qualities has been a beloved landmark within Mountain Park and Lake Oswego for decades. ® It is the home of Lake Oswegans who bought here and live here because they want Mediterranean villas with hanging garden terraces and not the cold bare impersonal and exposed balconied apartment-building look. ® More than half of the resident-owners feel that they can both keep the beauty, character and quality of the place and have affordable repairs done to what needs to be repaired. 3.0 The definition of repair is that what is broken is restored to use and function with like material and function. What is not broken does not need to be fixed. Repair does not mean discarding, destroying, throwing away, or wholesale transformation of what is to what it never was before and, particularly, not by inferior substitution. ® The complex is not in need of redevelopment or renewal --- it is not an eyesore or a candidate for slum clearance or face lift as is claimed by the Applicant. On the contrary, as per the photos attached, its original integrity is intact. ® The photos and video presentations produced by the Applicant and its aspiring remodelers selectively and repeatedly illustrate, emphasize and dramatize some troubled areas of the complex that need urgent attention and have too long been neglected. But, in fact, even those can be repaired by targeted intervention, cleaning and partial replacement with like materials. 4 Contrary to what is stated in the Application, the criteria for requiring a Design Review of the existing buildings are not part of any of the documentation as to design standards provided by the planning department of Lake Oswego. There is no need for bringing any part of the complex up to code. It is the introduction of replacement and change that triggers the requirement to review and adhere to new codes. The need to replace the siding is totally a choice elected by the Applicant. But if it chooses replacement over repair, the Planning Department staff then cautions the Applicant in the pre-application report that "the replacement with lap siding suggested in the submission requires consideration to utilize a combination of lap siding and wood shingles to provide texture and to break up large expanses of siding material (for instance, where there are bay windows or other breaks in the facade). " The Applicant has misrepresented this statement of needed improvement of the proposed remodeling design to the Commissioners in the Application. It makes the remodel a desirable feature to "bring the complex up to code". It has equally misrepresented this caution to amend its replacement design to Oswego Summit homeowners. It has repeatedly used it as an impediment to exploring alternative repair methods that do not require wholesale remodeling. It has gone as far as to say that it is the requirements of the City of Lake Oswego to remodel, replace, correct abuses of codes and design and modernize, rather than restore and repair. There is no written evidence in the literature or documentation that are part and parcel of The City of Lake Oswego and Planning Department process of any such requests to remodel or to correct flaws at Oswego Summit. ® The same situation applies to the changing of the roof material and deck railings which the pre-application report deems "compatible with the overall (new) design". If the architectural design was not totally changed, it would retain its compatibility and harmony. It is because wholesale change is proposed that the new design requires compatibility within its scope. In other words, if the applicant had not asked for complete architectural redesign, there would be no need for Design Review. 5 4.0 Contrary to what the Applicant claims as to LOC 50.06.001.5.e, the current façade details (materials, colors, etc), as well as the windows and lights meet good design criteria. The diamond shaped windows in the wood siding enclosed stairwells are an integral feature of the architectural design and style. They are essential to daylight illumination, as well as attractive functional components of the buildings. Their boarding-up as proposed in the remodeling of the buildings constitutes a total destruction of the very attractive night-time look of the individual buildings and of the whole complex. Their removal will destroy the quality of the profile of each building and of the whole complex. 5.0 The Applicant intends to retain the existing gutters, while changing totally the design of the terraces, transforming them into open balconies. This will have a major effect on the efficiency of drainage of rainwater. By removing the tiled roofs and balustrades or skirts, the Applicant will remove the guiding downspouts which are lodged behind them. The large quantities of our Pacific Northwest rainfall water will then cascade as a solid sheet or waterfall over the whole length of the edge of the now exposed slab of the opened decks, overshooting or straining inadequate gutters that were designed to receive a controlled quantity of water through a drain pipe system. Meanwhile, the uncovering of the fascia of gutters will further accentuate the tenement look of the buildings facades. e The problems with the existing drainage and attendant water intrusions came from clogged downspouts and gutters. This is a problem that a well designed and regular maintenance routine would solve in great part, if not altogether. As it is, the absence of regular attendance to the horizontal gutters has led to their separation from the fascias and multiple water intrusions. The purveyors of envelope remodeling have attributed these to faulty slider doors installation and the presence of tiled-roof downslopes which they want to eliminate with the attendant massive redesigning of all the buildings and the loss of their architectural quality, design integrity and uniqueness. ® The Applicant submits that the existing gutters will be repainted to match the new white vinyl windows. The existing gutters are dark brown to match the dark brown windows which match the color scheme of the 6 Mediterranean look. Again wholesale replacement, needless modifications and wholesale transformation for the sake of transformation and "upgrading" according to style trends, rather than good architectural design and solid principles of compatibility of design and color use in an age- mellowed site in the Pacific Northwest environment. 6.0 The solutions that the remodeling promises are not proven. Far from it, it is already obvious that they will create new issues of water damage. Moreover, with the need to repaint several components of the new exterior, including deck surfaces and even the gutters themselves, the risk of falling behind with the upkeep and maintenance of the exterior will be as high if not higher than at present. Whereas, targeted and prioritized repairs combined with a program of regular gutter cleaning -- the way grass is cut regularly and refuse is picked up and bushes are trimmed and curbs are painted -- would preclude intrusions of water from clogged downspouts and scuppers that flood decks in enclosed terraces. The scuppers themselves could be enlarged and modified. This too would preserve the architecture integrity of the whole complex without the need to remodel. 0 The water intrusions and other issues involving the envelope of the buildings have not been mapped in a professional and systematic way. The cursory map offered by the management and contracted remodeler architectural and construction firms is a simple and inaccurate recording of instances of water damage from all sources, including washing machines overflowing, pipes bursting, window sill caulking failing, as well as multiple documented misdiagnosis of the source of the leaks that were revealed on closer inspection. It is unreasonable to insist on a total remodel and re- design of the exterior, facades, profiles and roof lines and diminish the quality of the architecture and style of this vintage and uniquely attractive complex , without doing a proper inventory, or true mapping of sources of the water leaks in each building and to target appropriate solutions. 0 The Project which requires the total remodel of Oswego Summit is recommended by firms that specialize in one particular industry niche or approach to water intrusion problems. They sell envelope replacements on a total remodel basis with materials that are currently mass produced to take advantage of economies of scale and quantity, as well as of the warranties of new materials. These are not restorers or vintage building repair experts, but demolition and gutter-remodelers of the same ilk as some buyers of vintage properties. These descend upon their purchase to turn it into whatever is the desirable price range, of the current and most popular remodeling style. They apply this blanket upgrade indiscriminately to kitchens, bathrooms, or total exterior or interior housing upgrades, without any regard for the integrity of the original architectural design, or style, or the building site. In conclusion, contrary to the Applicant's claims, the suggested remodeling project will financially stress the association of unit owners and ruin a large number of the individual owners, while creating new avenues and sources of deterioration and damage. This unsustainable situation will do nothing to preserve Oswego Summit or restore it to financial health and value in the immediate future. On the contrary, it will put downward pressure on prices and the value of the complex. It will negatively impact neighboring properties and the general real estate values and market. It will eventually radiate through the whole community of Lake Oswego. The mere announcement of this potentially massive transfer of homeownership and financial commitment has already put excessive downward pressure on prices and values and made it impossible for alarmed owners to sell their assets, even at great loss. This decision to proceed with the remodel project as submitted to the Design Review Commission is contrary to the basic principles of the prudent manager or of good business management by reasonable individuals. It represents undue hardship imposed on the current homeowners and residents of Oswego Summit, as well as a needlessly high risk of financial ruin, increasing foreclosures, bankruptcies and loss of homeownership in a complex of 215 units with a multi- million dollar tax pool. The distressed properties will be picked up at bottom prices and seriously reduce the value of the tax base further. A prudent manager would rebuild the reserves at Oswego Summit, while carrying out a speedy series of mapped interventions on a building by building basis. The Applicant is asking for approval of a needless wholesale remodel that attempts to control costs by reducing the quality of design, materials and quality of life of the community of resident-owners of Oswego Summit, a vital part of the community 8 of Lake Oswego. The uncontrolled massive indebtedness that the Applicant's Project entails represents a massive distortion of the economic life of the complex and its community. Therefore, this total remodeling should be rejected by the Design Review Commission. It is not only destructive to the architectural and financial integrity of Oswego Summit, it is not necessary to solve the long-term problems of water intrusion which have various sources. As experts in water leaks tell it: water runs downward. The roofs at Oswego Summit need attention first. Building by building repairs need to be done to match the solutions to the problems. Not all buildings, by far, suffer from the problems that the remodeling is alleged to be the one and only solution for. In fact, the remodeling will exacerbate situations that can be controlled by non-invasive and programmed maintenance that has not been practiced so far and should be. As a ratepayer, taxpayer, property owner and investor of the City of Lake Oswego. I appeal to the Design Review Commission to exercise its authority under the body of good governance and high standards prevailing in our community of Lake Oswego to protect our condominium homes from this ill-conceived, misguided, unnecessary and damaging Project. Claudy Lynch 9 Build a r a 1 n Co mmunit thatWorks g Y To g ethfri417;\ er Demand a change in leadership that values our RIGHTS as homeowners, as well as the diversity of our backgrounds including our financial situations. i . fir_ .', : ` ��� L' �I wt;s * ''' i 1 ,r a !, f, - R '! - AlfY,- I _ V. jcy ''4 X -_ - _ jr - i may. z 3r v+y ''F _ •, ,�, f Wit..w ?-' — .1..:;7.___. _. .� J - �•r, a ,' -♦ J' u. x Z^ . Vii' L_.! • rr 4 CO �k 2 CV I- (i) ii' ''' ',' z ME 1111 . 1 '1 IN li ...,- 1,111,„ } 111 fl...:I."..:_..' : -...' _,_ 1,i11). i --�Wi�i • Irr— . 11111 1 'Iw 40 ` r' IIIIIII ` .I {4N1,,4 5 ' y i1 1111r`9` 4 i _ of __ I I 101 lilt- t . to _______-____ _. j ..zi. ---Ag . . . -.-,. LB .0r 0) r ti s • • ?" 4 r .- .ik `/ N. 'i io PieReltec-e-4A4-44,-Lt RECEIVED C 3 `f 1 OCT 1 6 2013 6-V3 - 85o - 'I y 4"5" riC1ty of Lake Oswego -_._. _ i clete7t i , ),0 1'3 I / aii ( Oehue ( ___.______________ ie.55 i-ea, A I(.4-wlervi°SILL./ 9t4A-ej-ri 12&-1444- tTS C _G _...v19 .d :a,A„,es To- 1 1--- .....e - ,l # PA ca -CO 5 Z I r 1(1 eiz,I, * )//7,1-4 . ---)Z646-1/0 ki. tzotcl s--F, ,a, / I (I s t vi-e/l �� aIal II ./.-674.4.41-u•t141 C-C-6-4q/1,-4 _____ a 5-0-W1-:-L- 04107 ,/ _de C;? /ila GAr r7 ?c d . `- -i7 . (0 . 1 - /045 07 ,ft-ic-t 60-7-0-44,K a/r--e _ 11__&_ iir /1.)4:69( Slir,u1. 4/a;/4 X-4, if./z-?4 c a v t), _ 1.Lfivz- ‘-rxi'llict4 5-0-144-euiLeit- 146 ali/c -1.4rz-e 1,14 a -6-41-Cc C'C , i/iTOCri"4/4-4-(4,7 i____6_ 11/ 6--"Z 1 _C.,C, 1:4‘2 6- / /.."-4c,-Gt . keia:A. ,41-L-€4..(1 [,,,-(. .V/4---0 ' - # -. Carilo-n-,;-7-1 .1.c-ilei____Cx..=.114-4' I 11.L. 7177-7-V;(..e_y 0 c< R 4., , 1002.. • . , V-‘12 _ RI:. :\II ‘)1 s--/W--- Tii1JLzTc 1 1, ' 1 1Se5-';Ai '4 /4tq Vita le_r-e-e. Ia--i Yluz _ _7-c-t-Lan'f-c., 74-(--e-Z-7 c;50c. Ce57- 411c2 Z,&--0-7-ec344-4ic: t-7-7 ii-i-ii'itt‘;-” 1 0.4.7_ cz -n io 7 -zti __gcctia,41 --zz- ql Oc L ,./ ri-re.-4 -td, od W,02._ s ( 4,kidicitti _.%0424---U,Le5 VhC.Criec/4 __ Fg- iXS- 4x- .0.,el. C)(/-2Ce i'41: 6`e 7c--;- ell' YZ-f 4 e-1-*---€7"f C 01-4-e ' ‘e'f;f:_.e Caolsz/L II stz(:147Zes e)ex.vz, szed 74(es & __0-L LU, .) ce_e/e(.4q onlo 146-11-4.‘z _ 2ple77( einc-7 4 .-14.e..c.4--ekaiy e6 G-14:41fe--Slete.grieS', eee51f_e.h c..4_,776-7_______ IlIcLitiy ._ Aik 6244d --- __ ___:_ zr chdeei5 JaZWagson-i -/- qax cesei4.-§ ____ _6,. .7c14-el_6(2.AJ,-4-i‘ AtzcZL, akid: bor-ie_ - ' - ,(2-62,e-f4s -(4,_ s_4i of - a i .eerecf -- azy Wi,c,1 ,d- , /,- te.34. - --t-- _ ae AeA42.04- 1ce-f-fr!,sp±.44_4___*9 1,t), -4 4,,,,ec, e,i, 4.,,,,_._ . ... .__ _,744,a-,--- _ 1 -2/4m/IS f7?-€/L51/' ,4L4-52PA-", 40‘,-X, A? 147/,/ 17:.842"1 -55v-?id IS / �� G � I vcryl?)--7-72) / -7.,vyt=7,-//&„ l74 al,A -P24 4r10P e;-47r7/ d-' la "t - '2/ I 5 ) -4747 ' 547,?' 3 o ‘)y,4/11F___ ?7: . 4e-Q7/) c)t °a1)150 1,07- _,(?7,-27, ,,,yz4, 5 2,0 *71_5s a t 1 L22IV-n-07111 l -.4V-7°/2- ' 4 / r W< irl-Q'n7 A4-937417( "4 "P'! ?/1141074 1 h ?Po2� r12.71 1;r7r 5. 7 %? 7 S zr>71 !. Deanna Nelson 167 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503 344 6818 October 15, 2013 RECEIVED City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Departments OCT 6 213 City of Lake Oswego,OR 97034 City Re:Case Number LU13-0042 of Lake OG Original Design Approvals DR8-75&DR33-76(c. 1976-1979) Community Development Dept. Dear City Planners, I reside at Oswego Summit in Mountain Park,where I purchased my wonderful home less than 1 year ago. I chose this condominium unit from hundreds of condominiums and homes for sale in the Portland Metropolitan area in part because of its unique character and the northwestern design charm of cedar shingles and award-winning architecture. I had read an article about Oswego Summit an Architectural Digest article sometime in the late 1970's or early 1980's and immediately recognized it as one of the first of its kind in the Northwest. The design of this property follows the architectural and artistic philosophy of Richard Neutra which dictates that a home of any size should reflect and become integrated into the natural landscape on which it is constructed. Neutra is a world-famous architect who designed and built homes and other types of buildings based on this principle in many parts of the world(c. 1920 to 1970). In the same generation, Frank Lloyd Wright built many of his masterpieces with cedar shingles which are lovingly cared for by it's their owners—as works of art. Oswego Summit's cedar shingle and tile roofs mirror beautifulIe legacy of the great pine and fir trees which once graced these hills. Our unique design combines a modern building elements with rustic grace. I firmly believe that replacing our"Cedar Shingles"with "Hardiplanks"will destroy the legacy and the character of our community. Buildings worldwide are built with cedar shingles and periodically rehabilitated to preserve the character of those buildings,often for centuries. Someone has apparently decided arbitrarily that we should not consider preserving the architectural integrity of our community at Oswego Summit,in favor of making it mirror the uninteresting and indistinguishable condominium constructions in Mountain Park, constructed in the years since ours was carefully designed. I do not know what hidden agenda may underlie that decision. I only know that I purchased part of a uniquely beautiful condominium complex last December and that someone now wants to change it to a pedestrian cookie-cutter complex. I am very unhappy with that proposal. I also know that it is possible to repair and remediate what we have in keeping with the original property design. My feeling is that someone should have applied to the National Historic Register at some point for this property. I'm hoping that if you choose to allow us to preserve our unique community,we will band together and apply make that application. If accepted,we would not face this kind of decision again. y, Deanna Jean Nels #1 7 EXHIBIT G-202 LU 13-0042 October 10, 2013 RECEIVED Dear Lake Oswego Planning Department; OC) X01 c.. �� s� Lc/5-001/-2 City of Lake Oswego Communitl'Developmant Dept . My husband and I have lived in Oswego Summit for over 18 years and have owned our unit for 15 years. We moved in because we absolutely loved the design of the complex from the unique red tile roofs to the cedar shake facade. It has a wonderful NW appeal to us. However, now we are absolutely appalled at the thought of having our high quality cedar shakes ripped off and replaced with Hardiplank. To us, the Hardiplank will give our complex a run-of-the- mill, cookie cutter look of lap siding that is not unique and will completely diminish the distinct NW character that we have always loved.The cedar blends into the natural environment of Mt. Park in a truly cohesive manner. Some of the changes proposed include changing the railings on our personal decks and common walk ways to frosted glass. This is horrifying to us for many reasons. Most importantly for our views, air flow, maintenance to keep clean and of course, the look. I have included photos of our personal deck in this letter. The 1st photo is what I see when I open my eyes in the morning, without even lifting my head off the pillow. The 2"d photo is what this proposed project would like me to see but worse! I'm holding up a glass cutting board in front of my camera- it's not even frosted! This change would definitely not increase the value of our unit. No one in their right mind would block a view like this. { • EXHIBIT G-203 LU 13-0042 3 ocic V ✓ + •_ " :IV S.. • • Air flow is a most important aspect to our current design. Our building is solid concrete. Therefore, the building heats up and retains the heat in the summer months. And, of course, living in a high density building is very limiting on the options of windows to open and the air flow that we can achieve. We have never had or used air conditioning because of this. Blocking air flow with frosted glass is unconscionable. Maintaining the white plastic rails and the frosted glass will be quite a challenge. We have a lot of wind up here and a lot of nature, specifically birds. Keeping 100's or 1,000's of glass panels clean would be next to impossible. We would need a full time window washer plus scaffolding to achieve this and we certainly could not afford that fee on top of our already high HOA dues. Therefore, we believe our very large complex would look very dirty and un-kept fairly quickly. This huge construction project does not appear at all environmentally friendly. For example, perfectly serviceable —and often very new — windows and sliding patio doors will be discarded simply to get a "new look" that is not even desired. People that have purchased brand new sliders and windows, like ourselves, even if replaced yesterday, will have them ripped out. We are horrified at such waste. Oregon is known for its sustainability and eco-friendly environment and this project is neither. We believe that approximately 80%of the shingles may be reusable. I have met with two expert architects, on two occasions, in a home owner group setting, that said in their opinions our cedar siding and tile roofing are reusable and in good condition. And all this in an Oregon landfill is just heart breaking! In our opinion, this proposed project will not only diminish the natural beauty of our property, but will lower the value of our property. Please do not allow this horrible design change to take place. Sincerely, Jim and Agnes Swan #197 Oswego Summit, Building#24 To: Lake Oswego Design Review Commission Planning Department,third Floor RECEIVED City of Lake Oswego From: Martha Dougherty 70 Oswego Summit City of Lake ` `vi Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035-1061 Community Development pelt, Email: doughertv9440Pcomcast.net Phone: 503-636-9343 Cell: 503-780-5169 Lived in Oswego Summit since 1977 Re: Hearing on October 28, 2013 Case##: LII 13-0042 Original Design#: DR 8-75 & DR 33-76 Date: October 15, 2013 Dear Design Review Commissioners, For the first time in the 35 years that I lived at Oswego Summit, I am deeply concerned and unhappy about the direction the Oswego Summit HOA board is taking us. There are repairs that need to be done, but the board is planning a $7.5 million capital improvements redevelopment that is not necessary, completely changes the aesthetics, uses inadequate materials and will have ghastly colors. I fear we may end up with a failed Home Owners Association and a doomed complex. I am concerned about the following: Aesthetics Quality of Materials Project contract with the Contractor Lack of reserve funds Board and Property Manager's mode of communication Cost to the residents up to 15 years Aesthetics: The project calls for replacing our high quality shake siding with lesser quality Hardiplank. Some of the shakes are old growth cedar. The cedar shakes do need to be cleaned and treated on a regular basis, but the Hardiplank would also need to be painted on a regular basis. (See picture page 4) The colors selected by the board are unattractive. I understand the colors will be military camouflage or red, green and brown with white window frames and clear or white coated glass on the decks. Other residents, people looking to buy or rent a unit, and I like Oswego Summit because of the appearance of our buildings, our neighbors, and the location. (See pictures on pages 5) EXHIBIT G-204 LU 13-0042 5 4.610-S Quality of Materials: Apparently,the flat roofing material will not be adequate for our rains. I understand the thickness or mil has been changed. In Phase 1 (buildings 1 through 21), plans are to take up the concrete deck floors and replace them with wood. These decks are over living rooms and bedrooms in the units below.The deck floors are roofs to those units. I hope they will be fire resistant. I have experience with a wood deck. In 2003, a previous contractor jack-hammered the concrete floor of my deck and replaced it with wood. A person walking on the deck can be heard in units below.The deck floor is no longer slanted adequately to drain the deck of standing water. Also project plans are to remove and replace the same drains and gutters that are currently on the buildings. Those drains are not adequate for our weather and are a cause of some of our water leaks into units. Through the years, at the constant encouragement and at times requirement by the Board,various residents have replaced at their own expense,their original windows and sliding doors with higher quality products. Our bylaws indicate the windows belong to the residents. Now the Board is going to require that all our windows be replaced with the project windows of lesser quality than those upgraded windows.There is no compensation for the windows we bought. Contract: We have been recently told the board selected to not have a Performance Bond in the Contractors contract. There will be multiple subcontractors on the project. They are not starting on the worse buildings first. They have not planned for interior repairs needed in some buildings. There has been constant talk that after the remodel, nothing can be altered in any way or it would void the warranty on "the building envelope". As it turns out,there are warranties on separate components (flat roofs,siding, slanted asphalt roofs, windows, doors, etc). However, the construction has only a 2 year warranty. Also, I believe it would be difficult to determine who is responsible for faulty work especially when new water leaks appear. Lack of reserve funds: The Oswego Summit Board has drained the HOA reserve funds. They have not provided us with monthly financial statements tracking expenses or our reserve funds. They tell us that there is no more money in the reserve funds. On October 9, three members of the Board passed a multi-page resolution without informing the residents of its contents. They say the resolution was requested by lending bank.When I asked the Board President to see the resolution, she would not give it to me.To date we have not seen the resolution. We do not know who the planned lenders are. Board and Property Manager's mode of communication: In spite of copious information given to the residents,the board members and manager have been selective in what information they give us. Individual board members have been rude to residents. They would not take into account some excellent suggestions by residents. They did not take a survey from residents about their perceived needs of their buildings and units. They did not include the residents in picking colors or considering the aesthetics of the complex. There could have at least been a vote on colors. Decisions are made by the Board and Property Manager behind closed doors and then voted on in open board meetings without informing those in attendance of the contents. See "Lack of Reserve Funds" above. Our Board introduced the project coordinator as an engineer which he says he is not. The board has taken over a year to get the bank loan. They frequently told us they have it or will have it in a few weeks. Wisely,the numerous banks they approached would not lend. It is an ethical decision, especially with an assessment of over 30%of the value of the condominium units. They used a commercial broker to find a bank. They tell us,they have not been told the lender's name. Cost to the residents: The individual assessments planned by the board are far beyond the reach of many owners. Of the 214 units, many residents are retired,on fixed incomes, or 15t time home buyers with full mortgages. Others live from pay check to pay check. Some cannot afford another mortgage, especially since we are no longer eligible for FHA loans. They could not sell their units due to the recession and now due to the impending assessments of approximately $18,000 to$45,000 to cover the massive bank loan. I fear it might cause serious financial consequences to our community, Mountain Park, Lake Oswego and individual owners. Some owners may just walk away leaving the remainder of the bank loan to those trying to hang onto their units and their future. I believe our remaining residents cannot absorb the cost of the bank loan left behind after owners walk away or default on their assessment payments. Design Review Commission hearing: I want very much to be at the hearing on the 28th, but will be out of town. I can be reached through October 23`d and after the 28th at the above phones and email. Sincerely ATIAY1-1-747-7//; 191 Martha W. Dougherty % J Owner of 70 Oswego Summit Oswego Summit Condominiums (10/15/13) Structure near Oswego Summit mailboxes Sample of materials to be used in capital improvement Note crack in Hardiplank, window, white glare 6/14 III hi 41111 boArn WPM 1111 :. ' Oswego Summit Condominiums (10/15/13) Shake sides, red tile slanted roofs, flat roof on top Warm color of cedar shakes blends with environment iiik ... 4E. 1.. `. ____ A',I..... it 4 : , . -.4. _ 1 . 0 ' } 1 1 9 ,,•' 11 Diamond shaped windows next to outside stairs to top units will be replaced with s . ,-ce; /e0 ; d r ,� �r S _, . �. ei rs �, =T. -- _ _ yam' ,,- _ 1 . g I • a 1 RECEIVED OCT 16 2013 October 15,2013 City of Lake Os'we.go Community Development Dept. Planning and Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego RE: LU 13-0042 (Original approval of our current design from 1976 was DR 8-75 and DR 33-76) To whom it may concern: Please take my views in this letter under consideration when making your decision on the outside facade of Oswego Summit. I have always been attracted to this community even before moving here some thirteen (13)years ago. The reason being was the wonderful view from McNary Parkway when I would pass by and see the great cedar shingles,red tile roofs and the foliage. After selling my house in Multnomah Village, I purchased my first condo at OS. I knew I wanted to live here and make this my last home. After time, I wanted to downsize and so I sold my larger unit and purchased my second smaller condo at OS. Why? Because I LIKE the look of the buildings,the view from my condo and the landscape. Yes, I do believe that with this proposed re-structure the landscape will be altered as well. When I come home at night,or walk my dog through the grounds, I enjoy what I see. After moving into my smaller condo it needed upgrades of windows,door to deck,and removal of an old drafty air conditioner, and so I went ahead and had everything replaced,at my expense as 1 am responsible for my windows and doors according to our by-laws,and now I am cozy and warm with no problems (I did have a few leaks due to the neglect of the homeowner living above me,but those have been addressed and now I have none.) The windows and door installation on my unit was all handled approximately four(4)years ago. I complied with the rules, having the bronze window trim on windows. To my shock a few months back I am told it is ALL changing and was all for not. The whole envelope will be replaced including the removal of my beautiful windows and door,which with their color palette,will now have to be white. So,with a gun to my head and against my will, I will once again be charged for new windows and door to my deck. 1 EXHIBIT G-205 LU 13-0042 L pccc.e S At one of our homeowner meetings we were told we would have some say so in the color choices should this project be pushed through.....not at all true. The owners were told they would be able to participate in this project right down to the choice of colors. Wrong. The meeting with Mountain Park and Lake Oswego was at the hands of just a couple(two)people,certainly NOT the majority of OS home owners. This project is wrong for Oswego Summit,wrong for Mountain Park and wrong for Lake Oswego!! Thank you for listening to my concerns and taking them into consideration. Sincerely, 71/Piree—. Mary J.Lee Homeowner 57 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 ,411" OFFICIAL SEAL TRICIA LEIGH MYERS i!L " NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON of COMMISSION NO.480422 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 06,2017 cji 41.41- a(\a-V 2 October 15,2013 RECEIVED City of Lake Oswego Building Services Department C. 8 ;4113. Oswego Summit Case File LU 13-0042 City of Lake Oswego From Phyllis and Michael Harwood,Condominium 162 Community Development Dept. It seemed to me,out of the blue,my husband and I were informed of the plan our Board of Directors came up with to totally alter everything in our lives. Our condominium,our home in Mountain Park,Oswego Summit,is now planned to look like a new apartment complex. It looks like something shipped in from Southeast Portland or Beaverton. I hear the buildings will have concrete siding and painted all kinds of colors here and there. Our cozy,and well loved cedar will taken away,our distinctive contemporary style will be destroyed. Our unusual and welcoming red tiles will be crushed and made into road material. We will have some dark every- day common roofing on our long slopped roofs to`greet'us as we come home. We own our home and have built our wants and needs around keeping our home. There was no `discussion'with us about the contract our Board has signed with I&E Construction to come in and fix the water and mold problems some of our neighbors have. I have been to owner meetings(not Board meetings), heard about meetings with Architects,and know the big changes that are being pushed on us could be handled in a different way,what we owners are calling a Plan B. We all want to fix our buildings;it is not that I am losing sleep over. We can fix our buildings problems;roofs,window flashings,gutters,and decks,and have it cost less, maybe half of the$7.5M. Even this huge number can get even bigger,owners don't know what is going on here. It is the`Board's way or the highway,'and it hurts us and makes us mad and sad and nervous. I worry every day about what I know is an unethical and heartless plan our Board has brought to your office and the work they have already signed for. I worry about the very huge impossible assessment my husband and I will be given,maybe tomorrow,maybe next week. Please save the look of Oswego Summit. Please believe me and others who feel the same way. We want our buildings fixed,we can fix our buildings.We need to tell the Board the look for our buildings does not fit Mountain Park,it belongs some other place. Also I want you to know many,many,owners cannot afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars and the interest we would be charged,for the next 15 years. We don't know how we can bear to sell our place,how little we would get for it,and where on earth we would live out our lives. We want to do it here in a community where we thought we were respected,and our special buildings were respected too. Thank you very much for reading my letter, /211-7-( t,</' NA/6/ WO.0 d EXHIBIT G-206 Phyllis Harwood LU 13-0042 Planning and Building Services City of Lake Oswego RECEIVED October 16,2013 UL] 6 2013 City of Lake Osweap RE: LU 13-0042 Community Development Dept. As a homeowner, I want to express my dismay with the remodeling plan for Oswego Summit. This re-development will devalue our home investment and nearly eliminate our pride of ownership in one of the most distinctive condo complexes anywhere in and around Portland. When my husband and I moved to Lake Oswego from Bloomington, Indiana, in 1996,we were house-hunting. As we explored Lake Oswego, even though we were focusing on single-family homes,we were intrigued by the look of Oswego Summit with its cedar shingles and red tile roofs. When we downsized in 1999 from our much larger Westridge-area home,we were delighted to find an available Oswego Summit condo, and we snapped it up. Removing the very elements that make Oswego Summit so distinctive will remove a great deal of the joy we feel in living here—not to mention that replacing the open railings, even with clear glass,will substantially reduce the expansive view that we enjoy as we look out to the north, across to the West Hills and beyond to Mount St. Helen. Those who currently have shingled low- rise deck walls will acquire glass instead; they will lose all their privacy when sitting outside. Now, as the to planned remodel: I do not want to hurt the feelings of the design committee,or whoever chose the"new look,"but it is, quite frankly, unattractive and cheap-looking. It can be seen on any of the mass-market apartments and condos that are shoe-horned into every available space in the Portland area, littering the streets with block after block of cookie-cutter, look-alike condos and townhouses. My car-pool partner,when dropping me off after work,saw the mock-up and said(without any prompting whatsoever from me), "Is that what they're going to put up? That's just ugly!" Sadly, I must agree. Why must we be lumped in with all the other plain-vanilla developments in a 20-mile range? Why can't we keep our beach-cottage look,our privacy and our marvelous, unobstructed views? Why do we have to downgrade our unique design to look like the multitude of urban and suburban developments in Portland? People love the look of Oswego Summit for many reasons;why destroy the very elements that brought those reasons into being? Two licensed, experienced architects gave their opinions that targeted repairs and proper maintenance could keep our cedar shingling and avoid the destruction of our special look. The Board of Directors rejected even exploring the possibility of an alternate repair plan. Instead,we are faced with this remodel/re-development that will ruin the outward appearance of our homes. Our cedar shake panels will give way to Hardiplank siding;our red tile roofs will be replaced with composition shingles, Instead of uniform warm brown,we will see a mish-mash of buildings in green, red, tan, chocolate,with white window frames. It is a travesty. i hope some decision can be reached that will prevent these dreadful changes. Yours sincerely, Mary 61e1 187 Oswego Summit EXHIBIT G-207 L 13-0042 Planning and Services Department RECEIVED City of Lake Oswego, Lake Oswego, Oregon OCT 1 6 2013 City of Lake Oswego October 15, 2013 Community Gevekpmsnt Dept. RE: Oswego Summit Project I am writing regarding my concern about the proposed re-development project here at Oswego Summit. I purchased my condo in 1990 and have lived here contentedly since that time. I was originally drawn here by the aesthetics of the complex set in a beautiful forested area atop Mt. Park. The spectacular view of Mount St Helens from my living room,the overall appearance of the wood-shake siding and tile roofs made it fit perfectly into the landscape and the rest of the Lake Oswego community. Our HOA board is considering a total redevelopment drastically changing the appearance of the entire complex that will not blend with nature as our current buildings do and will not reflect the values of Mt. Park and Lake Oswego. Changing the entire look is abhorrent to many of us. We have been told by highly experienced architects that this drastic change is not a necessary part of repairing the existing deficiencies and that targeted repairs and care can bring our buildings back to their former elegance and function. I am also upset about the proposed changes to our wonderful patios and balconies that serve as an eye to the marvelous setting we have enjoyed so much. Taking away the privacy walls between the patios will reduce the enjoyment we now get from them. Constructing glass privacy screens will result in diminished views and create ongoing high maintenance for us. Having a clear view from the patios is priceless. Also concerning to me is that this $7.5 million renovation has been designed and championed by an un- credentialed young man who fraudulently passes himself off as an engineer. The project has been proposed with no mapping, no time-line and no budget. Preserving the integrity of this complex and repairing the existing problems will require the expertise of water intrusion specialists as well as experienced architectural engineers. EXHIBIT G-208 LU 13-0042 The building I live in is in pretty good shape, apparently requiring only a new roof and cleaning and treatment of its shingles. Some of the buildings need very few repairs and some of the buildings will require more extensive repairs but we do not need and cannot afford the scope of the proposed project. New sidings, roofs,windows, balconies, etc. are certainly not necessary for all the twenty five buildings. Replacing the shakes with a lesser quality product is unacceptable. The exorbitant assessments being imposed will force some to bankruptcy and short sales which will assuredly lead to plummeting values for the rest of the homeowners. Units will be left vacant adding risk to the funding and further increasing the burden on the remaining homeowners. . Changes must be balanced with financial resources, aesthetic appeal and functionality of the final result. I urge you to deny any further permits and licenses for this unnecessary redevelopment. Sincerely, 1 12 n I A)0)1 ( h� Donna Harrington, #183 #183 RECEIVED October 15, 2013 JC.D City of Lake Oswecto Building Services Department Community[:eveinplint Burt City of Lake Oswego Case File# LU 13-0042 Exterior remodel of all building on site; request to modify the previously approved Case File#'s DR 8-75 and DR 3376 abiding by all current codes when approved and are in effect in perpetuity Submitted by Cookie Johnson, owner and resident of Oswego Summit,Condo#64. These are my comments in opposition to the exterior remodel and in support of retaining the character of our homes and the privacy we enjoy even as we identify a far less drastic method repair water intrusion problems at Oswego Summit. I support a common sense and cost effective method to be used, rather than the wholesale redevelopment by changing every roof,deck, railing,window,and all siding on our homes. Cedar Siding and Red Tile Roofs:Who does not notice the look of Oswego Summit as they drive by? We have an intriguing honey colored textured facade and red concrete tiled roofs, one that evokes thoughts of privacy, leisure, and vacation. Our cedar,far from the end of it useful life when given regular care, is planned to be replaced with a concrete based product, Hardiplank, a 'fiber cement lap siding' product, which attempts to look like wood but actually will degrade our building look and value. Western Architectural, in their submission to Lake Oswego Planning, claims building within 300 ft. use fiber cement lap siding. Please see * as the end of this letter.And I must make note that if a hapless owner or renter'penetrates'the Hardiplank siding by attempting to hang a front door greeting or some such, whatever warranty Hardiplank carries is then voided. This synthetic siding material is to be painted dark brown,a drab olive green, red,a bland tan-and some three other colors; seven in total is what I read. A point of fact is our Board of Directors has released only one view of our three of our buildings facing McNary Parkway to show us the planned colors, cleverly withholding the color scheme for our entire complex. We owners and the surrounding neighbors have no idea which buildings will be red or olive green or chocolate,or any combination of the seven colors. Our red tiles are to be replaced with a 'weathered wood'color asphalt composition shingle. All in all a drastic departure from what we now enjoy, in order to address some problems in some buildings.A mapping of specific water intrusion, building by building, by asking each owner what they have experienced, has not been done.As for me, I have not experienced a leak in the eight years I have lived in my condo, and my condo faces southeast. Many owners have not had problems. Not all building have the same issue. This is often a fact in groups of buildings so why are we facing drastic measures to totally redevelop every building? Architects, other than the one company the Board has engaged,well known for their water intrusion envelope experience and extensive resumes, attended a Homeowners meeting and presented the opportunity for an alternate plan. They strongly supported the feasibility of'repair' of our building to retain our unique home designs and reduce the financial impact to owners. The Board of Directors voted against entertaining this offer, four to one. Without moving forward with a repair rather than the re-development we are facing, large assessments, most exceeding 30%of the value of our individual homes, will be levied. It is difficult to say how many owners will be forced to sell below market value— EXHIBIT G-209 LU 13-0042 4 pbges disclosing the impending large assessment during the selling process—but even 10%, 21 condos,will have a severe impact on the owners who remain,the value of our homes, and the impact on Mountain Park and Lake Oswego as a whole. It is difficult to separate design from cost, and cost from design. Many owners at Oswego Summit live in fear of both—losing our special design components, and losing their financial futures. Decks and Privacy Walls: Please refer to a photo of my deck and privacy wall. See views showing the deck I enjoy, and how my deck in my building picture,and whatever I have on my deck, is not seen by my neighbors. Oswego Summit essentially has two different types of buildings. I live in what is termed Phase 1 which totals 150 condo units; we have cedar siding, red concrete tile roofs,and most enjoyably for all, privacy walls. As you can see in the picture our buildings are terraced,giving us light in our living area as generous soffits shelter our windows from direct contact of sun and rain.And importantly our low deck walls provide privacy from onlookers and privacy from viewing all that we might survey on our neighbors decks. I do not want to see what my neighbors are collecting on their decks, and I am sure they don't care to view my collection of furniture and plants. Most notably those who drive on McNary Parkway (many cars every day, up and down the Parkway), should not be viewing clear glass railing planned for our buildings, and the collection of personal items on the 30+decks that face Mc Nary Parkway. In actuality Oswego Summit, Phase 1 has over 100 of these concrete decks which,according to the contractor,will be 'lightly jack-hammered,' removed,and replaced with plywood, screws, caulking,and coated with a urethane product. Our walls are to be replaced with white(!) 'Clear Glass Safety Railing.' All of this work and cost and jeopardy of damage to the units below(our decks sit above ours neighbor's living room and bedroom) is planned to correct a few reported problems of water backing up at our scupper drains. I am also concerned with the foot traffic noise that will be transmitted to my neighbors living space.We who have these private decks are aghast at this unilateral 'solution.' I believe there is always more than one way to solve a problem. Re-sloping some decks as necessary and coating of our decks should be done.This along with a thoughtful design to enlarge our scupper opening and throat of the drain, using materials of integrity(not standard gutter downspouts)to save the decks and privacy we have,the reason many of us bought our condos. I personally fell in love with my private deck—first and most importantly when I bought my condo;sun,sky, privacy. I was enthralled with my future of enjoying the out-of-doors in a densely populated condo complex,on my private deck,all my own. Flat Roofs-part of the design plan before the Lake Oswego Planning: No one sees our flat roofs from the road, but their integrity is of great concern to me. All of our 25 roofs were on our Association Reserves Study to be replaced in 2012 and 2013.This has not happened because our dues and monies, managed by our Board of Directors,as left our complex coffers,we have NO Reserves monies. The$7.5M loan our Board of Directors is angling for will be used, in part, to fix our failing roofs.The contractor's plan is to remodel, in more or less numerical order, starting with Building 1 and moving toward Building 25,for the 400+days of the contract.There is no plan to address all roofs at once, but he claims a roof cannot be completed unless the siding on that building too is addressed at the same time; he tells us'integration' of the roof,fascia and siding is otherwise impossible. Many vulnerable buildings will need to be tented during the rainy season and wait their turn. Twenty five condo building and two stand alone garages at Oswego Summit are designed with flat roofs, which when replaced will be built up with a%" per foot slope with integrated flashings at the edges and material transitions, My concern is for Lake Oswego Planning to ensure the roof membrane as specified in the application is of an adequate mil for the Oswego Summit site. As I mentioned we are comprised of 25 condo plus two garage buildings, with buildings 1 through 9,at the least, having a southeast exposure at approximately 825 ft. elevation. Serious heavy pelting winds and water come at our buildings in the fall and winter. Originally the Architecture company's Scope of Work in March 2013 specified an 80 mil roof,then to "save thousands of dollars" [a quote from the on-site architects forensic evaluator]to accommodate the contractors winning bid when addendums of overlooked items were later identified,the roof was reduced to 60 mil. The latest communication to the Owners at Oswego Summit dated August 20,2013, and I expect to Lake Oswego Planning specified a 40 mil "cool roof"system. We know much of our water intrusion starts with our roofs and the weather we face; not a place to compromise integrity. Does Lake Oswego Planning believe the specification of a 40 mil roof will serve this community for the 20 years of warranty, knowing'water follows wind'and that water intrusion and cited as one of our contributing problems? There are other comments I could make in support of a plan to thoughtfully and responsibly repair of our homes and save our unique and interesting look, but what I have said above about our cedar siding, red tile roofs, decks and privacy walls, and roof materials are on the top of my list. Others will weigh-in with what personally affects them,their home,their sense of livability,their sense of design. Respectfully submitted for your review and consideration, L?t' 94 — _--- Cookie Johns Condo#64, ,s ego Summit cookiesofficePcomcast.net *a submission from Western Architectural to the Lake Oswego Planning Department[LOC 50.05.001.5.11 purports multi-family developments within 300 ft of Oswego Summit have been clad with fiber cement lap siding. My inspection of McNary Highlands and One Jefferson Parkway reveals wood siding. One duplex,of 12 duplexes,on Northview Circle,22 and 24 Northview Circle appears to have used a fiber cement lap siding product.Perhaps Western Architectural can list the structures they are referring to. • t .�: i s^„Rr ,lithaat .,,,,, 1.-JA-,.. ,,," _agiummiumminimmannummi..... _,.. ,- I#. ' ''�- 01.1 i 'pNN M c.j*s.„ .,,,, 't° _ s, +,,.. .\ n ,a may. e%. ;• The overflow scupper ' U :i r . 4 A } .r, �k� in case of snow and ice'' da t } ° i :C�: melt,a tube to drain ''. .s, ' - *>�'.,. sr ,E'r^ ! directly to the ground below • "i' \ Scupper for rain. Enlarge box and throat, create adequate design J } with'industrial materials' • ....: :4 0....i -11-±7-.7.7.---_.. . ..,i).:.'1,,,11: .i . • • ,itr . ___ \.. cr .•�,.. fi tly ,• ' • - Mydeck and privacy wall, which _ which I hope to retain, fnot exchange for'Clear L. r". Safety Glass' • - - . _ ' '42 6 ' I . JSM T,5.: , 4. .,- iktit' .. yY "mayfie' °:` i °3 ciy //rf)jj �� `' i �,l�" %;,10lis /jii ,,}}.:--mss• ',�. _ - ' r.. ' r r .j-,1;,,7/4----/ ' ''' :::".ge".".......111...."r . . .W.M ;;. . oma 4F October 14, 2013 RECEIVED Manuel & Candice Soulakis 209 Oswego Summit C1CT 2013 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 City of Lake Oa r Planning and Building Services Department Ccmmuri Development Dept. City of Lake Oswego, OR Ref: Case# LU 13-0042 Dear Committee Members, We are owners of one of the larger condominiums, unit 209, in the Oswego Summit complex. We purchased our unit in 2004, in large part because we appreciated the beautiful and unique appearance of the cedar shake building exteriors that are special in the Mountain Park area. The cedar shakes blend with the lush landscaping giving Oswego Summit a very natural, warm, welcoming appeal. The red tile roofs add rich color, style and substance that is evident each time you enter the complex. Another major selling point for our specific unit is that it has beautiful northern views. On a clear day we can see Mt. St. Helens in the distance. Needless to say, while we are well aware that some of the buildings in the complex need major repair work, we are very concerned by the scope of the project currently presented which proposes to totally change the appearance of the buildings exteriors and the character of Oswego Summit from special to commercial. While we are sure the proposed changes have well-meant intentions, what started as a major repair project has morphed into a total unwanted redo of all building envelopes. Unfortunately,this project contemplates replacing quality siding materials that have stood the test of time with lesser quality materials that have only a 10 year life guarantee. It will also require painting 25 large buildings every 5—7 years, adding a major maintenance expense that will tax the reserve. The colors and materials chosen seem to be much more appropriate for large commercial or retail buildings than for a residential complex and do not reflect the warmth or ambiance that the cedar shakes and tile roofs provide. This project includes total replacement of all siding, roofs, windows, doors and railings. Some of these items do need repair or replacement in several of the older buildings. Many in the newer buildings are in great shape and more than a few have been replaced relatively recently with high quality windows and sliders at significant expense to individual owners. Current plans call for high-handed confiscation. removal and replacement of these relatively new quality components without homeowner consultation, permission or compensation. EXHIBIT G-210 LU 13-0042 2 doges One feature of this project that gives us serious concern is the replacement of the iron rod railings with frosted glass panels. Aesthetically, we feel the glass panels give the complex a motel/hotel look, not the appearance and feel of a quality residential complex. Functionally, they partially block views and block airflow needed to keep interiors comfortable in hot weather. Additionally,these panels will require annual or semiannual cleaning to remain attractive, an added expense not in the current maintenance budget. The typical deck railing is anchored by numerous iron rod posts. In many buildings accounting for multiple decks, the railing posts are imbedded in 3" of concrete, not screwed in, and their removal will require jack hammering or equivalent and could result in unnecessary damage to the deck and a sienificant avoidable expense which has no relation to the required building repairs. The estimated assessments ranging from $25,000 to over$45,000+for unwanted changes to the look of the entire complex are not reasonable or affordable. It is estimated that almost a third of the units may be foreclosed for inability to meet a monthly assessment added to their monthly HOA charge. We respectively ask the Planning and Building Services Department to direct the Oswego Summit HOA Board to rethink the current project and resubmit a revised plan that focuses on doing all needed repairs and where needed, replacing siding and roofing with materials compatible with the current ones. For the reasons noted above, we believe this project needs to be reevaluated and redirected to focus on the very real repair issues in the buildings requiring major services. Thank you for your consideration, Manuel Soulakis - Candice Soulakis /// K-7C'z-v .�.�, / /� RECEIVED Atic', ReP.-9 OCT 1 6 2013 City of Lake Oswil ge k Community Developm ,ent ri4i. Le 4441'1 2-;1/ 4.2-64.-' 611-4Z , 4 fi . itie._,-(-i: _ , 04-1.4.! C\.3 2, 1 . 1, , i A- J, ,,,-i 1 f ,g04aze,A. gocLit / ."6-- /- 6 a14' a----xr ie,-.z-e , V-riee -e-a-t-- i -If I _Le-iv / i ,,,,.. / ,- i____„.._. . 7,,, . --rig s /1/4" - "a ' 604-4t ,a71((,' We/U- 1 :_ 1- / 1 OL-1-4e a 60-k) Ae-e-- 1/4-a-64,4-i, 141 ,--%41d ,, 77 ,--& 0-1A1C./ irst-,644.-Eij C.44-€ ,:i,e, 4 ,_! / ..,r4h)L6 6-4t,-.644.4J di-7, j- .'- -- * / ( , /W- - --e-,i, Or-44-2--- d-e-4-1— ,...-&-:4---) 0.-- ialke ...tdun-A, 641.4/tie O'''e...6Z.44,,t421e1,1 42.4.4-- dage4Ate / je' L4i L ''alL'e 64'A....+ 44.4Ll. 44,4 ) 461Z4., EXHIBIT G-211 ‘ LU 13-0042 , r"-- /' Qh-e-e41,1 , i---,- se ; _ RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2013 116 Oswego Summit City of Lake Oswego Community _avelc+Nms Dept. Lake Oswego,OR 97305 October 13,2013 Dear Planning Commission; I chose to live at Oswego Summit about 10 years ago because of its charm and distinctive look. I am from New England originally and it reminded me a bit of the Massachusetts Coastal areas as well as Cape Cod and a bit of Italy with the red tiled roofs. I had looked at many condo complexes that looked so"white toast"with hardy-plank siding and"cookie cutter"styling. It never appealed to me and it still doesn't appeal to me. The board has been gung ho on ripping off all our siding, window,and decks, as well as roofs and replacing all with"the modern" look.This is the exact look I stayed away from while buying a condo. While I know our roofs need repair,our siding has not reached its life limit. I quite frankly know our complex can be both attractive and affordable while maintaining its unique charm. I'm sure at one time this was written up in some architecture magazine and espoused for its character and charm. I,for one, would hate to have Lake Oswego and Oswego Summit lose its historical styling and original look where architects and planners spent a great deal of effort ensuring the project was and still is distinctive. In addition, it is my opinion that the new siding and project plan actually"cheapens"our condos. It pushes us backward almost to the"APARTMENT" look. I don't want to look like any other apartment complex in Mountain Park.Thank you,if it's all the same, I love the original, historical perspective that has been around for the 40 plus now. Please listen to what we will lose if this project goes through—our charm, intent,and distinction,and quite possibly the value....Don't we pay more for the historical look?I would,wouldn't you? Sincerely, �j/t�P/bti-E Brenda Fulle Owner of 116 Oswego Summit EXHIBIT G-212 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED 2013 /zee) 97005/ City oi L.-awe Oswe.gro Communiti Ovelopment Dept. - 444.A4kaisil_ ej--or la-exA, "11 ? 5K 9.743'• 7diewc- -42-*JJ 62Ayv, a/# 4e-ifoc-d-77t.it-/A.6-eitl- )) Rg- 75od )k -7eJA ztAti t„: . ?j177- -Zoog) _Ma) .72e-o'L-41f-?61, a—* 4JJJ 1114"Li"-l° 6442 A-g-/a/u 4..LJ-,t-J'tzit4,1 - I- _./eiottob c='"" 4f#a.tide_ W EXHIBIT G-213 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED Diane E Webster Warren of_ s 2013 192 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 O€y o Lake Oswego503-305-7271 Community Development Dept. October 14, 2013 Planning and Building Services Department City o Lake Oswego Re: Case Number: LU 13-0042 Original Approval Number: DR 8-75 and DR 33-76 Dear Planning and Building Services Department: I am writing concerning the remodel that is being considered for Oswego Summit. I understand that the building design and exterior building materials for the condo buildings and club house were reviewed and approved in 1975 and 1976 when they were built. Why can't that ruling stand. I have lived at Oswego Summit since the year 2000. I moved here because of the magnificence and esthetic environment of the Oswego Summit complex. The most beautiful thing about this exceptional community is the appearance and eye pleasing structure of the buildings and landscape. It is this that brought me here to this place. The wood shingles are high quality materials that contribute to the distinct character of the buildings and create a visually engaging cover and are an important aspect of the overall design. They need to remain. Three architects have stated that it is possible to keep the cedar shingles and do spot repairs to the places that need them. To remove and replace this beautiful cedar is just not necessary. The lap siding that is proposed as a replacement in the remodel changes the design and character of the structure of this complex. The new look that is suggested is appalling to behold in comparison to what is already in place and approved of in 1975 and 1976. Living in a community with such heart warming, inviting buildings to come home to, that are nurturing, sustaining and uplifting is soul filling. Supported by the unusual, vast, eye pleasing landscape of such extraordinary loveliness provides a comforting place to call home. The idea that the Oswego Summit Board of Directors with little vision can destroy our homes with the moving of a pen is just amazing to me Please consider all of these facts before making your decision. Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to write. Sincerely, EXHIBIT G-214 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED October 15, 2013 OCT 1 6 2013 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego Case File Number LU13-0042/Exterior remodel of all buildings on site;request to modify the previously approved Case File#DR8-75 and DR 3376 Submitted by Susan Killoran, Owner and Resident of Condo#113 I have been a home owner at Oswego Summit for over 24 years. I bought my condo because I found the condos with their cedar siding and red tile roofs charming and the park like setting appealing. I am at a loss as to why our Board of Directors feels they must destroy all this in order to"fix" the problems we have with"some"of the condos. Indeed there is an urgent need for repairs. These repairs must be done properly and soon. We need to have a professional"mapping"of the problems at Oswego Summit.No one has gone building by building listing the work that needs to be done. At a recent Home Owners meeting Ray Bartell, an forensic architect,offered to do this and his suggestion was voted down by the Board of Directors. We need a Plan B as the current Plan A in front of the Lake Oswego Planning Department involves replacing all the siding,the tile roofs and windows regardless of their condition. This project is estimated to cost$7.5 million dollars. Currently our Home Owners Association has NO money in our reserves. I have been told that my share of the cost will be $35,000. Many people can simply not afford an assessment of this size and some have already walked away, sold their homes below market value, or are in the process of a shot-sale,putting all of our home values in jeopardy. Bottom Line: The"Project"as it is currently presented is unnecessary, a financial strain and will leave our condos without the visual interest and character I have enjoyed over the years. Oswego Summit will look like low cost housing, thus reducing our value and be an eye sore to the Mt. Park neighborhood. .............Z 0.0.- ..11&61(401 4.1.-"......._„) Susan Killoran EXHG-215 LUIBIT 13-0042 1 RECEIVED OCT 162013 City of Lake Oswego Community Development Dept. October 16, 2013 TO: Planning and Building Services Dept. City of Lake Oswego, Oregon FROM: C. Harry and Gloria B. Norstrom Oswego Summit Resident Owners for 25 years 171 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Re: Case Number LU 13-0042 Our communication will be brief but to the point. We do not want your aooroval of the above referenced case number and urae you to consider our olea for declinina. We do not want, or need, nor can we afford, the complete transformation of the exterior appearance of our condos. We do need and want "repairs" but not the "replacement of the shingles with horizontal siding significantly affecting the quality and character of the design" as quoted from Paragraph 7 of the Pre-Application Conference Notes by Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner. The Senior Planner goes on to say "The lap siding that is proposed as a replacement in the remodel lacks the texture and visual interest that the wood shingles provide." She is correct but too polite. The Hardiplank material that is proposed for us looks like crap. It will take away our present distinctive appearance and make us look like a second rate apartment project in the City of Portland. This is not what we want and we certainly hope you will agree. We spent thousands of dollars a few short years ago to replace all our windows and sliding glass doors. It was at the urging of our Board of Directors at that time. Now we are told the City of Lake Oswego is requiring all new windows and doors on all units in this bloated re-development project. It is unfair and unwanted. We have many, many years of usage left in these windows and doors and it would be a wasteful and disgraceful act to dump these items. EXHIBIT G-216 LU 13-0042 2- PA,geS Planning and Building Services Dept. City of Lake Oswego October 16, 2013 Page two In closing, we ask you to consider how you would react to the following. Assume you are happy with the appearance of your own home located in a great neighborhood and suddenly one day you receive a life changing notification. In addition to the roof repairs that all neighbors agree are needed, the five person Board of the neighborhood association have decided that your house also needs to have a complete make-over. "They" have chosen the siding that will replace your cedar shingles that originally attracted you to make the purchase some years back. Oh, and they also have chosen to replace your perfectly good windows and sliding doors that you purchased about six or seven years ago. Oh yes, one last item. Here's your bill. It's $45,360. At Oswego Summit they call it an assessment. Our point of the above is to say; yes we are concerned about the cost. Many of us do not have the ability to cope with such an assessment and the long term result may have a disastrous affect on Oswego Summit and consequently the City of Lake Oswego. But more basic is the fact that we just do not want this gigantic project that we believe can be done for far less dollars and keep the integrity of our appearance and remain distinctive. We want to be proud of being part of Lake Oswego and not appear to be another Portland rental project. We urge your no vote. Respectfully, C. Harry N rstrom RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2013 City of Lake Osw Dept. Christopher Eng oo Cori-num�y' 0�'?IC��?T!1S'il? 168 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Lake Oswego Planning PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Dear Lake Oswego Planning, Over the past few months the question of whether Oswego Summit Condominiums should be repaired or redeveloped has been a heated controversy.Evidence shows that the redevelopment plan for Oswego Summit is excessive and unjustifiable,where as a repair would keep costs down and maintains the nostalgic charm of the complex.The redevelopment plan will dramatically change the character of Oswego Summit into a generic and prefabricated look when the original look has been an important factor in many peoples decision to buy property at the complex.Admittedly there are much needed repairs that need to happen at Oswego Summit;However,this current redevelopment plan is financially irresponsible,untenable,and unnecessary. I am a fairly new homeowner at Oswego Summit having lived here just over a year and a half.One of the influential factors in my decision to buy property at Oswego Summit was it's aesthetic charm.It has stood out in Mountain Park for years with its red tile roofs and cedar siding,but with the new proposed plans to redevelop the complex this look would change to a generic material and color palette.Changes to the siding and roofs also will also cost our community millions of dollars in unnecessary work.Since none of these issues were present during the purchase of my property I am convinced that the scope of the plans are excessive and will benefit only a few of the residents. Our board was even presented and opportunity to have a second opinion that would keep the same look by doing a targeted repairs,which they rejected.This second opinion would also save us millions of dollars in work we can't afford anyway.The fact that there is public hearing on October 28th when work was supposed to start before October 1st speaks volumes to their ability effectively and courageously lead our community amongst our neighbors. This redevelopment project is irresponsible.I am concerned that the current board and property manager have carelessly put forth plans that could have grave consequences on Oswego Summit as well as Mountain Park.Foreclosures and short sales have far reaching effects on communities,which are very strong possibilities with the untenable scope of this project.Short sales at Oswego Summit are already rising rapidly,and there are at least six properties in Foreclosure.Furthermore,the HOA systems in Mountain Park are already plagued by the legacy of mismanagement at Oswego Summit. While Oswego Summit suffers from poor repairs and mismanagement,we certainly don't need to jump into a $7.5 million dollar project to redevelop our community and change our look when the problem lies within the management.What we need to do is targeted repairs for our community with a smaller project,which would be financially tenable and responsible not for only Oswego Summit but Mountain Park as well. Sincerely, Christopher Eng EXHIBIT G-217 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED CIL 6 2013 City of Lake Oswego October 15, 2013 Community Development Dept. City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 RE: Case Number 13-0042 Dear Planning Committee Members, We are writing this letter in concern of the total change in the outside appearance of the buildings at Oswego Summit. We bought our unit April 1980, and one of the major appeals was the distinctive cedar wood shake shingles and red tile roofs that distinguished Oswego Summit from other structures in Mountain Park. Our seated board now wants a construction project that will completely change the look of Oswego Summit,from the cedar wood shingles and red tile roofs to hardiplank and composition shingles in multi camo colors. Also on the agenda is removing the wrought iron deck railings and replacing them with glass partitions. We can only say with the hardiplank siding,the color mockups, and changing of the decks, we will have completely lost our original individual look that distinguishes Oswego Summit from other complex's in Mountain Park. In fact we feel we would have the appearance of a motel with buildings 22, 23, 24, and 25 in phase 2 of the Oswego Summit complex. We would also like to address the deck enclosures that individual unit owners had installed with the approval and sign-off of previous boards. We applied and received a permit from The City of Lake Oswego for installation and approved and inspected upon completion. We are holding these documents, but the now seated board is saying we installed our decks illegally, and will have to be removed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gb ry L. mh Delbert W. Grate Unit 177—Phase 2 EXHIBIT G-218 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED OCT X62013 Lair Bucan City o, ..-,'E £ Oswego 25 Oswego Summit Commune; i.A.ivelopment Dept. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 October 15, 2013 Planning and Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego Re: Case No: LU 13-0042 Original Approval No: DR 8-75 and DR 33-76 Dear Planning and Building Services Department: When I drove up the hill,the red roofs immediately grabbed my attention. I liked the rustic siding. Everything was green and my heart started pounding. The scenery reminded me of my childhood home in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. I kept my eyes on the cascading buildings as long as I could and it is the main reason why I bought my apartment. Before we went inside, I told the broker I would like to purchase it. It looked like a well-kept park and felt as I was on vacation. I lived here since 1999 and I have loved and enjoy every moment. Now, I am very sad. They are proposing to change the building facade color to a color that resembles military buildings. I don't like it and I will never like it. I would feel like as I am living in a jail because of the colors. I didn't choose those colors. I chose brown siding,red roof and the bronze windows and I paid for that. Now I have to pay for something I don't like and didn't choose. I lost my job a year ago and financially I cannot afford it. Even if I have a job, I don't like the new design. Sincerely, Atve('A,„Lala Bucan EXHIBIT G-219 LU 13-0042 FilECEiVED Lynn R. Johnston 212 Oswego Summit OCT 6 2013 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 City of Oswego e 503-744-0142 Corlr'n4 :=v`v'`;)l{yvtrneft Dept. Ir iohnstonC comcast.net October 15, 2013 Jessica Numanoglu Senior Planner Planning and Building Service Dept. City of Lake Oswego Re: File No. LU 13-0042 Oswego Summit Condominiums Hearing Date - 10/28/2013 Dear Ms. Numanoglu: Thank you for providing this opportunity to speak about the project proposed for Oswego Summit, as presented to the City of Lake Oswego by Western Architectural. Please know that I, along with a group of like-minded owners, object to the scope of this project by Western Architectural for the following reasons. The main objection to the proposed project is that our complex, consisting of 26 buildings housing 214 owners and renters, will be completely altered from top to bottom. We do not want to lose our beautiful cedar siding and red tile roofs and this has been voiced collectively on many occasions. If our cedar siding and red tile roofs are replaced with ordinary looking products, the unique appearance of Oswego Summit will be forever altered and we will lose the look of our present homes we so love. Why Western Architectural suggested the removal of our visually appealing cedar siding and red tile roofs, which is the striking characteristic of our community as a whole, remains a mystery. We have been told by two architects the cedar siding can and should be kept, cleaned and treated, as a more practical option to replacement, while also offering a more cost effective solution to the financial burden presented by the present plan (a beginning bid of $7.5 million). It begs the question, why replace a superior product with an inferior product, and where will our cedar siding end up, in landfill? o N A second objection to the proposed project is that each building should be M s treated on an individual basis, as each building does not need the same scope of work. Some buildings are in need of more repair than others. Some units have new or recently installed windows and sliding doors, which do not need to be replaced. We presently have bronze windows, which complement the cedar siding. I personally object to the white windows being forced upon my neighbors and me as they look utilitarian and are without aesthetic appeal. And again I pose my question, where will all the present windows, new and old, end up - in landfill? Another important reason to treat each building individually is that Building 25 was extensively rebuilt not that long ago as the result of a fire. I do not believe the building I live in needs more than a few minor repairs, a cleaning and continued routine maintenance. As a resident of the abovementioned Building 25, I will tell you I fell in love with my home because of its magnificent view. Eight years ago I walked in the front door of #212 and realized immediately I wanted to live here, to enjoy one of the most beautiful views in Oswego Summit and Mountain Park. My view is a continual source of pleasure and something I know is an invaluable asset of my unit. With this in mind, you will understand why I am passionately opposed to the plan to replace our metal rails with frosted glass panels. Not only will I lose my view, the glass panels will hinder the flow of air through my unit and this is what keeps me cool in the warmer months, without having to use any air conditioning. Frosted glass panels will not only ruin my view and hinder the flow of air, they will depreciate the look of this building and all the buildings, which brings me to a final point, that of the financial ruin which will come about if this overpriced and quite unnecessary redevelopment project is forced upon us. Many residents have expressed concern over their inability to pay for a huge assessment and many have said they will be forced to leave or walk away from their units and then where will we be, those of us left standing with the debt of those who have gone? Not only will we lose neighbors and friends, we will lose a community, while being forced to assume their debt as well. This project is a life changing decision that was taken out of the hands of most residents and placed in the hands of Western Architectural, who never once consulted any of us regarding our individual units, our buildings or the overall need for repairs. They produced an unnecessary and undesirable "over the top redevelopment plan", rather than a workable and sensible solution of targeted repairs, which is all our buildings need. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding my statements and thank you for listening to my objections to this "proposed" project. Respe tfully,,,� LiA.diirL Lynn . Johns • • Owner and Occupant of #212, Building 25 Oswego Summit Condominiums RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2013 9tai :. I iit7;?SF ia't j, t_ .tt_fl 7—- i z2", l a.={ . City of Lake Oswego v Community Development Dept. i a- i.rTi_ iCi€i'�t{l ,e�cn i Si ii.ec ifs :�Pr vires i i�iai Fr pi ii 'nit;of i arto r1SINer+r.- : Q-nti VVI f-.KIaV tlV ff VVFV, ti%L�{Vg U • �.� tv *4 s9 From: Mar sha M. Pruitt Regarding: Oswego Summit Keri novation Project- Units 1-25 & Clubhouse I am a homeowner who has lived in the Oswego ii Immit community for 20 yfrs ti-ns h0Pre pleasant experience living among the grand trees and - .. !-ice,--.ireirr.f. r+t+6-", SA!"r.1 um, Pair\-4664.“Et.. ,•i •cA.vi./ V.r •r t%# vVvt..v f f vv• . hart.. In Januar,/of this year. I was informed of the rumor that there would be an Rr 3Thit nt Prnnt cwt of rrtnnr�f: .r-�r--`firh 'i to n possible. :assessment of our -._ ,. '- 29.E . .,. �._ �• 9 e{ a.ea� homes. Aa first, i felt F...�',�.i '.3 .,i that r. ... �.�= kept £� of hl tF f Sri` f.11 fine . el lir r: f Lt- t s- o/� one�...e - kep s ltorm, f r, e 1 VtlrVv. ! 4 IIf V►, f tVi• K1ff blind-side [Ifdt no VIIV i-iL�(\.1 flV t./t me i�I fI V1111Vd Vf •f!V financial condition of Oswego Sur f 111 ti t-Homeowners Reserve funds. I gained insight about our finances while conversing with several owners y.rnfer a t--iv --,-month s.i;,.a.i l of time. in late .gip!ing of 901q, :he board informed he noi's!iF.:i fWnerss of the plight of Oswego :;I xiln the {Ilesz7,tuf_ i paypay an mr+nt to remain i • ,mss it home r find another location to learn GtiF C.{JVv`Jviti ii is -Lil i'vliiG4iil in ari.7i Fitt 7v or Hiiiw uiiLs'"itrt *VCIUii if to live that's more affordable." I began to reflect on the days that led t;. th;-- f 7h -3_ cif - . r- a if_+•i-'� i a'L ��f,i i! i s:\i s s/ii i ilk amongst the trees' and experienced a sense of melancholy_ i was atiracie^i as well as drawn to the, rustic exterior of the structi red WV ith its wooden, cedar shingles and red-tiled roof. It was a beautiful, warmcontrast to the four-plex apartment I had left behind in the city o: P 3illai id. My first view cruising -p ti.;Q spectacular water fountain. It greeted me like a breath of iresh air'. I had found a place I could call- home. The concerns I have for The Project'... all of the natural beauty c. S:!_'!_ii_ would-be6- demolished. l+ would be replaced with a cold, army green structure that has no character or charm. We would stick-out like a sore thumb in our current surrounding. Personally, I think our neighbors might be offended that we chose such a dramatic option to change the look of the landscape. in addition to the physical changes of the structure, the cost is well beyond our means as a condominium complex. Replacing the shingles with hardi- plank, replacing windows and resurfacing the decks would be an EXHIBIT G-221 LU 13-0042 2- navel . J astronomical cost to the homeowners. We sought a second opinion for the: scope of work needed for repairs. The advice of highly-skilled, experienced and reputable architects was acknowledged and appreciated. However, the board decided to proceed with their plans to move forward with The Project'. I realize that there are several repairs needed to restore our homes to b,ealthy, cafe, and liveable conditions. Please consider$hn rnmifirnfinnc r.f n ;' Sum- - -;OA q r !'s des Sion to change the structure of Oswego Summit. It would grossly interfere with the beautification of one of Mt. Park's iconic landmark in the city limits of Lake Oswego. Thank you. r / derf /14° RECEIVE OCT 1 6 2013 October 15, 2013 City of Lake Oswego community Development Dept. Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego Case File# LU 13-0042 Exterior remodel of all buildings on site: request to modify the previously approved Case File#'s DR 8-75 and DR 3376 Submitted by Pamela C Sheehan, owner and resident of Condo#127 Subject: Retaining the current character and privacy of our homes Imagine coming home after being away for six months on an out of state work assignment. You drive down your street and go to where you know your house is. You ride up and down the street and don't recognize your home. Yes someone without your agreement has remodeled your home into a low income cheap looking multicolored dwelling. Your wonderful concrete privacy deck which is part of my neighbor's ceiling has been replaced with a wooden deck that has some kind of coating and clear glass panels with a white railings and clear glass...what happened? Well this is what is happening at Oswego Summit. Our board has taken upon themselves to do a total 7.5 million total exterior remodel instead of a repair project. From fall of 2008 to the beginning of 2008 I looked at literally forty or more condo communities. In the end when I drove into Oswego Summit I was drawn to the honey colored cedar and red tiled slanted roofs, privacy deck and most importantly the fact that the community fit so beautifully into the lush wooded park like setting in Mt Park. Now our HOA wants to totally change the look and feel of the property to an urban NE Alberta environment. They are going to replace all the red tiled roofs with multicolored asphalt roofing material. Has anyone noticed we are in the woods in Mt Park in Lake Oswego? Our community will no longer have the look and feel of the original design that fit so well into the area. Oswego Summit is going to look like a low income apartment development with red,green, brown,tan as well as other accent colors buildings with hardi plank siding with white windows instead of the current bronze ones. Some buildings will have red walls with other accented panels;some will have brown: and all will have black front doors and garages. What are people thinking?Also my understanding is that if you take off the cedar and replace it with hardi plank we will be devaluing our property. Why would we do that? It doesn't make any sense, and it is just not right! I am totally against a remodel of the place I was attracted to and used to be able to afford. No matter how much our board tries to convince the City of Lake Oswego and Mt Park we do not need a major remodel we need an affordable repair project to fix the things that need to be fixed and cleaned.Yes we need some of our windows replaced to match the newer ones but to replace them with all new white ones is intolerable and not being very environmentally green. All the windows we currently have will land in a landfill...that's hundreds of windows. Considering the economic climate we are in, along with the fact that we are a middle class community with many people who are retired who would put such a EXHIBIT G-222 1 LU 13-0042 2 OQ,0IeS major project onto the backs of the owners? If this project moves forward in its current form many people will lose their homes and the people who are left will continually be in a serial assessment having to pay even more money. Currently we are told we will be paying between $31,000-45,000+depending on the size of your unit. Not only is the design plan wrong for us, it is wrong for Lake Oswego and Mountain Park. Please consider this opinion in your decision process. We need a repair project not a major redesign of our community. Respectively submitted for your review and consideration, 1,) Pamela C Sheehan Condo#127, Oswego Summit 2 Planning Building Services Department RECEIVED City of Lake Oswego OCT .1 6 201'3 Re: Case#LU 13-0043 Original approval DR 8-75 and DR 33-76 (approx 1976) eOf Lake ��!<�i p Comrnunity Development Dept. Dear Members, Several months ago we were told by our board of directors that we needed to have a complete overhaul of Oswego Summit. New siding, new roofs, new windows, new decks and new colors! They had hired a company that took several tests of the cedar siding and decided we needed all new "synthetic" siding,Hardiplank, new asphalt roofs and new windows with white trim!! The total "project" package would cost 7.5 MILLION dollars!! and we were all going to be assessed to pay for it. What about the cedar siding? What was wrong with it, couldn't it be repaired? What was wrong with the red tile roofs, couldn't they be repaired? What about many of us who have spent thousands of dollars installing new windows with bronze siding, blending into the cedar siding? Windows that our by-laws state belong to the owners. These decisions were made without any input from the residents. The board of directors, five people, one of whom wasn't even living in the state, decided to burden an aging population with a debt many cannot afford. We DO need to repair the problems, not have a total redevelopment of the complex. These drastic changes will completely change the appearance of a home I have lived in and loved for 22 years. The cedar siding gives it a warmth that is very comforting in a wet and rainy winter. Replacing it with Hardiplank- a cold synthetic looking siding with no warmth. The tile roofs blend with the cedar siding and the bronze coated windows that we all proudly installed a few years ago. Windows that were recommended by our then-board of directors at great cost to each of us. Now they will be removed and replaced by windows, of a lesser quality, with white trim. Gone is the warmth and comfort of my Oswego Summit home. It is not a new complex. We need to target the many areas that need repair and do them, not re-develop the whole complex. . The color palette for the 25 buildings is enclosed. It reminds me of a Christmas village! If Oswego Summit stands out now as a condominium complex,just imagine what it will look like with 25 buildings in all these colors with white trim on the windows and glass enclosures toppped with white railings on the decks. A cheap motel!!! Let's repair the complex and retain the look and feel of the original design. It was and is a good one. Very truly yours, Polly Gray 6' 39 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego OR 97035 503-636-2604, alohagray@comcast.net EXHIBIT 6-223 LU 13-0042 ?- 044e( Light(typ):49116 AVI w - I , J , ism! 1 i voitlilt lot i oP,--1 701._,.s, , i � BUILDINGS 1, 2 AND 3 Lo 6 k---- ( 114- 10,,(:424-7.74_ a-•-'0 '((A),Z . . . 6711110P“1 • . . . , • . . .• • , •. . . . , , • . ... . . ... . . . , • - .. _. . , p , . , . -Zabilli . • . - - AI Jg •• IS. -."411111111111111 . •, , . -... . 4, wr ..-11.• ...111111r01.-i." ,.1 . - -..411111111111111 . -um. -4111111r.- iolm -~1111111111110" -44111111111".-::- - ---011117CF"' ., 4111b, _ • it ' _ _ .....- 'L -'AIIIIII -‘41111.111°...- --jwIAN. ---- ' .1441b6._ ---"N .4, T.& - .- •.. ' ", 11.1 I1.....1"..P..".... • 11111 ..... """ ". „ 1.1 . I.„.....a` !v.i \" '1111111 ---101111.1M6,--NMpliW. - - iiolwlek..---•aiNIN6- 0 , 4 lb:1 1- . ,-• • _ 4. -.• . • . . . _ . . - .., IS Oswego Summit t 2013 I&E Construction Building 2 1 Back Light(typ):49116 AVI • Qiii �n �� _ IIminomi z IIMMUNE ...._�a _ M •�, s_ a �i1� - NIEMEN ' MINION 1111111 -_ rr -.-- tea,. aR- +►., .r 0 1111 — • "-a 4 —. • a,.1M1., ',1111.1111.1.11911,1111111111.. 7 111111.11111r 4 111111=1.-11111MIRENIEW 111111...1 LI 1.11111.11111M .,, 'ma/MEM- MEM ..ter. €,Il ID"w ate- i. ;1I■Ir.: �. 1 . .:: ate. - =a Y i --'fir 1' I . "."-14111111•111• riMAW MOMILN it ', ie i lowelliiiiimill Tremco Deck Coating: Maple Oswego Summit IS 0 2013 i&E Construct an (-13iiilding 5 I Front Materials- Siding:James Hardie fiber cement lap siding-6.25"width for 7"exposure Trim: Hardie 5/4"x 3 1/2" Rustic Grain HZ Body:SW 7501 Threshold Taupe Deck+Roof Fascia: Hardie fiber cement 5/4"x 11.25" Light Block:2"x 3 1/2"flashed Cedar blocking Vinyl Windows and Sliding Glass Doors:White Accent: SW 7591 Red Barn Paint Colors- Fascia:SW 7510 Chateau Brown Window, Door&Garage Trim:SW 7516 Kestrel White Garage Doors:SW 7510 Chateau Brown mairomm I 1 I I D ii 1 , . .. . 1 rual =,:--- 1 ii il 1. _. f r NMI ,u ...`..: ,r,r _- a.,.......,_ , ........ . , _ _. ..._ ____ / ______ -- - I i .. . H...tro .. . 1,.... ._, , , i ,i_______ 11,-,- ii 11[ ,0—ii 1 1,____ ,___ . . .._ . , . . _ 9i , , u i -- 111 i 35 - \ 1 r-.... i i w - - .._ ---- Light(0 C :WS-Brown Oswego Summit IS% Belly Band:SW 7510 Chateau Brown ©2013 I&t Construct on � Building 7 1 Front Materaals- Siding:James Hardie fiber cement lap siding-6.25"width for 7"exposure Trim: Hardie 5/4"x 3 1/2" Rustic Grain HZ Deck+ Roof Fascia: Hardie fiber cement 5/4"x 11.25" Light Block:2"x 3 1/2"flashed Cedar blocking Accent:SW 7501 Threshold Taupe Vinyl Windows and Sliding Glass Doors: White Paint Colors- Fascia: SW 7510 Chateau Brown Body: SW 7750 Messenger Bag Window, Door&Garage Trim: SW 7516 Kestrel White Garage Doors: SW 7510 Chateau Brown Ifir ..........., • _7777.[7] illin 1 Et. , . , , Hui ri.j. , , , . 1 i J mil n I III, 1 1 •—i , :7111.11111.1"1111111" El: iiii - ----== tilt 7----. ,.. .7•.••••, L ��� =NM ... ..... mmminli ••••• ••• =RPM T.'' - i..... , _ _ _ _. z_________Th ...._, — _. _ _ , ... ,. \ _ ___ _ ,_., , . _ ., ____- ----_---- .7----...........,' . s . ..„..„ ______ _____qr _ _ .. . ____, __.=._, . _s„ .__ ______ __ _____ _____. Light(typ);WS-W27 Belly Band: SW 7510 Chateau Brown Oswego Summit �:20131&E Construct on B uilding 2 1 Front Materials- Siding: James Hardie fiber cement lap siding-6.25"width for 7"exposure Trim: Hardie 5/4"x 3 1/2" Rustic Grain HZ Deck+Roof Fascia: Hardie fiber cement 5/4"x 11.25" Body: SW 7591 Red Barn Light Block:2"x 3 1/2"flashed Cedar blocking Vinyl Windows and Sliding Glass Doors:White Paint Co'oPs- Accent: SW 7514 Foothills Fascia:SW 7510 Chateau Brown Window, Door&Garage Trim: SW 7516 Kestrel White / Garage Doors: SW 7510 Chateau Brown yI eh �r 111111111111111111 Ei ■i EH ii W I ■ 1�� 0 Memo liI, III Q ill t I I � � = d Li .ttttttt■■ tt► • ►— -- - titre ._ EMI 11111•111111•111111 mm an Mil 044414. i r Min 1111117 MN Light(typ):WS-W27 Oswego Summit Belly Band: SW 7510 Chateau Brown 2013!&2 Cons[runon 1 1 RECEIVED Lake Oswego Planning and Services Department OCT 1 6 2013 City of Lake Oswego OcmmunUL Development Dept, I'm writing to you with concern about the proposed re-development project at Oswego Summit Condominiums. The reference number for this case is LU 13- 0042. In the past 27 years I've rented our owned 4 different units at OS. One of the main reasons my wife and I have stayed at the Summit is the uniqueness of this property. There are many options in Mountain Park for living, but none have the look of our cedar siding and red tile roofs. In fact, the only thing all 215 residents have in common is this look. We all knew what the exterior of our home would look like when we moved here. Now our board wants to change that look. Instead of the natural look and feel of cedar we'll have Hardiplank. Our bronze window frames will be replaced with white vinyl. Not only is this going to make us look like many other buildings in the area, it is also a dreadful waste of materials. Regardless of what our HOA Board has said not ALL the cedar is in need of replacement and most of our windows are perfectly fine. I would also like you to consider one of the more prominent buildings in Mountain Park, which is the recreation center. I'm sure whoever designed the building had the same intent in mind as many of the homeowners at OS. A structure that was not only useful, but blended into the natural surroundings. From our north facing deck we have a stunning view of the west hills and Mt. St. Helens. The many plants on the deck look very natural with the cedar. Much like in nature they complement each other. I'm certain that an artificial gray siding won't have that look or feel. My railing will be replaced with glass. I live on the 4th floor, I'm 63 years old, how am I supposed to keep the glass clean? I realize that Oswego Summit has some need for repairs and completely support a project that would solve those problems. What I can't support and I hope you understand is that changing the entire look of this property is not in the best interest of the homeowners, but also of the Mountain Park community. There has to be some consideration for diversity. It complements the entire area. Sincerely, i\1 a co C.) CAAAILk w COAOLIAJ Roo City of Lake Oswego Planning and Buildings Department RECEIVED Case Number:LU 13-0042 Original Design:DR8-75 & DR44-76 OCT 1 rj 2013 City of Lake 03'01620 To Whom It May Concern, Community Development Dept. My name is Tim Cauller and am the owner of unit 191 at Oswego Summit Condominiums. I have lived here for nearly two years. I am handicapped and confined to a wheelchair. When I began looking for a home I was very interested in somewhere that was beautiful handicapped accessible or could be modified to ADA standards. After spending $35,000, I have a completely handicapped accessible unit. When looking for a condo I was struck by the beautiful look of the complex. I was taken by the old growth cedar shake siding and the beautiful red tiled roofs, I was also struck by the unbelievable view that my unit possess. Now The look and my view are in danger by the project that is being proposed. The look will be affected by the removal of the cedar shakes and tile roofs, My view will be blocked by either glass or plexiglas panels in the railings. These unnecessary changes are not the reasons I chose my condo. I have lived in the neighborhood for over 58 years. I had done a thesis in 1977 on Planned Unit Developments(PUDs) for an American Architecture course. I chose Mt. Park as my example. I chose Mt. Park because the unity but uniqueness that each neighborhood contributed to the beauty. Mt. Park kept those elements in the development of Mt. Park. I think that this project will destroy the overall appearance and uniqueness of Mt. Park. All my life I looked from my front porch up at the Oswego Summit complex and dreamed of living up there. My dream came true some two years ago, Now my dream is becoming a nightmare with this proposed project. Very Truly Yours ,j0/) r/(W/ Tim R. Cauller 191 Oswego Summit Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 EXHIBIT G-225 LU 13-0042 MARCIA BUSER PO Box 722 • Lyle, WA 98635 • (503)481-1870 • buserpdx(c�ry tf'bb' v�U Planning and Building Services Department OCT 1 6 2013 City of Lake Oswego City of Lake Oswe October 15, 2013 Community Development Dept Reference: Case Number LU 13-0042. Original Oswego Summit design approval in 1975 and 1976 DR 8-75 and DR 33-76. Dear Sir or Madam, Our homeowner's association board of directors has submitted a request to remodel our condominium complex. I am one of numerous homeowners who do not wish to do this and were not given an opportunity to review this. We received notification from the board that was going to happen and we would be billed a large assessment. We have received very little information on the changes being submitted, only one mock up rendering back in June. We were not asked to provide any input. It has been very clear for a long time that there are a number of repairs required in several buildings in the complex. I am very much in support of making those repairs and support an assessment for the repairs. I am very opposed to being assessed for a remodel that was never presented to us homeowners. I am very opposed to the remodel submitted to the Lake Oswego Planning Department. I admired the uniqueness of Oswego Summit long before I bought a condominium there. The cedar siding and tiles roofs look lovely in the sylvan setting of Mountain Park. I looked at a number of condos when I was looking and always came back to Oswego Summit for its beautiful look that works so well with the setting. I have seen renderings of what is proposed which makes Oswego Summit look like other inexpensive modern construction projects with Hardiplank and composition roofs instead of lovely natural materials. The windows are to be replaced with white vinyl frames, again looking like a cheap apartment complex instead of the natural materials now used. The assessment required for this remodel is certain to result in many defaulted loans which become the responsibility of other homeowners and the complex will likely become an unfinished remodel for many years to come as payment for the proposed remodel will be problematic. What was once a beautiful complex in Mountain Park is sure to become an eye sore. I also do not want to make changes to my own unit that the board is forcing on us. The star attraction of the unit I bought was the view to the North of the West Hills, Mount St Helens and Mount Adams. With the proposed remodel, the deck railings will be changed so one can no longer sit in the living room and look out on this view. Several years ago I replaced the windows in my unit with top quality Milguard vinyl windows in the approved Oswego Summit colors.,•"rhe by-laws state the windows are the responsibility of the homeowner. Now the board has a plan to force-tine to pay for a replacement of these windows because they want to change the color scheme of the complex from one that is natural and beautiful, to one that looks cheap. I do not believe this will withstand a legal challenge if the remodel plan is approved since it violates the by-laws. Now that I no longer live there, I am renting to a wonderful tenant who is interested in buying my unit. She loves the current look of Oswego Summit and has stated that she would probably no longer be interested if was changed to the cheap apartment complex look proposed by the remodel plan. So in addition to the expense, the proposed remodel will degrade the resale value of my unit. Sincere - Marcia Bu er Owner of nit 208 Oswe o Summit Condominiums, Lake Oswego EXHIBIT G-226 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED October 16,2013 OCT 1 6 2013 City of Lake Oswego Building Services Department Community Development Dept. City of Lake Oswego Case File#LU13-0042 Dragan and Rada Pancic, Oswego Summit Condo Units#29 and#48 When my husband and I bought our condominiums at Oswego Summit we chose this because of the neighborhood area and the very nice buildings and red tile roofs that reminded us of our homes in Europe. I grew up under red tiles roofs. Good homes in Europe,the Mediterranean, Croatia, Italy, and Greece use red tile roofs. Oswego Summit felt like `home' to me. To lose the cedar siding to a concrete product and lose the red tile roofs to a dark asphalt product is very upsetting. We also enjoy our balcony, the private feeling we have for our coffee and conversations. We do not want clear or frosted glass so that anyone can look at us, life would just not be the same and we love the way things are now. We could, at any time, lose our home. Already we get help from our children to pay our mortgage and HOA fees, after both of us losing our jobs. Now our family would need to add the assessment and any extra charges for our neighbors, who like us, could be 'in the street' at any time. When they leave we need to accommodate their payment too. The Board at Oswego Summit has not taken into consideration what the owners here could pay. They did not start with 'what can people afford.' We could afford some assessment,but not the $18,000 and our second home at$34,000 that we will be assessed. I don't think the Board had any idea the cost of this remodel would be$7.5M. Who would have gone ahead with this work if they knew the cost. My daughter says it could cost even more with `change orders.' Let's fix our cedar and our tile. Let's repair our roofs. I am in favor of that. Please help us with what you can decide. Decide the right thing for us. Dragan and Rada Pancic#29 and#48 l Get -� 't EXHIBIT G-227 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED Lake Oswego Planning and Services Department OCT 162010 Citv of ak . „,,. p I'm writing you with concern regarding the proposed re-dev ,�jpv �. d crtrence number LU 13-0042) at Oswego Summit Condominiums. I purchased #194 Oswego Summit in 2007. My first impression of Oswego Summit was how naturally the condo's fit into the Mountain Park environment and Lake Oswego in general. The unadorned cedar siding and red tile roofs tucked into the property extend the country feel of this close in location. The exterior is the common bond all 215 unit owners share. Now the Oswego Summit Board wants to change that exterior. Instead of the natural look and feel of cedar we'll have Hardiplank. Our bronze window frames will be replaced with white vinyl. Not only is this going to remove the softer more natural look of the buildings, it is also a dreadful waste of materials. Regardless of what our HOA Board has said not ALL the cedar requires replacement and most of our windows are not in need of replacement. I would also like you to consider one of the more prominent buildings in Mountain Park, which is the Mt Park Recreation Center. I'm sure whoever designed the building had the same intent in mind as many of the homeowners at Oswego Summit. A structure that was not only useful, but blended into the natural surroundings contributing to the general ambiance of Lake Oswego. I realize that Oswego Summit is in need of repairs and completely support a project that does those repairs. What I do not support is changing the entire look of this property. I believe it is not in the best interest of Oswego Summit homeowners nor the Mountain Park Community and Lake Oswego in general. Sincerely, Jennifer Tujo EXHIBIT G-228 LU 13-0042 October 15, 2013 RECEIVE' Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego s, City of Lake Oswego Case file LU 13-0042 Community Development Dept. Submitted by John Freauf,Oswego Summit,Condo#54 'I like my Oswego Summit home just as it is," because it fits with our Mountain Park 'Nature's Playground' community theme. The pleasing color of the old growth cedar and the way the red tiles complement the cedar color look very good to my eye. Also the remodel and removal and replacement of my concrete deck(which does not leak into my neighbors condo)with plywood and placing a clear class panel as a visual barrier takes away the privacy I have when I use my deck. I have lived here for 25 years and I have seen our leadership become more and more dictatorial as time goes on. Our Board of Directors has refused to consider many proposals of a second opinion, a Plan B, to repair, not redevelop Oswego Summit,which we believe could cut the cost of what faces us now in half. When I returned from vacation in April 2013 the project, a total redevelopment, had been decided. No negotiation, no compromise, no input from owners allowed! We even had two hour meeting with slides and presentations of the project when owners could not ask any questions....none. The financial burden placed on me,$20,000, is a cost I cannot afford and I will be one of the owners who will literally 'walk away' leaving the cost of my assessment on the shoulders of my soon to become ex- neighbors. ,A-e /'� John Freauf EXHIBIT G-229 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED i7. *-z,e,/ ' /"7.0 city of Lake VIS Comma*Development Dept. -(-1-6) -Zei--°r__-1---4-•- .----16-"Mi--,,e, (0-d---e-z---"65, • ...-e-00,c---",Y-44. /,-i- .--4-e-ei", -i-64}--~-e)--ta--7r-e2;/ - e),-~-/ •- - '- 1 , c---/di} ---4;---eve 2 ) o--t- a/- i- --e-,eeLe--1 .-e,),, (7 } -ie. ke)_4„ ,,, d,,,,,/,,, _// ,,„,/.,,,)__e.„,„,ehe,zr__„ry_: ---_,„„ -4, e2, 22-f9 4 ) /e, i ._‘ , i / . . ,, ,,,„6„,,,___ 4„,,,2---,, , ,fist,e) '`--ye _.../* .-e--/' --,e ).-- -la, 4---- t-"/.( c___7 -2;126-"ti IY,14t/e;4) _-,4051ge )._6,/r) _____Ze) _47, _4._ ,,J,. Mrs.Rose J.Howe I73 Oswego Smt. ' • Lake Oswego,OR 97035 - li A2ee'et EXHIBIT G-230 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2013 Dear Planning and Building Services Department, City of Lake Oswego city of Lake Oswego Community Development Dent. I have lived at Oswego Summit for over four years. One of the main reasons that I purchased a unit in the Oswego Summit Condominium complex was the uniqueness of the building design and the exterior elements that enhanced the look of the complex. Cedar shingle siding,tile roofs and black iron deck railings with balusters are what makes these buildings unique and attract home owners to the complex. What we are being FORCED to do at Oswego Summit, is to REMODEL our entire building structure. In no way have the residents had a say in the Capital Improvement elements that are being shoved down our throats. We are facing a multi-million (7.6 MILLION) dollar REMODEL that many residents will not survive financially. What we should do is to RESTORE our existing structures roofs and RESTORE our siding and drainage systems in a cost effective and warranted way so that everybody can STAY in their homes. "THE PROJECT REMODEL" is: Multi colored (Green, Red and Tan) Nardi plank siding, Composite roofing, White vinyl windows/sliders (owners were responsible for window replacement, until this Board took over, now they are a common element. I wish I had my$5,000 back!) and Glass paneled (frosted/clear) railings with white framing. I have a spectacular North facing view of Mt. St. Helens and the NW hills from my unit.The projected glass panels are EXPENSIVE to install and replace,they will need to be CLEANED constantly, and they will BLOCK the constant breeze over my deck. I have a signed petition from the residents of buildings 24 & 25 that reflect that a large majority of these owners would like to retain their black iron railings that do not distract from our view or our buildings. Will any of these REMODEL elements increase the value of my unit? I think that potential buyers expect a Roof, Siding and Windows when the buy. We would be better off restoring our existing structures and improving our common elements to increase the value of our OVERALL complex. Why wouldn't the city of Lake Oswego and community of Mountain Park want that? If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at: rourkelowe@gmail.com Sincerely, William Rourke Lowe (X)4/1Y) Unit 195 Bldg. 24 EXHIBIT G-231 LU 13-0042 RECEIVED City Of Lake Oswego OCT / 6 2013 Marcus A. Groeneveld 380 A Avenue Dana M. Bozek Lake Oswego, OR 97034 City of Lake Oswego 165 Oswego Summit Community!`' lrnent Dept Lake Oswego, OR 97034 October 15, 2013 310-770-3753 Re: Oswego Summit Remodel To Whom It May Concern, When I moved to Oregon in the Summer of 2011, I quickly realized it made economic sense for me to purchase a home rather than rent, being that home prices were reasonable and interest rates were at historic lows. Since my office is in Lake Oswego and I felt very much at home in the community, I decided to buy a property close to work. I spent several months looking for a condominium and finally narrowed my search down to three places in the Mountain Park area. After a careful comparison, I decided on a place at Oswego Summit. Not only was the unit perfect for me and my fiancé, the community had a very unique look which separated it from all the other condominium communities in the area. After living at Oswego Summit for about a year and a half I found out there is a plan to change the look of the buildings via an expensive remodel.The plan appears to remove the cedar siding and replace it with material called "HardiePlank". Being familiar with construction, I know this material is nowhere close to the look of cedar shingles and in my opinion completely changes the look and feel of our community. The construction company has placed a sample of what the siding,windows and colors are going to look like. In my humble opinion it completely cheapens the look of our buildings and is an insult to the classy look of Mountain Park and Lake Oswego as a community. Cedar siding has excellent resistance to rot, is long lasting, and provides a better look than what is being proposed.The new color blocking will also denigrate the look of our buildings and put our condominium community in the same class as the inexpensive apartment complexes you see popping up in low-rent neighborhoods. In addition, I'm aware the railing will be replaced with glass panels. My biggest concern with glass panels is they require a regular cleaning schedule. In my experience, if the panels are not maintained properly they quickly become an eyesore.This is apparent with the existing paneling in our stair well in Building 22.These panels have been neglected and all calls to have them maintained have been ignored. If this is any indication on how the balcony panels will be serviced by the HOA maintenance employees, I'm afraid these panels will quickly become an eyesore for our neighbors in the community. Finally, the current plan calls for the replacement of our windows.The current bronze trim flows nicely with our natural cedar siding.The white trimmed windows being proposed as a replacement immediately cheapens the classic look of our buildings, especially coupled with HardiPlank fiber-cement siding and proposed color blocking. N L) M G _ N Ks.` Thank you for your consideration, o m f4 1 ' W 4 :r ..y "' ~tit ?. r i •�,t . — 'l' \Ir .4-id 1, . .- \. ;k• r,y , ir 't. Zu•iLLr,� ) -i - L.s . - - f f�. ,. , 1 � yL' , ! t • `ti l .t } • yL _.1' yC + ,am 41' 14 • gtin f -gd, 4 ."14".'4'.-' t f itt ., 1-----.).--, -1..,-•:i. LA.4,f'''''' - 4 4,' ', - 'i -iiiit . C •� LKi a •r tip .. \ ,•.�, _ 'T '�4 4+.... ,J— trt , .,. . .., tr,.....4 .0."...,„•.• , , i.• �i j•. 1 ,q�� x1'51 • `1 ♦ 'a ',t ' .. ..,. , . a.. .4..:__ , .'�,f: , `t��\ • • v�. ff `J ''' •` ' ° 5` - !1,"L 1114' ? y `�.- , \ r•�.r`+1jr .♦ - f r, sti r+ \ • )IN\ ; \`4 „„ 4v+� q• ui: .........._,• ti,r At .,aka I.1 r.. v,, ✓ ai2r 4� • i ..,--,,,f. ;. ,;:. \‘.'"i'; . -1,, Alb- -..-..,• '',.,. -.ket-i ':...,, .*- 4,...itt• , ., . ikt•-_, -' I .1 /. .T* 1 ,„.!„N,E1:„..4 ... : s ..... 4• . h .'44'. . .ltsViti 11, IM. ,. •-4, . ,-,•• • .i ....--• • ' . . "" — ut • , . . „it. , __ .,„ .: . ..A........,... , . .. . . ,, At W. • 0.-...,i i / . I i f c ti j ; .. • • 3 t I 1 ' • ';t' i - 1 •. :,i..µ - - , -- 1 4- • ....a ' ' " •'S..' . ' .,......-• —....a -4 ile, ..... ..,..... •r ' , • ,,,g A A. . , . - - `:, 1 . — • •Ni' 14te',1 .\- , 6 , -,e` •'. '.i . 4.1"4.'"': - • 7 . 1/4 ' t ' ' ...r... 4 ... 1 .! t$4, t . . t,-7 ,, i • •••••. .. tr I ,._ , t,,. A., ' illi 'strlii .....-'''.' ..,-9 ; ks , •"." ft • ...N.—.S• )1 .. - oa, • f.ft . . 1 , , 4.. ....... .,A . . -• •; • b•-,. -4,--„, 1, , \ w , 4 „,4 lt,,1%:!.&' „,.• ,, , . ...,. , 'x ...''.,..).16.i' ' . r .i ,,_ i.Iwo. 10 k 411M1 ...,,...i;; t f 4 70 i , •Nil' -:,,, ' '. ' St' '. 1-. V 1 - 4 ' • I 1 '' ” * . i ',•'"'; • ,, , . a Y., ,'1 -...... do,-Ill•."-.1,-.-;"i.e.,. it* ,,,T, Ai Nirtc,.- '''4;f ' ' 1°. , . iiiipikiii., ,.., . _. il i• t 0(i. IA Ii........•,... ,-:,7 .4------,.., . .-.- :Pik ..., , # .114111a .., , .Ni-bi k. , •I, -% J ; 1 Nill.„............. ‘ .. , . , ,..:.....;-: . _.) zgl , ,rimiaposimmiti ... "1111.1111111111V.- ' t../7 ..';.e .,,s,". ...•••4• , P ... ....,--- ,b , p .. 1.............ffe 1, tr,fier, it --Air ,4„... ,,, 'gip, aa • . ....... ... .1. • .. 4 .. r.- , • I i, .._ ..... # . %,•'.. 0...ma. ::44: ,,.., i'irlf:.,-..,. ....‘.. ... • •• t 44 ti . 1 • - lit, 14 ' '' , e . ._ , N.. .4.i, ...., , , t , ..„......., ..... el I 11.. i a //.. ...-..- ,.., -.: ... It –4... .0--",.. " , 4.-- ,. - ,..„ ,—,-- k.... air . A • I, I A. •, . .„, ..„..., I ..- --„„ 2, r • 1-- 6 ,i, tit vi .... 16• It 1.04, ' k • -,". ., 7 ' Jilt t • ik: - . -- itil ._. _ • _ a ' --""40•84.- s\004......, _ .. , 4 .. . , . . , . 1 ... --.......____ . , .„....... . —_ .--- r.-- ,--"------>-------1___.-----, 1.-, , ---------r------ - --- *-------- • ----------- --.-__ - • 1 ------' • . 1 • i- •.------___ -.--r ------ - . , - ___---,-- --- ------- - , -'---------r _ --, -------,--L---.1_ --- ---r-• --1 - ---_____ _ ---__ ___-.--•"---'- , _, \, . •• __ ..__ ' -- ,- •' • _--------"r • • • . '1. • I 1 -.- - -_-----....-rr- ij, p .._.----N4 , -- 1 1 it Ii — ,_—..,- ; r ,_______ • . - ---. -.-- "11.11111111 Ii --- ---------- r..• -- 111111k1 ---_____ ..7 MOM__.-....."--. . -----r-... . ., .-- 7 i T • 1 1 "-----..„ . . ::•-•-:,--......"--, I z........,,,:_s:.....__.I,.........,...:....,.,.. ..,:..„................_,......_..:.z.............::......,41 ,.. 1 I : 1011, -,...... — . . .. . — . -,_.- --- ........„ " ____ _______ __ ___ .• 6 • ... ......_____ • ...0 ,.0.- , • 41). \ '4.t ,1 & „ % „'1 .4. .r....t.!:t•.., - - riga, -r,t- r-•- - -L'...',.:•'„' e_iA: c•-i ..._ . ,...................... .. ....... ....._.......... .....,...7.__.___________I ,..__r_______ s, . .,/ts... ,.-6-,4 , ...irs..:-.1V.- ,..; ... I, 4 4' 1..s,-.: -...',,c.- ...›.-,,,.. ‘ , 14 ,, ' '..:•,';,... ' •,.kr 1*'•. II • . II i 4 '• - •• - .4 1.4 I • '4,4k , ,, ..f...s., ..,A.-.i. _.....t - , , ,I.I - : .. ,., C, AL! • ) ilis' 1.:tvi:.'4'.'", '-');'' '--F-:•-rs,: , - . _._ ,,,..., li,, i\0:-•-'7.-.:-', it • .-r ...',', I r 4' ''34141;r42' . - ' . ',.. ..;;' •IIP' . ' ' . ' ''', aNNIININIMINA-- 1 .*i•• : I , ' - I.---%".-•;'ft, . ' Li • ''.ii-''' , • - - ..,...-., -._. -.t.-.4 f ., - .. !..4 A 4., "1. irt•- , -- .6,1,-1 '.'5 , - ,.. -74 ... - -454.1.t ., • ' . •'4. .'' lh .4. AI ' , - -- _ .iiiimisititiositi. seaswilishix,.. _ ., . __ ., - t.... I .4,. ,-,..44.2.,.. ..',..,-.. . -,. ..--r---"r-WW.f`...• ' 111 4 • ' .'' ..41 . •....„,. , .., ., ,._ __ .... -7", --1. :J..., -,.-- ,....• _, .,.. ...„, 111 • 'cifirvi - , ---4, . A...•—• ' — . 174 . ,..-.!''''• .— - 7, t .i • ....•.....„,-. . ..... . •.-- • •..., • ,........i*r ., ' 1114 ,;;4161:„..7i •'-- '44-Arai. r. . • ' r'.1 .:... .,, ., .!.'• ......-- . r' .--; ° , j.1? . r.i • ............ • _ . . . '- - - . ' i .. • - -. — . . .. ,.. -. ..... ,..,..,..,---.--•- - .. . ". . .._ ,-.,......V-W4-.,;:;•'.E-':'-,•,:-..-L:,;:.,.. _ _ ... , - . • . •: . - ..•: - ..„. :,-.....J7...1,--,.-.2-... -,_:.6.1.•., rt. 4, ''\\.. a > � j ;. ,j Z� • \dam ,.. 1 v ilit .s�zv - �1 P • fCr. • r. tr. -"* 'i.:#c-1,4,,,..,; :i.;--4::.' ..',.E-i;;,-, 14*• L 5 le {' 1,n,iJ W. -! • Rj :4r... "-.4"' iik• ..jialikow'•1,1 . , r 1116' t . . • • ��NI��Ae�nw • •' �wp4s�rta,, • • 'SL r T. A Y 4. r_ 41f. .� a ti i Lr . - 4 It---.,-/ ' ; 7' ; - :Ait.i. x • r. i ti ' , J 1 i1l f ` • t ., . • �" ;4" . tii ili r- 's * fir � � • I. : �I' `` s iR t... .. f. - Y, 'f' i. - - • .4-.....,,,, . &: ,,w, r--..:}f ."".1Mt��n1iR1�111niI��E' - n • +'� '+1+, r. itis 1�... �•�'„ r 4 ` : ► lor ga `',ar. 43 y .. .. of . •I esiaZ,,V4 '1_ , r�� ��X -y 4r, -� `t .s%air, �. ‘tiL 4``� -�• ,,i A 'kyr * ~J+ ar,.-44,x• . � ( 4" e+ 3 , a yam. ✓. �' .v�� .� ` '`,• :4� "3,.'t.s A I ,I •' 0,.., .,..,..,,.:,,,,,,,, _, .. ., . : N.A‘• • ...7.2.-::s91'.......t.',.\,\:17,...;:.:.;;- .1.4,,...k.;-'4.i,...st.1.;}.ii. 14.1., ie.. t...6"--;:in'''.3ite-414:fi*--411-..i...-"al f-9''''11..'tit '-....;''. .. ' ''' '. :, ' ''. ii to , - .....J....„:„..-Ai.... •••,;,z,,,..„4. .:4;4* ....,...1:1': 4. A, ll. , 4.*la dii,,itr•-._ ,„itik.,.fii„._}, - 1 4 0 4. `.-.y�y.±•! • •• ` 'i.4.4•4•31.. • • } if xr tl, M•F.•�' ` '( �- y •� . . is to / '��,y 11:w+P ,• ,*x ',.• L. ift.. ' r• �Y 3t! �:� L „' ryh,.2..4 ., " +,t h- 1,,,-N.' t :,ti hu " ;(- }4 ,i r e _, r, cti • -, • •-.'-'-34.---...'.--4.,v":-.1-.''of ( '-.. --. !.. f s--'. **' 11",111.--4 .7 .,'.'...,`''11.41'); 1.t4-,.-: 1 's k 1 +I tt.,,, `. c"it fit' -1 • 4 ri l t��� � �� ' 1 a f si i I r t. , I ( i I ► r ((( IL > r ,Al / fi •fI + 1 I ;} e 1 • I ---.- j C , , �..1',t! i i ji,14, .1 w.„,, , _. _ - e I—__._ _ t + / k ....,..............41:631, 4 • e ,lyrtf ,{ 7'f l.. ( -� �r ! Fit` t _'e 1; 1 •• `, �A ` ��; ''. , 44 �. r %G I, Ty► ,Y I S 1. .I • h 1 a , 9 �1i3` v,;d `. ... • :a i • • t 3 - y a `i T• .i.�l►•! '1• -1.7t � ^. . r y • • f #44 ..fir: M i r . / ' v ' ' ' '''�-' `_``r- � ' I . �� � ' ' ' � /: : i.: �0N«'/ ' ^ . � ' . r . . . ` ' � ` � � .� ^ ..' . `_,, ~~~~~~~~� , . _ . • - : 1 - - • & ,_ ..„,'''•. .0•••• `-:*e. -------- - **1,de / •,,,. .,kyi,,,411.4Nt / - / • 4- -7 - • . ir 4. e-,,--Ilk-- -" 4 4. t.„ . ; .* • . / / . . - ar - , : , p. • • . _ /4 _ 1 .,, r ./ .., , - al Affirtfigg N. i . t_.: .._, . . I '1 .00,' ............--.--., • / - // - . /. . -..'- '-frill II _ . - ' .. :..• / / . ,. • -:. i *IIIIIIIII.4 . • . ' r'''''' ''' ''1 ' .,,/7--. .. . ' . 111111" 11. 17 . _ ... . . . .., , •. .,;,_____ ' 144*AI' „." . .. ' ... I".i 1371r:II - . / ...„!„,.. . . _,........., ..._____ ,..,::.4-t,_., _ \( •. Jo, ,....___ .a.....1,--..,.-7/J.' . ./ . J i—r-- r./—--1.-7-f- "9,1 ""f• thIrl . -41', 01,4°!#A.h ,,-..!v... • ..- • / gor .....,-... ' '''.. ‘. '-'-'43F''''Vt:4.I.'IP., 'OA•. -"Y. ...' • , e'ef e"71110.•1 . •''',.f C./(77-. • • .,"- ,' • 4,.,ItT . #.,/‘41A,•'.',:,':,.''''.:... , -:ft,.,,,z'!'.-,-5 4: • . .,"' Ae .- „,,.._4. -„. :„.z,-..I I . , *14 '',It'' 0 :1'. 4”1-' t t'•A' .-.. / `-..A.O. e ... ..*; ;.*: '.. .....), ,:tif, -• -., - • • --,•-•f -. •••••• T. & t .., '44.,'' .-1,"?:; .:',&,:.... . : .4I,n,,;:.? ' -,•‘1/,' ' )-' {' '... ' 44- • -1 -'-', ' .-''''.1. ll .'. ', . - i . . I .%'.4. .:.'.... ' '. : ••1',. ,,• I,: .,, • ..:4..,.• - , • k•.i.. -,' -- .,.`-4 ''.?,'..10".( 7' '''#&i., .7!"i 1•4; ' •.-: '.:.,,P' .%.7 .. , • • - i.,; ..I ',.'-'• ,-..-P.. , „r-0. .. , .7....,,,,,'.' j. ' .e;„. ....*. ,,..., .. . ! ., 1.....•-•...." . t1'.1..... ,,,:'tii',, .# &:-.. 4i,''.."I'..',&,),..: '''r,- • • . --;5•4 - ,,.. ,.' 4404, ,•• •.:. . , : -. ' 2,••!,. „ ., . . At. . :,- rli. '1/4•4 .-41 ;• `. .• - , . , ,'; , . . . - . „„. ' ,•' Vatiiiis.', .94.1\4-#1 ..„0 .......,... • •; - ..i:14*.:4-,.. ...• ' ?..iii•.••,-, . ....:,` 'sr — • .., • ,..... • . ., 4. _,_-,, , • , :.„,.. -44, . ,,,,,,..4.,,, ,... . .. - • -4_. ... ..--,--,,_ ,. e -,-,,,, c. . ,,,,. ..•.-:,:-;,,,,...,,,, - • •.. • „. • • ..t,,ftlit-tt,;.1.• 2: ; , ...... ....11.... ;,, 1....7,...#,.-- •, . , • i: ..'r-' 1...., \ -..•'. '-#'1. . ... i ... *i:.V1,4%; ''. . : ....4;1.,‘,.. . - -., 4,1* ... ' 4i.•' ,,,,,fr '''11`\. •ii,,,'..,..7.- - ; +a.k.a.'-•44.‘ ' .-Y;.-''' .. ,,,"1&!;.:.k ett.,14' '‘., '' ' , ..,- ..,,,•,, - 4,, ,‘4.‘ ' • '•., . / 44\ ' - •,:- .. ..'" -,,•,!, .-ii; -,,ir'f.s.d-7-•..•#,.'4.•!'e ailkir-0.- ,— , •:.:.4- .• • • i , •7%;.....• t• •-•:, „, ;',,,,,,"k••.1.4:"...,•'14,%r ' '• Irr-'•-•-•-'''. • • . tit—..,',, •"%.. . . .., •,-, •‘..N. / I i • • 4.' i'' •' - 4- .,, , . I 0 . , -../„. .•-.' ,S* ,,.. -...... ---- , . ,... ' 11 • . . ,. e".• i - '. .,4.4 • . , ..•.f '.!c • ',.:, -• , _.. 4-: . it:, .•• ••::::"..Met,n,' ,1 o ' >. ;ilk*r;.'. ,.., . ,_. , ij r .. . .. i I '..0. •''.1'''''''% 414,$'62):7 -.., .. e'::.1,.: ... _ Z.,...-.•-....ol•f; , . . ‘ . `L., • '‘-'4-\' ' ‘..•.lti 4.- ' .. ':' . '-'.-........_ . ..,,k-;. .N i ••,.. '- ./..;:i '., ......";•. • . ... •; : • • . .':: ',/c 74.1.r,-. ,,e.;•.',-,,,,,:ir'•..1\1:-,: ... , -\'',, L. , , .::‘1 .,„.„,,,,,..., , • .--.9 ''' -' ' - ' ._ ..•,.,...,...w..,. • . .••r•- . , _. . rt,y„r`, ...",t,"-,,'..,i!..,.: III%'t.:',":,. ' 'I-. i::-:.----„,, 4,.. •••= - ,. . ...,i . , . • - .-Y,F-07,•.•4.444-ozoku"P-itv• •- •-• . , . ,. . , . . ... \ ,., ... rik-:-r. ,-• 4, ... , , .4 • - 0 ' ''' .....,...- . • . - I' 4,.. - .. . • • .. • ..... ..4... ,,, _ . r • t _ F Ili. _ _ . . . , * ' . _ { �s • '.'.. $ 1•.- ' *4.444 },: h i' 'r -1.54'1 • § - _r,--,,,. its sem 1 4 Ik - -$ VI 8' 7f fid:( l • tFr. a : I - . .! _. . s', ' 11;111-A" V.'4- "1' -' L „ r' i . fir . or/ _.. \ 1 �} I a .� , 3 y , , ' _.) _ • ,,iivelleg4Mr7 .. . • -4,•or•- _ • • -.. • •• .-•••••kr"" ' . . , ., l'. . .• Mt, • • . . ,........00000 11- .• _. ,. . • . . . -t. . • _ -.44' ,.•,,—,. .-- '...-ic_, • . . 1 .. ....-. . I , v... o•.-4,,' ' ., '' , r , . ,. /' Il • •-,, ' ' - t • i I i 1 Ii' . i . i . ' .r;“•-• ' ,....- ir .4 1.• --... ,‘''''‘'• • 144. _,., • '1'ft:i -t•••• , ' 1 '''!'''•.i Ik'n ' - 4\..i,. .. . .7.- - , ., I . . - , . ' • • • ,. , .,,.,,: • . f• " ir' ' • i . , - ..„1-• - - 4......., r _. , , . • ,. . 4 , , • - • " ' • , ...hi,'- •• . ., ._ . . ,*: .i.• .11111111.,- "- ''luli- ••'1'. • - ;;---- ...:, - f-`:' •,-• . • ., . .,,,k.„• , • '4.4*.e- • :,11.:.''''''.' , .a. • . • . ,. .•. .,- •••-,a, , ,...---- • se. t, .._.2- %c., c . •- ., —•. , ;a _-- .. . ..........._....._... ......... ...... "•-•.: -'...Z:.A.,-.;, ,.. _ • 1 ..".•01`.....` .... -rt.... .i- ---- . li. a.:...; -- " '''' .,•, . • ,;:, ' - -,:.',..:-:.,...;,;;..;.-1....:1':•‘.,- ..• ' ..• • .,' 0.-; - , r • • - p,,,. *;.• ,..,..,,--,,,.,0c.:,„..v.,,„.... ' - ,--, 4f.. .1r., T . ...,,. .. „.. . . .' .•,..,, ''''tisilq". 't-litb. ,•.- ' '• ' '''(' '4,,.,_. °"•:. ' . 1' '',„•• ..,1 ..;,,..• ':. R'` -',)',-..•. 144 ".....:V.IWWV,... ' ' ..'-'.t.--• . '..1 .. ..• A41)14 littim " i h . . - . . ,.-•t- • 6...3.e., le. ... ••• •. ,, k J WE,t••- - -, %" -'-' ,......--*-------........-------.... .-......-- ''''. -. --.__---- —___f------ -.-------J. ,.4';..i..` ' ,.:.4 ' '''...",' • ' '.• . . . ' 11* - - • •gli ;. • ..---------------- Pi,.. , _ • •.,,..... , , •A 171t. 411Min r -. ... ._ .. i 41,"ra..iltatillir i -".•., . ..'.. ----•-•--------"-‘-.-_,-___:, e,., •••• ----- ,ii , •;,!?,..I',1St'%, • r. rrr"IOMIIIII .. *1 ^,- , '--- . -.,•-•,- - . , , • V.:4i'; .2,-, '': - ,, • .._ •,'111111111.1 Sti '----- ' i - 1 '1 -. . . 1 \ 1 - . ! or.', , _Viiit ------ , _-, 111•11114 Vir,. .. - - ., . , :.-__-.._.-. , ---— As.... -,-. • ---- _ 4 _ .. , — e• --- .. .. 4 * - r; N -• i-4*-'-' • ' "Abl%*** - . _ _ .1,.......-......----..,-....... , --- ' - ,-, . '' ' . •N .ir - .. ... . . -. •,,,!.•• _ . . , , 7g4.•-, ''' • I%10;1* -- - k ',.. • .4•- , . , s . w.'••,-I'J ''''' ':•3t.'t •.&,:I'',illtkk‘ .- ' . • •'-'-' -•-— OCT ik' . , , i -. .ft.,,, ••• . \ .... -i.-..----_ ' -P!;,J•'.. 7: '...M .'‘...-!.. ‘ .,''.,, ,, '', ''4:•• .. --ft,- ,, 1A,,,to, '.,4. ,,,-,,_1•6:1..,,. . .k.11-,,,,''t 1'. ''. ,....„ , ,4 . 4 •fts' .-1't, . t,, • , • ' 4,... AO..' .".' :_C....... , , ' . • : 4 ,. .1/4 '.. -, •q•• . .. ... '''''.'. ''` .'•'21'...-•• '''''.,'.'-.. • -...• • „„ ',I.. ' •r. .. -• -,..„• , : '— .. . • ..-.. . „. ...... •• , . •$: ' ' • • .• , ..-c • .. '‘.• • , . • 1 , . ., _ ., ' 1,4. • . -..'. , , AIX' ' \\ lk. V_ V ‘EL l t \y‘.., k ',' - 4 1. . :.• , \.4...,\,\ . . \ ._.. \.. \\\.__\\\• ‘\._,\‘ \‘__,I. iv.,,• :\, \. V, ...,." :-..::.,,,it 7•74. . ...,. 1,' . • - % ,-;$4-:,...„-•:. -`• •...-„... \ A , \ , , , , \_\: . ..f'.••.% 1 t '.;, to ' ‘‘ '_. .1._:__:_t__. I. \ i 1 , , .,..\\ . , .,, ', , .. . 1 ,1 ,, .. . Mk .i . : , 1 . • 1, .„.:,.:.., .4 , - .. .. • - • (.7- -_ --.. . . . -\. ,1•8\ t. _ _., acil \ .:-..,,,,- ' • . N.A.s ' • ''.- *Irt S4. * 1 ' / Ill • 4 i..., .. r ., ... ,: fiftli ,F • i. '. 1 ? /' , , l' • ,..„..:..,.; i , $ , t , , , ! 1 $ i .$i.f ;$ • ., $.$$, "?.•-. 1H •lifWilillifl il ' 1 ' . •• .. --. - •,,••• ._..,.. \ :,.. ,• T.tmink . , $ . \. ...\\N "N 7 -— ... . . , ( • 1 i t ' ' it 1 ; • ' ''' . 1 ' 1 ' '1'. • .. i '-. — ( .,(.. i...- --.- • _.....-- : i i f•.'.'..4P:f: • .,w •+. ' r. ) 11 - —.,— , • i' , -. . '•-(,;4.. 't .4.41.'d ' •... . ( t 1 i ' L'',-.-4. '' 4 ••••1 ' .1!I 1 1 • _ i t , 1 7•1 -V ri. ..• • 1 g - . --1, , . —--- \= 1, 4 1 , , •.,\ .. il.\ ''‘ ,• . . -1%1 'y • . . . WS '. if IAN. • -\\;. \\,\\., .',-,----.. -. ‘ _.., _ .. i.... • N... v,,,..„ .• - • .. ...,..;..,'i..N\ imiltriViot' ' j'' ,,.'-L..'I.' ...,'...'tI t.•'1'"1''1..i.‘t 4,.-'•1•',...."......-...m...o-nr-.-.-_..--a t 1.1_ i,. ,.-.-...-...-. .-.'.I..'.....,.11. .'• . . j - tllii 6. , ' ': '.' ''. 't t... . , 1. . . P .‘ ,I.• • it.., . •. r... :...t. ' lo.. . . •,, :=3, ' -.-hr• kr ,%.*' •. • 4:1 0 ' * 6. . • ,i-`i )6 • s ..v . .., ... -,,,,,, . .. 4 .4//•!I . • / ... - •• ..,. ..,....* . .1 .. .1 il•4 ... ''' ••S.# ' :4.: I,. ., ' .t•. A .:"' 'i . It •'.''' ' ,. 1114 t ... t , 4, , • 4. • ft-i:. 1 — ' ...t• ' — ',•i0:. . . '' ,I .-1-I:7. - •' 4%.: Ni.' --..'...1. ,•,`', '..,,,,, f, Aii ,t, . . 1 , . ,. ,.5 lierl? -.. ': ';f".. • „,...4: .. .. . itAr „V' • ill• I • ‘.':: ..--., , •1. 1 . ....f V.V .• : 0 ,-r.,:/t-,•!-i i.. .1.:, , : • t -.- ..- • AsTi 4 , --'41 • o -• ,'''...-•...t.:1 1 AI • •, a 4 .'`"r•As -‘,„,...: „AI • e.- -4- •- .., ' -4- ', , 'i- • .„ , . " t.:‘);,4 t .•-; .. ...., • .,,,.! '.,,.....'V..., N. • '' .' ... . -; i .. . . Ilt f•. . ,. . -/ ,/ 11 I • / . . . i f.' . .., . I r . ! v I I 01/i I . .r''....1 . , . n''',........... 'S'...L"....1......m....„............... -'"'"•••....,.... . ..,,, ---...................... .......__..._ . I P''''''''.1. 1."17"..."...".....""s " ....-.---..- .- • . . . 0001' 111111.10 . , 4 : le/ill 1 :r ' i--r--•- . ' r ''''..."'"—.•,...........„.. 1 i I '.1e. ...—""'.......k.._ , I . ''''1+:.•...,... ' •..*? . "^"........,,,., •- . • . ,..: . — , , . , . ! I, 1 , . ., - e , — 41V.°1111111.1 .: ,:4 fir a Aii 11:3 . _ 1 - NIPPV010... ' '77111111W 1�R1 I s Y _ f - ., " f , 1, \ 111' (( \I k� `�,� 44_y _. - Mk .. t Y 6ri ''fit•rs+i .\� '1 ' f r • e d r 4'• 7144 ,4 irA ` • C '�r . ..,.-.1v-4 •=-.,T �) r r j f• R�-•-r, .ti'y 1 ► j �' ,Ni. C' 1`1 ,+( ',,/•' VA 0 I ;' ' k w _ '?.� i Mei ' '• _.. , ° 1 ; II 41 ', '' � '• ``o _,�V �` •y 7 I. .,+ Ti t Oma," i.. �. -'f f �•'K °., .W�1� v,r h •; /i - . . .to .., 4, -:/e. :, . : ,4: ::„...--'' ,,:ir r-- , 1 . I,_, : , i. �. • •�� T �i >,,,, /A/ 41, t 'l[�t `gg 7. "'� ;i_•e �7 :,1 ar+; i �i ' . �._,,\ ', I • Al. -V. 1' 11• .mo i y +• 1r� • :� a �•'j r', • ' + it) % �! + +`�` '� i 'Y �q �� >S • , \ +�• 1 '� 'r fel ^ / �' ,�1 - � I'1 . lY o,rr-zu5i i q4"9°I "` `, ,�;• ` '• K� •~ } � • `•� G..��A s / r. • Alilf/Y _-.Fi1 . ! ' �, 4" , old .' / / / , — .tet_ _ ► �-,tom. Cg . ••/ r'•+• • 4 1/ �+ .� J • •.:.,_„.,.,,24.44‘,..:...ifrld,l., ?i,:::14,4.4,".,..:":.:-,41: vi 1.. • 4,Ari.. „. . .. fr,-, 4 - ‘ // / _ . . . P1\1. . - / 11�`. s$i�- 1 *r'i - k *1 4'* i_ f. .'"• .3e,'7 Alli • _4 / - -.. -I!. %;i f ,:, . 1A..... Mi ,. :":1:. , - .::),,Y-.' - •4 . .. , c. e, ... ,-,....„.. . T • /-/—,-i- / , f ' / . f---, -, - A .:: ,,:..,:-. ,.'.,..-7.1., --*/.„. , ,,,,... . _ . , ,., _ ..„ , . ----. . 4 . . • ,i i ,., . \--\__ „.A.1, 4, ,.. .......1. ,„,#: ..._ • ii. _. \ \\\\ \ 4i 4 , _.,' •, '‘' '.\ \ C A•i• .I .. .... 7 ..:....1. air 4.!. 7 . lc 1 ..1 - . . , ,,, ii, ' li 4,d .,..,„ fr. /4,;.,, : _,:, i. - , vit.,e .i 11 . ill , lk . '47..\;4.' :1,:s; / 17 ' .....- . : /' A ' "1"-- i f 1 ' ..,, 4 1111;/4. I ___ ,,,,I, , . #.1. . '," iti Nt _ __ • ii • 1 It ' -• . - • „ -- .,- .. . - -e- 44 r i i / / ////i/7.__ 1 // MI .....:81. iri S I 1 I I I I.: ..' if.4jlliIllIIIIIIPI... , ''..ii..1'' .ai",.• _ . 1 '. 11 ' . 7 / -/Z7 / / t . . _. mar 5.• • ,,.,. alift r - —i / ila ilk ” _ - r i Li...Li L.—. -4 _ I 11111gc. ..,.,, aimmumi - - IIII 110111 111111 ?.; 11111114i .... .. 4.7..,., - • iillflii 11 111/14011-8'" ' lifori „, rr .. _, , ' 111.11.11/ ir,;: 'j'i I l'•1 1'I i I I. iI :Li .,.. II 111111111 , ' i•-- . . • III 1 at ..... 311 i . i ' '.. t ' . . 100., .. ., 11 I I I i ...7 . . , ... . ...: - 2.:It I t, ;• I < ---. • : 1 I I .. . ,••..-. ' ' vi . t II . I t. .4 4 , , I 1:' ‘.'4141 4 . ., •':. ..t 1 1 : •i'' , If I ., I! • I.' '4.'.. , 11111 . . r..: . - II/111 .. i I 4 i 1 7 I .,..... i I i t ,-eiris. ... ,_ . • .,. , , • . lilt , .._ , , . , , ,, . . .. i 1 rig 4 , g ... ' ' ', i .... g S , I r., 'V. : ' -7.-*•iitt, - — - L , ... I III , ..... , .0 fp 311 147111111' " A ikiilik,Nriti1/4\ ' ' •1 t \ --, - . .i... t .. 'Ai0.0, I ill . •-•," 4f" A or <.' "•-j‘it -'41,•:- i - 111, ,„,,„4..—,44, / l •'I" • y �. r � 7`. y 1 4004001- i '1%. .4•••• 'IL f tt iii IIN' . --.. Oi ' . — ....... ,... :)./w!"...iiiiig."FA A . ',4 . .. / e et" . E i d Y4 it lit G4" t 1 • ' f'y 4 i til Aar �, �', ' of , -t All ! ' I. 't + : 4 4,i t ,fy , T - + M r `0111010111:-4 V ' • y � e _ _ Nit 1 .k.. .� i \ !, ►yam ` \" • -) 500\-A l .}11110 1 b. l . klt k.'1 ` " • -.. .-, "'i` ' \ � I f7 • �j� v .f, AA A '14. 4 116. • -.'- ,.. i . . . _ . - , .. s- ... _ •• i f 1 ..._ , ... 1 i 11 . 3 1. i • • 3 ! ii11111'1 ii_ - -.. - 1 ' . . f . . , . . , . . Mil , ) *- .. . , . ...,.... .. . , . ,. .. . - - .. - •• -..j. • .0 .1 - 'Or , v • - --,--.. ............„........, . .. 1 1 1 1 ==.....-..z.:.._:._. ,.•" , ...... _._... _____.. .• . 11141111MVX.: .... • . . • 1 - 5 . — i • . . 4-- --"Cr-k mimommii. _..... ...., IIII 111 ......... , ........., i__) . . , . .. , SI ,.1 Alkliiiiii ' . I . I • , t II lr • 7i7.-• ‘ • A e. '' -..,_ , .. pg. . •, . . • I- ...4.' r 08 -.1_ '' 4 '-, -3 - — — -'•70.-"0•Ftict;•--K* - . , -" ..t.. .4r-e-:•-.. ";:• .-.4 , ..Z4-, • .... „.,-,.., lte-:'•' --• t's., At '-•;:. '- )' •-.At, •.., - , A ' 44 4.440. , .;: -.i."-r'..***,,.._4kA•rA •* • Ij.,•. A ,10 siA., III . I.r, i': - L '' -1.0 ', '''t ., 0 .442,1111k; 4iikTriiriti tkIti'llieriai, -.,_ 4- . "., . . t• I, lit- . . . , lit ' ,1.;&p.3:-1.7igh: . iii... mk-M,' I '',., .2f to; A . 10i. - .. • , „fte 4 1,, :. • : . it;., . , kik ,- f 4'.. t, - t• ...;- . ,., . , a' c* ,i,t• ;'4 .,• . • , , • .. e;1- •''.14 at'vt; -,V • b '.4 ' .4' ' , . / • i . !..00:1 x . 1. „ „„, ,,, . • . • 1 N 1,s. k . . '• ... - ISA.* •:', • 41.'- : • • ' •, • . • • 1, a, ,t i .',. • ' (1* .. \, 1 I . . II. 'i- v. ii-, 1 , . Ar / c ,* '. .. 4 ' 4. , •' ' • a.. '..t..' •• ' • '4 r• ,11, ,. ,1 ,,•k , t 4 1 ' , , ,%'".,41,% ::,. 4;;`'I'::llt, ilk v.:* ' l' • • V•Yie.' i. / $ • . • , ‘ to'„,if .s_f_fr•" , ! ,i.4,, . .6•_„) • , , ,,.. ,,„,T,,, • . . . -1(4.- ,--,,, 7.--.1 .-..,11 .''-. ::#11417 A ,. .i; . ,\ It., , .:IP:!,,11‘.... ..... , , it I , 4.:,., . .. ,, Atiliwt,•.,s.at.. ... 1 1111;1114. lif . . • :kr* , • f,,,,i.ii. • ..... t , .1 ,. I•-yt".44',.4-' ,r,t '.,.t v‘,'' , —41 . '4 ' i 't . - I-. V' • ' . - ., -....)114•,,I‘ ,4, . 1- •-'" '.4 4,,C;',:i '''if j," .,1 •0",• ::c# et. ' '.' -.:(%•;:riS! ', r :Sk %, •, ,,,...,... ‘..._• .. a, Iiii. 1. ) to 2 I .k. rillikplf•', 7,,Ir•,11* '." it% . ..1„,,i., . L • 6;'47.I , t' r . \ .,„ .,.., ' ., . , . r •',An 1„-f• v‘.. .h..; ;;. k P•, .. 4.,•....1, . i, . ,, ..i',„ . ., .. F . . •4 ,'i -. . • -•4' r• • 'Cp..* ' • 1 AL. AI* I IX • 11, , ilit , " 1 Psi 1 ' 4 4 ** , ,'' t',1r• stt' ' ''' ' • W fir''''.; '''. • At. ,,V • ,. ,.. .. . 1 ,..V • sf• ' ' r Ot..0,4..6• 4. , , I - •, N ' *-.'i • 's ::-;;Co,f, ''''- ,.! , . - ' .,,, ! . " ...t. , A .. 3. '• •• • .1, ,'le 'A.,1 , 6 4. ' Nli '. t N. • i . * 1.• 4 • • '' ita...- rt . . 7 . # , - • - . L. . 11100r . or......", r - .. / 11111111111ftift r . i . . 40 r , - . . . lk .falE ., 4. ,. 11111111 1 i., AL, ,...-...._, ,... ... . . UM' \ , • . . , • IIPP"lar--- 1111Inm. ii, : . i I i I lb. r .... ... . ,...... . . f 1 I I L11 , . , / r.. ) . 1 , , / i i / f 1 . . ..13 . - - 4.-- // , I • i / / i I . i / • / 'j ( • L - I II ••- / ,, , ,• it i / '1 r /1 / i I . I / ''t l' -• • I* / / ....• all - ri // 77 1- ' . ' r , i IL 1 * UNIMINIV i . -... ••L. r . ... - , it i. - ., ' 0 .i • .' 7, ' ' . 41 - , . IP II*. 4., 4 • 1 Vit1/4,0 010r OV SWr Case. LUWytth) "lika-A" kAtS RUIlltSed -to .10e_ C[-CalAA. 11104111Lk 7) - . • 1."`".1- 6, 410 t • • ' : , 1.k.1 f•• tipTV.F, - . .; .• • • .1" -,r fib •‘Ft -04.;-• ^ • 1 1 "III •, • — 1 . .., , % • '• , , c ,..,,,tt, „; ..,:r ss 4 , .- ' '''s 4.-4t1 '% • ..t.40 1'. • ,-,... )A' 4 ,. ' , '1 .....- ss.' ' ' 0 , Ssz,r""*.,. '‘..,c-74.4. 1.1• ,:%‘. c' ', ..if r %.• .1: i...,,fici".. 'c %;.'etit. 0 r.-.1 , ''{ I -V". i Cji t 44tor ,, , Irer`‘1,,,:4 7,,,fir,r, • ,,.... ,-, gli, ., 1,, A,i 4, .';‘,t.. ''''. o 4 .JN,'1.4"'.'-: '1-‘-.5 .4 ,*:*.,`,'N,,,t 4 • '.; -4, 1 'it.,,.1,.'Vt''. 4..-4',,s,', ' 4 , -4040Q-4.. ,' ' i if:- -f,,,_ ,44 ,r. ,,„I..',, 1...",•,ffr '‘, ',, ' ", , 42'..-1 7rit,',.-.^.-,.', , --t • '7 :t, 1 'r. ' '. '.' - ,:.1..' ' ... )1 . - "r'r••...‘t.'....A.; ' . ,.S 1 i 1.T.ttO 4 J /1”: 4'. ''.1 . 's. • 1... W. . .. 1, ' 1. v,.*, .... . I4"A '•., T,,,T • II ' '• — •I'' Ap.f..,,,,„ t, .,,(A flif mi. ' . 1 -,ie , r , .y - '. . ""r• 4 0.. ' i "40./`' ..4...‘,.."97 '/ l' ....- . . ' •' - i ,s''' ;4. ;,',....4* .' . — 1,,,. 14,yr ,. ,, . . - , ' ( ".., " ''•,•••4‘' - -t• ' , I ,A:,'..1, ..I..6. 'If, .e... . • .L. .4. \.1. , ..1.,. . k s . • .•„,, •. „ . 's.'. '• ,fr- /,' .'s• s•-4 .-'k,,,c, ..4. . •''•..',V. ,'..p.N4P:1 71. • I C, , .I"' ' $.''4:1 I"i-4' r'4 'vit.'. , • .•.''... ,Tit ..iik‘. ..• • . ' , • •': • • ,66.,;•• ).• : . •d' • .r.'• ..4. b•v. .. .,, t..'..•,4'.',4' irr,A-AIT-•.4 .7''I 7* l V: / 'f.' t,,,, I. ., .., •f, •t, , .0-T- i 0 .v. j ... .e:Y . N 1 „, e ..,_ • ,.. .4,1,,,, ., s., „,., _ ,. • .. •.. ,Pr f•,.•, ...,... •ra;,./ -.• •fi :•.• . ... .,. •,,,.k1 .-•,.....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,l,,,,, -,!...,..,,, :-...,,,,..,,. _ -4.0.14:11K, .., , • t.• '^,,'',,,,,4. , •'' ,r'f.; ,y . ... )' •5 vIC4V.I:ir. '14' Cf.' ' ' 1•''''... , '''''OS ..,I. '... ' , ATt20e. 'SlY -••,p .s.4c.f...‹. , .,5•,..,)•:, .., ., ...,,,,- ,, . • . --;,••,* f, ,„• •er-4' •41- ' •, • '' '.'1.-...'%f4, .'' -4. I''•4'1...t'ssP, —tir'''N/ A, ;,.-'.1'•r,k.' • , . p , , , , •, ..L4, ,-4 V ,,,,/ • 4_• ,.• 41416 t t S . ' ,1 / -', 1, ;,, 4, ,,"ji,, . ' ; .-„ ,,,I; .. . i !4,-,,,,,,i -,:,-.F,--,,,,,_ 16„, ' •A .. 1 lo ,„,..0 4;7‘,/,N. .,,,,, ,,, • T g. 11,) . ..,. ‘,..k , ..,,.‘44, .. '4 le. / ,-T ji 1 l• ,i. '-,- '4.. ',',”-1'... -, ' ,. ' •' - ••• A4`,' r7r!1?"i4 '''f;"'.• -' • 4ir ii i de ) .' • ... ''', '4.'',-.,.*•/, " , .,r.r.r, ' ' . ,r• `"' ''''-',.,:*" , "'•'-.1, ;Or,,,•4',.. ';" f 9 ' '''' •f 4 ' i . ' ' '*;v l'I'l 117,. ,* 54ttr'.I Y• e.s.. - I ' r ' 11. I , i • . . . .., pAttp,,r,;..• %• '.4,-, r' .„ , ,,, i , «, t, •' 4,..1','4 .• 4,,,,, _ . ,A.1,,,,ti,..,,,,,..)/1 4.„„ ' • / § „Ili. , 1 I . . „4,..,‘ N;4?..:. t - 71,8?,•e. ftt k". . 1 , . I. ir '"A. ..4 %,'V,*1"W-A A.-.A,1'...: •: -.1:.,•-;?' ,ot ,. g , iff. ...), - ' -,••^-0 1 - L 4 : . • ,k,,,- . ,. . ; , , • 4,,,,,?, . . , I • k '1 i I. , --- i ti: 1.,••••:,.„ . , ,..,'":'/ e - .11 i .1 PI 1(i # r . " ),'• 1 ....,_ ,. .fp „4 } « , , , ' v ' f to rt X I ri ) h' 1 -) .. e '1 I I t • k 4 ., - . . • , '4 IF 1 f• It- 4114;,4: 11, as •iii ' ' ' • it illi 4." : ....,..:‘, ,.. r • .. • Olt/. I -• A a'. ;t: it.- '' - • .,‘ . • ' e ! . — , Z-7-S AL ...„; — . e,„... J' . I r ., . ) ,.. ....,-' 44/41kla•Ne. . 0 .5-) ,.,-, -\- „ . . „. . .. , . # • . , 1 %,..,.... .-'..... \?.....„ . AIII. . r r . - :r-• c2 -j• .. • - - , '''V' - ..,• r : c.._ .. . :. T. . .,. i .11111111, - il , 4— ._ 1-, - ' ;er : .•r- ' • , 4. . i -• , . - 1 ... •:, 1 • 1, 1 1:„. 'I t - - _ - . _., ... 1 - i ; I i 1 1 1:' ; . ,1 ,-.,, in 1 i ,-. . . _ 4.; -. , "F 1 f.,- - 1,- • ••J i- , rt , li •. .r. . i i t ii '1 I. I , - tiltVi - / 1 , - .. - . w..._ • i !t1 i. k 4 ,. .1.- _ . ;•E.- * .." ' • ..„ Ij ! ‘• ,. . _ -..-• A , i. '' ' •IL • .., _ - ••-'.--.. k, r : ...._ . . . -... . . -. — i 11: ..., . . . t i • r:* - 1 , .r";-- 'r-. .. , . . _ . 1 _. - ... .-. i.,... . - . I. -- illl- flu mg! • . • ;ill .... .- I-._.4;. , ,„,,..„, I -P .' -rii; ' rop--•L''. lii - . - .4? _ ;r-_•,, 1,0 I, i .. :, ir._ _.;:i-',• - - 'ix-- alp 3,,,-.1„-.F,.;. 4,,..f'7". . ,' AIN - .‘Ty if j I :' .--' _..f.'..- •-_- .r. .- 07,--•_.-i-::— ,-1.:-•.-I-,..,---__ i•-i-fifil'-',7--E-'_ - - i; , 'itcu :.11-4 , . g ' i_ff:.A. - , „:-... -, .- : _.- _. : , .:,--- -, -: ' F.t.i.T.__' iiiii ''--!-'-•-•` *'' -1 ir. 1 • -.- - _ f-i•-. ` _71.3,7-___ -__. - . . _ . -- E 1 1 1 - ft.,:',"-.04_.fl. • - - .-. - .' • : , -_:---.-- -_ _ -;;; ,t, — 1 -;_- ,i.„ , 1,:.1-b% „44:41 - 1 ,..,L i: - r ,• _ , TE: '.. '. 7_ •.•-_'---.._ . - _ • , - .... , ,-•t is--,. ir a i-,- •- ' ,IE - - - - "'E , .= . . '... t=:=7??,:;.0-.r''' -IF t :g -..- • ' 1 < 4-: - - _ -_, ., - _ , x --• S , •-:..til..v,12.2-.41;!. r, ZNI --. - - - - - - .;F. fi..t1-77..'.4 s.-.'.a...• 7.,, P., t V.(I "•71- ' - - ' f:= -: ..----tt -*1.'di ' ...-.'' 5-,;IF:4-1:-.:-F',- .4 ..y. rui •,....-- " I.---. - -, .-- ,--I.. - .t.. -- T.•.; 41, ' J -- firgl 147:14---- ..4.,,f174-1-10-, _„...-f„?.7; .."-_ •r; Z.- ' ,' . -.1 1,_:..t.7-7-t;,-.1`..,-•..,0 47'w..ii;•-•-''' ,t---• ..1- .t7.,-, - - l'- '. :',.. — •I:1,.--T.''',!,'-'1-N .; --: -.1. :I 1 41.,,,-........H.m..d...-- 0"-''' --- 1“;.4; f744111-ti9111-4.MIT . 11 V ( „._ 4 - - 0 '..• e :i, ' CI-- „.4 I.!i it,2 t: i;lt l',r,A La . .-.''' . ' •-, ' _ ,. I , ::- -- ; -- : ql ix ii,t,t•.4r- . ;F' -.I; ., '' •• - ' . .-' , ' (......?.. ,.. 0 , ..:„..._____L.......„..........,_, _ ____ __ .. _.„.__ 3, , p--) KH- -(---; , , .......,, ......_, _ _._ a g......._ ..____ ,... . . v ..._.,1 ,....._ ..--, c) - --S. , .... . ,.— e.......'.'” *".......) (>. ,C)'r, . ,''.,0 , • i'l 1 /---- _. \J) + t •. - ; , 1 '...0•,;(1 ' -r-.4.- t 4 —-1 .1.4 - 1.,., .t.•kr,' x r - ' , . "Ird,it ' 4 -,4 -0 ... . , ...• -- t,r--a 7. V%-, • • • ___-.- .-" floott:•r '....: v n. . L. • 4 11) ' r� 1 i . I E.. .'..A4• , .' I:'4,:',.. 11' :,.,:: ' r_ . Ifi . . El .. .E .till,''' . i11It::: _ 1VIITT j 1110111- . ._. loom , -- ii • • i } I i ! ' : j • • _ t 4 , + �Y n Si ' i//If j'r: - ri o • 4- -- •• .• .••--or- •::,. ' :' ... „, •••••'''''''-,--- -:-.1_,.„A..:.0f, '`....' I,A."'• '.1. r• . : ` • • fin A _ T.: ..1•. 3/41r';'-' yl i - ' S' p '.- r',. X X /. � i ��1 i !- .. lie. . ti :;'144.- f' tti ,; r j iimilo, . "_.SS•« a{,a -a .s }'r ! A A`. 41^;7' , • �r • r� , - . l MP+ tic . iw'Q• •w`,.+ ea., ar.r+- r 4 ' r ,1 V y.•' r,-:r. •a• x`�'2 is • 1. c 1-:. P-44t • • h .s,.c , tiT ifil:irg, • ;Ors, $ fir {r. • , 1Y '. "�+ � _ • ' r • . -* . .7.-.74.'S'•. " `': ' ;ryi6 . - S K r .. iiiir - . :,- ...),,,,._.,,,,,-.::,.,-.,„ , i . „ , ... � w ,lilt, I 't i/'. -... ;•-- ,-....lik:;',,,'.':,21=4,4**opr.- ragrarziwiii:///// - . I - i., 1.",' if r lit. it,r. TIln� , ,,11H , ';4 � //4-/ rMt iart, f • 1 • . i 1 S' 41,,; /7 / - .i /r ,:ii r i _ J -----/ -1-1-1--i-J - 111 . t2 ti. 7,-41.1'4J /it/till i , , _,...,.._ . r 7 ,' / h: % f; f • 1 ,.: t/f/f ' . - _.:',•, / /////// -'/// ..:.': / ,/ cam _ - '- c _-. _ _1 - r = r -- , ..• •- 4'4 In' • r „ .11 . . . ill '. A . *1 . . . . . .004.11111ftwaummeat ..r, .-.....4rismarr .iiiigL i . : . Aillmr- - 4 •- • - . .. a. 1 a : i 4 affailliatikilii .?' ' I I , . ; 1' . ' it_l ir .. ,. . ' ,,. . ,„„ii...„. . ._ .. - ,,-*$truili - • . I mi lardri lib.4 ir 111 • 1:11e .i '1 Ni- . . i • .. ..f...-! :1/4 4 ; • , . ; •' ', I 'f 14 14 ' • 1 . .7. . 1-i'l ' ' la " •:2' . i/a.' 4 - 6 ..,... r r Jq ir 1 t* • .71.• \ L ' 11 •. %l 0 ill. • , ..... a 0 • ' VI' •de416.e, . I' • , _ _ ...,...-e• . - .1 ....-- - .7....-• 2 ye:,460. 'Or' ; , du• . . ',.. • _'•,,I.:,IlAi.t. II, 6.6 1 i 4 ytf isji,P'• 11 jILIIIIIII"IllIll.III - .. ,Iii 1i' . 0 'f ft r ter. ', • : ... .. " 1 -' • 4P-. 11 . ' "r ' . .. 4' \:)7'\ \AAVca . cik,c1(.8 CZ, 1 _ ....., . , ivvyA --A/ft-,-mayl\-)100 Wv\A-- oicY) h12-?,} --)-0 -; 6W .Vt • liaPr— , l ' a-. . k Pk',Y•Fk3 .'-.tib {' i:_ [-',, s iii ' ,.. CNAte,t 7' \ t n `�I L �i ,• iie .. e)otyvk W f Ate_• R ;lig... _ . 4, . .4. - Aalik"-114 , .t.. • It.-,4:111) • y •• 14 M ill 4. I / .,„ / A iir . A AO / A 3. . 0 . Jr . Oil ! * t - Ill .1 4 i 1 T Y r. s• - y ` _; � 49 mak, ' t OE .11P A. r 411111111111kt ' :4 . _ .- .. ..‘. _ ...1 ; A.,te'llirtitt:A; , '-,' . 400.,,..._ ,-. ..., . , -,',.;,,14 , ' ° , s ... a �,► #111116:#1 , ssr^ i • ,ms . .4+ # • fiY < ,i '?;• S ,, x ` as •;� Poid V,t, ' q!3l��p;.MMM -��_: ' V * ileb,, ,., ., _ . 3 .,S g lc. ... _ ... .,. . • . ..„..... __ ... .,. , .......e, , . ...__... . v 1 pi.--w>p i1v,. 1179-an - i '. ........ . _ • ,, 4., t, ..,._ . . ...... .„,. • . . i.. _ .., ...,...; i G k ,,,-. t ...+:''' 1 .: _ fI1 w .. I , i. IN alsiliMilih 1, P. dilktar,a.Fir .)4..L.4,,,I,*Zt ..77v, ' \.'A -goir— roRTit. ,v aYwain.d j f i1AOj 11......"... ... .// . ***4. Ie ef A 6:. siL.. 'y' 0 A •. 'rr • : �Ai A. 0 't qr„' .. .. ,".. _��' _ it ¢�•, i2r Ti: :�' lt. E. It. • 111,` 1 Hf ( . „ " I: * -'4.1,,,': PI. , • 401, ,t ..., 14 {1 ! i i r • I ■r.�4 • • C , 0"'"Ir.,4 ,.• .. . , 1 1 , , , . .t. ,.. .., , , ,p, . .,,,, , ,, ,,,,, . , , , • .. 2 14, • 7 ' •-"' . • • F ,t +1 r � w r u�LI` '' 114x, ' y 3 1 ,gyp 1y R ''t •. A. •I x,76 4....i,,. t . . ;s 4 ../.7 ...•. , E. /// // l i /II II/ , i 0 ..,,,.. ., i.r i Q . . :4.-“.. .1.01,1117‘,.,T,1 I . ,, 11 •' 2I.- •# I .if.q i r •-7..r• :44/A" 1.:-.'4 • a. a " '*y .jc-� 6i 7-,,_,- ' I 1 I { '� 'ilE .. • -- •it„ .,i. - 7 -,. . •," . - 4-41. -. . C'''' li* ' f 1... -:, - • , - .. -'vii` N. 1 �` 1 it�ft. ;',Ir--,•;77.------11111.1111111.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111- - -- ---- ,••- , . . •_ - . .-. . •" •' - _ - .... -. - • .1•,...s. .•., • -•A ./ ‘_., ''..C•:?4.- -. •• • r , / ., ••• •-• ; 2 s ."0:.'' 116 _' a .* •.14. . . , a • •iv 6,, ,-,. 1 '•11' •.., • -Ai - N.- • --• _ 4 , I 11111111.111 _ ir -... . VC' galMie. - ----- - 41..1_ .1 0,-'...e."--Irt'-, .1 - 1.''.'''.1 •,g4111401114.9011~111, • -.-'" . ...F —L--......-.1 .....-1- • ' :-''- . 1111111,40111koillacemb.111111114111.1141M111111111rilink 4 aall111.11111110.., i ....... fikini~ip• ir.' .. . +I .......... 11111111.41.Mbeg? / . . '..V11117 /,11/1`.'' _ • ,•........1„.,......... • • i • limiqpine1111141! f _. ., - r. 9 • taw.. // -- _____ 6. % ,.,,N.,..1, I •' us I i, . - ,-frot •0-1/4 '01..,. •• -4 - iI; • $ 1:-' _-_________„ gr _. -• *. i • I P '1.-4*• C;.,. -1 ---_--- I r4 . . . '- j -._,---, • a ___ — -. l . ' , . * oi• , 4 ....,.. . i_7 _...... .66.........__ . .. .. - t ......Ar V--.1• % k ' ._X- • / I • - / 11..., ,,,. .. 1.P.!2LF::• • Wit,' r'. .'''', la 1. _Ii..liOr.••••• 171" -; 3•1ii., . • ••: .Yr; ° 77. '? ./7.,';‘. 1. I. ,. , I ? '0 `It '• .`.. .1%4f4..• 41 •- i . - / , illit 4 iii.' - f/ •.1,11 ••••;4.4414, 4,',11*.itk. __.--_- ' :i •-- .,-, - : J ' \ 1111. k 1 - , ' ' ' • ,...... ....\ • - -- I* '),I• , , A, ...,,, •,,, . • / . •, .• . : .. •_• r-.:* — ur . . • _ •1 Lir ''' ''' kie _ a , _ , .,. .. . • . . ./ , . r. , • . • '''' /fr . ...-.... •' ',O. .... ' . •-.1. et0 I • r .. _____. __ _ _ - - - , ,, ,----- _ . •• •• .,, 4 . . - — -IF, —- k•jlit • 17. ' ,4T-11. .p.............i.,,......„...,.._ / ••• r i - T.,• ,;.. , /• . -/ ) ' v..' . „._.........,....„..........-..z.....,,,..„...„7„.........1••••••••-•••-••••-• -"`"N'''`44r._...........„............. ad•••••••••--4/...•4••••••••• •o•••••••-4,----.0.--..- .•••••,-,..,/il .A .., ,,1 . t- I, -,' ..- -. ..'....1.• : 1. ,.', - • !:'',' '1,„--,',;-, 17 J., ..., - . ... , .. -\.,..,....,...... ) : ..._.„,31 / . i ...,,, . \ , fitvp. I), 4... . , - •-• .. . '. '. , ''' '. '-''. \'''‘,;.-.0.:''' 1 'V , ,; . %el,i'i ' I t • ', 't ',II, -, - - - '--- . ..‘ .3 •,;1•;,. v.,Vok' •- 1 ',6, '•:.... , 'j 'Ilr't 4°4#'1.41.' A 3'. 0.44f 14 ,:ei . .-v ' - • :-.411N-Livue. •• •N' 4. •v• - '•' •'" '' /) q• r.10 A• • 0 :j-'• i ,—, ,,kt tnic,...-.,,,. • J. Ot . ...4 , '''', .44.L.,0110_11t-- 441411t11 • : - ..., il . i t: -TA, ,,,;,,,, , • ,.. • 0-,-. . ...1t,t,-.0p,..‘.5tista, N — 1,,,,i•• -- ,,_ NI) -/ ...,_..,..,,,,, ,1 ,!•:,."..,....;Noinik ; ,,, ., . ' ,. , , - ', ' : 'J.:7, fi , ,?• ', *, , ' - + 64e. , 1,,,e74./4r.r.,4414._ertilt:, , •:-.,4,-::'..",•14, '',...i ..; .. t , , • . "-AV*.--.- .":. . ,' '•t, , ' ':f0 ' -r Alli. ...Iv ,-..., OA .,k,.... Iiiiimi,' , _ . :'''P.'llit•• 4 4 •,,, .., , „. , AW"'Air Ili- -- • - • qc..k •• ' i,.. _, or.f.i:,i, v.,.„0. 1.4 ,., ‘,I,,, .. , . - - ..--,--• - ,itiNit,A1/4, 7,.......,,,,;,,,,,e„.,,:i, .., 4 , ,,,,.........f..,..,:., ALA,,...... „„,,,,,,,, ., . , , ,..,.,.. ,, ,. --•--.1- - •-#6'-'0,•,'- .-.:4--_06:4*-. ::,,A," 11P?i,‘ *N.;' ,,,.04,.4 ,,,,:,. , , •,.• ' SW"' • -TO-",. ‘1 ei 1 s •?.. , ...• —,r. irt...• .P..'41,',11.•••AWdr')1k,',A.B..'p A tr 1k ",r- ''°t 11:.•C i 1 • 1 ' , . _...... .'....:`-' ...' /7114:,..,Ii*g•''s V,illi.',, ...'''.4 4.. ' i. Y te:. - -t)- • • . , ,, •• -.01• i 0(7 :I • - ..'? .-,...'4"7- to.,71.- ...deirti '''''"1.--,. -.4'•-•%q•-"..1% ,-..',.' 4;s1 , :,, i . 1 , ,.., -, r',' , .(I 4--T " , o PI,.• ' c• , .4- •',' . • ,*• .t ;.-A , 4;('• ,s„A; ..4- ' ' .,Is%•''' '4 A, '. ' V ..I*. .. ' iliP .,. ,i.; , .. I, , ..1:V! . l.• ... , ..# — . . ,...C.41141.‘ei ):.' • r'..\-.".`•••'•.. ', '`1\• Its t,.'t.2,r,.-..', ' ' 6:4 ' ." ,•,' •. , ( . •.., , . . . . ., ..._, . ., .. . .,.....,,..„.., , . k .7 . s. -,. ‘•• • 1 "..! • .- ! 10 . . - • • -, !''-• --•?' is '7 1'.: . 1''''' ''''47"•:.' 1' . *. ., .444,,4i -,.. . ' , --.'' • : . %• rg". 'qv=; 441.,'. ' , ,,4. ,i ,,, • q ,, • . , . ,-4 . A - ' -- • ,e0ii,", ,161,1,,a.,;..i'i , 1, s,.. .._ i 7. '04) r ', ..,l' ' - ,',,,••• iti qtk.e, ..,. .• ,C t, . „ , - .--.;*...._4.11.5110rorr, -•'..'.r;i .• , .1.1.'.i.' e...,..-.1.....ft • ,i 't . , . _..-• '-'.- • ' ',.-ItA ‘.':s.s.....17141,4 i . IT°'‘ ':!)*:' ' . '' .' .• ,• I,-i, ' . ' ': • ' 1..., , a . 3,.., ,......,' - ,037,-.1.,fs74.9,. , 3 IP - • y",`', i•• ,`-. --,:orr, .. _ , '' ...,...'„?;e r , ,;111-11111 •• • '' ' , • - --,-* - tr' J 1 0" 1••••••0 ''' i '1 •. .`'‘, • ' • ,L. • •1• ... 't. \ .: -4 I ty,.."`. ...:4 . .-- . -•-•"6-' ' ‘ 'Arrtair,`.,7.-2-. . .4-, -,‘,.' .g",j te:% •• •-. f•';. ' ... \. ~ I.: ,, : i .• ''..f'N. •l'• 0. .!liteiA140..• • . •• s\e'S'•01.• ••• ' ' 11' N.. , -1 , .. .1•1-1 Ni . , ,Y,'•".‘`;'N., bi -7:., . '4:111111k, ,.. .........."4.401bk. .— - ',.. ,''/ ' .,'4., / . s,e00-• i 1 --, ,'1 ,••••• ••••.1.,•,, 1,,i1"4 ,.4_,• •k '''', 4iatti. . 4) ‘ 10-f14. 1 U•4•4. 'i'r 11 :'', , , -• ' I ' t 1,1••• •• r,•;••••-.iie A ./ .,....001111p.'"'- 1111110C4, gp1•117 -,.... .4' • Aiii^ -, ,. 1,.. , , •.....i. , AilliVs•.410rafig°10°F A.%i,!,r,••• -AO,. ; 7AVA's.rt.f4P t". ''E'' 1 .-. ---- -- --' •;*-- - ,.,..40A--,„,..,,,,,,,,ftwo-13 044,;.0.,...,„ . .1. P. ... . • i ,i . f, I, 1, 1•4" 1, ,' ..* * -if s i• . t ., i, '4 •i • - ;;..'- .... ''. Ns' t' 1" -3, ‘1 1) ' I'. '' ' • - V . • .,,, i'l, ,' , v.,:, ..'..."..::-..,,,. ,'.. . * ,, ..-t, ". ' • it. e' it • • ,-.0 4-• • - ' 4. • ' . N. t, e ' IL••'* ••1 ; 1'.'V l'''P•`'.. tr . . ., i !. . . . ,... 0,.: ... . ... i. _ 17 1.. ...... di I.t .-;.c '. *.14 ti 7 0,. .0 i , •,...', ,,''' . ., ---tivi ' 4414,', '' •VI t 1 • ' 'f t ,I • .., . • ./ t. ' ' ,. / , ' •-, - •,,'-•-•-• '; t'. ,'• '',4;\, , 4.. ..... , ‘.. , ... • 111 / ' ' -- . . ,• •.0.; :: ,; • 1 ) r 1 ,. ' ' '0" • ..,,,: , - . . . . e ' , L •' ', ,,C. •: .‘ ',.. . • • . ,- . ' I, •' .)l' . -.,'„ . , • , 1 ,1 ,.1.41k"N , ,.A,- ,_ lit, ''' •• 1 ' •.;• 1 . irs -1 ...- . •. ..4 . .- VC i • , 3 • ii,„ to:. . , , t s • 146. •'If• Al . ill..3 ,.• , 4 .. . • -,k • . "I .• • - ''.1 • • •"‘'' '.‘ -, 1 I '•-r) • 1 ‘' l• , laffll. '1. • • +. . S . • • t. '1 . ' ' f i • '''•4 . t . r . , • -0' .t ' •l , ' • . ,t1 • ,..• a . t, • # ,ait` i. \ viiiti -/ i all esi ti 4 _ r ;"¢ . ,,,‘„tvi ...,.. #11r S r kik lily. to J J' _ t r 44 , I krM " dir: lf RECEIVED October 24, 2013 OCT 2 5 2013 Building Services Department City of Lake Oswogo City of Lake Oswego Comm*Developmnt Dept. Case File# LU 13-0042 Exterior remodel of all buildings on site; request to modify the previously approved Case File Ws Dr 8-75 and DR 33-76 abiding by all current codes when approved and re in effect in perpetuity. Public Hearing,October 28, 2013,West End Building Submitted by Cookie Johnson, owner and resident of Oswego Summit, Condo#64 My letter requests the review and consideration of two elements essential to the appearance of our buildings,design elements if you will. These elements affect the sense of sight. They also affect the emotional sense of harmony with our trees and landscape in all seasons of the year, and the way in which we 'work'with our neighbors structures. Siding Colors for Oswego Summit I understand a focus of the Design Review is to ensure Oswego Summit appears in harmony with the surrounding buildings. As you have seen in the renderings for our building many of the colors echo those of One Jefferson Parkway and in some cases neighboring homes and complexes in Mountain Park. One glaring exception is the Barn Red, which has been designed for some of our buildings. In the time I have lived in Mountain Park I have not come across any such color as the red offered for use on our buildings. In fact I have spent time driving around and the best I can come up with in Lake Oswego is downtown on 2nd and B. These condominiums,which can use their ground floor entry room aTas a business office, use a red and buttercup color. And the same color red is used above brick on the Umpqua building next door.This building is four full miles from Oswego Summit, certainly not an example of what has been used in our neighborhood. See the attached photo of One Jefferson Parkway, renderings of buildings with SW 7591 Red Barn, Building 12, 15,and 23,which fronts Mc Nary Parkway, a photo of the buildings on 2nd and B, and a Sherwin Williams color chip SW7591. Please consider disallowing such a departure in harmony with the use of this color and request the applicant to specify a paint color that complements our trees, landscape, and neighbors. Thank you. Windows and Sliders for Oswego Summit Development Review Permits DR 8-75 and DR 33-76 were approved as abiding by all current codes when approved and are in effect in perpetuity. The white windows submitted by the applicant are a complete change from the bronze color that was ORIGINAL and APPROVED at time of construction.The bronze color should be maintained in keeping with the original design intent of these interesting classic and period structures. EXHIBIT G-233 LU 13-0042 cd Daae s I would like the Lake Oswego Design Review consider requiring the Oswego Summit condominiums to use a bronze color for the windows and sliding doors slated to be installed in LU 13-0042. I believe this change could be considered aesthetically appropriate as the Staff Report of October 19, 2013 shows a strong opinion toward retaining the Privacy Walls on the Phase 1 buildings with slopping roofs, and metal railing for the Phase 2 buildings...and eliminating the dominant use of the large white railing structures projecting from our building on our decks. This from the Staff Report:As discussed previously,staff find that the replacement of the metal railings with the glass railing system Is not complementary to the adjacent structures of good design, which utilize mainly metal and wood slat railings. Additionally,staff finds that roof forms fronting the decks on the cascading on the buildings are integral to the overall architectural integrity of the building and that removal of these features will not be complementary to the design of the building. Glass railings would open up views into the large deck areas that are dominant on these facades. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the existing integration of the deck railings within the roof forms on Building Types 2a, 2b and 3 to be maintained. Without the white metal and glass safety railings, which are less in favor,the use of white windows and white trim (SW 7516 Kestrel White) would be a glaring contrast to the earth-like tones proposed as the colors for the buildings. In fact as stated in the report the renderings submitted for Oswego Summit uses a dark outline for the window frames. In addition, it seems Oswego Summit and One Jefferson Parkway will share similar siding colors and metal deck railings. One Jefferson Parkway has bronze toned window frames. Visually we certainly have more in common with those building and less in common with other buildings adjacent to Oswego Summit. Respectfully submitted for your review and consideration, 71#4...k iii, l.----- .,,,, ir Cookie John-.r Condo#64 •.wego Summit cookiesoffice@comcast.net I K ' r III — 11 1/ . /rjapoli-erlitlii 1 Li. lir . VD . • a-1 ' - 1,1 \-1"-- '4-r .24 * v i l'i 1 :,_ '' 1 / • t , ! i : .• •v -, -7-7, 1 ,,. , , , i ) ' ' i. ,' , , 11 , 1 , ; 1, I I ---, W 1.4 .., , , • • / 1. : f i ; , I ecp 4....w, • '' .• .Q.,0 ' ' 1 ' I • 1‘9, I 1 . i / • 1 ' if ,,, ...,...,., .,j I/ I i ! ; i'l\s/ •,...\ ', 1 I . fismasim....r...•.,, • , -..., ;4:4,'„ .'" iii"' \.•\‘.' , \ .‘ ' •'.,1 at • , - V ‘`kki:"' - 'N. , ,.. • .„, - \ , . t, ' ,‘,.., •\ .1P"k !All ,- ; I I 1 •' ,OP' 'i, :- < .4 Pf I .1 • 1 /i, ' 'I'l , , 4.1,1 , • • ilk • r,/ • , '..\ t ' ' )4111Z14 44'4 L.'.3:. A r;:4• - •-4f," ' .$11;*„., !7.: • ....;'", ( '110411, ,,,;...r. --74, - ,„?‘••••,t,:•• •• a .• • 1.• .• ? _ 'I Iii 1 , . . • r- '• ! p4, --- ' .' - „,...... -.. .., ip 4..._ 4'_,, , < ,-;tNe ..; , 1i 'IA:. asem......thiP•,I ... II II' 1 1' 1 . '1' ''' "W1111111 I ii „ ill . 4-----: .., . 1 ,_.1k.._. I . . . , ! /- •. • - • /// Lt. I .J/ / 1, . .. ‘-- MI I 1 us . - . -AW 'Ik' 1111 - . . .. ,,,k I. , , ,,‘tin , ..,,, ,11,1,, iiiiiiiii •, . . . , • / , ...- , 1 I • Iii Or ' - ' . , / kti, ., -' \\\ 1 \ 1111 i I It - -7 - , N=..i ll - ( \ ir 11 -.... \ . • • ,. \ ,.\ • .:., . WA INUIIII , . iiiii: 1 . • . if , la "ir 11111r:\\1\ ilill 111,1 ! •-,,,iit .., , i •- / , P.. ,‘, ,, oil 1, ' . 1 , . . • In. . . 1111 li t—I, .1 ... . I - II' • , A 11%11 . . H 111MIE 111111 i!. .le .-, 4‘1 1 Awn Ilitilit, . . , • ...,.,,, .... AWN 11 -Nhilik 1 ,1,,. ..N. .1 Building 12 1 Front Materials- Siding:James Hardie fiber cement lap siding-6.25"width for 7"exposure Trim:Hardie 5/4"x 3 1/2"Rustic Grain HZ Body:SW 7591 Red Barn Deck+Roof Fascia:Hardie fiber cement 5/4"x 11,25" Light Block:2"x 3 1/2"flashed Cedar blocking Vinyl Windows and Sliding Glass Doors:White Paint Colors- Accent:SW 7501 Threshold Taupe Fascia:SW 7510 Chateau Brown Window,Door&Garage Tnm:SW 7516 Kestrel White Garage Doors:SW 7510 Chateau Brown r •I Da 0 i�� ' 1 i illinsolui i Ii 1 _i_oviii=R_ i ...is, • mems,.. 46,.. _ _ __ , ,_ ,_ _. ,„:_ _mu 4,..,h, __„.... _ 1244664Filloll , M10111.1.111 NMI aim wir minnumm. ^ u1�r11 in. i i 2:•4s ,-sillIMP. I u,,� • i .. _. • . , ._... Light(typ):WS-W27 Oswego Sumrm t Belly Band:SW 7501 7510 Chateau Brown Building 12 I Left ._._._. ... ......_,.. 1 ..,_ ....__ , _...........•••••• ••••••••••••••••••mow. ' -•••••*^ROINV•11. Amme awloor ib.....1.1. -4( ..11=• ••••••"... .... , . .. ......-.......w......*•...........................--........ .................. ...o........—.4,..-..- .0.1. •••••••••••••••••••••=1•••••••••••••• Am.A.......041 A\ . ...ome,Ak..m.o.om••••••••• ransm.s•rr....vrIlra•••. I A4 .00 111.11.01.01••••••0••••••.......ordaminima.W . A•••••••••••••••••••, , A OM. 1.4ff.....•••••••••••••• ••••••••••••......, .41 ,1I I P.,•••••• .- - MINIANIPMe.••••••.r.i.Mommmilma• Imam, I 11111111111111111111111111=:a NMI ..................4 ......... ..... .../ ......A.A........ ...... . ,_ ...... Aboll.,... ........ ................ , 4 1 .......... .., ....................1 $- "Am..• ... N • ......... .., .; iil' l' .................... ..........Ar.4 *, y : k - _____ . .... . . R 6 MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE . 0'ON e Ci 0 Fi-k:1 P-1 ll 1:t .k .4k. Building 15 1 Back Light(typ):49116 AVI iimminiiiii IF - - -- - ,i ,. r�Irltrl III�� 1ylwI i +111111.11.._ _.i dirisimIn.= ILII F >/�Ilrli� miuminow' _IF art iiiiiiiiIii 11.111.11 • le . t . ___ _ -= .___I ii . 1111111011111118 II 1111111111110 V P r • .ission Til it =111.1111:1 IIIIII =Ammo immism 111 1 11111 I MEM __a No.., -......., ___ ,_ t_imo, ., _...._ .r .......... _,, siiiiimill r- INIIIIIMIIIII 01111111111101111. 1. /441.11111111- , 0...44111111111111111 I Jai A . firaimineft peolliall a —= i ..... i mil4 A, Immillimas Wane immisiamesummineomm =iiii • . SIM 1 AM • I ' MM. . t' NM r firemco Deck Coating:Maple Oswego Summit fS..., 20' ;d E vJ,St'..C!IUrI Building 23 I Back Light(typ):49116 AVI 1sW 1 ' I1 II III IIli1Ill IIII1F YI; I f I -- a: Pl 4 . iliwommii ________ _ _ , i i1 - 1P1L fi _ ._ ._I—- �� rki -- 1. l� I h : ,..._. ', �?i��= �= ��il hi� at atmiimi_ -:,, 1 f. -n- , ,moirtLUL_rflu _ .. ��II �li�� fi� i , 1; ,. Fil 'ti, i Tremco Deck Coating:Maple 71 / Oswego Suinrriit • . .,'• . . . , •-•- , 1!'•''' , - . 0\A\-\t• • . .,. /.if .,,- , .• i. illgarilir ' ./ ' 00007 , / • ,• ,'*, .....1 4willirAlw /// • - . • -,- . •,„ . - - •,,,:v • ' - AVINI.', / .. . • 411/Arify . . , . . . AIN di : kgc -----7:77 ,•''/ ArAr •, _. ft '-•fi # i. 7.:. , . , ,,4 ) ___ . / ... P41%1'1 NCI / //// • ,.., . ' ' • - '• 1 ,/I'. : • , r'7,7711- -- -7, iffir ,, . 'N...., .\, :.,..,...,N\ ,,: ....,:.,,.„._. • .. ,., ., ,4j., ,l, N N'.- •• . . ''':.:l.,.': .....1k .„..- ,.. 'CI 'hi', ' PR ;AA... - ,,,,,•:. -VcsA, , • l• 1./ii.., 44/ i q . .1 . 1 ,,,„q1), . '''IlliidilMIN .. .loll II . iii II , 0 .............. , tc,--, j,„ i 1 ...........,._. vt,, \ • - -----,i` , . •,- -fi. / „.,./:..- , 110011141; iit.-1 / _:. , • ,,,, ,,,,,,L: r,_;,. ,- i:, .. \•. ' •,,, - 1 ej,4,,,,„ ,•.,, , ,iioortc-aii, --,:.-_ -,i.. . - •.--.---*,..1.,'..:. --'2°..!t..,:,.,.", - .. ... ' . ---. , 1• 1 . . 1.IF if -.- ' '! Sr' -- :_ .. ,-.!.. •4'. \br''''' ip 1 ik, I r TB . trAVIN......"-',' i r i 14,QliCM, /I /17 • Fin ,..;.;:'4 t - mine .;„‘ :-. IZ I . r'i Mill '....4...i..,;....A,. TN if/ i '7 .. ..,:t - ,or•- yi 1 / - .---, iiii III V i i . g§"7• • MIR ` .4r: ''' tit ii1:. . ---3 \--"--1 . --- • October 23, 2013 ATTN:Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner Lake Oswego Planning Division: And Lake Oswego City Counsel 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego OR 97034 RE: Oswego Summit Design Review LU PA13-0042, PA13-0052 Lake Oswego Planning Division: Dear Jessica Numanoglu: Please document as received and accept for review the following information regarding the condo I have owned since 2001 at Building#6, Unit 45 Oswego Summit, Lake Oswego OR 97035. I strongly object to the current remodel design not only because it portrays a disturbingly irregular neighborhood appearance, but because it is also a superficial and socially reckless remedy to a group of very serious structural conditions that have not been studied by a certified professional or made whole in the fraudulent approach to this large expenditure. Attached I present in brief, mapping and details of conditions not acknowledged in points LOC 50.06.006 2 and L0050.06.006.3. Since November of 2006 continuously through September 2013, my unit has experienced repeated exterior flooding conditions that have left it uninhabitable and uninsurable. After extensive litigation, extreme financial loss, and false promises by the OSHOA Board to repair the building; only some of the contributing issues are addressed to attempt repair in the plan under review. Most importantly, I am writing because the multiple water run-off systems (including roof and gutter systems) at the low end corner of the property where my unit is located ARE NOT HOOKED UP TO ANY RUNOFF SYSTEM AND THE HILL HAS DROPPED ABOUT THREE FEET IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS contributing to large 20 foot cracks in the ceilings of my unit where water is entering. Closer inspection will show that the pipes are obstructed with debris and backing up into the buildings while de-stabilizing the foundation. The invasive species of maple, ivy and blackberries have intruded these old systems. Also the large pipes in the driveways have patchy repairs where they have leaked and flowed down into the buildings and foundations. My mortgage bank and I sincerely question the overall value of the project as it is,given there is now NO FHA approval on the structures, black mold and rats are rampant through the interior of the buildings, and AS REPORTED BY OSHOA PRESIDENT, MARI MOORE; NO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WILL EVEN SET AN APPOINTMENT TO COME OUT TO THE PROPERTY,AFTER 16 PROFESSIONAL CONTACTS. Please feel free to contact me if you would like copies of more professional reports, such as mold readings or other details. Christy Cori P 0 Box 8214, Portland OR 97207 503-756-9429, christycorl@gmail.com EXHIBIT G-234 LU 13-0042 "3, pugeC f vj • •41. • go- P - Z v - _ 411A • • 3. .11 • • MI • v C • { �. , �. - 4 ,. YES Liehtine Standard FLOC 50.06.004.31: This section is applicable to all development,which includes public and private streets,public pathways and access ways,or parking lots. Address this standard if any changes to parking lot or exterior building lights are proposed. Design specifications need to illustrate overall height,wattage,glare shields,and • photometrics. Fixtures shall be positioned to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. Mkt, PARK AND OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTIONS[LOC 50.06.005] YES Park and Ooen Space FLOC 50.06.0051: Multi-family projects must provide at least 20%of the gross site area as open space in addition to the 20%landscaping requirement in LOC 50.06.004.1.Open space must be located according to the requirements of LOC 50.06.005.3.a.iv and LOC 50.07.004.7.c. ��ere does not ap'p ae r to-be-any.alter_dtions to open space on the site;therefore,this standard is not applicable. —'� GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND DRAINAGE[LOC 50.06.006] NO Hillside Protection FLOC 50.06.006.21: A portion of the site is identified as being in a potential slide area;however,because the proposed development does not include any building expansion or ground disturbance,this standard is not applicable. NO Drainaee Standards[LOC 50.06.006.31: The applicant must demonstrate that alterations of �I drainage patterns do not adversely affect other properties.All roof drains must connect to an approved drainage system. No new impervious areas or alterations to existing drainage are proposed;therefore,this standard is not applicable. 8. REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES FLOC 50.071 T - .re applicable procedural regulations and are included in the pre-application notes for infor . ional purposes on .. • response to these code sections is necessary. LOC 50.07.003.1.b u. .-• • • •• LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions on Development LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals LOC 50.07.003.11 Modification of Approved Permit LOC 50.07.003.14 Minor Development Decisions 9. OTHER ORDINANCES YES TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION FLOC Chapter 551:Submit a site plan that includes the location,species,and diameter of all trees that are five inches in diameter,or greater in the vicinity of the buildings and construction and staging areas(include the location of nearby trees on neighboring properties). Diameter is measured at 4.5 feet above the ground(for single trunk trees)and is found by dividing the circumference of the tree trunk in inches by 3.14.A tree removal permit will be required to cut any tree 5" in diameter or greater. If tree removal is necessary as a result of the proposed development,the removal request must be processed in conjunction with this development application. Please thoroughly address the Type II tree removal criteria [LOC 55.02.080]for all trees requested for removal as Page 4 PA 13-0052 I � PUBLIC HEARING for Owego Summit Design Review LU 13-0042 Monday, October 28, 2013 7:00 PM (arrive early) West End Building (4101 Kruse Way, lots of parking in the back of the building) Willamette Room Who Can and Attend: Owners at Oswego Summit and those who live in neighboring homes. The Hearing: The Lake Oswego Design Review Chair will read a description of The Project,the LO Planning Department Staff report will be read*,the applicant (Oswego Summit Board of Directors)will give testimony,those opposed can speak, those who are neutral can speak, and then the applicant can close with a rebuttal. Once everyone is heard the Design Review Chair will ask if'we' would like a continuance in order to submit new testimony or if any party wants the record of the meeting to be left open to submit new evidence. I think we will want to request this in order to gather any new or extra information we want to put in front of Lake Oswego for • consideration to alter, or deny The Project. Do You Think You Want to Speak? Do you want to write a letter?You are encouraged to speak in person or 'testify' in writing. Many of you have already written letters and submitted them to the Lake Oswego Planning Department. Please consider speaking at the Public Hearing. The very last opportunity to submit a letter/testimony is by 5:00PM on the date of the hearing. At his point, three days before the hearing you need to deliver your letter/testimony to Lake Oswego Planning in person. Call the city of Lake Oswego (380 A Avenue) and verify the Planning Department is open (503-635-0257). Deliver your letter to the Planning receptionist on the third floor to have your letter date and time,stamped.le76e i t%ti-t'ti NOTE:The Lake Oswego Design Review Committee can only make decisions on design issues. The letters we delivered to LO have spoken about financial hardships which are real to all of us, but the Design Review Committee cannot alter The Project to help our finances,the Oswego Summit Board of Directors would have to do that. However, if you are unable to deliver written testimony please attend and speak at the meeting—I think it will be recorded. Any and all issues are best commented on in writing. This affords an opportunity for those who are opposed to all or part of The Project to appeal to the City Council of Lake Oswego. The city staff person assigned to this application'is Jessica Numanoglu,Senior Planner, 503-635-0289 . ) inumanoeluPci.osweeo.or.us SEE the original Pre-Application Conference Notes of July 25, 2013—attached j SEE * below to view the Staff Report for Oswego Summit. The Public Hearing my help us change or deny the opinions in this report *You can find this and other information (Staff Report,color renderings of our building, light fixtures, etc.). Go to Lake Oswego Planning/Projects/Projects in your neighborhood/<Land Use Case><any><Mountain Park> (SUBMIT)then select LU 13-0042 and View Staff Report and Exhibits NOTE: 'Li I ) V V ALA 'i.11 ILO 4✓ '►-/ irn.LY -.Ia J.. rlA,L J 0 TYPICAL CARPORT SPACE SIZE IS9OK18.0' PHASE 1 • SOUTH TRASH ENCLOSURE (GENERAL COMMON A CONDOMINIUM IN BLOCK 39, MOUNTAIN PARK BLKS.35-41 ELEMENT W IN THE SOUTHWEST 114 SECTION 32.1.1S.,R.1E..W.M. ARP.- p, 't CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON M4TC LAT EI AUGUST 1977 R[GIIIT'R[D VLAiE NOI O I V w ••••••.;/.7-b.>,JSEE -1...._J _ MOTES.,ONAL •.3.. -.2°•R, 76. • BLDG'S. 1,2.3,4,5,6,7.8,9,17.818 LAND survE•:o11 / se 2Y Ar // �N�a`4. ELEMENT 4fE. 143.2.-L•.) •.N+ / • ON GON ` S.11p'S�E. . LD 5�9C{ a].O :3.: SUBXRIBEO AND SWORN BEFORE ME •,• �•,cR. 1 I THISLEDOM ORD.,,•.r DMPv -Q g INITIAL POINT—..Jl ?/ , „ -L Y R.- _ �'sSE7 fx]D'GAIK IROH J F Ri .ru6LD. ANY ruN D AD.. �r Y•- goRIFF BELOW SURTACEE. / (y77OF MY COMMISSION ERRRE9,o-zl-a) ,I. or THE GROUND. ' i / O p12D 124 128 ; / MATCH LINE\ __• o -m 119 123 •-- --- /"R- i�1i SEE PLATE NO 4 r - II8 117 2? i25 128 /r,N/%/ .Jf'3.� • t .• N 6>.I^ � U GENERAL COMMON ELEMEMENT /J �L"f/ i i 6� .r� ' -, nNd r l a. --0 CARPORT' `s5� _ y Sao' /:•f'r} rNb��� �. • ce•s4:,7dE 1151.._^`'��_ a .'a\ ,, =4"^"a / e/ e, e, O QqE.��'\ \\ (i in,r` 4a� 4`4v.=� erg / i/ //�6�� G 9 b. a. \ \\ ,�+.:,� ..W s 4 , ` _�-y.'R�-/��i /,fir/ ��� k-rtt • i . N Ofd 4o w• G1 k aeo,sD':r G,,,,Vr i c: ..,g r. 4D. •-/,4 / ! it ,.,Y 7628 IR 4'4-:-, -.. 0 . ./• /^>.\ a G. �N.t.i.i WEGOO -2 4. .7.4, e \ ?\ ar. / \� �,.� `r yb WV e;:neem as e \�\�\se' / // / ^\\� b ' f:5".EH L:4.SW., r ® sdf \\ '''''\...t. /7s'/�/, 1 Opo odw /'/ crs•\\.\�., -�N o CO J2 2 'b,1. C O \\A, 'os / /A` ,....-0.•sa6 __/4,/ a \-.2,, et NEBP `\:45s.1W M'li saD' )a) M \�\��\J/ / 5�R.Ij.`� // S ?� GC 41:n-,41.20' 01, G�\\\ 9 ) aaao,M O H ,,,,,,!..,\' L-6-4-.0-:. ../...(\ J �QQ a • ______,N\ � c:177 77‘ ?\ � 'ssr T 6 �'p \NGiv.® 4r 2 nT c�Hsi sB tow C. 4.90..4- 44s 'r A, s>a, S An!, CARPORT JEFE ERSON� �F........ \-'6':.0- J3 2, •• F ``-\,,,•'-'11....f.3,,.. ...,... sy�A.a� PARKWAY 'N 414'4' 'F \N. kill -.94. o p sa 79 ,/,94.7 s 4 t. 4 so- ryT\a oaor\W JB ry ,�b sso• M �\ \o>'F �J ''''.. .. 7'' /*°./.;1- /le . s �Ty� )> 2 e /9 /- n rays ryT �\• Ta\7tr / ' ^•i AJ: pR N. •,...,......„. , it, ., t LEGEND syOp•,o \\ /�/ r 4D r1Di.a\�. CE aa. M tO-BL!LDING NUMBER iill �\ 4.,._ cN ros>>,......„.....,......::::::,....4...._'A 4./•�> ✓ 39, �% £��:I\�-�eT'+6, �oo'N, \ a, 4,?V •-• '��/p / . 3 8 O 4 1 T� 5 4 \; a .�? \', 1y - P yu'ray. :A?T,-si syw E43 H_UNIT NUMHI RS ` \'PK TS.N; \ _I---4.:"------i. , sQ o ^,�o }a \\ 'w9Y w•s c:or irC �� _ . : c: t SCALE f�30' G1-ASSIGNED CARPORT SPACE \ e `'� j'. '•4 4, • 4, It iMiT ED CAN POR' VOMMON UMBER CORREST)PONDS \\ ^ � GfNcp.. r 6 4. TO UNIT NUMBER, 1� cO o-DENOTES SET 518x 30 IRON ROD WITH WA I.ALUM.CAP. \ ,�a.leifN5 .' til �� ,ea f •-DENOTES FOUND 518 IRON ROD \\\ L.(90.06. , / f, 'MP +` UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED \ cB:N 5S-4i 3dw CBS DENOTES CHORD BEARING \\\ 4 "P I..' NOTE, \ \ ALL LAND AREAS NOT OCCUPIED BY BUILDINGS N. 1 • OR UTILITIES EASEMENTS ARE GENERAL COMMON /" ��i ), W ELEMENTS 'h a r. o . rcl, \kt 00 14 7. 1�o� i• H,Is °- / Z b opt.�� -- (4-. 4.1 ems% �1 �,.• ' ,v .�/�%%/12621y � - N� .� - '_ eta •w�� � \ �� ` IR " p i • 44-V",:),..9-1,- — a, 0 - 3 ' 1 (� I -Z P� a) � `_ 1 ►` * i cz\ t 0::: /i\ "\ M'` ' \ (JY . • ,rf 66'22i/ ' / • o i . - z\ , o , Ki-A., ;t £Z.�L�S L113A ._) 0 8 Oi �\ \ ll 1 0 _r . 7J 1 All '�—`_ yYL �_� _________.b 62%if d t ppfc' 1 Ate• --,........s... \ ,/ ,� O �lv I f t,7 . 4 /1 H, is ! k cofo i -..-- '91,...-4',`-''.74 •,S 9£8$lin 1 o . rir � ' ii J. \ .. ' � ; I 6£ SQ " • 0 0 1 4o� I \ \ o_ ; 1 . ZB+1 �� II 1 Dow Columbia, Inc. "The Leader in Restoration Since 1952" cz, .-' • 4Vii',V ',. :441- ,.a - : :•." '•'. .- 3525 SE Divisioa St, Portland:OR 97202 - 1 pilre'LILIA MUM al (503)234-0363 o a www.Doweorumbia.corn a_ Main Level 21:1' 7 li. 13.6I I. 1 1 ,.. ____________iz•Er.___________I " b 1 Emergenc / Closet - y 1 1 1 , , id En -\ in I , 1' BedroOm ,-, C Hall ( _ 1 ‘—..' ---, . M ris — s• D _I 0 U e•••\. ..f ... . , ..., . "L-1: w- lcf, .__2•8-•—.. F in N k op / • - bz, NIS-.....\-141 c........ .111111, 6;k1 c .1_ r t -....... .... . li . ------)'1 11.------ —we' ---._. 1 i – Livin. ;.` -- —c• 1 _ V) ii --, . ., 1 .‘ , .t:,• . . . i . ........._ Li, . . .....• , • .. . ._... , . . . , ------ - 5.10..._____: I * % E . in ci cl .7j 0 0 r.,:p, --...... cm -•••._ ri ....t nCORL N -----.. age. 5 \.. ' c. • Numanogiu, Jessica From: phyflis harwood [bunny.harwood@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 11:29 AM To: Numanoglu, Jessica Subject: Oswego Summit project LU 13-0042 • Hi Jessica, and Design Reeview Committe, I am writing in regard to the forth-coming, huge project at Oswego Summit. The board would like to replace our wrought iron railings and decks thru out the grounds with glass or plexi-glass, and I would like to appeal this plan for the following reasons; 1. Wrought iron lets natural light and scenery in without looking through a wall of glass, makes one feel more connected with nature. We have beautiful trees that change with the seasons. 2. Glass/plexi glass becomes dirty from outdoor elements; gritty, mossy, etc. and needs to be hosed down or cleaned inn some manner to look good. 3. The wrought iron that is presently here is cut for all spaces and decks through out the complex. It would be an added expense and waste to replace all of it. 4. Wrought iron fits into our present old growth cedar shakes and tile roofs (which we are strongly battling to keep). 5. Libaries, museums, banks, hotels, high end neighborhoods (Dunthorpe, L.O.,NW Portland area) all use wrought iron for good reason, it looks much better than glass/plexi glass framed with a metal enclosure. Thank you so much for your time, energy, and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Phyllis Harwood , Oswego Summit #162 Bld.22 503 636 3555 EXHIBIT G-235 1 LU 13-0042 Planning and Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 RECEIVED 380"A"Ave. OCT 2 8 2013 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 City of I EikE, rOs &?3 Cornrruni 'r.•.nini�ry�n;11C rt. Oswego Summit Design Review, LU 13-0042 My name is Lloyd Kostow. 1 am an owner and resident at 179 Oswego Summit I purchased my condominium 33 years ago when it was new. I purchased my condominium because I liked the cedar siding and the red the roofs. We are being assessed a huge assessment for a rebuilding project that is neither necessary nor desirable. My assessment is $48,000,an amount that we will never get back in appreciation. Some of my friends and neighbors are frightened and are offering their places for sale at rock bottom prices. Other are seriously considering walking away since they will be under water. The so called'project'would consist of: -Removing and throwing away the cedar siding even though most of the siding is in good shape. New siding consisting of'hardyplanks'would be installed. -Removing and throwing away the red tiles from the roofs and replacing them with tarpaper shingles. -Removing and throwing away all windows,most of which have nothing wrong with them. -Removing and throwing away our metal railings and replacing them with cheap glass panels. We are being told by board members that these things are being required by the City of Lake Oswego. Can this be true? We paid a lot of money for these components and it is a terrible waste to just throw everything away. We recently found out that the architectural study that the board is depending on was not conducted by an architect,but by a young man who studied 'art history'. Clearly,the entire basis for the project scope of work is questionable. The board has consistently refused to listen to us owners and has refused to consider less costly alternatives that would retain our cedar shingles and our red tile roofs. We are being dictated to by a tyrannical board that is pursuing its own agenda without considering the costs or the results of this ill founded project EXHIBIT G-236 LU 13-0042 L D( nl Please help us. We do not want to sacrifice our unique and beautiful condominiums and end up with a place that looks like just another cheap hotel. Thank you for your consideration. !! Lloyd Kostow 179 Oswego Summit SPEAKING NOTES DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION HEARING RECEIVED City of Lake Oswego.Oregon OCT 2 8 2013 OCTOBER 28.2013 City of Lake Osw&go My name is Claudy Lynch. I live at#66 Oswego Summit. This is further to my le`ttUi RS5P 'fiifPt11P(30 Application to remodel every building at Oswego Summit which is the subject of this Hearing. My letter was reviewed and responded to in the Planning Department Staff Report of October 17, 2013. I wish to appeal to the Commissioners to pursue the recommendations made by the staff in this able report by the professional staff of the Planning Department of the City of Lake Oswego to disallow the replacement of certain key design and architectural features that were requested in the Application. I am aware that the staff is limited in the scope of its review, recommendations and decisions to disallow or set conditions of approval. It has to stay within the confines of the jurisdiction of the Design Review Commission to the applicable criteria that are affected by the requested modifications to the development permits involved. In that context, I wish to appeal to the Commissioners to consider in their deliberations the recommendations that were made by the staff to the Applicant,as reproduced on p. 9 of its report, to maintain the old growth cedar shingles,as opposed to replacing them with the horizontal hardiplank siding. The Staff Report states: "The (opponent's) letter references the pre-application report prepared by staff for the pre-application meeting held with the applicant in July 2013. Staff did note in that report that the existing wood shingle siding is a high quality and distinctive material that contributes to the character or the design and that the proposed horizontal lap siding would affect the quality and character of the existing buildings. While staff still believes this to be true and encouraged the Applicant to retain the existing siding or replace it with similar shingles,the criterion is not whether the proposed materials are comparable in design and quality to the existing materials, but whether the proposed materials are complementary in appearance to the surrounding structures of good design". As a result,the approval of the replacement siding is conditioned on the Applicant amending its original plan of application of the hardiplank siding by the addition of several features of trim and texture to try to retain the "character of the design",as well the distinctiveness and quality lost in the replacement of the original siding. In view of that fact, I would respectfully submit to the Commissioners that the weight of the disadvantages of replacing the now conforming, architecturally and design superior siding which clads this whole development and gives it its uniqueness tips the scales significantly in favor of conservation, rather than remodeling for the sake of remodeling to a different style. Oswego Summit in its Mediterranean villa beauty will be lost forever. Surely,within good design,there exists levels of quality and achievement of uniqueness and importance of conservation that can be considered as relevant criteria by the Design Review Commission of a city of such high standards and governance as the City of Lake Oswego. 1 EXHIBIT G-237 LU 13-0042 Pb,-7I e-S I would also respectfully apply the same argument and values to the replacement of the red roof tiles which are also an integral part of the design and uniqueness of Oswego Summit. The Planning Department staff recommends a different roofing material than the one proposed as a replacement by the Applicant.Again, as in the case with the lost qualities of the cedar wood shingles,the replacement material proposed is not up to par to what it replaces and significantly affects the"good design"of the buildings because there is a loss of"several distinct and highly visible roof elements, particularly on the cascading building type,that are important in the overall design aesthetic". The staff recommends a roofing application and materials that are closer to the original texture and shadow lines of the red tiles. In other words, recommends that the Applicant retrieve some of the lost features of the red tile roofs, by substituting better materials and design to those that are proposed in its request for modification of design permits. This design review decision involves all of the areas of roofing except for the flat roofs which are not subject to the criteria of design review-- in fact the only feature of the remodel that is unconditionally approved since the repairs make no design changes. Therefore,again,the scales weight heavily on the side of conservation rather than wholesale replacement with an "imitation" material that does not add to the design integrity of the development as it is, but subtracts and is again purely motivated by change of style and is equally inferior to what it destroys. As the Staff report tells it on p.4:"The opponent is correct that repairs to the building can be undertaken without the need for a formal design review if the same or substantially similar exterior materials are replaced. The determination of feasibility of repair with same or substantially similar materials is not a criterion. The applicant has proposed different exterior materials and to make modifications to decks and windows,which requires design review approval". The Staff recommends that the decks not be modified as proposed by the Applicant and the existing railings retained as well. As to the windows,the Report states on p. 16 item 4.under Note: "It is the applicant's responsibility to determine whether the development would be subject to any CC&R requirements and to obtain any additional approvals that may be required from the Mountain Park Homeowner's Association". Under the Oswego Summit CC&R,windows and doors are not part of the common elements, but are the responsibility and property of the unit owner. Therefore,their replacement is subject to homeowners'approval,which has not be requested, nor granted. In conclusion, I respectfully submit to the Commissioners that it could assess this Application from the point of view of the full interpretation of the protective responsibilities assigned to the Design Review Commission with regard to design integrity and community development standards,as well as conservation of those examples of good design already existing in our community. Consequently,it should condition further the remodel of all the buildings at Oswego Summit, by asking for the retention of the cedar wood siding and the red tile roofs. :)111-L4-- i ' Claudy Lynch October 28,2013 2 October 27, 2013 TO: Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Attention:Jessica Numanoglu, Senior Planner My name is Susan L. Wiese, and I live in Unit 110 at Oswego Summit. The Oswego Summit HOA Board is using the Lake Oswego Planning Department to help justify a larger project than is necessary thereby increasing the cost and putting many of my neighbors and myself in financial distress. A good example of this (and there are other good examples) is the Board is stating that their decision to replace all windows, no matter what their condition, is a requirement by the City of Lake Oswego Planning Department. This makes absolutely no sense. I do not believe that all of the windows and sliding glass doors throughout the complex need to be replaced. I moved to Oswego Summit in June of 2005. Shortly before I moved in,the Oswego Summit Board initiated a project for replacing windows and sliding glass doors. They directed, Clarice,the office manager at this time,to organize this project and get a group deal for interested owners to participate in purchasing new windows and sliding glass doors. The previous owners of my unit participated in this program; and therefore when I moved in, I had brand new Milgard windows and a Milgard sliding glass door. These Milgard windows and sliding glass door are still working fine—they're great—they're the best windows I've ever had, and I don't think they need to be replaced. And, I believe there are many other owners in the same situation. Respectfully Submitted, /(}/661--C- Ofr Susan L.Wiese Cc: Don Richards, Chair of Development Review Commission Kent Studebaker, Mayor of Lake Oswego EXHIBIT G-238 LU 13-0042 October 28, 2013 RE: File #LU 13-0042 Request of an exterior remodel of all buildings on DR 8-75 and DR 33-76 Applicant: Oswego Summit Homeowners Association Opponent: Rose Whitaker, Unit 112, Building 16 I am writing to you because of my concerns for the above mentioned proposal. I am strongly opposed to the need to remodel the all of the buildings in our project, the overall design and consequently the effect on the overall cost. I am very aware that this hearing is not about the repair or the cost, but about the design. The architects comments, "the project goal is to restore this community to a standard aesthetically comparable to the adjacent and neighboring project with Mt. Park." I have been a resident in Oswego Summit for over 30 years. While I am aware that Oswego Summit is in need of a number of repairs and deferred maintenance, I am unsure why we have the need to completely change the concept that was originally designed. The new materials that are proposed, take away the warm and interesting texture of our homes. The red tile roofs are one of the reasons Oswego Summit has become an Icon in Mt. Park. I don't believe the study has even addressed the foundation issues that could result from adding cement siding (Nardi-Plank) as adding tons of weight to each building. The redesign of the balconies using clear glass is another big stumbling block. Loosing our privacy to a re-designed glass, that does not fit in the Mt. Park concept for large apartments or condominiums. Most condominium balconies are closed to some degree for privacy, keeping the clean kept look of the community. EXHIBIT G-239 LU 13-0042 r I am also not in favor of the removal of the side windows in the stairwells and the removal of the side window to the kitchen. We will be going from a light and bright living experience to dark and depressing. I believe that the total new design of Oswego Summit should be reevaluated and rejected by the design review commission. It is possible to do the repairs and put it back to it original beauty and charm. Repair the envelope and put the same stamp back on. Thank you for your consideration. Rose Whitaker Unit 112, Oswego Summit Re: - File No.: LU 13-0042 Request for an exterior remodel of all the buildings on DR8-75 and DR33-76 Date of Public Hearing: Monday, October 28, 2013 Applicant: Homeowners Association Oswego Summit Opponent: Diane Norwood (POA for Peter & Margaret Norwood) owner of Unit 111, Building 16. To The Development Review Commission, I am writing to you about my concerns over the above mentioned request. Oswego Summit is definitely in need of repair. I am, however, strongly opposed to the "need" for an exterior remodel and design of the buildings and consequently the effect on overall cost. It has been a painful process seeing the Board "rolling over" this community and hearing statements such as "if you can't afford to live here then move". There have been many "heated" meetings over the months but this Hearing represents a more personal and emotional side for the homeowners. Indeed 214 people have purchased these condominiums because they like the design, layout and area and not because they have a desire to remodel. It is my opinion that 5 Board Members, an Architect and a construction company should not have the power to redesign anything. I am very aware that this hearing is not about the repair or costs but about design. The majority of owners agree to the repairs but the design is the main problem. In reference to the architects Addendum. "the project goal is to restore this community to a standard aesthetically comparable to the adjacent and neighboring structures within Mt. Park" (2.4 Addendum) and to the last paragraph in the Addendum, page 159, under 3.2 Development Standards. My response: Oswego Summit has been a part of my life since 1978 while a student at Lewis & Clark College. At that time, my boyfriend lived in building 10 and then purchase No. 111 in building 16. Our family then purchased that condominium many years ago. While in college I worked on a paper about Mt. Park for a sociology class. Mt. Park was a new concept in the United States at that time, combining residential, condominium and apartment living in one area so close to a major city. It was and still is a nationally recognized community situated within the City of Lake Oswego. This is something we are and should be proud of. Mr. Halvorson, seen by many as one of the top 10 influential Oregonians of the last century, had a vision of a community of planned conservation, marketed to middle and upper income families, where one could spend leisure hours in an atmosphere of relaxed, private, suburban living. Mt Sylvan became Mt. Park and his vision became reality. Colors and materials, predominantly wood, brick and natural components, were to blend into the natural landscape. His vision is still upheld in the Architectural Policies and Procedures of Lake Oswego and Mt. Park. EXHIBIT G-240 LU 13-0042 to S It is my opinion that the proposed redesign of Oswego Summit is only not necessary but also does not apply itself to the concept of the community. There were many buildings in Mt. Park that had red tiled roofs most have now lost their charm and been replaced with composition tiles or other materials. Eagle Crest has a new roof as does the Town Center both in a new component but both are still red. The Mt. Park Recreation center is now blue. The red tiles and the staggered balconies have given the Summit its rich look over the years. This look has lent itself to Oswego Summit becoming a known Icon within Lake Oswego and Mt. Park communities. Ask around you will find out! It is now the one and only building in the original Halvorson look for condominiums and "other" buildings. Why the European look? Let us remember that across the road, where church parking, Jefferson apartments and Summit Ridge are today, Mr. Halvorson had his vision of the Towne Center. A European "walking street" with retail and office space and up above apartments and condominiums designed with the same Phase 1 balconies and roof lines as Oswego Summit. The project was never completed due to the failure of two Portland banks. Perhaps it is time to think outside the box of Community Development Codes. Perhaps it is time to think about where this community has come from. Perhaps it is time to think and make a decision in respect and honor of Mr. Halvorson. It is fact, that the City of Lake Oswego was swayed by Halvorson's grand design and devised the FIRST Urban Planned Development Ordinance in the WHOLE of the United States. We, the homeowners of Oswego Summit, bear the name of the city that made history and here we are today to discuss an application to change the design of the Iconic Oswego Summit condominiums. We are now in a situation where the Oswego Summit Board of Directors together with an Architect want to change the visuals, the facade, of this complex. Oswego Summit without a doubt needs repair, the so called envelope. It is my opinion that everything under the exterior of the buildings can and should be repaired. Repair it with 21st century materials but put the exterior back as it is! A design change is NOT needed. Moreover, this complex has too much historical background to be tampered with. Addressing LOC 50.06.00n.6 ®esiign for Mu0.15-ffamully Devcallopmenti: All proposed materials and design are in compliance with code. The proposed materials and colors do fit into and are allowed in the surrounding area, according to code. S9iidlong - one must consider that horizontal lap siding in the area is preferred on smaller, single family homes and apartment buildings that have less area on building sides. The cedar shake sidings, that we have presently, give Oswego Summit a warm and interesting texture which is important in breaking up the large side areas of the buildings. Oswego Summit has few windows and no curves on the sides. Horizontal lap siding is surely not a feature that will increase the overall interest in design. Let's keep the cedar shake sidings. They can not be the reason to hinder the installation of a code compliant drainage system. 2 Roof Toles - This is one of the primary materials of buildings in close proximity. Let's keep them. These tiles are a main component of why Oswego Summit has become an ICON and well known in the community. Kick-out flashing can surely still be installed. As a Board member has stated "the tiles are dangerous and can hurt you when they fall off'. I say, control them like you would any roof, upkeep of property is the key and check out Europe. These tiles are predominant in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and Mediterranean countries. If they were a problem they wouldn't be widely used. If they hinder water proofing they wouldn't be used either. Let's stay with red tiles! Colors - looking at page 152 of the file, Western Architectural has presented an overall visual of Oswego Summit in approved earth tone colors. Approved yes but in this combination It appears that I will be going from owning an interesting, light, warm, natural toned European feeling condominium to owning, a dark hole completed by a group which couldn't decide which colors to use on which buildings. A dark Lego land? Perhaps my address has changed to an apartment or motel on Barbur Blvd, certainly not Lake Oswego. Why use diverse colors to make the buildings more interesting, use the correct materials. The adaption of so many colors being used differently on all the buildings does not fit into this community and does not lend itself to attracting high property values and middle- upper income people. The architectural impression generates words such as generic, army barracks, industrial and prison racing through my head. Keep the present materials and present colors which DO also comply with regulations Why discuss further? Quite frankly if I wanted to live in a red barn with white window frames surrounded by Lego land I would have moved to Barlow, Canby or somewhere else in the country! Balcoui1es - I am strongly opposed to the clear glass redesigned balconies. These lend themselves to a very junky Jefferson and McNary 4 way stop. Phase 2 of Oswego Summit already looks as such. Those railings should never have been approved. The One Jefferson Parkway apartments, I repeat apartments, also look junky. We are discussing here about a condominium community. The new proposed glass balconies do not fit in the Mt Park concept for large apartments or condominium units. They are balconies with no privacy and also take away an aspect of security. Moreover, in the summer months sparsely clad adults barbecuing and relaxing will perhaps give the impression that one is in the red light district of Amsterdam. Oh, and please don't bend over especially if you live near the Stop sign! Some single family residents nearby do have glass balconies. One home is not to be compared to 214 units side by side with clear glass balconies. It is a comparison of apples and oranges. Mt. Park condominium balconies are predominantly wood or concrete. Most condominium balconies are closed to some degree for privacy and for keeping the clean, kept look of the community. P asitoc Wh dows- I am neither for nor against white vinyl window frames. They are however predominant on cream or light grey homes within the area. I do however have to state where my problem lies, although not relevant under the code. It is that all windows in the community will be replaced, new or old. For 35 years, the responsible party for taking care of windows has been the owner of the unit. The Board has now decided otherwise. I am not in agreement of the removal of the side windows in stairwells. These add to the interesting building design that we have. If you think of the 3 proposed horizontal lap siding, removed side windows, add barn red and the other darker colors and black doors, the word boring is not really descriptive enough to describe the design. Our apartment is 111 in building 16, ground floor. Please reference page 70 right view. Note the color black for the door! Yes, boring and "difficult" if you are Jewish, Indian or Middle Eastern. More troublesome is the fact that the door shown doesn't exist where shown. My dining area window has been removed as well as the small window that I replaced the air conditioning unit with, this leaves my apartment with two windows, the bedroom and slider in the living area. It is also worth noting that my neighbor above has had her kitchen window removed and the side entrance to her balcony. The front view of the building lacks stairs on the left, the left view lacks two entrance ways, a door and three windows (not including the horizontal stairwell windows). As far as I am aware, the Board and architects have never discussed completely removing windows in the condominiums. If it is an oversight in the drawing, so be it. However, these are documents submitted for Planning Commission approval. I am therefore wondering what else will go wrong at a cost to us all of$7.3 million. It is for all the above mentioned reasons as well as supporting the letter written by a unit owner posted on your City website, that I believe that the total new design of Oswego Summit should be reevaluated and rejected by the Design Review Commission. This is the 21st century; it must be possible to do the necessary repairs and put the buildings back the way they are. Repair the envelope and put the same stamp back on. Let us be proud of the Halvorson legacy, and keep Oswego Summit looking as it is; An Icon in Lake Oswego and Mt. Park. Perhaps a little piece of history. Thank you Ckeni., —10 6 kw 0 A. Diane Norwood C10 ` 015 4 Building 16 right side •• iti - ' • ''- 1 . !i . , - • . ,,.4.• ..1.1 1 . . • --,6 4 t. 4.• , .. . I . .1„. 1,."4 • - '' •I • - . ! i r • " '•0.j •••"' .p ;-„ Ps • I; - ' • - ' -. . . 4 ,,,ki Id ,, ,h, •..it• \ . . . i • _ . t'A 4 .' , ;• '.:1;. ' .4 1110!‘ ”' :. ' OS- - ° ' a ''' .t.„ ' 1 ..• '., 1 '414' "r) • 4‘ - -, , ., . , . .: • . 41 • , , • 4' .'• i• " • -,,• ' -• ' , • , .a A . 4 ,..,1 j • • :f I , 4 , 1 1,-,, ' 1• .., , • ). k•:. ifPri' • • 41 ... . e-AW3 . -.. V P - . . • . . .4 - I - • • • oti ... 1, ..., -: ... ....:.. ...„. )inin, Room window :• . .. • - i ..- •; — x.s„, S • 1,--"irwl! `i!.• . ,.. - - ,-- • -,. • ... • -.. •.: 0.---- -.. . , ._ ..-- ,-- —-- --- • Mier. , . ., _ _ .... ___, _______- _-________ - . p;_ ,.• 111 bim i . .... I. lir° .. . .. , . .. . 1 .., . • 5 e f, . • . - ?lir 74,def ! f . . i , , ri,„4. . . • 1 ¢ •} , t / . I . II , •• .. , . , : • , , i 's f C i', ! I t ,,;f14, i I f 14 t • .w ..; A ' • i ', 411111111: i 471 ' r • 1 r oe , .. „ 1, 1, pp IR Com' ..� :,; • .,r 4 Letters received by November 4th Written comment deadline RECEIVED October 3o,2013 NOV 0 1. ?_013 City of Lake Oswego, Planning Division City of Lae Oswego Lake Oswego, r'OMM]in1N r).a�r lnnfli flt Daft. Oregon 97034 Lake Oswego Design Review Committee and Staff, I was very pleased to hear,and later read,the recommendations made by the LO staff at the public hearing October 28,2013 at the WEB on the Oswego Summit Homeowners Association{OSHOAI "request for approval of modification to approved Development Review Permits for an exterior remodel of all the buildings on the site." The OSHOA has come to you asking for you to review and approve the design for a one size fits all, assembly line project remodel. However,our residents and our physical living quarters are extremely variable.I am aware that there is only so much your committee can do.Any help you can provide in modifying the proposed design changes that are not suitable or complimentary to nearby structures is deeply appreciated.Staff has mentioned so far there is a need to keep stairway windows[does this include bridge way windows?I,privacy decks,plus more suitable railings and exterior materials. It was interesting to listen to my neighbors speak their minds about the proposed rehabilitation of our 25 buildings consisting of 214 units and 3 free standing garages.These California styled,cement tiled, old growth cedar shake sided buildings contain units varying in size from 612 to 1492 sq.ft. The placement of the buildings north,south,east offers views either of a direct street or valleys or mountains.The first were built as rentals in the early 19705&converted to condos in the late 19705 when a club house&additional buildings were added over a few years. The buildings are two to four stories tall,four with elevators,some on ground levet,some on steep slopes.Thirty of these units have enclosed decks no longer approvable by present LO regulations.Currently 25%of the units{54.I are rental units with owners scattered around the country.How in heavens name did we all get together? We all liked the woodsy looks of the place,the red tiles,cedar shakes,it felt like home. After reading the letters you received at the meeting you can see there is as great a diversity in residents lives as there are in their homes.Please keep in mind that the final vote taken a few weeks ago by the Board in order to obtain a$7+million loan for this project had 98 owners out of a potential 2.14 owners voting in favor of the loan.....75%voting and 6o%of that group approving.We are a split community.We want a repair project and a reasonable loan but so far have not found a meeting of the minds on some parts of the proposed project.We will get a loan.We will have repairs.Wilt we be another rather mindless assembly line project?Can we maintain our pleasing appearance while keeping sensible cost saving modifications made to the proposal? Residents are coming off of a$2+million assessment made 13 years ago. We are now facing a$7+ million assessment,allotted according to size$20,604 to$47,928 per unit to be paid back over 15 EXHIBIT G-244 LU 13-0042 2 pcq-s years.This does not include monthly dues that range between$t99 and$486 per month or MtPark dues. The thirteen intervening years,however well intended,in retrospect provided some maintenance mismanagement.By choosing as other condo associations did around the USA to keep dues low,they did piecemeal repairs&shunted window and slider replacement costs to owners.We are now in a tough situation with needed extensive repairs on beloved older buildings that are"not ordinary box like"structures. Residents of this site live within an assortment of unit sizes,locations,views offered,amenities, purchase price,years of ownership,income producing needs as well as financial capabilities.Thus our residents rarely speak with one voice,our homes/lives are so different. You did nor hear it at the meeting on the 28th but I know 98%of our residents agree that all of the flat housing roofs need to be replaced and the long needed and almost completely finished stair repairs and retrofitting of the inoperable elevator in one of our settling buildings was agreeably thought to have first priority on any funds available. I think it is 981', agreed that there are a number of buildings that need very extensive repairs right now,two of which you heard about at the meeting. Yet,the proposed building rehab is planned to proceed by building number,not by building repair need. assembly line thinking.. OS has been talking about needed repairs for three+years,have taken the bull by the horns and some how not quite gotten it right so far. The OSHOA By-Laws written in the r97o's gives total control to a 5 member Board,where majority rules,to make any and all decisions regarding the buildings without requiring resident input or approval.In our current situation that authority was gripped firmly and assorted residents have been struggling using different methods with limited success to have input regarding their particular concerns during the past 8 months.Your committee has been the last chance for residents to be heard expressing their suggestions for keeping the visual integrity of our complex while making needed repair changes. Some residents have given up,accepted there will be no changes to the project.A couple of residents have sold their homes to get away from the upheaval.Others are walking away because they can not afford the costs.Those of us still here desire harmony,affordability,a structurally safe place we like the looks of and want to come home to.We need repairs;however,the priorities,types and extent of changes needed are questioned.This committee can with it's broader,experienced,outsider views help us make some modifications to the proposal which will bring joy to many people on all sides of the table at Oswego Summit. Again,I agree with the LO staffs recommendations. Thanks for your work and assistance. Harriette Hyde,#78,Bldg F 11 2 RECEIVED /- NOV 1' 2013 L 13 -0 o L/ 7 City of Lake Oswego cpimunitY 9c-Vniont Dept. 0-6-(-21j t-z-410 ,5 J/7 ctj 0 dt-c2; ovr- (6-1",z,egc, Li'?in )4frac-41./ 4)\-72./X7' -Ata.--/- -2- on- /(/ - 22'- /3 (1,1yr-AL kfrz.,&//: enoi, /etc 9 , /6"--7-72- 6-c-7/ // Zn oct.7-rzi A / • ,c6Y - z,c//t.' , ti./.7 <11/ JAZ --.4E7Lot 4,7 .1-26),friTS dirta/L' e_c7-7-2_7)0.5" orifi ./7/2-ti Zit" ; —if /1?--zy.i ) /6:ta o•-• 6 n014-`77-t- / /G Pk; >-7, --11(1-14 66./e4 pty /Lt. tOCL/1-- EXHIBIT G•242 LU 13-0042 2_ WATS /2-t-/o1 :1-- "AL /72-6e7 1 (1 4 477 yezitc: 4a - my zyrty-7 &riti-ne"--zyi , 22 .4/ A / ; 1• : A—eit4-1.„ • cv , Ao7Q /t/ YZ,e-rt- AZ' Jr 471_, 4-A ( 6/2ó - ,e(akt, act-7( ) JILt Ci" Ay- 0 , 417 tnt;12-tae-75--1-7 e/Z4,--• 4,42 ./ttlt til 117/4/ t/CI <17 I I/ /147-4 ei/fe /06T-C- et; 41-04_ rr • l 7c,•"1&2---7- tkix_ il / /7i7OflL I; c 3 ( 5 55.5 Ms.Phyllis Harwood e `---1[ 162 Oswego Smt Lake Oswego,OR 97035 November 1, 2013 Manuel and Candice Soulakis 209 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 RECEIVED Planning and Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego,OR NOV 0 1 21N3 Ref: Case#LU 13-0042 City of Lake Oswego, Dear Design Review Committee Members Community Development Dept. Based on a Reserve of$17,000 with many needed repairs and few available resources,Oswego Summit is in very precarious financial condition. We believe the proposed complete cosmetic remodel of all the buildings including all common elements is an unaffordable wish list. For this reason we respectfully ask you to review and consider several recommendations as they pertain to the information included below. The Oswego Summit proposal Ref:#LU-0342 presented to you started as a sincere effort to make much needed exterior and interior repairs to several of our buildings that are in desperate need. Somewhere in the development process the project morphed into a major replacement of the exterior envelope of all 25 buildings. We are very much in favor of making all the truly needed repairs, but have major concerns that the project in its current form will not address many of the interior problems, leave homeowners with a major debt load, underfunded reserves,and either with many serious problems not fixed, or a much larger debt load than currently stated. We are aware that you are required to focus only on the aesthetics of the project and how proposed changes will complement the neighboring community. We do ask that you read the rest of our research and factor into your deliberations how it will impact Oswego Summit's current and future ability to maintain our complex in a manner that will continue to complement the rest of Mountain Park. We are hoping that your direction will help our Board to move forward with a revised project that is affordable and will truly repair our buildings to good condition while retaining their current charm. We are aware that you have received a massive amount of information about this project and thank you for taking the time and interest to review all of it and give all opinions serious consideration while making your determinations. Conclusion and Recommendations Sidin¢ Old growth cedar shakes are integral to the design of OS and should be retained with replacement of shakes where needed. Retaining old growth cedar siding would reduce the cost of the project by$1,000,000 or more. Long term, installation of the hardyplank lap siding will require scheduled repainting every 5—7 years. The cost of painting 25 large buildings would be very costly and a substantial increase in Oswego Summit maintenance costs at a critical time by causing major expenditure and a corresponding reduction in an already depleted Reserve. The proposed hardyplank lap siding is a drastic change and EXHIBIT G-243 LU 13-0042 I oct u e S � J will destroy the beauty and elegance that provide a Mediterranean natural charm. Cedar shakes provide a natural softened, attractive design that blends in with the autumn leaves, many tall trees and abundant foliage. Roof Tiles The DRC staff recommendation regarding using thicker architectural quality roof tiles that provide texture and shadow lines and more closely resemble the current tile is well taken. Its implementation should be given strong consideration. We also encourage a reexamination of the proposed gray roof tiles and consideration of a color more compatible with the cedar shakes. Railings Please follow the DRC staff recommendations to retain the current railings for the following reasons: 1. Retaining the current railings would save significant money that could be applied to other areas areas in real need of repair. 2. Railing posts are imbedded in 3"of concrete and removal would require jackhammer or sledge hammer which would cause considerable damage to these vulnerable suspended concrete decks. 3. Providing drainage at the bottom of solid deck enclosures would solve the drainage problem while retaining architectural integrity. 4. A glass railing system would require professional cleaning once or twice a year due to the height of the buildings and the cost would have a negative effect on restoration of the Reserve to required status. Doors and windows Many homeowners have recently replaced windows and doors at considerable expense. These windows and doors are bronzed to conform to Oswego Summit common elements. The color palette of One Jefferson Parkway,a neighboring condominium complex of good design, is very similar to that proposed for Oswego Summit. The windows and doors of One Jefferson Parkway are bronze. Yet The Oswego Summit proposal includes white trimmed windows and doors. We estimate over a million dollars could be saved by a minor design change to designate bronze trim for the common elements and designating reinstallation of serviceable element as currently done by the same contractor in another development. We encourage the planning board to make such a recommendation. Additional Research Su000rtine the Above Recommendations Interior Repair The proposed remodel of Oswego Summit includes not only the outer cladding but includes windows and doors. Urgent pleas from homeowners to address serious internal unit deficiencies are not included in the scope of $7,350,000 proposal. Questions regarding interior repair were answered by the Board in writing as follows: Question: Will interior damages from past water intrusion be repaired? Answer: When damage is identified through 1&E Construction on the interior of a unit,Western Architecture will be brought in to write a request for repair. The request will be brought to the Board of Directors for evaluation and approval. If approved,the work will be completed and will be charged against the Owner's Contingency from the overall project budget. Comment: In view of the dire need of some homeowners,we feel the borrowed$7,350,000 should be focused on correcting serious needs in those buildings in need of repair rather than a complete recladding of 25 buildings in a quest for dubious cosmetic improvement when most of the buildings require only routine maintenance, not a costly remodel. See Attachment A A/C Removal and Heat Pump Installation Alternatives Oswego Summit owners have been requested to remove all wall mounted A/C units. As a replacement, homeowners will be given the opportunity to purchase heat pumps mounted on an exterior concrete block. If the homeowner does not choose to purchase and install a heat pump, an option was offered of having the opening resulting from the removed A/C to be sealed with cladding or purchase a window at owner's expense and be installed by the contractor. The design effect of exterior heat pumps and any required piping is not included in the design graphics nor is the effect of random deck windows. If the owners do not choose to remove the A/C they must sign an acknowledgement of terms to be followed should they later decide to upgrade.Agreement to be recorded by the County on the unit's tax roll. Homeowner to pay recording fee. See Attachment B Western Architectural(WA)—2014 Reserve Study Results The board has presented homeowners with a reserve study by WA which appears to have several major flaws that raise concerns about the Board's ability to complete this project and to create and maintain adequate reserves for any future unexpected repairs or maintenance. WA states the reserve account balance currently (as of April 26, 2013)was in ideal financial position. "Ideal 100%+Funded" means the reserve fund is equal to, or exceeds the amount of money needed to maintain the development. Oswego Summit(OS)on April 26, 2013 advised WA that the reserve was$200,000. On October 28,2013, at the LU-0042 Public Hearing in response to a DRC question,WA testified that that the OS reserve actually was about$17,000 and that needed repairs to damaged units could not be made. It is noted that WA estimates expected project expenses to be$7,465,000 with another$250,000 due for costs from work permits and any mobilization costs if the project is not funded through a bank loan. It appears the Reserve level information may not be reliable and the the 2014 RESERVE STUDY projections on which the project is based do not provide accurate information on the ability of Oswego Summit to handle current repairs and maintenance in addition to a very large increase in indebtedness and an urgent need to restore the Reserve to adequate levels adequate to handle emergencies for a condominium complex as large as Oswego Summit. See Attachment C Letters of Support Presented at October 28 Public Hearing Letters of Support to the DRC do not show as large a base of support as appears at first glance. By DRC count there were 37 letters forwarded indicating support for the total remodel. On examination, 18 are the same form letter signed by 11 home owners, 1 renter and 6 persons living in the neighborhood near Oswego Summit. Of the 11 homeowners signing this form letter, 5 also submitted individually written letters. Several letters do not indicate whether the author is an owner or renter. The "straw vote"taken to gauge support for the project closed the day the 107 th yes vote was received. The remainder of the votes was not counted due to time constraints according to the Board. While 107 votes represented 61%of the votes received, it is only 50%of all units, if all votes were by owners. See Attachment D Sincerely, anuel / r. Candice Soulakis A•H c.c.kvmee + A ou§a3rni Tanks -n / 1 Page3 ' t-s t6 pari rte- ct Stiw enerto(3 kn,ecas\e' r 3reetings! I'd like to Owner Questions Continued. . . hank the Board for this )pportunity to serve contractors have that work As far as the Hardie Warranty •Repairs to the concrete his community during for Oswego Summit. is concerned, I would have to stairway on building 22 will his monumental do some investigation; be completed within Sixty A:All of the proper however, depending on the (60)days(07/07/2013). ;rossroad period. I insurance for contractors location and based on our lope to assist all in (plus some)was verified new design,a window should •Contractors will construct festoring not only the through our attorney be able to be replaced by a temporary staircase to )uildings to a healthy through the interview removing the window trim, provide two points of ;tate,but building process and will be on file in with little disruption to the egress, to be maintained ;ommunity ties and our system once contracts siding itself. If that is the during the duration of the rust are finalized.We have been case, it should bear little repairs of the stairway on in contact with our agent for impact on the warranty. But building 22. =or those who do not the association insurance to be clear, this would have to as well and will be be evaluated on a case by The City reserves the right mow me I have lived increasingcoverage to to issue the citation at$295 sere for 22 years. I've g case'(Justin Barnhart- dayupto ensure the association has Western Architectural). per $1000 per )een employed by the ample coverage for the day beginning the date of Dity of Portland for 33 amount of money that will 0: Can you disclose the the second inspection tears, beginning in the be processed through our interest rate on the loan that notice if Oswego Summit is 'olice Bureau, moving accounts for any loan we the HOA is seeking? not able to adhere to the obtain. A:Rate on the form is figured proposed schedule. '"' Service section of the at 4.56%, we hope to obtain a Q:Will interior damages Q: After the project is done lower interest rate. g 7. Nater Bureau and and someone wants to from past water intrusion k! ;ventually transferring change windows we hear Q: Is there an option to put be repaired (interior sheet o the Engineering the warranty will be voided money down at first and then rock)? Department 19 years and the owner will be pay off in a lump sum down ago. I currently responsible for any damage the line if we are able? ! A: When damage is if water intrusion comes. Is I A: Yes. I identified through 1&Eon supervise the i the interior of a unit &E the only ones that can )evelopment Review re-install window and Q: Do you also know if the : Western Architectural will ;ection overseeing thereby maintain the HOA loan will be tax be brought in to write a deductible in the same way and warranty on the Nardi- request for repair. This 'esidential plan review, plank? Or is there no way to that a mortgage payment request will be brought to and use actions, large change out windows and might be? the board of directors for ;pedal projects and keep any kind of warranty A: No, the loan and interest is evaluation and approval. p Hardi-plank? not tax deductible ifyou The work will be completed )iMac works projects. I on the j p I finance through the i and the funds will be ;it on appeal,design A:"If a window is removed association. charged against the 'eview and early from its original installation, j Owner's Contingency from assistance boards. I it typically voids the 0: Is the association under a ) the overall project budget. save also served on warranty. This is the case deadline to repair the stairs ion-profit boards. with the windows we on building 22 by the City of Q Are'Board, projector----- p proposed to install for this Lake Oswego? Work Session Meetings 'lease feel free to project. I can see any I/ open to non-homeowners? reason whya window would A: The City of Lake Oswego ntroduce yourself if will agree to delay fines to A:Meetings are for need to be removed once homeowners and their fou see me walking Oswego Summit HOA installed, unless it was registered agentsonl he two mini being replaced, making the regarding violation of OFC Tenants and Y schnauzers,Maggie1021.1,specifically repairs tofamily issue with warranty for the t concreeegress stairways and Mollie, around the window a non-issue, and on members not living at xoperty. I would love the new window should building 22 for 60 days as of Oswego Summit are not :o meet you and hear carry a new warranty. It is 5/08/2013, if the association ,allowed unless prior that the complies with the following approval is obtained. four comments. proposed stipulations: Request for non-owner association adopt window attendance can be made -Mari Moore-Added replacement guidelines •Oswego Summit will have through the office prior to :o the Board of upon completion of the hired a contractor and the the meeting;other agents Directors 6/12/13 to project and give I& E contractor will be mobilized are required to be fullfill term of Rourke Construction first right of and on site within Thirty(30) registered on owner Lowe(Term ends refusal to replace the days(06/07/2013)to begin occupancy forms. windows, as means to allow construction. 2015) them to protect their work. f � I fl , �.a0.s mc..."-„.kg, 'I-a 0.11 hOinto cc,Ito r-s 5?nhnto1.3 Ductless Heat Pumps Q& A The"Big Project"that will begin shortly includes the removal of the cedar shake siding and the installation of HardiPlank siding for all the buildings. HardiPlank carries a limited 30 year warranty. To ensure the warranty is not voided by wall penetrations after installation retro-fitting a ductless heat system after the project is strongly discouraged. First and foremost,ductless heat pumps are outside the scope of the project. Homeowners are responsible for all costs associated with the purchase and installation of ductless units. Should homeowners elect installation after the project they will be responsible for fully restoring the area to standards specified by Western Architecture. Work would include the contracting with WA to oversee the project. Homeowners are responsible for insulating area,all material and permit costs and any fees WA and Oswego Summit staff fees for work directly related to your project. What are your air conditioner options? • Retain the a/c unit. The a/c unit will be removed while your building is sided and reinstalled. Homeowners selecting this option will,more than likely,have to sign an acknowledgement of the terms to be followed should they decide to upgrade at a later date. Agreement to be recorded by the county on your unit's tax roll. Homeowner to pay recording fee. • Remove the a/c unit. You can choose to dispose the unit yourself or have the Contractor dispose of it. The opening will either be repaired,along with your inside wall(paint on you)or you may purchase a window(per the project specs)to be installed by the Contractor. • Remove the a/c unit and replace with a ductless heat pump. Our Contractor will still remove and repair the opening where your current a/c unit is installed. The HVAC Contractor will work with our contractor to install the units at the same time the siding goes up. Remember,these ductless units both cool and heat. While our Contractor will repair the space for the a/c they will not remove your current baseboard or cadet-style heaters. Why go ductless? Why now? • Ductless systems are energy efficient,they will save you 25—35%on your heating and cooling bill. • The rebates offered by the Oregon Energy Trust and PGE,along with the discounted cost for buying in bulk make this the time to install. • No need to worry about the cost to repair siding in the future should you elect to retro fit after the project. • These units are a proven safe,quite,efficient and dependable source for climate control in your home. They have been used worldwide for over 30 years. • Vendor is offering financing; 12-month,same as cash or longer terms for 10.9%financing(OAC). • By 2020 the current freon used in air conditioning units will be unavailable,therefore you will be unable to recharge your unit. By 2030 any use of the current freon will be against the law. For more information on freon see http://www.allqualityair.com/aqaservices/freon-law/ For more information see: http://www.energvstar.aovv/index.cfm?fuseaction=find a product.showProductGroup&paw code=MS ... .w;',' interested o: nay'_ aodd trona Lues"tons "i"'. ease contact s-an , icorca (ort `` Gid 50..:3-7±-s-0557 or email as blair(Wnotnow.com A �s. kw11/4,2v-i- a -pa- e_ Print Page 2 of 2 Default options for surveys not returned by July I5, 2013: Frosted Glass Panels on Decks,AC Units will be re-set if present,Financing assessment through the association Air Conditioners: 01 have un AC unit and 1 want to keep it' 'I understand that I will be responsible for any damages to the building envelope that may occur resulting from failure or removal of my AC unit.All expenses resulting from repair or future removal inclusive of permits,materials,engineering and inspections will be the owner's sole responsibility.This document will be kept in owner's file.Disclosure of this information to future owners is required.A document will be provided at your building meeting for your signature. Initial Required X 1 have an AC unit and want to replace it with siding (you will be left with a paint-ready indoor wall) 01 do not hove an AC unit DI hove an AC unit & want to replace it with a window Approx. $250 depending on size. Cost of window is in addition to the special assessment.Money due I week prior to individual installation. Heat Pump: 01 went a block for odding a hear pump in the future$250/per block.Duel week after building meeting 01 wont to install a heat pump as part of the project. If you have not scheduled an appointment with Able Heating&Cooling Please contact Mari Moore to schedule an appointment at blairr�notnow.com or 503-260-7027 X I do not wont a heat pump Communication munication Provider My television service is through_Digital antenna My interned service is through hot spot on cell phone My home telephone service is through n/a .Cell phone service provider not needed Any current wiring for telephone or cable service should be retained for future use. Deck Panel ❑ FROSTED GLASS X CLEAR GLASS *SECOND CHOICE, PLEASE SEE NOTES ABOVE https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?retry_ss1=1 6/29/2013 -H QG k ivI n1 I --p0.ye 12,014 RESERVE STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY !Association Information: Management Service: Reserve Study Preparer: Oswego Summit Home Owner's Association Oswego Summit Home Owners Association Western Architectural Board President Charity Porter Justin Barnhart CAI-RS.240 215 Oswego Summit Dr 215 Oswego Summit Dr 10200 SW Greenbury Rd,Suite 750 Lake Oswego,Oregon Lake Oswego,Oregon Portland,OR 97223 Washington County 503.635.4000 503.297.0665 email: Of lice@osweoosummitorq justin@westernarchilecturaicom ID'eeyeks3lmstent C Gsw'apti on J Oswego Summit Home Ownert Association is a multi-family development located in Mountain Park,a master planned community within Lake Oswego, Oregon.The development sits a top a hid overlooking the Willamette Valley.A clubhouse and pool are located centrally within the property,with private streets providing access to parking surrounding the residential buildings. Number of Residential Units: 214 Number of Buildings: 25 Year Constructed: Phase I 1977 Phase II 1978 Note:This plan assumes a full-Re-Clad of the exterior building envelope(for all buildings) in the year 2013 Fre-Study Reserve Fund Status Fiscal Year End December 31 Fiscal Year Begin January 1 Current Reserve Allocation (Annually) $198,595 Current Reserve Allocation (Monthly per Unit) $77.33 Staffing Reserve Account Balance $200,000 Financial Information Provided: 4/26/2013 'Assam ended Reserve Contdbutabns The Cash-flow Method was used in determining our recommendation,also called the"Minimum Reserve Contribution°.This factor is shown as an"Annual Contribution°by the Association and as a°Monthly Contribution"by the Individual Association member. Typically,we target a"Funding Percentage"level between 70%100%.Of course all associations are different,so we try to consider as many factors as possible when making this recommendation.This Study is founded on the principal that the Minimum Reserve Contribution increases by 3%annually to keep up with inflation Interest Rate Earned on Reserve Account 0.10% Recommended Minimum Reserve Contribution (Annually) $225,000 Minimum Reserve Contribution (Monthly per Unit) $87.62 Estimated Expenditures over 30 years $8,674,924 Estimated Reserve Contributions (factoring interest earned) over 30 Years $11,175,180 Nolo We me recommending a$26,405 increase from the previous year in the reserve contributions annually;however,because we are basing this recommendation on a full replacemem of the exterior building envelope,we anticipate considerable reduction in the annual operating expenses,which have included several hundred thousand dollars annually,for temporary repairs.For this mason we anticipate this Rehab Project to result in a net reduction in overall expenses for this association. 15-Year Fund.ng Pn ecte©AAs _ I Fiscal Year I Recommended Reserve Recommended Monthly) Reserve Contributions Projected Year End Anticipated Funding Contributions Reserve Contributions Per Unit/Per Month Balance Percentage 2014 I $225,000.00 I $18,750.00 I $87.62 I $425,425.00 I 39% 2015 I $231,660.00 I $19,305.00 I $90.21 I $656,948.50 I 50% 2016 I $238,517.14 I 519,876.43 I $92.88 I $893,103.41 I 59% : 2017 I $245,577.24 I $20,464.77 I $95.63 I $1,104,016.61 I 63% 2018 I 5252.846.33 I $21,070.53 I $98.46 I $1,306,423.34 1 67% A Wa c..4\ me-f^-1- C Current Reserve Fund Status 10%-30%Funded 31%-69%Funded 70%-99%Funded 100%+Funded The reserve account balance is is a weak financial position. is a taw nnanciai position.is a strong financial is an ideal nnancisi Reserve accounts which fall into The majority of reserve position. This position position. This means currently in a Ideal financial this category are subject to accounts are within this indicates a near- the reserve account is position. This condition indicates weal&assessment charges and range. Special adequate reserve equal to,or exceeds, .. deferred maintenance which may assessments probably account balance and the amount of money harmthe property value and won't occur in this special assessments needed to maintain the I�` that in 2014,reserves are currently sufficient;however, building performance. If the position;however, are likely to be omitted development A 100% ���. contributions should be reserve account is in this position, improvements should be in this category. Efforts or more funding status �►, immediate action should be taken made to the reserve should be taken to does not necessarily increased to meet future to improve the reserve account account to stabilize the maintain this level of indicate halting reserve financial needs. balance. balance• status of the reserve contributions. This account funding status indicates the reserve account balance is adequate,as intended. ,Economic Variables Economic variables such as inflation of goods and services are factored into the estimated future replacement costs of common components,using historical data provided by www.lnflationdata.com.Inflation is compounded over the 30-year period to give an accurate portrait of what costs may look like over the 30 years.Using historical data allows us to forecast a fairly accurate 30-year cost analysis.Actual prices should be adjusted annually,using the current RS-Means Facilities Construction Cost Data guide,in order to provide the most up to date cost analysis.Updating your Reserve Study annually is important and will help to prevent large fluctuation in Recommended Annual Contributions. Projected Annual Inflation(%) Based on inflation history 2002-2012 by www.inflationdata.com 2.96% Reserve Account Interest Rate 0.10% The purpose of the Economic Variables section is to identify estimates of inflation and interest rates based on relative history of these figures. Inflation and interest rates are subject to change and may not reflect the actual future rates. N@$ESERVE STUDY METHODS .. ................ ... . . . .. . ELEMENTS OF THIS RESERVE STUDY The on site inspection of this development was performed on April 26,2013.A visual inspection was made of all Common Element Components and documented by way of an Inventory List as well as by Photo.This Reserve Study Report is based upon the findings of those inspections. This Reserve Study shall include the following elements: 1. Preparation of Major Common Elements Components Inventory 2.Assess Component Condition based upon an on-site visual observation 3.Assess the Use Life,Remaining Use Life and Valuation Estimates of Repair or Replacement 4.Test the Current fund Status and other Funding Methods 5.Develop and recommend a practical Funding Plan This Study addresses the normal deterioration of properly constructed and installed components with a predictable life expectancy. Our criteria to determine major components was: 1.The component was a Common Element 2.The component or sub-component had a Use Life of one(1)year or more The following Components types are typically excluded from this report as their use-life cannot be determined due to lack of accessibility without"destructive"Investigation methods implemented. If any of these items are of concem to the association,or would like to have them included,please notify us so that we can determine the best way to assess the condition of these components: 1.In wall or underground plumbing,fittings and valves 2. In wall or underground electrical wiring 3.Electrical meter/breaker panels 4.Telephone lines and junction boxes 5. Environmental hazards,(radon,asbestos,etc.) 6.Mechanical systems and equipment that are inaccessible The Replacement Cost Projections are based on current"estimated"replacement costs,using the RS Means Facilities Construction Data book as well as Bid Documents and other recourses available in this office.We project future costs by applying the annual inflation rate fisted above.We do this as a way to budget for future costs;however,we have no way of predicting future market fluctuations that may cause the costs of goods and services to change. -pckgrt „r E Assessment & Loan Information September 4, 2013 Dear Homeowner: We are pleased to announce the Association has received a conditional offer from a lender to fund the full amount of the upcoming major repair project. The requested loan amount of$7.5 million was based on a comprehensive project budget containing all potential costs and professional fees, contingencies and estimated expenses. Obtaining this loan will enable: • Owners to make monthly payments against their share of the repair project cost. • The loan will be re-amortized annually as well as at the Association's request to pre-pay without penalty. • The loan is structured as a non-revolving line of credit until construction is completed and all costs and expenses are known. Whatever amount is actually spent will become the 15 year term loan amount. • The term loan rate will be finalized when the line of credit converts at the end of the project. The rate will be tied to a pre-defined index with a floor. The current estimated rate is 5.0%. • When the project is completed, each unit owners account will be reconciled and adjusted based on the actual cost of the project. There are 2 main requirements the Association must meet before the loan can close: 1. Although the Association's governing documents do not require a vote to approve the project, the assessment for the project, or the loan, the lender is requesting an approval vote from the owners to ensure the community supports the project. The current requirement is 75% of the owners must vote and 75% of all votes must be in favor. This vote may be done in person or by proxy via email, online, mail or another homeowner. 2. The Association must establish a bank controlled account with approximately 6 months of principal and interest payments, approximately $350,000. This account must be funded before the loan closes which will require the implementation of the special assessment. This account will be separate from the Reserve Funds, but will be classified as Reserve Funds. The amount will reduce proportionally along with the loan paydown. The Association will earn interest on this account. The Association's future Reserve Fund account will be reviewed as part of the overall financial plan going forward once the project is completed. If the work is completed and an HOA loan is in place, the current monthly dues structure will be more than adequate to meet future operating needs as well as make appropriate reserve fund contributions. There is a chance we will be able to reduce our monthly dues if the project comes in under budget leaving our reserve account over funded. 1 Oswego Summit Condos 1215 Oswego Summit I Lake Oswego I OR I 97035 A+1-0,cRIn12hi m Assessment & Loan Information What happens if the Association doesn't vote for the proiect, loan and assessment? • The Association will not qualify for an HOA loan and each unit owner will need to find their own source of financing or pay their share of the assessment out of their pocket. • A $1,000 special assessment per unit will be due immediately to pay existing invoices for work done to date on the project. • The repair project will be put on hold and our buildings will continue to leak and deteriorate. • The cost of repairing the project in the future will be greater than it is now. • The Association may never re-qualify for an HOA loan and if we did, the cost of financing will likely increase over time. • This vote is separate from the recall effort and put forth as a condition by the bank. Please vote yes on all three votes below. This vote is required in order to complete the loan approval and start the repair project. You may vote in person, by mail, email, or fax. The "project" is the scope of repair defined within the construction contract, loan request documents and all estimates and budgets provided by the Association Board of Directors. VOTE #1 Proceed with the rehabilitative construction project: YES NO VOTE #2 Secure an HOA loan to cover the cost of the project: YES NO VOTE #3 Implement a special assessment to cover the cost of the project: YES NO Unit Number If there are two or more persons or entities that own a unit,a designee between the owners must be chosen between owners and only one vote will be recorded per unit. Last Name First Name Signature: Date: By submitting this form I agree that I am the legal owner or partial owner of the Unit recorded above at Oswego Summit Condominiums and agree that my proxy vote will be documented as the proxy holder dictates. I understand that this proxy supersedes any and all prior proxies. Submitting another properly executed proxy with a later date or by voting in person at a later date may supersede this proxy. 2 ti Oswego Summit Condos 1215 Oswego Summit 1Lake Oswego 1 OR 97035 RECEIVED FOLLOW UP EVIDENCE NOV a4 7013 IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION LU 13-0042 City of Lake Oswego AFTER HEARING OF OCTOBER 28, 2013 Community C +el wnre Coa OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON October 30, 2013 OVERVIEW After listening to the presentations of the Applicant and the proponents of Application LU 13-0042 and those of the opponents, as well as the exchanges between commissioners and presenters, between staff and the commissioners, I am more steadfast than ever in my position that the Design Review Commission should disallow the modifications of DR 8-75 and DR 33-76. I believe that as a result, so far, of the examination and consideration of this Application, by the staff before and at the Hearing of October 28, 2013 and the recommendations that staff has already put before the Commissioners, as well as what the Commissioners heard at the Hearing, we can reasonably summarize the status of the Application as follows: WHAT IS LEFT OF "THE APPLICATION ' unconditionally afzurovable: 1. The Applicant can fix the flat roofs. WHAT IS LEFT OF "THE APPLICATION" with conditions: 1. The Siding Can replace cedar wood shingle siding if"lap siding expanse is properly broken up with belly bands and trim at the building corners and around doors and windows in contrasting colors... and if each building is painted two contrasting colors or tones, along with trim, to further break up expanses of siding... and if the color palettes of the buildings are alternated in older to provide more visual interest". In other words, the Applicant takes measures to retain more of the "character of the design", as well the distinctiveness and quality lost in the replacement of the original siding. In fact, in its pre-application report of July 25, 2013, p. 3, staff had stated that: "The wood shingles are high quality materials that contribute to the distinct character of the buildings and create o visually engaging facade and are on important aspect of the overall design. 1 EXHIBIT G-244 LU 13-0042 Replacement of the shingles with horizontal siding significantly affects the quality and character of the design. The lap siding lacks the texture and visual interest that the wood shingles provide. if it is necessary to replace the siding, consider utilizing a combination of lap siding and wood shingles to provide texture and to break up large expanses of siding material (for instance where there ore bay windows or other breaks in the facade). Then, in its October 17, 2013 staff confirms this note about encouraging retention because of the design superiority of the cedar wood siding and the fact that "rhe proposed horizontal lap siding would affect the quality and character of the existing buildings". It adds in the report that "...staff still believes this to be true and encouraged the applicant to retain the existing siding or replace it with similar shingles". While it is also true that it responded with allowing the above noted modification to the replacement siding proposed by the Applicant, it did so because it accepted the rationale given by the Applicant that the decision nor to retain the cedar siding was based on the fact that the whole siding was past its life use. This remains an unproven claim and is hotly challenged by owner opponents. They, contrary to the Applicant, have supported their surmise with proof and opinions from experts and from their own experiences and reality. The Applicant has in fact refused to consider the expert evidence and testimonies and realities of the opponent owners'living experience. These are opinions from experts who are credentialed with much higher professional training and experience in the repair of vintage buildings and water leak problems than the Applicant and its 'team". Opponents have testified and reached out to experts that confirmed that their building locks any such terminal deterioration or leak problems coming from the condition of their siding. On the contrary, the pictorial evidence as well as visual realities tell a very different story. It is also true that the Applicant has not provided any documented proof of what it alleges. In fact it has refused to consider doing the necessary inventory and professional building by building mapping and tests required to support this "death sentence-pronounced on the overall original desian of Oswego Summit on that basis. 2. The Red Roof Tiles Can replace the red tile roofing, but with better material than the asphalt shingles proposed in the Project. Because the proposed replacement is: "not complementary to the appearance of the roof materials utilized on the adjacent structure of good design because the shingles are not of similar thickness or bulk to create the shadow lines and textures of the root materials on the adjacent structures. Though the existing buildings on the site are primarily flat-roofed,there are several distinct and highly visible roof elements, particularly on the cascading building type, that are important in the overall design aesthetic' , as the staff recommends in its October 17 Report and repeated at the Hearing. in other words, again, if the Applicant takes measures to retain more of the "character of good design"of the "universe'around Oswego Summit, as 2 well as retrieves the distinctiveness and quality fon in the replacement of the original red roof tiles. The roof tiles, as is the case for the shingles, do not need wholesale replacement and are rota main source of the leaks --- the flat roofs and clogged drainage system in need of regular maintenance are (See 6. Drainage, an p. 6, below). 3. The Windows The windows and doors could be replaced and white can be used. However, under 4. on page 16 of the October 17 Report, the staff cautions: it is the applicant's responsibility to determine whether the "development' would be subject to any CC&R requirements and to obtain any additional approvals that !nay be required from the Mountain Park Homeowners' Association. Under the Declaration and long-existing governance and by-laws at Oswego Summit, windows and doors are the responsibility of the Homeowners. Therefore, either a ruling or a change to the by-law is needed to go ahead with changing the windows and doors. If the by-law prevails, there will be a need for a vote by the Homeowners to change the windows and doors. As of the date of the submission of this Application, and its review by staff,followed by the above-mentioned caution, these by-laws were on the books in their original form. No vote has been requested of the owners about the windows. Their wholesale replacement is also hotly contested by a very large number of owners on the basis of their design value, but most particularly by those that have recently replaced their windows and doors at great cost to them personally. Moreover, there has never been a stand-alone, statutory, completely informed, clear, untampered, or compromised, or appropriately documented, fact-supported clear vote on this project of remodel. A voting exercise was initiated purportedly to secure a loan from a bank to finance the whole project to the tune of a 'draft" only estimate of$7.5 million dollars based on the Application before the Commission. It appeared just before the community was about to carry out a statutory Recall in an effort to restore order and good governance to the Oswego Summit Homeowners Association affairs. The "ballot" never asked the required clear statutory question: do you approve of"the Project", or defined it. Owners have found more about the Project during this Design Review process than when the idea was introduced of replacing the Oswego Summit we know with the `universe" that would emerge after remodel and redevelopment. The voting exercise was never completed after the Recall vote succeeded only partially by removing 2 of the 5 Board members, leaving in place the 3 remaining proponents of this Application. Even on the eve of the vote, the vote was said not to be a vote any longer, but a survey, then a poll that did not require the statutory 75% approval. Then, when the lender that was being courted failed to offer a loan, a new lender was found, the bar of the required 75% of yes votes lowered to the purported level required by this lender. The voting process was 3 summarily dosed and it was declared that the required 60% had been received in approval of "the Project" —the amount and name of the lender remaining still undefined or the loan finalized. White is `consistent", as the staff report of October 77 states, with the replacement siding which fundamentally changes the architectural uniqueness and quality of the building design. So were the existing bronze windows "consistent" with the original and existing good design of the original that was approved under DR 8-75 and DR 33-76. As stated above, staff recommends retention of several of the essential 'features of the design'in order not to lose essential 'elements of good design'displayed by the original. It hos conditioned or recommended disallowance of major features of this remodel in an attempt to recover or maintain the integrity of what would otherwise be lost forever of the original approved design and character of Oswego Summit in the requested remodel or what is in fact total redevelopment. The windows and doors are a fundamental design feature, as well as one of good design from the point of view of the quality and functionality of the building in terms of illumination of the interior with day light Moreover, using white windows necessitates painting the existing gutters (which are to he retained according to the Applicant) to make them match the white of the windows. In other words, the replacement of the original bronze colored windows leads farther away from the original character and good design requisites and requires adjustment to what is replaced to restore some of the harmony of the original design. What we are looking at here is an attempt to "unring" the tolling bell of needless change. Removal of Windows on Left and Right Profiles—Ali of Phase I In reviewing the elevation drawings provided by the Applicant, i noted the disappearance of numerous side windows that open into the dining areas and kitchen and front hallways of the units of buildings 1—21 of Phase I. While the planned deletions of the stairwells window are marked on the elevation drawings as "deleted windows", (staff has recommended the retention of those windows for reasons of good design in breaking up great areas of proposed hardiplank walls), the deietion of the 5 or 6 windows on the profiles of building 9, for example, are not, as well as on several of the other buildings. The front door of my unit#66 is also missing on the drawing; only the entrance to the utility room is marked, while the dining room window has disappeared.The results are not only damaging from the point of view of good design, but reduces the source of day light to one source, one wail, one face of the buildings and totally eliminate cross ventilation. Functionality and quality of life are also part of good design. if this is intended, it must be stopped. if this is a sloppy omission, then the drawings (Exhibit E-5) have to be corrected. One owner opponent pointed out the omission of her windows at the Hearing of October 28, 2013. 4 4. The Economics Argument The need to paint and maintain the existing gutter to match these unsuitable windows introduces an additional maintenance burden and reduces the time span when ail will be at its best visually and functionally. This factor points to the doubtful economics rational to do this wholesale 'remodeling' instead of targeting repairs to troubled buildings and spots.This is not a concern of the Commission, of course, as was pointed out at the Hearing, but the Applicant has made a plea on the basis of crisis and economics in its rebuttal to the opponents' testimonies— it has in fact pleaded for the "need' for approval -- including for an early start of this Design Review, citing lack of funds to do repairs and the fact that it will not/cannot consider any other approach than wholesale remodel of the kind submitted. if the Commission considers these factors as put forth by the Applicant in its rebuttal, it will equally have to consider them in this "broader role" introduced by the Applicant. The proponent is requesting that the Commission's mandate as a guardian of good design and community development standards in Lake Oswego be extended to economic concerns and the business case of redevelopment or Applicant. The Applicant is now pleading with the Commission in economic and crisis terms. It asks to allow it to carry on a total remodel of a perfectly functional complex of good sound design that is merely in need of long neglected repairs,conservation and professional maintenance, as well as good governance in terms of its finances and the real priorities of the homeowners. This is not Oswego Summit"politics" talking, but the need for the Applicant to exercise its fiduciary esponsibilities in terms of the priorities cf ail the homeowners, instead of its own narrow interests. I respectfully submit that the Commission will stray from its mandate, responsibilities and decision criteria related to design and land use in the City of Lake Oswego by accepting what is a purely economic and "business"-based and situational management argument, Instead of working for a real solution to real problems at Oswego Sumn it, the Applicant has instead pleaded with the City of Lake Oswego that it was not in a financial position to retain the cedar siding, while telling homeowners at Oswego Summit that the City of Lake Oswego Planning Department insisted that "all buildings be clad the same" therefore, it was forced to do a wholesale replacement of the siding with the cheaper and less desirable cement lap siding. On that premise now rest all the other changes with regard to windows, roofing, deck remodel and destruction of basic good design features, some of which the staff has already recommended disallowance for, while for the siding and roofing it has put the Commission on the now slippery slope of approval of compromises based on the narrow interpretation of the "complementary", compatible and consistent criteria. In other words, it does not make good design sense to modify an existing development on the basis of the economics of the remodel approach with its maintenance cost saving goal, while introducing new maintenance and cost requirements, as well as materials with a shorter 5 longevity than what is replaced. Particularly since the original is more desirable than the replacement . What makes good design sense arid is considered desirable under the criteria of the Design Review regulations should not be modified or removed on the excuse that Oswego Summit is short of funds and needs to reduce its maintenance budget, while replacing or weakening good design and then reintroducing high maintenance costs and having to increase the cost of its replacement materials (and the cost of the proposed project) because they do not conform to the original design or the regulations of good design of the City of Lake Oswego. This is a vicious circle producing an absurd and inefficient use of resources. In economic terms, an exercise needs to be done to see what the costs and so-called savings now look like, if all those changes are required to the original costs of the Project. The Applicant can't have it both ways —either it is making an appeal on purely economic terms for the Commission to allow the changes as it is proposing, or it ignores the equally cogent economic argument that with all the changes that need to be done to its Application and the loss of its control over the total remodel plan, this Project does not make economic sense as it never did before, with or without required modifications. This Project is ill-designed to begin with— it proposes design changes that are not acceptable and are needless and destructive, while not addressing the real repair needs of Oswego Summit. The economics of the Project are basically unsound. 5. if the redesign project goes ahead, the added glass enclosures will have to be taken off the decks and not be replaced. But this is not required otherwise. The enclosures are to be removed in the process of remodeling the decks. Since staff recommends disallowance of the kind of railing that the Project was going to put in,for Phase il, and the old enclosed decks are to stay for Phase I, there is no reason (economics or remodel-driven), to remove the enclosures. Consequently, the remodel "package"approach and motivation has been interfered with by the need to respect design criteria and the "complementary"factor which lead to disallowing the deck remodels with new railings, The City Planning Department finds it desirable to remove those enclosures that they report were not vetted by them before Buildings permits were granted to erect them. The Applicant saw an opportunity to propose their removal as an incentive to get its application for a total remodel of all of the buildings approved on the basis of"code" corrections. 6. The Drainage System (LOC 50.06.006.30 In its Report of October 17, 2013, staff states: "This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely affect neighboring properties. The proposed development consists of an exterior remodel that does not result in an increase in the building toot print or height.The Applicant states that the development does not involve the 6 alteration of any existing drainage pattern or modifications to the existing stormwater management on the site (Exhibit F2)." Then it responds to my letter in opposition by pointing out that my objection to the remodel of the railings and decks which are involved with the drainage of rainwater from the back of the buildings saying that: "This standard is met if it is shown that any change in sheetflow will not adversely affect neighboring properties." and "The objector does not contend that the sheetflow will exit the site. There is adequate pervious area out from the buildings towards any neighboring properties so that any downspout drainage that is not captured in the building drainage system will be absorbed into the ground, and thus no adverse effect upon neighboring properties is found. Compliance with Building Code requirements related to the building drainage system will be reviewed at the time of building permit application." in fact, the development does involve the alteration of the existing drainage patterns. The existing system which will be retained is already dysfunctional as to its capacity to "capture any additional sheetflow"and the "pervious area out from the buildings"is inadequate already, before the alteration. The increased sheetflow will not be absorbed into the ground. The "pervious area"behind my building row and that of the buildings backing on McNary Parkway and the McNary Highlanders condominiums is plagued with drainage and erosion issues. Water has saturated the ground(which has settled lower and lower over time)to sponginess and marsh conditions. There are long-term leaks from the dysfunctional irrigation and drainage pipe system which have caused water penetration into and compromised the foundation of the first building erected in the first row of the Oswego Summit complex, as well as its retaining soil and wall along McNary Parkway. The owner of the unit on the ground floor of that building can provide the Commission with documented proof of this situation and her years-long battle with the situation. The Applicant has been made aware of this situation and as with the situation regarding the condition of the flatroofs has opted to do a remodel of all of the buildings in our development instead of dealing directly and urgently with this major issue of erosion and drainage. 7. The Project can go ahead conditional to a tree protection plan; it has to be developed, submitted and approved by the City before "The Project" begins. CONCLUSIONS, Inaoorooriateness or Incompleteness of the Criteria for Design Review of Existing Buildings I respectfully submit that the criteria which the Commission has before it to make its crucial Design Review are of high standard and effectiveness to deal with new developments and new constructions in established neighborhoods. But they a.e inappropriate or incomplete when it comes to reviewing the kind of remodel project put before the Commission by LU ]3-0042. The criteria do not arm the Commission with the required latitude to deal with the more subjective, subtle and value-based 7 assessments that established, and more likely than not, "vintage" properties, that come before it for essential review or to protect the design arid community development standards of the City of Lake Oswego. They do not concern themselves with conservation or respect for the integrity of design, even of awai d-winning design such as Mountain Park and Oswego Summit. There is no "conservation" basis forthcdecisino, ou|ycmnopadhi|itK "corny|coxrotnry"(ortnu. coosisteocycnnddoratimns, basedon mechanical or practical matters of materials. The comparisons are made between older examples of construction and materials and newer ones, more likely to span decades and generational and cultural tune span changes later. This has created a gap in the overseei responsibilities of the Commission and particularly in the protective reach of its mandate with regard to existing examples of good design of earlier times and era. I attach as an example of what I am saying, a 1970 issue of the company magazine The Woodsman, of Roseburg Lumber or Roseburg, Oregon.This issue is all about the cr eation of Mountain Park and the vision of its creator Carl M. Halvorson, and the "universe' of Oswego Summit when we were the forerunner of the new development of our particular cornet of marvelous Mountain Park. I quote from p. 4: "But aside from its physical advantages and up-to-date land use planning, Mountain Park stands as a testimonial to traditional American home building plactices as they employ wood to achieve sound construction, attractive design, and variety of form. (Even some of the fireplace chimneys are insulated and covered with wood to unity the Foot profiles.) The wood framing, sheathing, flooring, siding and roofing materials specified throughout the community exceeed minimum requirements; the construction methods used just might be referred to by other developers as overdoing it.The turf- toppedh000p,ddockisannbviuusexamp|e - theheavi|ybramedsi/ucLurc |onksos though it could withstand a direct bomb hit. The result? As the homes, townhouses, and apaitment begin to spread out into their natural surroundings, the community rapidly takes on aspects of permanency and purpose, but at the same time it begins to look almost accidental, too, like a good living environment should look -- planned but unplanned. havoryfewyeaoK1oontaioPa/k 'm/iUhaveaiw/aysbccnth:/r." "/A| hui|dcrsacdvcinihe (ornrnuni1yarecustvnobuiNeo- oo \vvo ^ioventu/v" homesnr* o|iku" On p. 3, of the issue is the following: "Not the "new-look" componentized or assembled homes, either, but homes lovingly built from the ground up by builders and lot-buyers who ---while not going overboard--are at the same tine not settling for the cheap or the quick. Os*/pguSu/n:oitu/ascuoccivrdiot|m\ ^ooivcoe" audhui|t 5 years later under the protection of DR 8 75 and DR 33-76. 0,26t, `t / ��� �� / - [|audyLyndh Units 460 & b7 8 s :. �#. ` 'I v r u. r-`fin +'�..v' �yeas, as1 3 . '-e.' ,,r,'''' ..'e 0."-' . '' Ifeatiiellikiittag.A17,14*WegialeikiNtlia,Stlia,,,s;franetealiafrri,e,i < 4 - etA 'cam- -Vle V itb xx; n- l- rim* .,•- 4 'ms , :, ''E• ' st"'t ,s .,-�-a 53,'" ->e - -' - s a€' r- �£� t '� r s. fir- ,eflew" 9 c Tr rrv? - - yi f` " ter 2 2;;A s-a, z ^�-.. ,-- eir- .z• - x-_ - - ice' - , _ - m� - - 3 mss' - _ _ - -- -,-.--,-a..,-..f.--;'„fl - -:F. 4"°.v ,'eL4,.a^'7.%41.W,_:a_1s0g---_11'is ,c 4 h ,4 4T °"`f u ,.r �,>;. - - - . itern:1; i 3 Fa-- s ,8,--,Z-4ktF' v - -4Ft 't ` -, s-r �mrte' Aai . of . _. .±n5- ^ - 3 ' V- t „ -g t . r -5- t a • . _ F _.... i Fes.. 4x eP' • - - > t � _ l cz .x= es _x' V'4" - sv,, _ate „, i:� g pig '14 It: ,. " j - Franklin tw( om` ily 'ret -,-.,-2;',i:/.A;1,- , � -d - out t 17 fd33 _ 3 �aKnow t � , _ �� s a k t � ', 'fi �"rr _. t3,4-kr:F f xz If Benjamin Franklin were to return today to the coun- I f. ;; try he served so well during his lifetime.about the only � "{; thing he would recognize right off would be the U.S. ! ' " . :` j Post Office Department. It's a lot bigger than it was t w , ; _,. t when he took over in 1775 as the nation's first Post- master General, but otherwise as incredible as thisd ,i. d T ' • r seems it is still pretty much the same. - :_ And therein is the heart of the problem, and the a i{,qq ' problem, of course, is our rapidly deteriorating postal . 'IV : A°. service.Not only has long distance mail become an un- _ 1 I , -, reliable means of communication, but of late local mail _ 1 ' I - has been mishandled in a wholesale way. This is not a .1 di " ,{ ., "convenience"problem,it is one involving the nationals;. ± "' �d `'` � " .- welfare. American business and our other vital institu- �„ �+ "" 5 tions can computerize and automate all they want, but tw` x, e ., :..‘,.:: :f.g," :,ter if they can't transact business in an orderly way via the ! ^H` ° - r x a U.S. mails we are all in trouble. 'amu ,;:!..-.!1..t.--:4-:: y- 1F,G' sl d� 4 It is not that the solution to the problem is hard to i `l 4 . '- y�, R->,a. y s find, for it has been around for years and has been the ,t < .. , r i 's- ^t- °- .k a subject of countless proposals. It is simply to take the , .,: "f' ..C.,:..*rr`3? >al?: b 'w *,"it . Post Office out of politics entirely, and set it up as a I a .;,rt ,,-,r ``y . "r .�� self-supporting service business, operated, staffed, and 1 '� '- ,-- �' ..,crA equipped to function in the 20th Century. SupervisedT a - by Congress yes, but not run by Congress. ^ A Y c�L ti- .., 5'T;3 A bipartisan bill which would accomplish this is, in fact, awaiting action by our elected representatives in Washington right now. Arid right now is the time to let Residential Congress know we want this bill, H.R. 11750, or a similar version of it, made into law. It has been said . • that the most frustrating thing in the world is a bad s Alive situation that is beginning to improve. It is submitted here that we have a least earned the right to be frus- and well j M e l trated by our postal service,not defeated by it. Sincerely yours, in Mountain Park, Kenneth W. Ford,President Oregon - .al..ait'--Ce �tw ,�3., �r^ —L'�G' `- it N mow. -� - - eye " rao.Y , 7-7 ��� ,_ . . �ry� Illy '" � � ��+—�'-'� / ��"' .� .re:.•• sa; . ::"' '�x. = �-rc _,..cam. - > -"`� ,.,k-moi"` .: `•"� s Ey �- �„ it� `-"`moi;' ,. .� %'�: f4 ' 3rd" .11.7' "-z�'"" it, til :-=-7,--743.. Z.:.27:;;; Although Mountain Park is too large and complex for a camera to capture in its wholeness,the far to near views on �, t these pages deliver something of the savor of this growing, : if P" 6k. " )- C" w , continually changing community, destined eventually to i< i�- house some 10,000 people.The far views U, - _,�<t t, F .:%."' _ give an indication of the nature of the residential mix (photo 1),and a visual impression of an example of the sculptured,ground-hugging r-.': I1 eTh Pc IX rv: Lek: -"€ townhouses going up (photo 2). The intermediate views (photos 3 and 4) make clear the eclectic nature of the corn munity; the would-be resident is free to express himself C 0 M !alit jrilty both architecturally and in the plan of his home. The closeups show the care that goes into the construction at Mountain Park—the wood siding and shakes over solid framing, insulation,and sheathing (photo 5) and the hefty floor joist system going in for another new home (photo 6). : I I • •• • • a 1,1, 4111111 I l1,111 l w o �a r "s Y' aril''''' �s. u5 #, `dr ( f3 • Ir n 2 J tri II - 4 Cr t!After. -3 - a ra m 1 ,ss � a-471:_-_,4•••:c:7---Vt.„ ., - `4,J Y- t,,.. lv: � -i-4.2 ` - --S r. ��fr _ te ; . — 'zie a-r • yid'' " ::y "7-1'. ma �� fii" t � �_E. , - :. .. . . .. . ..Zl.. r:�° �t.>L"ti2::. R.d .. . If residential building in general is sick and scrawny these THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER at Mountain Park is so vast the days, a victim of that pestilence called inflation, it is not only practical way to take a photo showing all of it is from an airplane. Built entirely of wood,it consists of a huge, apparent in a new town called Mountain Park in Oregon. immaculate stable(100 box stalls,offices, tack rooms, ' Taking shape within its borders is a residential community dressing rooms, and hayloft), and a connecting exercise and of considerable charm and beauty,and single-family homes schooling paddock(see note on the cover photo in the main i story). Horses are rented as well as boarded,and grooming , predominate. Not the"new-look" componentized or assem- service is provided it desired. A section of the stable is bled homes, either, but homes lovingly built from the shown in photo 1, the riding arena or paddock in photo 2, ` ground up by builders and lot-buyers who—while not going and the covered walkway between the two in photo 3. overboard—are at the same time not settling for the cheap or the quick. ", Wood, in most of its building forms and applications, is ithe material, almost the substance of Mountain Park. In fact, its 700 tree-covered acres of virgin land are fast be- i coming a sort of monument to the various ways that framing i j lumber, fir plywood, wood siding, and wood roof systems i can be used to create a total environment that is esthetically i continued page 4 P4 ',7-.-441-1153%-,:u.,-.--: A F ,i 2 , ,A'c. 'i ". _ r{ 11' `-{,;.",„7r r r Y- y. ...*x.a :a .�' ""uie ' r - ,,.. � , it . IE t io Ikf N.vc'n i JA__. C� 53 „` �` T - � ak 'n',1„-.;4-7----------. T _ }�� Si r ` k,-.• s.� 1 ���,. H\ � ,�` ` ,-*I.10,7441 . ! I ��icsi ..-�.-...„.:1,-,,,,, .� F - .uk ill ,�, -4 {EsVs�j"V i (..- d, LLP �Epyg]�ppgq f 1 a tTh1:TL : t ._�,3 .,cl- 'la.. P � C1 �. , � { P fE �,.� continued from page 3 pleasing and both open and high density at the same time— area,it is but 90 minutes to the Pacific beaches and less than as impossible as this may seem. that to the best skiing areas in the state. The secret is in the planning. Townhouses, apartments, Besides the riding facilities, Mountain Parkers have ac- and duplexes make up a substantial part of the residential cess to the community recreation center, another oversized mix, but enough untouched wooded land has been left central facility, this one built around a 50-meter pool and around them (and around the single-family housing clus- separate gyms for men and women. On the drawing board ters) to give the Park part of the community's name real are the Town Center, aEuropean-style complex of small validity. Bridle trails branch off in several directions from retail shops and service establishments, and schools and the centrally located Equestrian Center (into which, inti- churches for which the building sites have already been set dentally, went more than $100,000 worth of Douglas fir aside. A convalescent hospital is on the premises, as is a laminated beams, wood framing and siding),and the place handsome office building which will eventually become is a jogger's dream. headquarters for the Mountain Park Home Owners Associa- Mountain Park's location is another stunner. It is situ- tion, which is to say for everybody who lives there. ated on high, rolling terrain—never developed and thus But aside from its physical advantages and up-to-date unspoiled—between the cities of Portland and Lake Os- land use planning, Mountain Park stands as a testimonial wego, with a commanding view of Mt. Hood, Oregon's to traditional American homebuilding practices as they em- Coast Range, and the town-laced valleys in between. Ten ploy wood to achieve sound construction, attractive design, minutes from the center of the state's largest metropolitan and variety of form. (Even some of the fireplace chimneys continued page 6 1. fi Sr4f F " f ey .r :'e r-L. �s " >r," 's ,-- y'' at fAwM , Y ' tY- :y$F s - xF • 4 r J St, -iPy�` N -lalS1- .40'11..!-1, . llf.;ellR ♦ £� e� -..":".-2:-:.,t: .k " ass 9166 Sf -G t b >s }' ":.-- A7L-E-1 vfi i"' � l'-,,,- � rpt ` " d 1 a, a .. e., / _ Y n _ , , , ,.... ti-Edam-'^ — S - cv=.�.ss, 4 - - n.w1.xE I" .� lw i - r ' :; --max. 1 I �5,- 9 `�4+ra�114,. Fr 7 m•i j+g l€ l-s i.( Ar�.'"7k{'e- k "TR. l ?. ' �d `J',Mm. {r.• 14,.w5{ed, "fHs 4" ry .,q a,4 continued from page 4 `r are insulated and covered with wood to unify the >so- Fes'> - " roof profiles.) The wood framing, sheathing,flooring, - -ki siding, and roofing materials specified throughout the - - community exceed minimum requirements; the con- - - struction methods used just might be referred to by _ _ " - other developers as overdoing it. The turf-topped — — --- _ horse paddock is an obvious example-the heavily - beamed structure looks as though it could withstand a _ — — direct bomb hit. -s-.— er "". The result? As the homes, townhouses, and apart- meats begin to spread out into their natural surround- _, `"' _ - --- ings, the community rapidly takes on aspects of ,� " - permanency and purpose, but at the same time it '� -' —�-'��- begins to look almost accidental,too,like apgood living E environment should look—planned but unplanned.In �• ,- i ''" a very few years Mountain Park "will have always ° r rill been there"" 1 �-i 1� Mountain Park is being developed by Mountain ' p I" - _ Park Corporation, Carl M. Halvorson, president. - e H Planning was done by Planning Associates of San = "%" (e ;-" Francisco; financing is by Portland Federal Savings. , All builders active in the community are custom ,, f t l , , , builders—no two "inventory"homes are alike. r - ��S l i -Y 1�e+. NOTE ON THE COVER. This Mountain Park mew l4i f •PirP'ste�. y �4+�c,�i shows part of the Equestrian Center with Mt. Hood _-- _ E in the background. Note the stout construction of the � r grass-covered roof over the exercise and schooling - � — — ti - paddock in the foreground.The structure is supported by a rafter—glulam beam—post system designed to handle a 15-foot snowpack, unheard of in the area. lt �' *xt -�' " " �..z�II-r'r' '' .. ^ '-- 'tea rx S I t L„'Y',s.3t` � � -c'. ..2- d'2 '" fir' , ,_ .F 'tee �rtT -a , ; r1 z'- �isz�' 'S3 r.r t {f=. ak :_.,,at f ; �3-� '3 'i+ kiT th sttcytrs 44.4t, VI t tY � A 4f -. t.s t "` <r a t: L3 ' �s J ( y --' -- �— -- —_—� —.----� -�� _. `ice 14.-I.-, 111 I11 _ : �, ,_ -"+.,., car @ �t 1 �( �111 _� ���"�� '^ .. { 11611ii' BaiaN .ali ONE OF the first things a visMin k that aside from the homes, tritorees,andnotices beautifaboutully Mountain designedParlampis posts,thetact nothing sticks up,not even a TV antenna. There are no utility poles, for all services to the entire community were installed underground at the very beginning, including a TV cable system that not only provides excellent color reception but accommodates a closed circuit for telecasting from the Recreation Center, Equestrian Center,Town Center,and theater-to-be. The photos on these pages reemphasize the diversity of Mountain Park,made possible by the imaginative but efficient use of the products of our forests. , -f^ usSC) / A'i 1-/-/ /7_z_ty c7t ,c) s. ROSEBURG 5 j-i1 / L- i.- 0 WA/ 4-/- CriL u rc LUMBER CO. ., P.O. BOX 1088 P62 5/1,3‘---e... :/7/E--4-5 e. ROSEBURG, OREGON -115F Telephone(503)679-8741 re" - - c " _ , _' _: _ ... ..-..- ' - ..:_7 , .,, „- , : , - •--_,.• _.-...._._:__________________ .,.-- - - . - , _z . .. . . - •,. . .._ __.-- ; . C:- ---.:" .- '- • - S. . .....,_ ... . • ' all111111111111111.1111111111111111111=1111 _.-,-__,J__,.:, • -.-.1 ; •e.t.--, ;- . -•-; •-• '!.. —--::;-•-.-,--:•-• ,1 - .•:,... __•_•..•-•_, .. i -i,;4 -r ‘r.;i, `-'"•-•--- - -,.--...-:1,_7_-:-•_•-?_.',..-ri"--,-,.L>=5,;_-•::-=-:-.'4- 7.2i IP. IP ;•_t-',-V'••-•-•%---;A r''.4.--gi-il-t 1 •-•-•-'-'---:. -'.- :'. • • • - - -;/-- -• '' . .-.•:- •.;-"0" :1 !;:;;c••••:i qh:' fJ;1,-.1.:(:-.C, „:,' t;-, --.71,a'7::::::.--:;S;-----71— rit--C-.1 t.'+ 'Iji ',V'.- .i:1-q,;:-.--,',: i .:.P;A:tc,-.1 ,,F.;;;T:3-a:‘,.::::::, ".4c2--,4. ;:— --.- - : - __,-;'' .-- ,- 'I-. -;., -="1';',:f.' '..., -.,. „,...r. 'IV'S,\110:1 'Lei A!' ::::-;.';:;":5.i.--:-fr:".'7,1.7----.:".r.:...Tr-:,;7":•=.-r";712.73 1 fl-' 3,1,4 .4c,.9 42;i::::„ .4-I::1-',,:-.1 lAzi..aci* 'X'.':::-I i:L-1 ;'' ).--,- ; --, -, .,• . '.1 7'n:C:--C".T 1"'"I‘1"T:if:ii:J: -''lq if;72..! Oi*:!: 3.\\''''''':“-1' l'" :t'''''':''1-a-".'rn-''' -:- -- - - iri 9 :.-1:-,-....1";),/. .,)4 Ftq'..t:ifiEZ 27:Ert;-Hl:::.1 i I. c' :'1 Y-..:';'; i:::!I (2; ii ;2, 1 '!.-_ .,--:,i.,,i,;i,-;f:;:..--1 '111!:,t irilicE,(, Eir.,:ii,„,„, ,,___-_,..::-.-.- „:„. ..„:,,,,_;„„,-,„.„?,,...„„-_,-„.:.:7---_,E;:±};,,,,-,-(j 11r1,1 )14 -,,,,,z,4•I,,,,-:lt':-E-,t'l ,!7,21 (1-1-i-i . -, ::.---:22:---;: 0, 4 •:-.2. , -----1-1:. l`cif-14%-'2.4 ,- ,...--„:1 -.; i. ,-_: 7i-7.-_.!:-..,,,:7-5:-,i,-1 bfi:,tiThr,!ii" ...,-: ' -,!:,:c-_,TA, ',-2,•-,,cirf7,12; !I (-,:•:"-Y1 ____ ,__ ..., . _ . --- - -, - ' • ' -. .- , . - 1.- 3:;::.,-,-I- •;- •• , - :, --'.---: _,„,-: ,-.--- -- - -,-' -:---,- • -,--'_' ,-,"- f, •:: -: •.-- .-,;.,-,: d Pb.1 :-1:,i .,a1-':11.11):11E7:1):11;::N -Oil''`"sr,( TE'''-- --,:- „•-, ,.-,::, , .,. „,„q4Liir3-41“r 'Iqco , t l:---'''' ':' ?--- '•-2•*--- ' -• -'•- ± ,••-.._r ,-:-. r-.),•,,It I'n 6t l ;.ft 5 63itA•ti•i':6. 5'Ag i 211--4-Jj'Al.,-.P 3;1..:7,7fr,,•E--:: 1'. . ' .. . • •- •-—- • ': ''''- C'4.1 :"f•'' ';':{ LI k'lik'''l P 1 r. TLE: 'L I 1:." -I----•••• '• : '- '-'•:•-•I H•'-':; 6 r,I.:1•3•1;:ir'TI;1;;IL::•';P.f:=5):7;')-"-•?- 1±;-V--;•'..•-,..*;,- '•••••• • • ••." •!••[- ' • - 'I. . • i,,- ,'--•';'[.![-) •- 411;W. T,-;';',.?".}11') '''9''",'-'',,---.-1., ,..--, i,r--, -.:.i-;E,23 : ::::-,...:Zi.,:;71(_: _i:kti-_,:z:_:5.,,,,..../. .4±. --,H-il.1 ,,„"L-:--•;,,•; IS'I. 46ccr.'41:-:-)TI,,11-.- H.;-..:- . ' "?' ....:.L. :-I-<,-,-I-F,H„;, .,), 4131,,,,,,),(j1,..119-2414(4.9V41.-9:47-`'-'-'5114511.- Y'r-FiVX-4T.W..±._:-. .1::::-(•11.•:::::'•‘1"-.71.1?4')..17;.*L'LL{.:27•:•••- 1:-cf•-•-:''..' 'ill 1::-:•:•11:•'-.1-•--- ..41-77:-;711-1•17-I--•J:'*'•=1P•t-,•.11-2••;•-1•7;:---;•1:--Z.-7,71,--'-. -Y:). i:ii-cr:•,yvii;igrillifi ]115Ye1:4:["*LkEfitrit 7j'1 ?741.9.4E11:11-;;;:::::1141:11:?:::;;;Ygarl, .- - 1 , ,t)a- r;',ii:t,i,J.;,:.n'b I lq:•4•14 T d C'..Q44•9ST"\at'•d g"11.-c•-‘• •-•••,;;.::'-.-t:•'‘"-•::,-'1'•,•-",',1 ,-:.:,:::- _.•;_.--_ 1.-•_cri,;,i-:;,--•CO3..W.•)-ir.i,V4iilf.01•VISYV.ri_OPO:LtregSt:2•-:ffr - 4••±•••;+ -" b 1''1'.-1: I'""'• •' • ‘'_[. •-, . ,.],--‘1,,. .13)e,,)(,,_,.,-;---1:--2,,,V,,..“-„,-),4-,iy-,• 1k.1(3X1,2,;.2'1&)± '.„---,•-•_,f,..,frr..7---rt.,r,1,6*.e.c.rx.ragitigir.:.; ,-.--.--.--0,. --,-4:..--: toii x:,;,,,--,:.---:;4i'}''''''r'L .2 -,..' '2 .Th2.r-------.."';:-- .zhe:-Z42'168151•-aLrffiQl -i-j-Ii12:41t24'.. -.4'22-‘-- -(02.12**; - '2.-- . '- '..--:'.4.V---.I'''.'-22-. -:'-2.'•4-- -$.2'"---.2-I..-J.'. '2. ---1,-;-,-4--4-41A5-1ViA'.-:,•Allirt,„V.-.:if.2,iiil.i11,--cY:2-.'&,;:;14.92 '2q:'-:".7g-y.S,-7; f:: - ., ..i ;,414,,si,E„.;,.,42...,-,32tf.„ IF L, - ,;-':"91,'14:1;''L;?-9-i]l'i.:': :jvit'')').'^ -1.- ,: 7 -.7.1;-, , 7,-:: . , Mlib<6.1;i;,V16T-rjEWL•I'}Pait-2-:"}ClqZ4'.-H. 2': ?,1,4*,; 4,,L;,..z..-j:/:-.CRF,..nit.fr!'z,;:-.,,,,L-11.!'“L Lt-• ,.,2:-;-:,, .,.,:: :::11.,-.71;-0I:ci&-0t.''.fiE)1)'°";211;k2.'21-9--YCI!-:1222rt-2- -.7-2.-,.22.7- -F:1-f-'12;-:itz,.ii;;;; i-P7r.-2-'21Cia -,;' 2 .'-2 ,,1 E.i.ri-,-22.21-Cr' ''22227.-.-1--ki! ''' "•'' Ii.---..426222'r'2'.:c.,;. cm22:,-•:' ,---2[2;:n----;"r;21;"i-V<Orcitu+1-:,.-„olt,„--M4i2-, --22t2L'2 :2-2.5t4:---.---'''---: •' )--''.. 1. -- •-;,‘±,i,,?e_Tni-i;-Crl)---.u,t kr)(:t1f--.--fc,.c..,,:41., .r_.:; d:(2Te0 '''11e-1.--r1±1-;_1-, 1R-:,' -..--;-!IL)LJ: q CE-1::::k1,1:1:14119-E1(k,t'::I'Fr - 11 :-,-,, . _,. .„ „ii.:( y ,7,..A. ..9,,,/„Ziji .i.,,#',41ene,'-219113,1"qic-1,-.1'52:471.51.7.&L'51'';-,,1,:----41.,--1-1::-..:'..-1.:4'-.k..., .-1 - -,_,(.1-.{..]:"-•'.._' 11:144I.,S1;lei'ij-?[?.:1,.1„1-I .1' r•----t,71:--.1 ' - I I.- 1r. ---- 1-JX:ioz. i.4.'4111-1111C-kV11'"- ".1--...-17 _ -- _ - 1 ,•„ . ., - --- .„ . _ ..:__ -- .---,-.: li : r r-1 (--- J• Ir'l 11 1- -II. I:CI• -'' - - - - : •,- -_,_ I.' .(-_-,:_- - --':' ' - ' -' ---A,-tit)i,' r!T•e::,1' -: .-: - '.71:11-=,:li--:'-: .-* ' - ',,-r •::::- _-,-.:F,-, .1-u: ,.-:--;f- ---.I'; : 1,-::;-„;:-772;t-:::'-:- . E-:-:'-.:: _ ,- --- :- -Z?:--- ;: 1 -;:--ii,1-.e*.‘'-±- ..,..._ .. . - .. To: Lake Oswego Design Review Commission Planning Department(third floor) City of Lake Oswego From: Martha Dougherty 70 Oswego Summit (building 10) Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035-1061 Lived in Oswego Summit Phase 1 (buildings 1 through 21) since 1977 Email: doughertv9440Pcomcast.net Phone: 503-636-9343 Cell: 503-780-5169 Re: Rebuttal letter after 10/28/13 Oswego Summit hearing Case#: LU 13-0042 Date: November 4, 2013 Dear Design Review Commissioners and Staff, I was out of town during the October 28th hearing regarding the Oswego Summit capital improvement. I listened to the recording of that meeting. Thank you for your website. Oswego Summit does need some extensive repairs. I continue to be concerned about the aesthetics, design and materials proposed by for this redevelopment. (See attached photos; see my letter dated 10/15/13.) Originally, Oswego Summit was an apartment complex named "Mountain Village". That describes how it feels to live here with old growth cedar siding and cascading roof forms. The cedar shakes give the buildings visual texture with soft light browns that blend into the environment of now mature trees. The cedar has a warm orange glow at sunset. This is a sharp contrast to the proposed painted cement Hardiplank with multiple jarring flat colors. If the red tile on the slanted roofs must go, I agree that the new material should have some thickness and visual texture. It makes no sense to replace good dark brown colored windows and sliding doors bought and owned by the owners at the encouragement of staff members and boards. The replacements often addressed leak issues caused by the original cheap metal windows and doors. We are told that warranties will be voided if we break the proposed redesigned seal or envelope. I am in trouble already. We are encouraged to buy heat pumps. After the redevelopment,an installment would break the seal. With the layout of my unit, it is not practical to have heat pump(s). In the future, I might need to break the seal to replace my air conditioner. EXHIBIT G-245 LU 13-0042 I am concerned about a maintenance person routinely walking around on the flat roofs to check scuppers as Justin Barnhart, Western Architectural, mentioned on 10/28/13. It is difficult to get on the 3rd and 4th story-high roofs. The envelope is again likely to be harmed. No one will know the roof scuppers are blocked until there is a leak. I understand some of the 25 flat roofs are still under warranty. Many windows are not included in the new design renderings. On the right side of building 10, 6 are windows missing including kitchen, dining room,and other windows. That does not include the 4 diamond-shaped windows. I agree with your staff that the diamond windows on the outside walls of the stair steps to the upper units are needed. The enclosed fire escape stairs from upper level units in Phase 1 have 2 windows. They are not included in the renderings. In addition, each of the third or fourth floor bridges between Phase 1 buildings, has 4 windows-2 on each side. Without the windows,the enclosed bridge hallways, enclosed fire escape stairs, and enclosed outside stair-steps to the upper units would be unbelievably dark. They would be not safe, and aesthetically not interesting. The wood wall railing on my deck provides privacy and serves as a buffer from strong East and South winds and rain. As your staff has mentioned,the proposed replacement of glass railings does not fit the overall design. They would not be safe. Imagine my deck furniture blowing into and breaking the glass. The alga that builds up on everything would be difficult to clean from the glass. The new design renderings have the glass deck walls sticking up past the cascading roof lines changing the profile of the buildings. That is not necessary for any deck wall. The current drains and downspouts are not adequate to carry the amount of rain we receive. Why put them back on the buildings if they are not adequate?Scuppers are not the only problem. For example, some downspouts do not drain away from the buildings. As a long-time resident, I have knowledge of how some leak problems have successfully been addressed. I wish for the opportunity to share it with those making the decisions. I hope that would, in the future, help save time and money and improve the proposed designs for this redevelopment. Thank you for all the time you have spent regarding the capital improvement plans for Oswego Summit. Sincerely, Martha Doughertyder Attached: photos compared to renderings, building 10 page 2 Case#: LU 13-0042 Oswego Summit fir. 1Cy�f { . ',f•.•� '` w ' --.,i . p, i I fah,' ', 4,k �4 V� N 1� 'F' k `w .dam 2 :1A« 'TA fiti;:it or-' •,"'`.,.,',_g ,I ••• A . ' • 4It. 4 '�+ i J • +. lit fI 4 , � ,tom .•,...t* I ! "u 1 0 ''.' \':/1/21 `1 1, joi, , , • „F-1- 1 \,46-TIV 1 . , 1-- 0 . --- t,., v '' //////// if ft //: / y 1/ It7 � � \\� � _dei v ' \ =t f � �� ,S7'' IF r idL:7!!l1a�,tli 3 ` `�" ' \ Iii '1i 0 14.••••.......-\`.'.1" \ ' ;44 Ill I .. ..!...-'-'1./ . , .........,,,......„...,. ill il 1 ".,..or;:-...., 1,,/ s 1 P• i s'Sig...lialit , IN ----"--- ill I i I 4 c.. t..).0b() O SW 751 Foothills Taupe 'FCon� 7� exposure6odY Accent:gW 7501 Threshold Building 10 siding'6 25„width for cement lap /_,� S Materials es Hardie fiber us GrainnZ 514„X 11.25„ Gw'.- it irn l-Jam 112" Nardte 514"x 3 Ftardie liber cement - k (1 cJ L h Boot Fascia. Cedar Wh Deck,+R 112"flashed Doors: ite Light f31oGK 2 X d gliding Glass Ltg Windows an T �� � Vinyl W estret White tColars- teaugroSW7515K t :, Pain 7510 Gha r �; N. Door&Garage Trim „.:„.1, .. ., ., , , Fascia:jWo W 751q Chateau brown t, � .4 Window, s w, Wind t Garage D°ors.S VP' .1.."‘ i.' c ,a 4 Nt �r ,ox , , . . ..lit: 1 0 .:-. r -v\'N,,7? ‘'ll ° 1 i \i";:' r . • \\ _ , ..,vor- _____ _ i _ :33 cil9j/S;( 5 , ;kir' i- V‘ b" �sitvv- Ldp, / nnn ,iv,SJpy�tj �Q�1` 'U�.,, t.l,�_n e:!ru'1io+� y ...., Wc�_yV27 I��p�r" { SW 750t1p, Ghateau brown colo- �k 7510 � b., Belly Band d� QP4 6 / P.R N °4�d 1 �J „.5 at a "el s>'4 i.w. -, � .j ;;t, a .c I t .' t.:'''. --'. n I • I,1 MP& a x _; .;:,fi _ = -- J. 4- .✓,•*~fes-- - . y� ~^`•_i..��' - Icye i° N��� CS R � —1_ 1 T . I id irl / : ,.., /1-11_1 -T P . 4 , _ _ . ....._ . _ .._ \\,. .. . .,." ,, _ , • ,N , low , .. Martha Dougherty 70 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 r , likt: \\\\\ 1: \;\`\\\;`‘' 4 ;,'.,..•..„.',:NK-^ \ ``„ }1` 1 y r ...._ t \•\. •V�1 �. ir' 1 s L .. „,.. ......,.. .., ., )5, - 4 • • • • •,.. ...._ , , , , _,..„..„ , ...._ .. ... '`'��� f • . -s'' . t tl , 410, f' 1 Martha Dougherty 70 Oswego Summit r' Lake Oswego, OR 97035 r 1 3 Y J�. .l ?...• L iM . fa r 7 * is r k' C 1 +iii'".v1 - .v' lT '. -$.'7'''...• �.y • 1' i : y: v yI :I.-71i ' I4 , _ �\ co & ire.er4-4"-l-'w" __ i. , ,,,,/ ,4,-;--xlerer4-6 Building 101 Right -7 -.7,tr.mr...--_ D _ `' / A% -w 1I wain" w Ills� :_Ap — $O ' ( _ — f f ___J 01D 7 --�•$ CIr i16Sld 4 e ' ' n 0 )1" "US/ 06"6.a't I ` , _T.1 j �G! �"6u $fes t L I Jo- J 11, I_ �7{ Y 4 • .1 7 �_� .y -` ' \ ksL\ y_,... ,. am, LI 0 7 Deleted Windows r (6raert.) - o', Doors:SW 6258 Tricorn Black tl Core„,„ ewfraisc.e. to '07-40'S /Vp deur) Oswego Summit 2f7'31 n,t.I:On Stn.lCti Drl �� C.s.) •-..,„, ,k.:‘, ...1, tr) k ti tsc6 , , cz, .c.,...,- t.... k la) - • I, A • ,-- ,, 1 1.; 0'. ••••Z 6c..1 : •- ., t,4P..."- * • b4 (Z) Cn ,Nh.N'p.!' . - • '.. ..,, P P ;,', - •• : 1 • ••• • ' t V4Z - j 41° ,..,„• . ,,..., •••• • V• ,,,,, o : 1410 ' ., 71t• •• ' '-A A ' ii :. . , .I. i 1 ' .k•iii;* . • '••• t•-) o I • I : I #1 • - LA, •k• /' ' ' C' 1 I ' i tt 4- Y/ ' i I 1 ll i I I; I If • i F t I 1 I OW 1. it Is.1 - 7 a..... - 1 — 7. • . • ,.4 .... , , • 11 ( '';1 , ,,. in ,'' .....4%, 4-; 1 -. b . . ... 1 g , a, Ir. II 41/ 1--- r ;.-4 _ ,,,_ •,, t A..:.... .. '' , „,_ . , t , .„.....,,,. e , 1 ... / i I 1 , 1 1 4 i 1 1, 1 X , L I i 4.1' ifflff / '( ,./ ' I $ —7 IA-1 ... r .40 . _ k, .... ,.. ,_ 1 i ---7_ ,. 1 , i) 1 , , • , • i . .. , , tii 1 . ,e 1 • ' ' ,1 ,, 1 v„1, '- - fr ,. ,.. • •.• . ,-.. ' 111c4- • ' ‘,. . 1 j • I" I -,,,,....—.• t i 1 . lir i ,,, t , , ab 2' . •'. ,4 , , '1 - • .,•,N1 1,:' , , ... .....-\ \\ \..i4t,' • / '-' , „, • te.. • • 4411. , • I s , . ••-•• '' t • ` , Om. y \ ,.,,r. it' 4 a*. - . t ...1.... ' •, 1 ,h._ , I • .."...r..• 4,,,,, • , \ .. -.. • .. 4' .. ,,.I .4.4 • . ly, , . \ ', 4 . .1,40:.201, ...: . . \ „ 'IlW1- ' ..);`:.. , . I. ”1 \ 2‘* 11"-,Ilit A- - - .•,, 44!:#1°. 1 - ' `.f .''' ' 4. - ,\ ; , „ , e - ..•`, ' 'it- • ":•• - ,.. 1 -jiir-- . ——.. I ANL • 4 (:)c 6,41 ejo Sri Art"1"1 ° r,,,..„...1,',..1„.•*",-.:2-2.-:-1:--r..:.i-C-: ,....P:".0,....'f--.1 -,'":5','"•• ' , $ •$ .1, -...---,,,- ,_ --4. -;=---;--'• ....4e • -- -4"."--.::::=-2."."-_--." . ... . __,.....--- . ._ ..---- • ,....0.40- „..- - _____.----,--- • ,....--__'..1.... -' ; ' I .. ' •l'er'' • . . _- , _ H ; , "...V” • a - I T- -r• -- --;--' . ' ..- • .............._................ ...V ., .....or •' --•,- '.. ' ., /...-- .-,2_............--.-------................ .,......-....- _,.. .4.4„. I ./.-a:•°r, ,oe i z• /-•1' hial6ft - ' ----- . _ . . .... - . . . ,.. . .... . .. - 1 0 tt,C-1Z C i2S7-) . iekwIII /A •4 . • ..... •i . .. it 4- 11, ; ':'- • ,, a p iii / v -- _ . .5 er, .. , 41,,ik . ' 1,, ' • • $110"'A, AA''Fi r-•• -7:2' '-- ' "C......3r b \.---,..,- \ ' ''''. • CZN ilk....' '\ I'' ....'.r ' r . -• aim 14.4. 4 • ••". ' `,1 . `.... • 4 .._ .4.110111 . .....0. 1.".,g '',. , .• - ' -• vik,',,;....,N"obk.„;;,.- , , ...._ ..... .--:.- . .._ ..._ -...„. ...... _.,. :. ; ------- ,,,,' --,--:17-1,--]-•.....- -.:'-`...5,f47.-,0-., ,,,,....„* -"V„-Viv -., .:. _ -4 • im. t. . i. .r /.;..-. )3 id 5 __ __ -.--, . In" ,..4:Cljt s.1...,..:::%.2r' JaCtri• ' ,';'4tik'S .' . i S 40. --.......11..., .....710111111 .._•••••!......... 4 zomia.4.,. * • It.• ' .46. V• f .....-r. - -4-.4‘, '',:-.7-4444: 4•$0)/6 ' ts . • ,.. *. liMillbt.. •ill= .4.4'.^ 117,±41.t_m_ ....7. •itp . 1 , / 0 --....A... -1-,.,.. , ,., ...... th • ..5.—_,- - -44-..., io: . . Ikkip..... . . v b ._.- - ---:4--- .. -./ — : ..- .......... ...- . -1 4 — _2_ __;......--.---4„›,........ All "... - ,4 --$ ,-''' --.'- '-4eillii*"•11-• -.N.-...4....- -,$ .v. • , r; •,,,z it 1;:'44.444' I mew, . . _ . NOV• ' .....1.15. 10 V. 'N. ..• —- Lr 1 • -‘......,-t ! - . - - • / -%• A ,1 •.. e.--. , -- . . .. c v ! ' .... .,,, N .-- 1 ,,.•-.t • 1 _ 21, 747:,7...,'# 0.-.- .,...._.-T. : Ii , ...„..... .... • „,...:. ,.... ,... . ...... ...... . • - 4);; '• ...•. *it •, 41 - • • i Martha Dougherty i 4 70 Oswego Summit 0 ri 43 -e Lake Oswego, OR 97035 OSWeSflft1 'Nf '" g r._-• /0 �-� f;r12 rN I, II , , . .... _ �;t � , ,/ , ,,, - , _ 0. : _ ..,.. _ _ . , .. . _ ___.„............ .`*Wirtii)N2i' ,,4tr- . - .....t. izpv.‘ ;...A. ,; .. ., , ....- . .... , _ _ _ _ . __ _ . i.r. ,, , -.).„it .r rAi , .. , ' dip.' it,' .17p.:41/e.„:!:4041„, 7 74:),‘\ ... , ,, , , UR. tb, ' ( s' 1 3 N, 41Pt. '''\ .":' \ , v - Martha Dougherty 'e 70 Oswego summittill' . ,. 111110 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 } Ao 5,1 Fer C-6?S. -i;acXi Building 10 I Back ,,ccaf-gt re. e (3,) Light(typ) :49116 AVI fi . daCIT5 Iii iiImium , I I IMINme ma- Al am t NS, . MI .11.11111111111 I MI Ur_ •„,.. ... Ili es Illirm- ., i ii _... imi • . pli_mi N. • i I ii• :lin • • Ii I ".... . NI NO WI 7 o :16 a • . i z , his III ; i IBM . 1 Itill .... ..... •• .• .-. II 01.0•MMMINI•111• Pg" . . .1 ro‘p — mom= moo I I 1Immo = . .. immou — . • 4 67 ar"dee'' . immum =ma simemmemomo • 0= ,i _ , . _... _11 .........._ .........._I I 1 11_ . ..____„. .... ,. .._ I___..ii= ...„_ . , „ a eV Tremco Deck Coating: Maple Osv,..,egc Surnrykt ..,, . :, . a. ,.4 gidg � I �3�c,3 !U I 17117,1f/// .,--i /1 4/ -.'4('''e 5 ° /O t _ - "--------7//y/7/ 1 alf i ‘ V • / 42:a '..-I it, Pr'die • ., , . - _ __.....„./7 7V IL/ st° ,----„ , . _77.- _—_ / .„._.... , .„...__ , , . Vibll 1:f 4r NI tV"-:::=1:-. 'Aw- -/ 46L11444, 46.,_ 4 '.x'1 ' ...'.• QTQ. f 4 --**. '93 r y #r� A , _tll ,s pis ,4 sp,,,,, _,**,..,4, 4,..i. , ,t,_ }r. , mas r -114 - It- -4.. - - - Martha Dougherty _ - ---- - - 70 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 �_ �-� -- il—,-------- ; QV�r) - 13 Sum �: � .t /,GI' it ii) ______________ --- _________ -__________-- °.r____61-: ° is ____. __ - - ________ ,. ___L_______: _ _ rip,- ,o4 . . .______ , , - -4-- i ent P,- --,........_ 1111\ . ■ , B' Martha Dougherty 70 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 co Building 10 I Left ___..--, ni D k, r_:, ,,,,,,,---. ..cc.... , w iili:\ i I I::I'V°;L/e°1 ri/ ..•0 Mb.1.•M&I 1 I I I''' \i Aa • 1 / .I I I I I I I I I I I I I.I•I I I I I I Iimimnyi , 1 ammismirge _ F rS „j_v i 1 rj,„a, Oswego Sum rnt i, ..:, Diane Norwood 3 Grouse Terrace Lake Oswego 97035 November 4th, 2013 FILE: LU 13-0042 Dear Design Review Commissioners Thank you for taking the time to review all the information for this project. I am extremely grateful for your recommendations. The OS Board and Architect define the issue as a "Project" but I see it with two parts which have not been clearly defined. One is repair of Oswego Summit, the second part has been referred to as "modifications" , "remodel" or "redesign" in various submitted documents. What the Board and Architect are applying for is not clear. The repair part of the project is favored by owners but redesign, or remodel has not been put to the owners as a separate issue, even though stated by Mari, the Boards Chair. I do not know where the 60% she stated came from. Siding The presentation and discussion at the Hearing was focused on Hardy Board. In argument, the main reason for use appeared to be cost and positive attributes and not how it compliments building character and design. Upkeep, i.e. painting, was also not mentioned. The design submitted has a slight wood grain look, the cedar mill wood-grain pattern. If you stand ten feet away you can not see the grain and the siding suddenly looks like a plain piece of wood. Our buildings are large and a comparison with other buildings in the surrounding area is comparing oranges to apples. Please refer to comments by Staff, page 9 of 16, in the Staff Report. I ask you to reevaluate the sidings, suggesting hardy board shingles or similar shingles to what already exists. Colors I ask the Commission to reevaluate the implementation of the selected approved color scheme by the Board and Architect. The colors, based on design prior to staff recommendations, should be readdressed now that numerous design features must be kept in place according to recommendations. The recommendations lend themselves to the original Mediterranean look of the property. The colors selected do not give the warmth and feel of such a design. This point was overlooked at the last Hearing. EXHIBIT G-246 LU 13-0042 When colors were addressed at the Hearing there was no statement by the Board or Architect reinforcing the proposed use of color blocking on the buildings. Color blocking is a Trend 2013 in many areas, such as women's apparel. A color trend does not in any way complement this property in Lake Oswego. I feel color blocking is being used to make the "buildings more interesting" due to flat, boring hardy plank siding and the removal of red tiled roofs. Please reevaluate proposed color scheme. I have stated previously, this property has become well known in the Mt. Park and Lake Oswego area due to its design, it is somewhat iconic. I have not heard any viable arguments addressing the proposed change of look of Oswego Summit. It doesn't need to look any different than it does now. The needed repairs can still be done without visual change. Thank you Sincerely Diane Norwood POA Margaret Norwood Owner unit 111 R CEWED Lake Oswego Planning and Services Department lov F 2C`= City of Lake C)swc Community r'r';t'' ,9"!° Leat. I'm writing to you concerning the proposed re-development of Oswego Summit Condominiums (Case # LU 130042). Statements were made by representatives of both Oswego Summit's HOA board and a construction company that are false and misleading at the Planning Department's October 28, 2013 meeting. The following are rebuttals to just six of the statements made. 1 ) Residents prefer glass to the current railing system: The majority of owners signed a letter asking that the wrought iron railings be retained. We did this for a number of reasons: The view is negatively impacted, the present railing allows the breeze to cool our homes in the Summer which saves energy by not using AC. Glass on elevated decks will pose cleaning challenges. Further and most importantly glass is a critical hazard for birds that populate this mountain park. 2) All siding cupped, worn or has lost usefulness: Two separate architects assessed the complex and reported at a HOA board meeting that the majority of the siding was in good condition and would last many years with a thorough cleaning followed by sealing. This is predicted to save about 2 million dollars in addition to preventing a huge waste of old growth cedar siding. 3) Renters have led to deck deterioration: Owners do have a vested interest in their condominium and therefore take on a higher responsibility for maintenance issues such as monitoring and reporting deck issues. On this point there is agreement. However, it is curious that the Oswego Summit board has proposed increasing the number of rentals. EXHIBIT G-247 LU 13-0042 4) Repairs must be done: Pictures were presented of areas that are in need of repair: The photos are not in dispute but the individual snapshots do not capture everything. For every problem area there are many more in good shape. These good areas can be saved with attention not destruction. 5) Eliminate windows and replace with wall/siding: This walled/closed up edifice will remove natural light from penetrating the walkways. This lack of light will drive the requirement for increased around the clock artificial lighting, in turn increasing energy consumption. The current open design, promotes the safety of the senior's and physically challenged who make homes in our complex. 6) Change the design of Oswego Summit: Altering the building design at all costs is not an option the majority of owners favor. The design of the complex is what attracted us to invest. To erase the look and feel of this natural mountain park setting is unconscionable. If this remodel is allowed to proceed as planned there will be many owners financially unable to remain. The result being mounting financial burden falls to fewer and fewer people. Clearly, if Oswego Summit "goes under" with a partially completed project and no funds, the insult to The Mountain Park community will truly indicate more than an "eye sore". Respectfully, Jennifer Tujo 194 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego OR 97035 RECEIVED Lake Oswego Planning Commision �l(- fl31~� November 4, 2013 `�'` Cita ; Lake Oswtocto Regarding: Rebuttal to Oswego Summit approval hearing Comm. . Cav-elcprne;ii Cept. Being unable to attend the hearing secondary to health limitations, I have listened to the tape of the meeting twice. I disagree with a few of the statements. In regards to the scuppers in phase one, Justin answered the reason for his redesign was because the majority of the residents in these buildings are renters and renters do not take care of things the way owners do. Our by-laws require 75%owner occupancy of the property so either Justin is fabricating this idea or our board of directors is not complying with the by-laws and maintaining the required ratio. The project is being referred to by the Oswego Board of directors to be a repair project to avoid having to have 75% favorable vote by homeowners. The Planning Commission is calling it a remodel and invoking the rules of a remodel. I understand that none of these approvals would be required if it were a repair. So to me, it seems we either do not need to go through this process or we do need a vote of the owners. Mari, the board chairwomen stated that the reason real estate values are rapidly declining is because of the condition of the buildings. Actually, people are not buying and homeowners are unable to refmance because of the huge impending assessments and the conflict and strife amongst the homeowners and the board of Directors. It was stated that 60%of the homeowners are in favor of this remodel which I challenge them to prove by taking a legal vote which has not been done so far. Sincerely, (1 n, Donna Harrington 183 Oswego Summit. EXHIBIT G•248 LU 13-0042 Date: November 4, 2013CEfVtC To: Lake Oswego — Special Development Review CommissionU i j soo From: Maureen Lovejoy Swerdlik, Owner Community �f LB Os' 61 Oswego Summit, Building 8 muniPy Ctvek,prnsntDept. RE: Rebuttal Letter for LU13-0042 I attended the October 28, 2013 meeting of the Development Review Commission and want to respond to statements made by the applicant. 1) I am particularly concerned with the redesign of my building. I looked at the renderings for Buildings 8 and 9 at the following location: /www.ci.oswego.or.us/sites/default/filesfii leattachments/plan n i ng/cityprojects/19566/I u_13-0042_exh i b its_pt._2.pdf The left side rendering of Building 8 and right side of Building 9 do not show: • The entrances to the lower units, storage room doors, and dining room windows, • The walkways from the second floor entrances to the rear of the building, • Entrance doors and kitchen windows for the second level, • Bridge walkway with large windows between the two buildings, • Kitchen windows for the third level. I cannot tell what the plan is for the walkways from the second level entrances to their decks on the back. Will the outside wall of that walkway be replaced with the aluminum and glass railing? 2) I am particularly unhappy with the aluminum and glass railing system for enclosing our decks for the following reasons: a) All decks are to be removed and replaced. How will they handle the Storage Closets on the decks? b) Removal of the slanted roofs and extension of the decks to the rear wall of the unit below us creates a choppy and blocky effect. c) Will there then be deck surface between the railing and the Storage Closet and Fire Escapes? I am not sure how they are going to handle this. I couldn't tell from the renderings. d) Our geographical area is very wet. Green algae grows on every surface: concrete, wood, deck, etc. The glass, clear or frosted, will show this growth more than wood does. i) Will the OSHOA really pay to have all these glass panels thoroughly cleaned on a frequent enough basis to avoid looking shabby and unkempt. ii) Will I be expected to do all that cleaning as the homeowner? While I may be able to do so, many of my neighbors cannot. EXHIBIT G-249 LU 13-0042 e) The wood wall enclosing our deck provides us with a view and some modicum of privacy. I would hate to lose this privacy and don't want to see all the things my neighbors have on their decks. f) Western Engineering said we needed the aluminum and glass railing system to allow for water to flow freely from the decks into an improved gutter system, ensuring water does not flow into the unit of the neighbor below. g) I would rather see an elevated wood wall 2 inches above deck level, also allowing water to drain, yet preserving privacy. h) Paint color or cedar shakes on these walls could provide texture and design relief from the boxy look resulting from removing the tile roofs. 3) My thoughts on the color palette. a) I like the colors, in general, except for the black doors. b) I think the large expanses of siding should have the less intense colors, with accents provided by the more intense colors. 4) Concern about lack of renderings for the 9 bridges between buildings in Phase 1 (Buildings 1-21). There are large windows on each bridge which I hope will be maintained. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns regarding the testimony of the Applicant/OSHOA Board and Western Architecture for LU13-0042. / RECEIVE® To: Development Review Commission NOV tt 2013 City of Lake 3 Re: LU 13-0042 C°mmunhy-C, 41690 ®aelopment Copt ne In rebuttal to testimony regarding the Project under consideration, may I reiterate the following points against the scope of the project, in its "present" form. 1. Please consider that each of our 25 buildings is in a different state of disrepair. Only some buildings require extensive repair, while others merely need modified repair and cleaning. 2. Please consider saving our old growth cedar siding and not allowing the appearance of our present complex to dramatically change. This will not only preserve precious material resources, but will also reduce the financial burden placed upon the owners. 3. Please do not permit privacy walls to be removed in those buildings which have them and please permit enclosures to be kept by those owners who wish to retain them. 4. Please consider allowing us to retain our present iron railings, for the following reasons: aesthetics - iron railings are aesthetically more pleasing to the eye; iron railings do not obstruct our beautiful views; and, iron railings do not obstruct the flow of air to cool our units. 5. Please be aware that building 25 was redone only a few years ago, after a fire. The only work building 25 needs is cleaning and preservation of the cedar siding and repainting of the iron railings. Thank you for your attention to the above comments. Lynn Johnston Owner and Resident Unit 212, Building 25 Oswego Summit EXHIBIT G•250 LU 13-0042 RECEIVE© City of Lake Osv iego CCitycmmuri 'L,A,elcpmc?t Cept, November 3, 2013 Lake Oswego City Development Commission Re: Rebuttal LU13-0042 As a 35-year resident of Oswego Summit, I have many concerns about the restructuring of the complex. The first being the loss of the beautiful old growth cedar siding. Most of it is in fairly good shape and needs no replacement—the rest under leaking windows, etc.—certainly does. The loss of the monetary value of the salvaged siding is a strong concern. It has considerable value for repair of other buildings. I consider the quality of the new siding to be inferior to the standards of Lake Oswego and the color scheme to be less than appealing. The intense colors of the white windows and the brown soffit at the roof line do not compliment the pale colors of the beige and green. Surely, a more modern combination could be designed—greys or chocolate browns. Also,the removal of the deck walls and replacement with glass will cause a great many difficulties for my unit. The loss will allow for wind from the southwest to hit my two sliding doors with full force and the loss of the shade will allow the concrete deck to heat up and lower my ability to cool my unit. The loss of privacy is considerable as my two decks face about 50 feet across the way Into the bedroom windows of building One. The idea of raising the wooden wall several inches off the deck precludes the need for scuppers and seems an excellent way to solve these problems. Thank you for your attention to the many concerns of our residents. Sincerely, 492h dafA Barbara Miller 118 Oswego Summit EXHIBIT 0-251 LU 13-0042 Lake Oswego Planning and Services Department RECEIVED NOV I'm writing to you with concern about the proposed re-develop,r> (trratat„ .,ommuni i 4 on,ego Oswego Summit Condominiums. The reference number for this case `tti-13,7orac.pi. 0042. During the October 28, 2013 meeting there were several statements made by our HOA Board and the representative of the construction company that were either false or misleading. 1) It was stated that residents preferred the glass over our current railing system. In fact the majority of us signed a letter asking that our railings could be retained. We did this for a number of reasons. It would negatively affect our view, the present railing allows the breeze to cool our homes in the summer which saves energy by not forcing us to use air conditioners, glass would be almost impossible to clean and most important they would be a hazard for the many birds that unfortunately fly into our windows. We are on a mountain! 2) It was stated that all of our siding is cupped, worn or has little useful life left. During one of our HOA meetings we had two outside architects tell us that the majority of the siding was in good condition and would last many years with a good cleaning and sealing. This would save us about 2 million dollars AND prevent a huge waste of old growth cedar siding. 3) We were told that one of the reasons our decks leak is that units that have renters usually are not taken care of in the same manner as ones occupied by owners. I'm sure this is true which is why it's interesting that our board has proposed increasing the number of rentals. Does that make any sense? 4) There were pictures shown of areas that are in definite need of repair. No one disputes this but these photos do not tell the entire story. For every problem area there are many more areas in good shape as I stated previously. 5) The pictures of the new design clearly show that windows would be replaced with siding. This lack of light would potentially be a hazard for those of us with limited vision. EXHIBIT G-252 LU 13-0042 tit 6) At the present time the design of Oswego Summit complements the natural setting of Mountain Park. It's a design that we all appreciated when we moved here. For this unique look to be changed for no reason and at much cost does not seem to make sense. I realize that a planning department is not concerned with the finances of our project. However I believe that if this remodel is allowed to proceed as planned we will have many owners that cannot afford to stay in their unit. This will result in more financial burden being placed on fewer people. What will it look like if Oswego Summit "goes under" with a half-finished project and no funds to put it back in proper order? How long would this take? I hope we don't have to find out. Ron & Carolyn Plath 198 Oswego Summit t. Planning and Building Services Department R CEIvcb City of Lake Oswego NOV " `j�12073 P.O. Box 369 Cc h nlu •f icario Juv'F . Evelor213,1[C?pt. 380"A"Ave. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Oswego Summit Design Review, LU 13-0042 My name is Lloyd Kostow. I am an owner and resident at 179 Oswego Summit. I purchased my condominium 33 years ago when it was new. I purchased my condominium because I liked the cedar siding and the red tile roofs. We are being assessed a huge assessment for a rebuilding project that is neither necessary nor desirable. My assessment is $48,000, an amount that we will never get back in appreciation. Some of my friends and neighbors are frightened and are offering their places for sale at rock bottom prices. Other are seriously considering walking away since they will be under water. The so called 'project'would consist of: -Removing and throwing away the cedar siding even though most of the siding is in good shape. New siding consisting of'hardyplanks'would be installed. -Removing and throwing away the red tiles from the roofs and replacing them with tarpaper shingles. -Removing and throwing away all windows,most of which have nothing wrong with them. -Removing and throwing away our metal railings and replacing them with cheap glass panels. We are being told by board members that these things are being required by the City of Lake Oswego. Can this be true? We paid a lot of money for these components and it is a terrible waste to just throw everything away. We recently found out that the architectural study that the board is depending on was not conducted by an architect,but by a young man who studied 'art history'. Clearly,the entire basis for the project scope of work is questionable. The board has consistently refused to listen to us owners and has refused to consider less costly alternatives that would retain our cedar shingles and our red tile roofs. We are being dictated to by a tyrannical board that is pursuing its own agenda without considering the costs or the results of this ill founded project. EXHIBIT G•253 LU 13-0042 �GC44 ec3 J Please help us. We do not want to sacrifice our unique and beautiful condominiums and end up with a place that looks like just another cheap hotel. Thank you for your consideration. Lloyd Kostow 179 Oswego Summit RECEIVED City of Lake Oswego Planning and Buildings Department NOV tt 1 .70ti Case Number: LU 13-0042 City of LaKe 2WG Original Design:DR8-75 & DR44-76 Community Development Dept. Dear Commissioners, My name is Tim Cauller and am the owner of unit 191 at Oswego Summit Condominiums. I would like to correct the record. Ms. Marie Moore OSHOA Chairman made two incorrect statements. Ms., Moore claimed that a vote was taken on "the project", The vote occurred however the numbers Ms. Moore stated were incorrect. There were 104 votes received.(this is 48.6% of homeowners.) The lender required a 60% vote of homeowners. Additionally my neighbor has copies of 69 votes that voted no on "the project". The 69 no votes represent 66.3% of the 104 homeowners who voted. The second inaccurate statement was that there would be five colors. This is inaccurate it is actually eight. Each building would be ONE color. It will look like a bad kindergarten project gone horribly wrong. That color scheme can't possibly meet Lake Oswego standards. As many have said, the "look "of Oswego Summit is both recognizable and makes it unique. Please do not allow them to take off the old growth cedar shakes and tile roofs. I would like to thank you for your time and consideration of my opinions. Very Truly Yours Tim R. Cauller 191 Oswego Summit Drive Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 N d o O U1/4,}40E4 co " 144\--Hfr.20-4/M V I exu- /a9,1,,,L64 CULL— Ij t, ( Otte-2-N- Litt CCI-1 RECEIVED NOV pA )oi City Of Lake OSW Community a,;^ns, t Dept. p. City of Lake Oswego Planning and Building Services Department Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 RE: Applicant/OSHOA Board and Western Architecture for case Number W13-0042 Dear Planning Committee Members, We are writing this letter in rebuttal to the change OSHOA Board and Western Architecture want to make to Oswego Summit. We bought our unit April 12,1980,and one of the major appeals was the distinctive cedar wood shake shingles and red tile roofs that distinguished Oswego Summit from other structures in Mountain Park. OSHOA'S Board and Western Architecture's plans for Oswego Summit is to remove the cedar shingles and the red tile roofs and replace them with hardiplank and a color scheme of seven colors,five for the buildings plus white for the window framing,and black doors. Western Architecture also advises us that the asphalt shingles look like the tile we have now,but reviewing the samples they are not even close in size and structure. We have reviewed the whole package on display at our complex and cannot find any merit in the palette colors chosen for our buildings or roofing. Also on the agenda is removing the windows on the stairwells and the ends of the buildings taking away any openness to those areas. It was our understanding when we attended the planning meeting that we would not have glass railing decks as planned by OSHOA's board and Western Architecture,and we are very thankful for that,as the project planned brings us very close to the appearance of motels around the city Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, � �sb/ ) grk ary L. Smith Delbert W. Grate EXHIBIT G-255 LU 13-0042 Unit 177-Phase 2 November 4, 2013 � c1�, NOV042013 Building Services Department �(?111t1'1C�Rit ,,,, rreigo City of Lake Oswego Y Dei sltir7tR;3Rt Depf, Case File# LU 13-0042 Exterior remodel of all building on site;request to modify the previously approved Case File#'s DR 8-75 and DR 3376 abiding by all current codes when approved and are in effect in perpetuity. Rebuttal to Public Hearing Testimony given by the Applicant for LU 13-0042 and their proponents, October 28,2013 Submitted by Cookie Johnson,owner and resident of Oswego Summit,Condo#64. Inaccurate Renderings of Buildings.Doors,and `Bridges" Omissions in the Renderings: During the Public Hearing Diane Norwood,opponent, submitted a rendering created by the Professional Designer of I&E Construction which showed a window omitted in her condo. This was found to be important enough for the Staff Planners to mention at the hearing. I printed the renderings for my building and quickly noticed all decks and deck sliders at Oswego Summit had been depicted as being identical. My two deck sliders(which of course are wall openings)are actually two different sizes and I have a fixed window in-between the two.The rendering inaccurately shows two smaller sliders. Other condos at Oswego Summit may have similar rendering issues. See the attached rendering where I have marked my doors and window(Attachment A),and the photo of the doors and window on my deck(Attachment 8). Further Omissions on the Renderings:Then I went on to review the renderings for the complex and saw none of the nine(9) 'bridges'that connect buildings(type 2a, 2b,and 3)in Phase 1 appear in the renderings. These bridges provide front door access to some third floor condos;they are missing. These bridges have four large windows,siding,and a roof. Why aren't they shown? What is the plan for the four windows on each bridge? See a photo showing samples of our bridges in(Attachment C). I show the south and north of the buildings 8 bridge connecting to building 9. I also show building 11 connecting to building 10,and building 3 connecting to building 2. These are pictures of only three missing bridges,we have nine bridges. Please request a correction to the renderings to show the bridges,their windows,and the proposed colors. Four large windows should be part of the renderings for the bridges. If they are not shown I would be concerned Western Architectural plans to eliminate these omissions as they wanted to eliminate the diamond shaped windows in our stairwells. EXHIBIT G-256 LU 13-0042 AirAumair A ......._. Building 9 I Back Light(typ):49116 AVI .__ . --.010.i...., -.40....-uwiliutiosiik1/4. A 1117/1441 .....w KIttçE. mom mom mar .amimmtii ammo llAtpbu..6 . 4 .... II II.=sr- immenv mamoramenst . ........ mon 1 rammin—ou- snow sommem ini mrasemo I I I=1. = Immo= summ MI I immomm imam .i.r.t. . MB :MII.111 Am= .... '1"6"14ftrae-itootrit' .eft - . 4...m.0. =moms, ....... sh 1 wainwr , ---"n'in., ,,...-......, . arAMIWANIMO It 111111•1111111 NI MINN MO I I WIIIIIIL,V•All in mix : ..... ...... . , . ii MN ir imemms is 1.11116.1.1 .11•11111110 ing I M r 111111111Mo +I/ r . -MINIM AIVIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIv =MN 1111111M10111114 11.11.11 . '-"..."..' •— •••• •• •• PI ..... L _. .... . _._. -.mar ...... ,•••. OM= milmimmumul Jill Bono VIIIIIN MIME NM= --- AMMO 7=I I 1 I 111 MIMI 1111.11111 =Ma .611111M MAIM ... I I.. moo — ---- - 11111111111ft 111111111111 — _ .0.illiOna '...'"' "'' .... imeior assoiss mom memo ' - mum 4111.1111 1 111=1.111 IIMMINE '''' '''' ' iii .............. ... MOW .41111=1 111111111M VIIIIIIIIM ---. , .. • - 1 - =UM VIM ,.. ,... 11/ Tremco Deck Coating:Maple CD ND() -g- 4,4_ 0 S 01 e q o Summ t ,a _ c 1 Fes! c . �h 1 y\ J R 1 'I. .v, • 41 \ _i is y.,,p) -y ,I Y lk — • , 'I / t I\ ;/// . . . . . -— —----- • - \ ///:',/ •"., . \ --.---------___.—:---•_-:: " 150 IC>N 4,77 1 I 4, [D \ ,,. .... •_,.. ,i. .. .. / //,'.2-7_72:1.-_-_, t. , -- - - .,i,v ------ - if .' 'Ai 7.-:..'_-_7=7-_-_,:------7--------_-7=-7.7_ . : ..-..„.........-..-rr ,iff ^... "-4 .- "-- •= - ' 7 ...... ..........1 ,/4V,J;, * -- _---_- __._._,„.._ .-sl -_„......,..,........ __ Ill III .. . =77.1::•__7: __________„_4/ , _____..... k_...., 4' ‘._. .. ......._______ . ,......., .w.......:.... ....„ _ _ _______ . 1,• -1,,, ...a:).0 - • - . rciiiiiii ili lif , '' ..t,, .*,•17,,:- ,''.1 'J.- •NM - ' 51)tirO V I EU) D F4 -..01 - I II , lik • . ...42, „4..' ' '4\ NAV°Fri e . , 4 s • e : --ev, ____---A, iL. sa: {. • • '•.i.' to•. . :...., I will L . .• , . . , • __— - •_—--- --- . tit ', . --- ------ _____-. .4,-.. --- •,, , • . '-vf . `t,04., . . s __ _ _, _____ . . 4 in Nx ..\----''-_-:'- __ ---------"i_-_-__—_—_. _____„„ _ _________ if I! —_ . •, , pm • IP'''. ..1...;.' ,i..r.. . •... • t ..... imiii • ,N\ NIN I ------__ ' .... swig • 7 _, . .t Qv. •-*____,____- . _ . • ..;,.._-401!PrI"' i N-..N._-_-:-: ,. \ - 4i --,---',---...:----- -----'---11 ... k\ j1/1 , ''''••-.-__.__ -') . _ ....__ • , ----14 . ' - - -- -- • - \ kil It,. S 41/4 ‘:!0.7,.....7-_-_ _____-_-...../---1/ ,, .--... • ^-:7,...N.,•-•..r.T.v',Xi-0i-* f,. , 7..---'-_----,--__ i : ':,,...,,,# • -------•*r %II. • ... . ....- . 1 . i 1 I LIV , . •41/1 ., , .• V WO 1 k "..' ir ........—..— . . 1 ./. . .. 1 iiii •Za - ,,,,,,, .,....,,,,,,,„.„,„._, . t.;,.),:1.p ,- --- , - 1 ,-;•0:,,,, ,t pr 501.0. ..., ,----- ' ) P+11111111P4- . ......__ 1 ..„.r,...... ., ., . . -WI . A '' ' — • ---- , . . i i,"4,------ i ... . _. .- ,, \\., I . . .%.... 1 • ,,, -____--______---pi ‹.5 -4-...,i.'.!1 . A„,:voi 7, ai •:,-••., •, , -- i -4. 0 ,.. .\..'.;.:4•04,„,,,tt ' :'•-1;:'.T!,Et •':':.4-.# f/ F----- , ,sr,. , ,.. • .. ffil •,•Vi- ,•,44 • i ' . . „.. . ..: . ., . . ,„ , , . . . \ ' \ .. \ . N • - .. f. , - -,.,, ..I 1. „ . , " . . , _. _ ---k-..---- .w— -.. - 14 ‘ a'.7-----, ' '..--;ii' -..."..'*':,'.., ",.....e.-. .'"" • -,i ', 'N.:•-,,,_,-;,.. .: -it.,,,-.. :-. .: . ' ,,,...-.. _;:...40 . F31()P, LT.,,Ng AJ, q rt•-e) _ 1.. - — •••...: -.. • •••-•,-;,let_4.--„,..a.---, ,. .,. _...,., . ...._ . '"----,,,,;.•.;• NN- - ' : : -...,-. ..--•>:....i.O.,..,if,r...1„,,,,,,i. :74,74-:..,,,,,,,.,...„.,,.......,,, '''. ' 1 , ,.. •-)1_\t",•0-c,..,,•:..._',., ,,:•..-...'447...•_,•,-..„,„4„.:,,/,' '•///7/1 1 ' ' 4a.P.4, •',,, 0',' •E114:.. '.7-A''-',;W://.:. •-'4'...,,,,:--'-.., 1, ' .e•'---'_.._.._..'_._''_.-,'.-.4..'- -k .,4 1A p-4. A-f. , _ . p.fi L.D kki6).5 &-z-- 1 _ .411 _____ - ••• ' . -.., _ .., -mik',.''.."--7,,-... 0 •••.,, .... disiii 1 . • - - .--ts.. :.'6€4.7.'..- 44...,.. .-- . . .6 1:"' ' 6,..,:7. 6 . ii.,.,.,-'...•!-: ':)..:-., .--.',. v" I •„,,,./. __ Arn....... ,44.,- . .., - . 7- so,,,----1,:;.,,l,.- )„,---, . ,„--crw:;4400,..,,,,cipt 4*- ' -. -•-at-'- '-fsi:4;.et 41,: . . 's g, - - -.....6 . ,. • . t '!'•6 . 1, _. . — ., 1 ..._._.....,... . . - __ Building Colors:Why such a fuss about Red Barn? Red Barn Color—Rebuttal to Justin Barnhart,(testimony at 35 minutes on the audio of the Public Hearing)—A Commissioner at the Public Hearing on October 28,2013,asked if the Oswego Summit Architecture Committee was involved in the selection of the proposed building colors. Justin Barnhart of Western Architectural said "Yes."That is not a true or factual statement. As Chair of the Architecture Committee I was present when Mari Moore,a member of the committee and not yet 'appointed'as an Oswego Summit Board Member or Chairman,announced one color palette only could be presented to Lake Oswego and the Mountain.lPark HOA.She then showed the Committee color chips provided by the Professional Designer(note:no renderings in any form where shown to us).The Architecture Committee called them the'army barracks' colors. These colors where then provided as the official selection.These colors, not to our liking even at that point, did not include Red Barn. As I testified at the Public Hearing the first opportunity to view the color blocking for our buildings was when the renderings were posted on the Lake Oswego Planning website.The Architecture Committee and the Oswego Summit community of Owners had no prior information,no viewing, no vote,and absolutely no say in the selection of these Professional Designer colors. The colors were selected by Val Ivanov,the wife of the owner of I&E Construction,the company our Board of Directors has signed a contract with to remodel our buildings. The project still awaits your approval and the approval of the Lake Oswego Building Department. I spoke against the Red Barn color during the Public Hearing—and I still hold that concern. This color does not belong on our buildings. Many of us believe this color selection is not of good design for Mountain Park. Seven Colors for the Oswego Summit Buildings Rebuttal to Testimony by Mari Moore During the Public Hearing Applicant rebuttal Mari Moore stated, "We have five colors,not seven!" But there are seven colors planned. These include white trim,even around the brown garage doors! (Attachment D),and the Black Front doors(which Diane Norwood,in her testimony notes, is a "difficult" color for certain cultures),and the five colors to be used in color blocking for our buildings. As a number of Owners have testified and complained these colors used in the way planned are not complementary to the multi-family structures or single-family homes in Mountain Park. Not even in Urban Portland will you find SEVEN colors used for APARTMENTS,much less Owner owned condominiums. These are our homes. It would be bad enough to drive home,park in your garage and be inside your Red Barn building. But imagine looking out your window and seeing the bold color blocking depicted on the renderings,including Red Barn, 365 days a year. It is likely none of you would want this fate. Clarification for the Statement by Mari Moore Near the end of the Public Hearing Mari Moore states the Mountain Park HOA has approved the proposed color palette for Oswego Summit. Indeed they have,after three voting sessions;one approval,one second thought denial,then one approval. However,as stated by a Lake Oswego Staff Planner,that approval does not, nor cannot supersede any decision made by the Lake Oswego Planning Department. ArrA M&&)T Building 21 ( Front Materials- Siding:James Hardie fiber cement lap siding-6.25"width for 7"exposure Trim:Hardie 5/4"x 3 1/2"Rustic Grain HZ Deck+Roof Fascia:Hardie fiber cement 5/4"x 11.25" Light Block:2"x 3 1/2"flashed Cedar blocking Body:SW 7591 Red Barn Vinyl Windows and Sliding Glass Doors:White Paint Colors- Fascia:SW 7510 Chateau Brown Accent:SW 7514 Foothills Window,Door&Garage Trim:SW 7516 Kestrel White Garage Doors:SW 7510 Chateau Brown ri vs_ 11, ding AIM r moi+ IL]] III II Mil Ill LL]] I I mum MUM Light(typ):WS-W27 40/f acE „",t Belly Band:SW 7501 7510 Chateau Browne /01{1E TRW At'W Vb 4110 E toots l White Glass Safety Railings Clarification of Justin Barnhart's Testimony regarding White Glass Safety Railings used in our neighborhood;he therefore testifies they are desirable for Oswego Summit I simply want to submit three pictures of White Glass Safety Railings,believing a picture is worth a lot! (Attachment E) First a table with a white metal rim looks quite stark as it sits near the earth tone color of our cedar siding. Second is from the neighborhood near Oswego Summit. See the pale color of the home where a while glass safety railing is used. To clarify only three such homes nearby can be seen using these railing,other homes use wood. It is important to note the homes with the white glass safety railing are paired with a pale tan colored siding or the railing most certainly would jump out to the viewer. Third is an example of a MOTEL in Lincoln City,where white glass railings abound;an example why we don't want this solution for our homes. Is Western Architectural Able to Create an Alternate Deck Design? Testimony from Justin Barnhart,Western Architectural and Greg Freisen-in favor of the Applicant Scuppers used for Building Types 2a,2b and 3,Phase 1—Some of our scuppers and scupper owners have caused problems as testified to by an Applicant proponent,Greg Freisen. It is true Greg and a few other Owners have had a hard time managing their scuppers. But it should be noted Oswego Summit has 100 decks with 1)scuppers with a drain attached and 2)these same decks have an overflow scupper whose drains directs water directly downward, without a design of drain pipes. We have a 1)primary design and a 2)back-up design on every deck. I have never heard the Applicant refer to or discuss the back-up drain,or its inherent effectiveness in dealing with water collection. I contend a larger scupper opening coupled with an'industrial'style birds-nest insert could allow for successful drainage of water as we keep our Privacy Walls. During the Public Hearing on October 28, 2013,Justin Barnhart and other Applicant proponents were eager to restate that the original deck plans conceived by Western Architectural must be approved. I challenge Western Architectural to create a deck design that maintains the Privacy Walls,as recommended by the Lake Oswego Design Review Staff Report,and successfully deals with water and tree leaves at the same time. We all know there is more than one way to do anything.Certainly new designs and methods have been perfected in the intervening years since 1978. Justin further claims a maintenance person could tell, without having access to an Owners deck,if there was a drainage problem with his proposed deck design. Well,I want to point out IF we had such a person working at Oswego Summit they would need more than a pair of binoculars to view the third floor and fourth floor decks. • - __ ,- _________ ___ _ AASTAL M A e T n h ,,,-. lc- I , , f. vim,0:4, s f/ 43 1 el . / ■■h n (f//j ryq - --- E Ao ° OMa111 I- 1 inir il . . -. . ve �� MvTaL ___ ... - ,.i — 4P , . .. _ __... • . 1 _ _ :A - . ,,-- _ --,.., . _. ,....1, .........,_, , _ _ , �1111104- AN ,�eeAo i ' — ' . _ ALAVA • ., _i 104 oF to ... ,, ., dii 11.1.2•._ ...1 3 oalioi, _ tea. Flat Roofs and Roofing Materials on Oswego Summit Buildings Prior to the Public Hearing,Justin Barnhart of Western Architectural submitted an email to the Design Review Senior Staff stating an 80 mil roofing material would be used on the roofs at Oswego Summit, "we have specified an 80mil roof, which is clearly stated in section 075419 part 2.1-A.2 of our project manual" This email was to correct the'confusion'of his previous submission to Lake Oswego that a 40 mil roof material would be used. I would like Justin's declaration of the roofing material to be noted in my rebuttal letter as a good move on the part of Western Architectural. Justin did note in his testimony on October 28, 2013 that our buildings are exposed to high winds,which may be one of several reasons we now have the assurance of an 80 mil roofing material. Thank you for reading my rebuttal testimony and viewing the attachments. As time to submit this letter is running out I wish to note I will provide further rebuttal to the assumption all siding must be removed from our buildings. This conclusion,drawn by Justin Barnhart,and approved by his manager, I believe has been made in haste and with sparse investigation. I will clearly state my rational in a forthcoming letter. Respectfully submitted for your review and consideration, (1:44), Cookie Jo •n Condo#6=, •swego Summit cooKiesottice pcomcast.net JOHN L . MATTESONARCHITECT November 4,2013 RECEIVED Building Services Department st City of Lake Oswego NOV {l 4 2x113 Case File# LU 13-0042 Exterior remodel of all building4 ;Lb modify the previously approved Case File#'s DR 8-75 alidIDRlablditophiyDept, all current codes when approved and are in effect in perpetuity. To Whom it May Concern: I have been asked by Cookie Johnson,resident and owner,at Lake Oswego Summit Condominiums to write my opinion of the proposed remediation repairs on their condominiums. I am a practicing architect with remediation experience since 1985. Past projects completed on behalf of homeowners have always tried to provide an aesthetic solution in keeping with the original building design. The Owners at Lake Oswego Summit purchased a"design"of materials and amenities and should expect the same results upon completion of remediation repairs: wood shingles,tile roof,dark window frames,and privacy deck screening and railing walls. It is my opinion,after visiting the site and reviewing the proposed remediation scope of work,the solution does not address the aesthetic considerations of the original design. The depth and breath of the remediation (removal of all siding and window replacement)I suspect is more than needs to be done considering the specific problems noted in the investigation studies. I respectfully submit my opinions for consideration and ask that the original building deign be respected. I am at your service to answer any questions you may have or expand on above opinions. Sincerely, (-- /it L FE---fr Pr John L. atteson,Architect,AIA Emeritus cc email—Cookie Johnson EXHIBIT G-257 LU 13-0042 7!13 SW CORI3F.IT MEM E PORTLAND OREGON 97219 Telephone 503 22n 6145 Du.ect 503 880 8098 lohnlmatteson@:mai!corn NOV 0 4 2Qj3 FOLLOW UP EVIDENCE iY ::'16 USI47000 IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION LU 13-0042 Common/ o /`v`° ` 1'alnp . Ot Wit. AFTER HEARING OF OCTOBER 28, 2013 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO. OR ODDonent: Gino Peretti October 31, 2013 The Project of the Applicant violates the City of Lake Oswego Building Design Standards. LOC 50.06.001 at paragraph 5.b. states: "b. Design Standards Buildings shall be designed and located to complement and preserve existing buildings..." 1. Design building to be complementary in appearance to adjacent structures of good design with regard to: (1) materials The Applicant's proposal to remove all the existing cedar shingle siding from all 26 of the buildings and replace them with horizontal hardiplank siding, painted multiple colors, does not meet the judicially mandated and Lake Oswego City council-adopted meaning of the word "complementary", as used in the LOC design standard that the proposed remodel of the buildings be "complementary" in appearance to adjacent structures of good design." In the case of McNulty vs City of Lake Oswego, 15 OR Luba 16, 1986 W.L. 633089 (OR Luba), the Court decreed and Lake Oswego City Council adopted the meaning of the word "complementary" as used in the City of Lake Oswego's Building Design Standards. At the bottom of page 3 and top of page 4 of the decision, the Court states: " at the May 13 meeting the council adopted the following interpretation as used in this standard: 1 EXHIBIT G-258 LU 13-0042 "Complementary: That the visual aspects of a building or structural element complete the visual image of the universe being considered in an aesthetically pleasing way," Record at 428,438. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2nd Edition) defines aesthetic as "pertaining to a sense of the beautiful; having a sense of the beautiful". By no sense of the imagination is the proposed remodeling of Oswego Summit as the Applicant requests "aesthetically pleasing". With regard to the replacement of all the cedar shingles, the Lake Oswego Planning Department staff met with the Applicant on July 15, 2013 and issued a report that same day. Page 3 of that report states as follows: "Replacement of the shingles with horizontal siding significantly affects the quality and character of the design. The lap siding lacks the texture and visual interest that the wood shingles provide. If it is necessary to replace the siding, consider utilizing a combination of lap siding and wood shinales to provide texture and to break up large expanses of siding material(for instance, where there are bay windows or other breaks in the façade)." It is obvious from the above that the staff would have favored retaining the cedar shingles. It is also obvious the Applicant did not address the concern of the staff. Instead, the Applicant decided to break up large expanses of hardiplank lap siding and provide texture and visual interest by the use (misuse) of color. As stated at pages 6 & 7 of the Staff report of October 17, 2013, "Siding The applicant proposes to remove the existing cedar shingle siding from all the buildings and replace them with horizontal hardiplank siding (Exhibits E5-E10). To help break up expanses of siding, the applicant proposes to add belly bands and trim at the building corners and around doors and windows in contrasting colors. Additionally, each building is proposed to be painted two contrasting colors or tones, along with trim, to further break up expanses of siding. The color palettes of the buildings are proposed to be alternated in order to provide more visual interest (Exhibit E9)." However, in contradiction to its statement that" ...the replacement of the shingles with horizontal siding significantly affects the quality and character of the design." And: "The lap siding lacks the texture and visual interest that the wood shingles provide" it added: 2 Staff "finds that the horizontal lap siding is consistent with and complementary to the siding materials of all the adjacent structures. The applicant has utilized similar neutral color blocking and trim treatments as the apartment building at One Jefferson Parkway, which are of good design (see Exhibit E5-E7 and E12 and photograph above). What the staff has not taken into account in comparing the proposed use of hardiplank and replacement of the wood shingles at Oswego Summit with One Jefferson Way's wall design, is that One Jefferson Way on its front view as depicted in the Exhibit has gables and large pillared verandas as well as a facade that is textured by two projecting outward wings. Moreover, it has ample windows that break up both the facade and the side profiles. In the case, of the Oswego Summit proposed remodel, the Applicant has deleted multiple windows from the left and right profiles of the buildings. These broke up the solid blank walls, lent interest and provided relief from the proposed large barn-like expanses of hardiplank. In other words, the Applicant plans to create a barn-like or blind wall look that will create a design that is neither "consistent" or "complementary" to that created by the siding materials at One Jefferson Parkway. It has also not proposed a color palette that is either "consistent" or "complementary" to other adjacent buildings, such as McNary Highlanders or the Avocet, or even One Jefferson Way, which are all color coded with soft pastels and muted accents or sport very prominent balconies with wood trellis railings of the same color as the siding. There are no existing examples of the blind face, fortress high-wall look created by the Applicant's plans which involves the deletion of a multitude of essential windows. The staff has already disallowed the removal of the diamond shaped windows in the stairwells of the buildings in Phase I and Phase II on the basis of this unwanted result. Moreover, the elevation drawings provided by the Applicant are incorrect and misleading to the Commission in its Design Review exercise in that they display blank walls with deleted windows in the dining rooms or entrance way that have not been marked as deleted. They are just not there anymore and the profile sports a total blank face of unrelieved planking. That situation is found in every building from 1 to 21. The courtyard entrance look has been destroyed on every end-unit and side profile and been replaced with a side door, secondary entrance look which destroys the whole appeal of the entrances on the sides of the buildings. To see how unattractive and aesthetically unnleasin2 these hodge-podged colored buildings with blind walls will be as they spread over the beautiful site now occupied by a well- established and mellowed Oswego Summit of good design in every sense of the meaning of the definition of"aesthetically pleasing", one need only drive to Oswego Summit and look at it 3 today. Then look at the mock-up display near the club house of one of the various distinct color combination proposed to replace the tasteful tawny old growth cedar wood shingles siding. It will be immediately evident that the wood shingles and their color provide beauty and unity for our condominium site. If commissioners do not have the time to come to the site to compare the proposed multicolored buildings with white trim vinyl windows, please look at the staff report of October 25, 2013. Exhibit G-232 in an October 15, 2013 letter from Dana Bozek and Andy Groeneveld, together with the colored 31 photographs. Page 120, has the look, color of only one of the 5 or 7 distinct color combinations which Justin Barnhart states "will provide visual variety and accent the distinct shapes of the building." Please compare the "aesthetically pleasing" attributes of the cedar shingles (image them cleaned and oiled)to the contention of the Applicant that the multi-colored lap hardiplank siding is "aesthetically pleasing". Many of us owners and our friends and families believe the Applicant's remodel plan will render the buildings' appearance mediocre, at best, and an eye-sore, at worst. In its pre-application report of July 25, 2-913 quoted above at p. 2, staff made it amply clear that "If it is necessary to replace the siding", the resulting expanses of lap siding needed to be relieved by at least a combination of wood shingles and lap siding to "provide texture and to break up large expanses of siding material (for instance, where there are bay windows or other breaks in the facade". It is obvious that they did not expect windows to be removed to further add to the excessive and dull expanses of hardiplank. The opponent owners at Oswego Summit arranged to have two exceptionally capable and experienced architects, John Matteson and Ray Bartel (with 92 years of total experience) to come to a September 30, 2013 Board Meeting. They both had reviewed the file, scope of work, drawings of Western Architecture and had observed the 26 buildings. They both stated that it was unnecessary, very expensive, and aesthetically damaeing to remove the cedar siding and replace it with hardiplank. These two architects also stated that the shingles that are damaged could be replaced and the remaining ones cleaned and oiled to restore their almost new and attractive appearance. The Board voted to disallow a homeowner vote on the scope of the work proposed by these two architects and voted to proceed with Justin Barnhart's project. Attached as Exhibit#1 are the resumes of John Matteson and Ray Bartel. Also attached in Exhibit#1 is information regarding the education and work experience of Justin Barnhart. As shown, he is neither an architect nor an engineer. Prior to the September 30, 2013 meeting with the two architects whom we asked to provide us with an alternative, less destructive project of repairs (not remodeling) of our condominium homes, the Board presented him as an 4 engineer when asked about his credentials and training. To wit, the sign-in document at the Pre-application meeting with staff of the Planning Department of July 25, 2013 (see attached Exhibit#2). All other 5 applicants signed in and noted their "title". Opposite Justin Barnhart's signature, phone number and email address, he entered his title as "architect". When asked directly at the September 30, 2013 meeting, Mr. Barnhart stated he had never represented that he was an architect or an engineer. It is a matter of severe concern to me and to my fellow owner-opponents of this "remodel project" proposed by Mr. Barnhart, which will radically alter the design and quality of living of all our condominium homes and universe, to contemplate that he is retained in lieu of two learned senior architects with proven experience and professional credentials . The elevation drawings that support the Applicant's submission leave much to be desired, apart from displaying many discrepancies as already pointed out by homeowner opponent Diane Norwood at the Hearing. His basic knowledge of good design also seems to be wanting. It should be of concern to the Commission that it is being asked to destroy an example of good design and "aesthetically pleasing" structures and to replace them with a doubtful specimen of inferior concept and appearance, by a proponent who does not seem to have the prerequisite credentials to make such a monumental change in a landmark site like Oswego Summit. It certainly alarms me as an owner and a Board Member representing the concerns of some 92 owners of the 214 at Oswego Summit who voted for me to represent their interests in the last Board Recall effort of September 11, 2013. The Staff Report of October 17, 2013 at page 7 states with regard to the proposed siding as follows: "Staff finds that the horizontal lap siding is consistent with and complementary to the siding materials of all the adjacent structures. "Consistent" is a different standard than the required "aesthetically pleasing". For example, the front of One Jefferson Parkway, with the large expanse of green grass and large balconies which break up the lap siding, is far different from the apartments at the back of the property which reveal a large standard looking 300 unit apartment complex. One Jefferson Parkway is across the street from the "aesthetically pleasing" red brick clad Mountain Park Recreational Center. Would the commission allow the removal of the red brick to be replaced by the multi-colored lap hardiplank being proposed by the Applicant, because it is "complementary" to the lap siding on One Jefferson Parkway and the Gables? The "summit at Mountain Park" residences across the street from Oswego Summit have one color lap siding on the rear of the houses partially covered by greenery. The fronts, however, are primarily clad with pleasant colored stucco to give them more street appeal. Should that be replaced with our proposed multi-colored hardiplank siding to make it complementary to the houses at "The Summit at Mountain Park". 5 I could go on giving you other similar examples of the "uncontemplentary" nature of multi-colored hardiplank lap siding and the built environment and "universe" at Oswego Summit and around it. But this document is already too long. So, please take the time to personally view the mock-up of the proposed remodel materials—the siding proposed for Oswego Summit -- and compare it to the old growth cedar wood siding on the office building and the rest of the residential building as shown in the color photos enclosed, starting at page 93 of the October 25 Staff report. The ecological and sustainability aspects of the impact of removing and discarding all the cedar siding and red roof tiles is obvious and was covered ably by homeowner opponent Sherri Finnigan in her testimony at the October 28, hearing. The photos and drawings submitted by the Applicant showing what the complex would look like after their "remodel" is extra proof that the remodeled site would not be "aesthetically pleasing". ,�var� =GCS gi j Gino Pieretti P.S. On leaving City Hall last week, I noticed that in a trophy case in the Lobby, there was an article and pictures of the Priestley House which had received a `Better Homes & Gardens" award as "House of the Year" in 1963. The Priestley House was also featured in "American Home" and "Sunset Magazine" in 1967. The cedar shingles on the Priestley House are essentially identical in size and color to the present cedar shingles at Oswego Summit. A copy of the article is attached. It includes a picture of the house and cedar siding. 6 Resume: John L. Matteson FIRM: John L.Matteson,Architect CONTACT: 0: 503-224-6145 C: 503-880-8098 e-mail: iohnlmatteson(l rrmail.com REGISTRATION: Architect:State of Oregon 1970,#1250 EDUCATION: University of Oregon,Bachelor of Architecture, 1966 EMPLOYMENT: Principal,Martin/Matteson ALA Architects 1984-85 Principal,Martin/Soderstrom/Matteson AIA Architects,P.C. 1972-84 Associate,Martin/Soderstrom Architects 1969-71 U.S.Forest Service,Portland Office,Architectural Division 1968 Will Martin Design 1966-68 ORGANIZATIONS: American Institute of Architects,AIA Emeritus COMMUNITY YMCA Membership and Fund Committee 1978 SERVICE: Standardization Team:Oregon Department of Education 1979 and 1980 President,Corbett-Lair Hill Neighborhood Association 1974-75 Instructor,Pacific Northwest College of Art, 1967-69 Oregon Army National Guard, 1966-71 Oregon Artist's Exhibition, 1968 PROFESSIONALsident,Oregon Council of f Architects 1983 SERVICE: ' President,American Institute of Architects,Portland Chapter 1981 Portland Chapter Offices and Committees,since 1972: Secretary,Treasurer, u::Y:..,,:.�, ;1_., e, o.uvc.a�tiaY,riv�au►�, UGN Fund Drive,Downtown Visual Survey Task Force,Design Awards Jury-Southwest Oregon Chapter,National AIA Professional Development Committee,Nominating Committee,Practice Committee. RECOGNITION: /Certificate of Appreciation,Oregon Council of Architects 19 _ Certificate of Appreciation,Portland Chapter AIA 1981 Certificate of Appreciation,Oregon Department of Education 197 79 Certificate of Merit,U.S.Department of Agriculture 1967 PUBLICATION ) "Design Alternatives For Agricultural Worker Housing" AND AWARDS Published by Housing Division,Washington State Department of C s '.U .' D- -lopment,December, 1992. ERIT AW ight Elementary School Play Structure;Canby SD 86, ' erican Institute of Architects,Portland Chapter 1982. PUBLICATION Knight Ele ntary School,AIA Journal Magazine, 1983. (AUTIFICAI IOWAW %Gladstone Acura Dealership,Gladstone,OR, Nortn Clackamas'county Chamber of Commerce, 1986. PRACTICE perience in all phases of architectural practice involving,design, EXPERIENCE: personnel management,contracts,consultant co-ordination,specifications, construction drawings,and construction administration. Project types have involved elementary,secondary,and higher education facilities,auto dealerships,multi-family housing,commercial remodel, industrial,medical,aviation,re-roofing,ADA compliance reports,condominium,) rehabilitation,and litigation support. i John L.Matteson,Architect 7114 SW Corbett,Portland,Oregon 97219 0 503-224-6145 C 503-880-8098 Proiects: Moisture Investigation and Repairs OVERTON TOWNHOMES,Exterior and deck deficiency investigation.Portland,OR PACIFIC PLACE SHOPPING CENTER,EIFS dry rot repairs.Tigard,OR PARK PLACE TOWER CONDOMINIUMS,Window and cladding repair consulting. Portland,OR PORTNOMAH PARK HOME OWNERS ASSOC.,Maintenance repair budgeting.Portland,OR PHOENIX INN BEAVERTON,EIFS cladding and window replacement consulting.Beaverton,OR PHOENIX INN TIGARD,EIFS cladding and window replacement consulting. Tigard,OR PROVIDENCE MEDICAL CENTER,Evaluation of roof,parking deck,exterior.Portland,OR QUIMBY TOWNHOMES,Review building deficiencies and drawings. Portland,OR RIVER PLACE CONDOMINIUM,Dry rot repair and deck replacement.Portland,OR ROSENFIELD RESIDENCE,Review deck defects,write report.Portland,OR TANGLEWOOD HILLS CONDOMINIUM,Exterior envelope consulting for repair. Portland,OR ST.ANDREWS CONDOMINIUM,Cladding,deck replacement design and drawings.Portland OR SELLWOOD HARBOR CONDOMINIUMS,Consulting for deck repairs.Portland,OR SHOOTER RESIDENCE,Review construction defects,write report.Sherwood,OR STAR RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS,Soil stabilization,dry rot repair,waterproofing.Portland,OR STOJANOVICH RESIDENCE,Deck repair and coating,Portland,OR THE VILLAGE at FOREST HEIGHTS,Review dry rot,EIFS,wall shingle,decks.Portland,OR THE WESTOVER CONDOMINIUMS,Building systems and drawing review. Portland,OR TOWER HILL CONDOMINIUM,Dry rot repair and deck replacement.Portland,OR WILLAMETTE SHORES CONDOMINIUMS,Consulting for dry rot and design changes.Portland,OR WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL,Consulting for roof ventilation and dry rot repairs.Garibaldi,OR WESTOVER TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS,Consulting for cladding,window replacement.Portland,OR ZELL RESIDENCE,Review EIFS installation,flashing,write report,Sherwood,OR OUALITY CONTROL AVENUE LOFTS CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR BRIDGEPORT CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR JOHNSON STREET TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR John L.Matteson,Architect 7114 SW Corbett,Portland,Oregon 97219 0 503-224-6145 C 503-880-8098 Projects: Moisture Investieation and Repairs MOISTURE INVESTIGATION and REPAIR ALTAMONT SUMMITT APARTMENTS,Deck,trim,mechanical unit repair. Portland,OR AMERICAN CONDOMINIUMS,Below grade moisture intrusion review.Portland,OR AMERICAN PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS,Assist with specifications for re-painting.Portland, OR BRIDGEVIEW CONDOMINIUMS,Building,site stabilization,study and drawings,Portland,OR BROADWAY VIEW CONDOMINIUMS,Building and site study for rehabilitation.Portland,OR BOARDWALK CONDOMINIUMS,Exterior siding and deck reconstruction. Portland,OR CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY,INC.,Exterior cladding replacement.Tigard,OR COLEMAN RESIDENCE,Report of construction defects.Beaverton,OR ENCORE at COLUMBIA SHORES,Review drawings for code compliance.Vancouver,WA FONTAINE CONDOMINIUMS,Exterior coating system.Portland,OR FOREST CREEK APARTMENTS,Drawing review for moisture intrusion.Portland,OR HAYHURST RESIDENCE,Dry rot repair and deck replacement.Portland,OR HERON POINTE CONDOMINIUMS,Dry rot investigation.Portland,OR HERITAGE PLACE CONDOMINIUMS,Consulting for window replacement.Vancouver,WA HILLSBORO PROMENADE SHOPPING CENTER,EIFS dry rot repairs.Hillsboro,OR HOODVIEW ESTATES,Exterior siding and deck consultation. Portland,OR HOYT COMMONS CONDOMINIUMS,Sliding door and copping replacement. Portland,OR IRVING STREET TOWNHOUSES,EIFS replacement and dry rot repair.Portland,OR IRVINGTON PLACE CONDOMINIUMS,window,cladding replacement,dry rot repair.Portland,OR JEFFERSON PLACE APARTMENTS,Dry rot report,drawings for corrections. Woodland,WA JOHNSON STREET TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS,Window replacement.Portland,OR KINGS SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS,Window,cladding,dry rot repair consulting,Portland,OR La TORRE CONDOMINIUMS,EIFS thy rot investigation.Portland,OR LAKEWOOD LOFTS and CONDOMINIUMS,Building deficiency review. Lake Oswego,OR LANDING CONDOMINIUM,Dry rot repair and deck replacement.Portland,OR • MOLALLA HIGH SCHOOL,Review window failure and building envelope.Molalla,OR MACDONALD RESIDENCE,Review building deficiencies. Portland,OR John L.Matteson,Architect 7114 SW Corbett,Portland,Oregon 97219 0 503-224-6145 C 503-880-8098 41111 f) lec t5 Malottuire Lq estpgatm u mad lieDera L( C IRVING STREET TOWNHOUSES,EIFS replacement and dry rot repair.Portland,OR IRVINGTON PLACE CONDOMINIUMS,window,cladding replacement,dry rot repair.Portland,OR JOHNSON STREET TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS,Window replacement.Portland,OR KINGS SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS,Window,cladding,dry rot repair consulting,Portland,OR LANDING CONDOMINIUM,Dry rot repair and deck replacement.Portland,OR RIVER PLACE CONDOMINIUM,Dry rot repair and deck replacement Portland,OR WESTOVER TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS,Consulting for cladding,window replacement.Portland,OR John L.Matteson,Architect 7114 SW Corbett,Portland,Oregon 97219 0 503-224-6145 C 503-880-8098 fY9�L' ^T SPA IProiee s: Moisture herestigation and Re efiirs MARSHALL WELLS LOFTS CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR METROPOLITAN CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR PINNACLE CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR RIVERSTONE CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR SIXTEENTH STREET CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR STREETCAR CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR TANNER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, 1-year warranty review/report,Portland,OR John L.Matteson,Architect 7114 SW Corbett,Portland,Oregon 97219 0 503-224-6145 C 503-880-8098 u grout: John Matteson <johnlmatteson@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 27,2013 5:22 PM To: Gino Pieretti Cc: Cookie Johnson Subject: Project List Attachments:nts: short listdoc; Moisture Inv& Repair 3-12 copy.doc; Untitled attachment 00013.txt tFoll©t' Up rimo: Follow up 7h-,g Sq.atan: Flagged Hi Gino; Attached are two lists of projects. I have edited the global listings to a"short list". Good meeting today with Ray. Will see you-6PM Monday. Everyone have a nice weekend pack an umbrella. Regards,John John L. Matteson,Architect 7114 SW Corbett Avenue Portland,OR 97219 O 503-224-6145 C 503-880-8098 I ffe � Raymond J. Bartel Architect & Planner at Hawthorne Crest • September 3,20134 1//s V t / Oswego Summit Homeowners c/o Gino Peretti 215 Oswego Summit N pt /eat,°✓Lake swego,OR 97035 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, V .OL. �. t-t6r L Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following profile and program of work. cAm i t Raymond J Bartel Architect and Planner is a firm with qualifying experience in building envelope science and restoration. Our compact company size gives firm members knowledge and contact with all projects in me orrice,as well as an opportunity to work all phases of a job, from proposal to working drawings through construction administration. Raymond Bartel has been in private practice since 1972. Aaron Bartel has over ten years of experience working on projects ranging in scale from residences to 10+story steel and concrete towers. h--The— majority e ~� majority of ourTrojects are restorations or rem eod-I ew construction-projeets in our office include clients who have been through a restoration,and do not want to repeat the experience. New projects have included Resorts at Florence and Longbeach for Wyndham,as well as Villas Town Homes at Pronghorn in Bend. Previous experience with wood-frame multi-family restorations include projects throughout the northwest. Many of these projects are sited in difficult locations with western aspects,or are directly overlooking surf on the Washington or Oregon Coasts. Completed examples include Montara Town Homes in the Forest Heights neighborhood of Portland,Whale Pointe in Depoe Bay and the Furman/ Greenbrier Compound in Lincoln City Oregon. Current multifamily projects include The Resort at Seaside–a mass masonry tower in Seaside Oregon,and The Resort at Surfside–a wood frame condominium building in Oceanside Washington. All of these projects have required building permits issued by the local jurisdiction,which have been obtained readily,and with few if any check-sheet or red- line revisions. A key to smooth permit acquisition is complete documents and face-to-face interaction with permit specialists who recognize the experience and confidence before them. Lateral and gravity engineering is performed in-house. Mechanical, electrical, and other engineering specialties are performed by consultants. When required for intrusive access,we ask for a licensed general contractor to contract with the Owner. On our projects,we require that construction administration services be performed by this office as a prerequisite to undertaking a job. Window,door,and material(s)quality control testing is performed by this office utilizing our own apparatus,as opposed to the common third party inspectors or laboratories. This approach provides our clients and us alike with first-hand assurances that our documents are being PO Box 700 ® Oregon City Oregon 97045 @ (503) 631-7800 ® RBarte1730@aol.com Oswego Summit Page 2 of 4 implemented in substantial conformance with intent,and that materials/systems are meeting rated performance. We follow the outline of activities set forth in ASTM E2128—Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls. The American Society for Testing and Materials produced this protocol for use by design professionals evaluating unsatisfactory conditions caused by water infiltration. Use of this guide produces scientific and consistent results,which helps insure that the professional has complete understanding of issues that are causing unsatisfactory conditions. Codes have changed significantly since this project was constructed—particularly lateral force restraint—wind and seismic requirements. Seismic upgrades on wood frame construction are simple and of minor comparative expense. Upgrades involve tighter nailing of sheathing at key locations and the addition of metal straps and foundation anchors. To protect your investment, it should be considered as a part of this project. In addition to the exterior investigation, we propose touring ten to twenty percents of unit interiors for the purpose of observing visual indicators of water infiltration,particularly around windows,doors and deck interfaces,as well as other wall and roof penetrations. These tours typically require 20-30 minutes each,and are fairly non-invasive. No materials would be removed, and unless already damaged by water,moisture readings would be taken remotely. The proceeding pages include a typical work program with time intervals,as well as character projects and client references. If we can answer any questions or provide additional information, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Raymond J Bartel PO Box 700.Oregon City Oregon 97045•(503) 631-7800•RBarte1730@aol.com .,,,7,..:.7. ro ice 0e) Resume c..f.--fj� �C��- t Raymond J Martel Raymond J Bartel Architect and Planner Oregon Cihr, Oregon Profile: 'ay Bartel started Raymond J Bartel Architect and Planner as a sole .roprietorship in 1972 and has acted as principal of the firm since its inception.- -a ,,- • -- - --i 'cisorevery projec . - •• -- - -- . . conducts the major percentage of client correspondence. Related Experience: Project experience and services offered include commercial, residential, industrial and institutional facilities. Services have included project feasibility, land use planning, project master planning, and construction document preparation and construction management. This office has also prepared forensic documentation and analysis as well as investigated a wide range of building system failures. Ray has 30 years general practice experience, plus 10 years of experience in field and laboratory practice of material science, diagnostics, and restoration design and restoration construction contract administration. To provide clients the largest range of service, Ray is registered with the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), which allows multi state representation through registration reciprocity. Ray has served as a director of public and private organizations including the Portland Metropolitan Area Government Boundary Commission, North Clackamas Chamber of Commerce, Redland School Board, and the Milwaukie $ C1ub. -.� Education: Bachelor of Architecture—1968 University of Oregon Teachers Assistant/Structural Engineering—1966/ 1967 • University of Oregon Clackamas Community College—AutoCAD Technology Portland State University—Geology, Soil Development and Characteristics 1 rvard University/Graduate School of Design—Building nvelope� ,Karo ems c,L: _4A- - Principles of exterior envelope design and their application to \, products and building systems. ' 6 .f/J(i c‘4/�" - Contemporary problems dealing with water leakage, condensation, �e.,t structural failure, mold and mildew contamination and other problems; ,..o (--•' related to the design and construction of buildings and their / L components including roofs,walls, foundations, decks, plazas, / !pi.„•,.‘rtk if" curtain walls, penetrations and openings. / Registration: NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards) Licensed Architect: Oregon Washington California Colorado Idaho (4.y SAMPLE PROJECTS ?O Box 700*Oregon City Oregon 97045.(503) 63.1-78000RBarte1730eaol.com Character Projects Diaanostics and Forensic PROJECT: Lower Umpqua Regional Hospital Reedsport,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Document instances and causes of water infiltration in Portland Cement Stucco system. Determine influence of wall assembly components. Administer ASTM/AAMA window tests. Provide factual findings report. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair. PROJECT: Columbia Memorial Hospital—Professional Services Building Astoria,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Document instances and causes of water infiltration in EIFS system. Determine influence of wall assembly components. Administer ASTM/AAMA window tests. PROJECT: Trendwest—Woridmark—The Club Gleneden Beach,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Document instances and causes of water infiltration and building envelope failure at beachfront condominium resort. Determine influence of wall assembly components and craftsmanship. Administer ASTM/AAMA window tests. Provide factual findings report. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair. PROJECT: Pearl Lofts Condominiums Portland, Oregon DESCRIPTION: Document instances and causes of water infiltration in EIFS system. Determine influence of wall assembly components. Provide Construction Documents for repairs and reconstruction. Participate in Contractor interviews and selection. Perform construction observation as well as contract administration. PROJECT: Windsor Place Condominiums Portland,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Owner's representative and forensic systems as well as financial analysis of project construction. Assume Owner's Representative role and restart project after removal of previous Construction Manager. �1r a r PROJECT: The Capes Oceanside, Oregon DESCRIPTION: Document instances and causes of water infiltration in window system. Determine influence of environmental factors on envelope. Provide responses to alleged construction and code defects. O.1 ECT: Lloyd Lofts Portland,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Owner's representative and forensic systems as well as financial analysis of project construction. Assume Owner's Representative role and restart project after removal of previous Construction Manager. PROJECT: Brentwood Apartments Portland,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Documents existing condition of building envelope including vinyl siding,building paper and sheathing. Administer ASTM/AAMA window tests. Provide factual findings report. PROJECT: La Torre Portland,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Contractor's representative and forensic systems as well as financial analysis of project construction. Document water infiltration and resulting residual damages. PI'•:OdlECT: Seaside Comfort Inn Seaside,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Owner's representative and forensic systems as well as financial analysis of project construction. Prepare scope for repairs and maintenance. PROJECT: Whale Point Condominiums Depot Bay, Oregon DESCRIPTION: Forensic analysis of water infiltration and resulting building envelope damage. Prepare scope for repairs and maintenance. PROJECT: Clackamas Community College Oregon City, Oregon DESCRIPTION: Forensic analysis of water infiltration and resulting building envelope damage.Analysis of EIFS and window failures. Analyze envelope and HVAC for dew point design problems. PROJECT: Quatama Crossing Clark County, Washington DESCRIPTION: Forensic analysis of water infiltration and resulting building envelope damage. PROJECT: Furman Beach Residence Lincoln City,Oregon DESCRIPTION: Document instances and causes of water infiltration in EIFS system. Determine influence of environmental factors including HVAC system and relationship to dew point condensation within wall assemblies. Provide construction documents for repairs and perform construction observation as well as contract administration. PROJECT: Clayton—Muerer Residence Ocean Side, Oregon DESCRIPTION: Document instances and causes of water infiltration in EIFS system. Provide findings report. PROJECT: The Resort at Seaside Seaside,Oregon Wyndham Vacation Ownership DESCRIPTION: Document instances and causes of water infiltration and de bonding in a new barrier EIFS system. Determine influence of environmental factors including HVAC system and relationship to dew point condensation within wall assemblies and window performance. Investigate structural failures of cladding systems. Provide factual findings report, recommendations and options for repairs and repair and remodeling budget. Prepare bid documents for repair. Solicit and receive bids. Secure building permits. Observe and maintain quality control of construction. Project construction is current. • FIRM RESUMES PD Box 70000regon City Oregon 970450(503) 631-78000RBarte1730@aoi.com —`� r r-., si ] tt4 Pyl i ' t } ' Ate: 1ti1! ice, Ir go ,., ." :e � I �It t r a xs '1/!'f ur AI _ IN pp ` 1 k Fr— , 11 w 1 ABy , 1 e -' ' '- j' - ke Document instances and causes of water infiltration and building envelope failure at beachfront condominium resort. Determine influence of wall assembly components and craftsmanship. Administer ASTM/AAMA Window and Wall Cladding tests. Provide factual findings report for claims book. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair.Provide Repair Construction Contract Administration and Observation. Owner—Wyndham Vacation Ownership Contractor -- Phase I—R&H Construction Phase II—The Inland Group The Resort at Depoe Bay Depoe Bay,Oregon Raymond J Bartel Architect and Planner at Hawthorne Crest PO Box 700,Oregon City,Oregon 97045 Voice:(503)631-7800 Fax/Data:(503)631-7801 Rbarte1730@aol.com -- v __ ..- _ ' i K-r. r C +,e�. - `- _ �` --- ,tea'. w- a t i r - • _ ' 9. ` , `T- r - - 'kit, ` � . bit , - ii Document instances and causes of water infiltration and building envelope failure at beachfront condominium resort. Determine influence of wall assembly components and craftsmanship. Administer ASTM/AAMA Window and Wall Cladding tests. Provide factual findings report for claims book. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair. Provide Repair Construction Contract Administration and Observation. Owner—Wyndham Vacation Ownership Contractor -- Phase I—R&H Construction Phase II—The Inland Group The Resort at Depoe Bay Depoe Bay,Oregon Raymond.1 Bartel Architect and Planner at Hawthorne Crest PO Box 700,Oregon City,Oregon 97045 Voice:(503)631-7800 Fax/Data:(503)631-7801 Rbarte1730@aol.com , ,.;:;411 -7,,.. e,... ti l ;07-767, i -`-4+!oreerr. +4Ir. ti 11011-4,.. "‘ISI.,_ ....` .‘"4, illfr ' , _ , ' '4". -11W, i ! A ,,, \ , , ii: ►J r';o�1�;ht� i i ' i!,, 1 , • _I .15.111r k.• I1r; ii E r :t - . - a ill)i .i . • r •,,,,aat." . _ ,, ,t4: .add �- =r• r • Document instances and causes of water infiltration and building envelope failure at beachfront condominium resort. Determine influence of wall assembly components and craftsmanship. Administer ASTM(AAMA Window and Wall Cladding Tests. Provide factual findings report for claims book. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair. Provide Repair Construction Contract Administration and Observation. Owner—Wyndham Vacation Ownership Contractor -- R&H Construction The Resort at Gleneden Beach Gleneden Beach, Oregon Raymond 3 Bartel Architect and Planner at Hawthorne Crest PO Box 700,Oregon City,Oregon 97045 Voice:(503)631-7800 Fax/Data:(503)631-7801 Rbartel730@aol.com r h1. ' r}. 111/11li.-"" ..":.4.;',„ , 40,Vi":14.''''\e "Ili \ .tt I:4'1N ler / k'i •• 1It 4`.+I . 1 ..4,, _ , //. ... , . II I, " /70, , iii,,, lig 1 - 1,,11111 h. ,, ,„, ii , , ...„, 11/4 ...: I___________-____ lii,, 411. ' N.•.1.»'.'►.• rr it ;n ` ,, I1 IC111h 1. Document instances and causes of water infiltration and building envelope failure at upscale, steel construction tower condominium complex. Determine influence of wall assembly components. Administer ASTM/AAMA Window and Wall Cladding Tests. Provide factual findings report for claims book. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair. Provide Repair Construction Contract Administration and Observation. Permit Value --$ 8,000,000 Owner —Vista House Owners Association Management Company --Community Management Inc. Contractor -- R&H Construction Vista House Condominiums Portland, Oregon Raymond J Bartel Architect and Planner at Hawthorne Crest PO Box 700,Oregon City,Oregon 97045 Voice:(503)631-7800 Fax/Data:(503)631-7801 Rbartel730@aol.com I r • 4� rr '' •L Document instances and causes of water infiltration and building envelope failure at Portland Residence. Determine influence of wall assembly components and craftsmanship. Administer ASTM/AAMA Window and Envelope tests. Determine causes of Envelope Failure. Establish budget and recommendations for correction. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair. Permit Value--$800,000 Owner—Tom Brenike Brenike Residence Portland, Oregon Raymond J Bartel Architect and Planner at Hawthorne Crest PO Box 700,Oregon City,Oregon 97045 Voice:(503)631-7800 Fax/Data:(503)631-7801 Rbarte1730@aol.com N 1 1111 il 1 f -10007" s Document instances and causes of water infiltration and building envelope failure at Portland condominium. Determine influence of wall assembly components and craftsmanship. Administer ASTM/AAMA Window and Envelope tests. Determine causes of Envelope Failure. Establish budget and recommendations for correction. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair. Permit Value --$6,000,000 Owner—Montara Homeowners Association Management Company --Community Management Inc. Contractor -- SD Deacon Montara Town Homes/Forest Heights Portland, Oregon Raymond J Bartel Architect and Planner at Hawthorne Crest PO Box 700,Oregon City,Oregon 97045 Voice:(503)631-7800 Fax/Data:(503)631-7801 Rbartel730@aol.com ",• it ' 1 ? d o kk, IISog rl frI Document instances and causes of water infiltration and building envelope failure at Portland condominium. Determine influence of wall assembly components and craftsmanship. Administer ASTM/AAMA Window and Envelope tests.Determine causes of Envelope Failure. Establish budget and recommendations for correction. Produce architectural drawings for remediation and repair. Permit Value--$6,000,000 Owner—Montara Homeowners Association Management Company --Community Management Inc. Contractor -- SD Deacon Montara Town Homes/Forest Heights Portland,Oregon Raymond J Bartel Architect and Planner at Hawthorne Crest PO Box 700,Oregon City,Oregon 97045 Voice:(503)631-7800 Fax/Data:(503)631-7801 Rbarte1730@aol.com -9f21/13: Justin Barnhart RS,iftrDAP, EI Lirtlatiin d .! owner at Pistils Nursery Project Manager Western Architecural October 2008—Present(5 years; I Portland,Oregon Area Reserve Study and Maintenance Plan Prouder How You're Connected Project Manuals,Specifications,Bid Packages Construction Administration I Project Management Forensic and Construction Defect/Litigation Consultant You Custom Details and Waterproofing Specifications Special Service Coordinator Hilary Bennett Myhre Group Architects June 2007—October 2008(1 year 5 months) 6/ Lance Inouye Bonnie Bartocci Skills&EvertiSe 1 more connection can introduce you to someone who knows Justin 1I1 Construction Management Get introduced. 12 Construction Contractors 10 Project Management Justin Barnhart,RS,LEED AP,CEI 0 Residential 1-lomes Real Estate Development Building Envelope... In Common u5ith Justin Reserve Studies ® You Justin Maintenance Plans r r� If I } ( ducation-i) J Iv Portland State University Location Art 4istory,Art l-story,Urban Planner,Environmental Science • 2004—2006 University of Oregon Additional Vico l/ Zr koteresU Property Development and Management,Risk-Management for Developers and General Contractors, & Long-Term Building Maintenance. Personal Det oRs Birthday December 2 9/21/13 Justin Barnhart,RS,LEtD AP,CEI I LinkedIn Organizations Additional Organizations •)(LL CASE FILE NUMBER: PA - DATE: *9/-2_s//'-, • PRE APPLICATION SIGN IN • NOTE: PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name: I Title: I Phone: 5213 9.57-3/-17 Athkessr' I Email: ( /ex (.(P icAnd e Cons4n.Aci;oe Ci-04Z)54): I Name: 142...\\QA- I Title: ?- jA r- I Phone: Sc3 - q C.1 Z- I Address: Email: kz-a_Aes- . I City & Zin: Name: I Title: 4r1 k + Phone: S.0*. Z-97 (_-) S- Address: Email: NO S 4rvtG•,CC.. i 1-wknc 4City & Zip: Naindi-nkikAiL TVUCC/1-4-- I Title: 45Ciiirrit ith 0 44,tirY.,f Phone: 10.,Z1 I Address: Email: 01,6 t APAahAGA C-ovY 1 City & Zip: Name: 0,tilainc‘k Vovi-W Title: YfUlatill-ti OC).-trakidu5 Phone: 6-7)3 - -6) 2--70o0 _ .1 Address: 4D-1c- 6 s 606,10 .; Email: nieffiga DSU.YAOStAinif I CitY & ZiP: • 0-C6) I Name: - I Title: I Phone: I Address: I Email: I City & Zip: Name: I Title: - -- Phone: I Address: Email: I City & Zip: Name: I Title: , Phone: I Address: I Email: I City & Zip: I Name: I Title: I Phone: I Address: I Email: I City & Zip: ?> t-j''LPC) .1-z _ttit�F 1/ 0 PL�, r r `G A SPECIAL PUBLICATION OF PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP / COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS LQ-, ,, . c-5 THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2013 . .1 . HOMLAKE �]�'Go HISTORIC ` t y„ �. . i,1 . , . I / '7,% r� l". -'"^�\ /• ria" , , , ,L.74e.i....,,,,. N\II /4 't e , ......... - , t 1 c / 1 , ,r Iti •ii 4 ,.. ''yr i Aid ti, t. ,,,. cv• • r 1iL..,�.-"....+. Ali r ln ' 'w . 41 tlitgahilli 1. ,Rr�• pir. �A;RI/�+'ice, ~' ! •a _ s1 J. '� ,ww... I. Pae44' 6144C c..74:L i % 1r ,,..7z, 60144e ,, he Priestley House is unique on solid core doors feature recessed retractabler he Griffith House is a rare and wo+ west Regional Style in the 1930s and 40s. His Oswego Lake for its extremely strips that seal the doors for sound when W designed in 1951rful treasure inkby Pietro Be!- fered fro his commercial buildings, tOswego. It churches and residential designs often h t modern and rare cubist design. they are closed. luschi, arguably the Northwest's they had a more Northwest Regional Style. It was designed in 1963 for Art You will approach the home up the origi- and Mae Priestley by architect nal aggregate path to the front door. Note most internationally influential architect. The Griffith House came to be due to the y,but began married woman, Lucy r Wilson designed It is similar to a cubist oneof the and c original cca rport and the fish pond to your architectural career as ashake exterior of the Belluschi was born in l draftsman forA.E.his interest of a Griffith, who worked with her husband,Art on's prth miart for Ed Cauors, on Skyline of homearp tan's premier art collectors, on Skyline left.„rsTThe h.a��a Pm etehine of an iris is new- snored control of they 1943,firm by buying ouchi t the the ffith, at 5th flooAmerican the building housing Bellus- ail Line, located on J�Jta.lvVGt _ . . ,. .......- ..ti.:....,..,,i,;-f.m-,,..11 firm i.nry WAS very inter- e other partners atter>vuy1C 0,.G�.;a==” ..�� ---- - home was featured in period maga- ly done on an original glass window. in architecture and interior design and ande advertisements (for cedar shin- nalThe aggregate entry of the homen totur s its rightgi-to year the Griffith House wasuillt,Belluschi shunder his own name.By 1951,the e w wrote to Belluschi wondering whether he in home waston constructedonby s. Theard th e m to floor. Turo your inney, Beaverton contractors. The enter the master bedroom. This feat m has Planning Department at MIT,and he retained tecture and ootht homeagree i Lake lgn a modest 900 square Oswego for her and her von an award from"Better Homes and been remodeled. Itoriginally a" as"Home of the Year?'It was also hallway to the office,but the hallway wall that position until 1965. husband. ter Belluschi is best known for e e The ths ved in that home, h re- ad in "American Home" in 1963, and was . The d to make this space re removed Building (944 47) in Portland,which wasla mai ed basiicallyiunchanged until 2006.The at"magazine in 1967. ands. The original built-ins w home is noted for its three main ex- and the bathroom has also been remod- concrete block frame, aluminum clad office house was saervati nists�Tim Matherwhen cora- and living pavilions(the deck,the terrace, eled. building, recognized as the first ever to be munity pe to courtyard) which are prominently As you leave the master bedroom, to completely sealed and air conditioned. In- Tia Ross joined together to sathe new own- ve the build- toothe interiorge of the house by e your right is a recently room, hadded ig doors in Oregon aowder eluded in re the Portland Are notable t Museum,and ers to the fledgling "Friendss he designed img. The house was donated yof Belluschi," ys linkl aggregate a pathways. These rooare In the aceraeg rotg ays link the outside to the interior of are also replacements. Nte again the lake the Oregonian He also designed Our Lady of the Lake until a suitable homdisassembled could be found. Thanks rme by continuing throughout the main views providedwthin this room. ►r living floor. Follow the original aggregate path to the Church in Lake Oswego. Nationally, he de- to Marylhurst University modest home now will ;lot is only 65est wide,and the house kitchhas been completely remodeled,in- Haliving area. The original galley l at Julliard and the Pan Am Building, have a new life d many buildings,including Alice Tully of many X59 years later as a teaching ;et wide,but the use of 8 foot high slid- kitchentool for students on the Marylhurst Univer- ors in all of the rooms on the main floor eluding the floor surfaces,but the layout is both in New York City. res the spacious feeling by helping tceilings l. Thes and floor-to-ceiling windows thersiving room features 14-foot- uschi is recognized as one of of American Modern Architecture,es- sity Todaythe921 square-foot Griffith House the outdoors so tallgthe house is also noteworthy for its in- framing views of Oswego Lake. The use p��aln tiion of the technolot technological uses of new the house on the being reconstructed.View Marylhurst Marylhurst campus to see - gg .ve sound insulation,both interior and original native basalt rock and aggregatematerials in architecture,such as aluminum. the progress and admire this Mid-Century or. All remaining original,8-foot-tall, enhance the original wide fireplace. He is also credited with developing the North- Modern gem. Dedicated to the £47~624ediwaJesy,. The D.xcey/e/t/t.cvna. The4,, ., . oOswego Heritage rou onsors te p Council Home Tour October 27,2013 TO: Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Attention:Jessica Numanoglu,Senior Planner My name is Susan L. Wiese,and I live in Unit 110 at Oswego Summit. The Oswego Summit HOA Board is using the Lake Oswego Planning Department to help justify a larger project than is necessary thereby increasing the cost and putting many of my neighbors and myself in financial distress. A good example of this(and there are other good examples)is the Board is stating that their decision to replace all windows, no matter what their condition, is a requirement by the City of Lake Oswego Planning Department. This makes absolutely no sense. I do not believe that all of the windows and sliding glass doors throughout the complex need to be replaced. I moved to Oswego Summit in June of 2005. Shortly before I moved in,the Oswego Summit Board initiated a project for replacing windows and sliding glass doors. They directed,Clarice,the office manager at this time,to organize this project and get a group deal for interested owners to participate in purchasing new windows and sliding glass doors. The previous owners of my unit participated in this program; and therefore when I moved in, I had brand new Milgard windows and a Milgard sliding glass door. These Milgard windows and sliding glass door are still working fine—they're great—they're the best windows I've ever had, and I don't think they need to be replaced. And, I believe there are many other owners in the same situation. Respectfully Submitted, ! lL.!c�� ' Z 7l P/6/ • Susan L.Wiese Cc: Don Richards,Chair of Development Review Commission Kent Studebaker, Mayor of Lake Oswego EXHIBIT G-259 LU 13-0042 Letters received by November 12th rebuttal deadline Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego RECEIVE- Case File#LU 13-0042 Exterior remodel of all buildings on site; request to modify tai 11 ; 2 a previously approved Case File#'s DR 8-75 and DR 3376din by all current codes when approved and are in effect in' pet O Ost omma*Develcpme . . Submitted by Cookie Johnson,owner and resident of Oswego Summit,Condo#64. My Final Appeal for Our Design ...."we cannot express complete certainty due to the limited nature of our inspection (but)this report will give you solid insight and will help you make the best possible decisions for proceeding..... These contradictory words were written in the pre-amble of a building condition report that Western Architectural presented to the Oswego Summit Board of Directors. Following 32 penetrations performed on our building to gather data/readings,with fewer than 30 showing reportable'issues',our Board of Directors moved forward with a plan to permanently alter our building design, a plan to remove our cedar siding, privacy walls,and sheltering red tile roofs. Allow me to recap portions of the report: 32 penetrations were made over five days, 1/28/2013 to 2/1/2013 Fewer than 30 showed issues worth mentioning, but here are some comments... o moisture may enter the cladding via wind driven rain o a void in the window frame can direct moisture gathered on the sill o lets water run down the surface of the wall,where it may find another avenue to enter o creating the potential for water intrusion o no evidence of water intrusion was observed o plywood has visible damage, but did not detect visible moisture content o incidental moisture has reached the plywood sheathing o did not observe water intrusion at the second location o improper integration ...of flashing...can allow moisture intrusions o incidental moisture reached the plywood sheathing o we did not observe moisture under the cladding assembly o some degree of water intrusion was observed o and so on...soft, primarily inconclusive words for much of the report ® 32 penetrations might consist of a total of 400 square feet of building surface inspected • Oswego Summit has about 100,000 square feet of cedar cladding the buildings. This number was reached by my estimate of the past two days while pacing the lengths of our buildings and estimating heights. ® With these figures 1/250`"of our buildings were tested ® A five day inspection of 26 buildings represents less than 1.5 hours per building EXHIBIT G-260 LU 13-0042 naS Y V The tests were performed 1/28/2013 to 2/1/2013,the wettest time of the year in Oregon.Architects know Oregon has a'Drying Cycle'climate. Things get wet in the Oregon winters;it rains,and then the wet pieces dry out during our long dry summers. During the Lake Oswego Design Review Commission Public Hearing on October 28,2013,one Commissioner asked Justin Barnhart,Western Architectural—"Was there any biological testing?" The answer was'NO' although at the mass meetings I will mention below,intended to reiterate and justify the Board's decision,the term 'mold'was mentioned frequently. Another question from a Commissioner—"Have you tested the inside of the home owners condominiums?" The answer was'NO' due to the 'legality issues.' What was that about? Would the association be expected to deal with taking care of mold if mold was found? Would homeowners benefit from this testing? We certainly have three or four owners who, if asked,would welcome someone in to provide testing. A third question could have been—"Did you map the issues for each building?" And that answer would have been 'NO'too. Three mass meetings of homeowners were called where Western Architectural, I&E Construction, 'our attorney serving at the pleasure of the Board,and the Oswego Summit Board of Directors recounted over and over the issues facing our buildings.When a homeowner asked Justin Barnhart, Western Architectural,why did he look at our buildings,he answered: "I was asked to go to Oswego Summit and find everything that was wrong with the buildings." Those of us who have worked in an engineering environment know what this means—don't look for what is right,but nail some things that are wrong. This, I contend, is exactly what happened. No one in charge at Oswego Summit is looking at what is right with our buildings. You, the Design Review Commissioners are in a position to help us keeo what is right. In the past few days I paced off the sides of our buildings,estimated heights, reviewed the pictures I took of our buildings and calculated 100,000 square feet of cedar siding, my best estimate.While walking from building to building I was struck by the design details of our buildings. We have many different but complementary angles and soaring walls.What a marvel of the imagination and function! Each of our buildings houses six to 16 families,each with a sense of individuality, but still close quarters. Deck privacy and protection is provided with both horizontal and vertical wall elements, some sturdy and some finely built into our design. An owner can be in their outdoor living space and feel like the world is their oyster, where you are not seen by your neighbors.The cascading red tiles roofs are really quite exquisite looking,and their repetition provides a sense of shelter and protection. The experience and appreciation I felt for our buildings are similar to comments in the Pre-Application Staff report. 'The wood shingles are high quality materials that contribute to the distinct character of the building and create a visually engaging façade and are an important aspect of the overall design.' and, 'replacement of the shingles with horizontal siding significantly affects the quality and character of the design.' Our buildings are of a distinct character—our wood shingles support the design. So.where am I going with this rebuttal? I contend a case to redevelop our property has been built with scanty evidence,without due diligence,and without a second opinion to consider a full repair project. Little regard has been given to the ruin we will experience when owners flee their overwhelming financial burdens, all to summarily and irrationally destroy our DESIGN. A DESIGN that could be maintained if those in charge would or could appreciate what we have,and work to keep it safe while keeping homeowners in their homes. No one at Oswego Summit disputes our buildings need repair-no argument there—but how about a through look at the entire picture—buildings-check all of them outside and inside, repair what needs to be repaired,design-please respect it,communication-not an our way or the highway dictate,owner input-we are smart enough,affordability,schedule,association finances. This may sound like another rant on financials and the railroading we are getting from our myopic Board of Directors. And this may be partially true. But it really is about our DESIGN,our uniqueness,our Cedar Shingles and our Cedar Panels,our unique Red Tiles,and the Visually Fascinating Wall and Roof Angles used throughout our buildings. I hold the belief lap siding just doesn't cut it for us, significantly degrades our design,does not respect the elements of our structures-our homes. Our building elements do not stand alone;they are all part of a Whole. This letter is a DESIGN story that begs for a happy ending. Thank you for reading my letter, respectfully submitted for your review and consideration, Cookie Johnson cookiesoffice@icomcast.net Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego Case File#LU 13-0042 Exterior remodel of all buildings on site; request to modify the E*Ce I/ previously approved Case File It's DR 8-75 and DR 3376 abiding by all current codes when approved and are in effect in perpetuity. NOvi G� i 2013 Submitted by Cookie Johnson,owner and resident of Oswego Summit,Condo#64. �0� rl`Lid& �Sl�% ung',10;eve/opment Dept A real life photo is worth 25 two dimensional renderings I submit a brief rebuttal statement, again to deny the use of the Red Barn color at Oswego Summit,but also to say what many others have said;Color Blocking at Oswego Summit will cheapen our complex and taint the rest of Mountain Park at the same time. Indeed,the Mountain Park HOA approved the SEVEN Colors, but I wonder how the conversation went at those meetings. Owners at Oswego Summit had no input on the seven colors and were not asked to comment at the Mountain Park meeting. I don't know how much research went into that discussion of the colors. But--here,below is an interesting example of what color blocking and`those colors' look like when applied to real buildings, not just ink on paper. In my eye character and texture are the fatalities. You are real deciders, +t•P,f , k t► Y '� \, ;-1.`,' ��f p' \ Ito,,1 1 •;. /.. ..A .�y /p , /� / s ! a • "illiv ' 4 ix i F i'RuH~qw '"'� j�l.44 ! 1_ i ';: ;1 b 9 t s �A �. a 1! r`_ grAtt ' !'t f y s t"R .1,144:� Y i v � � .,,a l�.r ' 9 TT,, ?M.' ,.1, i MA .. .3, '.'a1," ‘141,,, ; 1 1 l� r.. ", i 'elf 1�004, 4 may. T t v al. r, N,f -4;-' e7 y���f ;,+i 111. r CD N N 111• II •iiiiilit II 0 g ' 11111 ' 2 i . Ed •-• 2 X -' W .Fig Ayy#;,1 ,;i,; 'kik ,et; I, -ii-,. , . , , ,t;*0 , p X _ _ ;,,3., /3 y .,_ tk, ' . .,,,,,, i q ,,,: ,....7: ,,, ) , , 4 ' gyp, ��ir�" ..'.Kr. y..aaS o ' A • Respectfully submitted a. # t t,4*- , Rpt (1 414-4?Stillt4444 ! a 0.' ..•. )1:-.:` q...1"r4% . `',f.Z V' '. ‘t" ' . . ' , Cookie%hnson a - •r. 4• •., l . . '` ' 4•40.... .‹.4:1•••.i. ` . `cookiksoffice@comcast.net ? ' ,,. .1"�r,t ; October 11, 2013 City of Lake Oswego RECEIVED Planning and Building Services Department 01 OV 1 380 A Avenue City o Lake ; mew., Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Copia?Ur►i r "':• ` ` at De RE:Oswego Summit Design Review, LU 13-0042 Dear Planning Committee Members, We are being accessed,$42,980.70 for a rebuilding project that is neither necessary nor desirable. The project consists of removing the cedar shingle siding,even though 80%or more are in good shape,with a replacement of hardiplank siding. Removing the red tiles from the roofs and replacing them with tarpaper shingles, removing and replacing all window and doors,and removing and replacing the metal railings with glass panels. Adding the 5 camo palette color mock up with white framing of windows and black doors,we will have totally lost what we were attracted to and why we bought our unit 33 years ago at Oswego Summit. Reviewing the above project change's, brings us very close to the appearance of many motels around the city. Thank you for your consideration, (24711-5134 Delbert Unit 177—Building 23 EXHIBIT G-262 LU 13-0042 Diane E Webster Warren 192 Oswego Summit RECEIVED Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503-305-7271 NOV 2 2013 City of Lake Oswego November 12, 2013 Community Daveloc rant Dept. Planning and Building Services Department City o Lake Oswego Re: Case Number: LU 13-0042 Original Approval Number: DR 8-75 and DR 33-76 Dear Commissioners, I am a homeowner at Oswego Summit Condominiums, Unit 192. I attended the meeting on October 28, 2013. I was the first to speak for"TJic Opposition"presenters. I want to respond to statements that were made by the OSHOA Board President, Mari Moore that I don't agree with. Ms. Moore stated that the Board of Directors received 70%approval for the Project for Oswego Summit. I have in my possession,proof of 69 "NO" votes. Also I have attached copies of emails showing where the percentage changed from the need of 75%"NO"votes to 60% "NO"votes over a five week period. Of course as you already are aware of,the Bank Lender is not known to us and communications from them to us are being received through the Board and Board president. Because we have the needed proof that the "NO"votes met the original criteria for the number of homeowners opposing, and because the percent number changed so many times I think it is important for you to have all of these facts as you head into your deliberation on the vote for this project. Those who voted "NO"on this project want a project, but not one accomplished in this manner of destroying the beautiful presentation of the exterior of our homes made with the valuable old growth cedar and red tile roofs at an enormous cost that many cannot afford. Please consider all of these facts before making your decision. Thank you for the opportunity to write. Sincerely, Diane E. Warren, MA EXHIBIT G-263 LU 13-0042 Communications September 4, 2013 From Board of Directors to Homeowners "75% of the owners must vote and 75$ of all votes must be in favor" September 14, 2013 From Mari Moore to Association of Unit Owners of Oswego Summit Condominiums to All Homeowners "75% of owners vote and 75% of those who vote need to vote yes for the project" September 26, 2013 From the Board of Directors and Mari Moore, President "The lender required 75% of the owners to vote with 60% choosing and affirmative response. The ending results had 176 polls returned with 107 "yes" choices and 69 "no" choices, resulting in 61% of those responding in affirmation of the project and loan. October 9, 2013 --- Vocal Communication At the Board Meeting I asked LOHOA President Mari Moore if I could come in and see the ballots on the Straw Pole Votes. She said "yes" and added that Charity, the Office Manager was on vacation and would be back on Monday. I stated that I would be there on Monday. October 11,2013 From Mari Moore to Diane Warren Subject: Straw Poll I do not have the actual votes but I found the tally for the straw poll for the loan and project. A total of 173 polls were returned, 105 in favor, 68 opposed. The percentage was 61%to 39%. All polls were forwarded to Stuart Cohen for verification. 0 111�EGO Assessment & Loan Information UMMITT" September 4, 2013 Dear Homeowner: We are pleased to announce the Association has received a conditional offer from a lender to fund the full amount of the upcoming major repair project. The requested loan amount of$7.5 million was based on a comprehensive project budget containing all potential costs and professional fees, contingencies and estimated expenses. Obtaining this loan will enable: • Owners to make monthly payments against their share of the repair project cost. • The loan will be re-amortized annually as well as at the Association's request to pre-pay without penalty. • The loan is structured as a non-revolving line of credit until construction is completed and all costs and expenses are known. Whatever amount is actually spent will become the 15 year term loan amount. • The term loan rate will be finalized when the line of credit converts at the end of the project. The rate will be tied to a pre-defined index with a floor. The current estimated rate is 5.0%. • When the project is completed, each unit owner's account will be reconciled and adjusted based on the actual cost of the project. There are 2 main requirements the Association must meet before the loan can close: 1. Although the Association's governing documents do not require a vote to approve the project, the assessment for the project, or the loan, the lender is requesting an approval vote from the owners to ensure the community supports the project. The current requirement is 75% of the owners must vote and 75% of all votes must be in favor. This vote may be done in person or by proxy via email, online, mail or another homeowner. 2. The Association must establish a bank controlled account with approximately 6 months of principal and interest payments, approximately $350,000. This account must be funded before the loan closes which will require the implementation of the special assessment. This account will be separate from the Reserve Funds, but will be classified as Reserve Funds. The amount will reduce proportionally along with the loan paydown. The Association will earn interest on this account. The Association's future Reserve Fund account will be reviewed as part of the overall financial plan going forward once the project is completed. If the work is completed and an HOA loan is in place, the current monthly dues structure will be more than adequate to meet future operating needs as well as make appropriate reserve fund contributions. There is a chance we will be able to reduce our monthly dues if the project comes in under budget leaving our reserve account over funded. 1 Oswego Summit Condos 1215 Oswego Summit I Lake Oswego I OR 197035 :(1)VREGO S u,YlidkA Association of Unit Owners Of Oswego Summit Condominiums 215 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego OR 97035 Great news,the loan committee approved the loan package! They are recommending the loan be approved by the Chief Credit Officer which is the final step in the process. They have not issued the commitment to lend since the chief credit officer hasn't signed it. In this case,due to the size of the loan, .:,c.1, d.t.ski;."5 to wait until it is formally signed off, through all the approvals,and then finalize the commitment for our acceptance. He typically signs documents on Tuesdays. It's rare for the chief credit officer to turn down a loan at this stage and based on all our feedback and discussions,we think it will go smoothly. There were no surprises as far as terms/fees/conditions coming out of the committee recommendations,however,the chief credit officer has the final say in all/any of those. It also sounds like they are requiring the poll we are currently in the process of acquiring. They would like to see 75%of the owners vote,and 75%of those who vote need to vote yes for the project,speciai .di id loan. A majority of the membership has responded choosing"yes". Choosing"no"rrefflects homeowners wish to have the CAUDA levy the against each unit and not enter into an Roar a Hovs5ng horrneoeunerrs a IS year loan through the i-OA. if you have not returned your poli or wish to change your choice Blease ether respond vsi;nE,th61 attached poi or ley picking one up 5n the clubhouse lobby.If you have designated that you are not participating In the➢oarrn because you are payCng the,:. :. , : 1. „lease consider your neighbors that nay nut be aide to obtain a ioan on their atm to pony a lump sum assessment. We expect to receive the formal commitment any time,the board will then enact the special assessment to reflect the homeowners decision on financing through the loan or having the assessment levied in full based on the poll results. Our attorney is preparing for a commitment letter review sometime next week,and loan documents soon after that. The association has an October 1st deadline we are trying to meet so we are doing everything we can to have everything finalized by then,either a loan with serial assessment option or a pay in full special assessment. For loan financing I believe they are using the 5 year SWAP Libor index. The Construction line of credit will be fixed for the interest only portion of the loan. The term loan rate will be set at the time the construction line converts to the term loan. The loan offer will have the floor,spread and index defined. The association can convert this at anytime and will work out the project finance plan once the loan is in place. This is a great,positive step forward.Wednesday the 18th we hope to have the letter of committment and have our end wrapped up and ready to respond so we timeline and avoid any additional costs to our association. I'll be in touch with more feedback as things progress. n Hlha_,,,vL_ )01Z-L-- Mari Moore- OSHOA Treasurer ‘ ‘.te-14.(J WAv.)369ev? 4,, , ( . Project Update—26 September 2013 Another milestone in the path to banishing leaks, organic growth and total disrepair has been obtained. Yesterday,Wednesday September 25th,our Broker presented two loan offers to the Board. The Board met in an Executive session prior to the regular Board meeting and upon review of both offers one clearly stood out as the best choice for the HOA. We are pleased to announce the Board unanimously voted to pursue the loan with the following terms and conditions: Line of Credit Amount: $7,385,000.00 • Repayment: Interest only monthly payments during 14 month construction draw period. May convert to term loan at any time draw is complete. Line of Credit Rate: 4.25% Fixed Term Loan Amount: $7,385,000.00 or the outstanding balance of credit line at conversion Term: 15-years fully amortizing, reset at 120 months Term Loan Rate: US Treasury 10-year+2.75%,floor 5.00%. At 120 months rate will adjust to the US Treasury 5-year rate+3.25%for remaining 60 months. Bank Fees: $2,000.00 legal fees (estimated) Required Deposit: None Security: Irrevocable assignment of all assessments, including any special assessments, and an assignment of alt collection rights; and a first priority lien against the Borrower's assets. Poll Requirements: Poll with 75%participation with 60%of respondents choosing in favor of the special assessment and construction project The Board chose this lender for several reasons;the low interest rate during the construction draw period,the ability to fix the rate as soon as construction is complete, no Principal & Interest held account required, no prepayment penalty,the ability to re-amortize the loan annually for free as well as at our request for a low fee, a low conversion spread, low legal fee and no underwriting fee. This lender did choose to ask for a poll of the community prior to loan approval. Needing to start the funding process as soon as possible the Board voted to close the polling process last night and use the poll results we had received to date. The lender required 75%of the owners to vote with 60%choosing and affirmative response. The ending results had 176 polls returned with 107"yes"choices and 69"no"choices, resulting in 61%of those responding in affirmation of the project and loan. Polling results have been sent to the attorney for verification. Thank you to all who returned their polls. Today we officially notified our broker to proceed with our chosen lender. We have received the commitment letter in our office and are submitting the signed bank contract to the bank's attorney. Once the loan documents are received from the bank's attorney our attorney will review the documents. If all goes well we hope to have the loan finalized in 4 weeks. Once the loan documents have been issued we will be able to finalize the assessments and present all options to unit owners. While the construction period interest rate is 4.25% it has been recommended by legal council and our broker to base the assessment on 5.5%. At the time the construction loan is converted to a term loan assessments will be adjusted based on the total amount of the completed project. By assessing at a rate closer to the projected fixed rate for the term loan we will avoid a raise to the special assessment. Those paying in full upfront will have money refunded if the project cost is lower than $7,385,000.00. The Board wishes to thank all those who worked countless hours and contributed to progressing funding options to this successful point. We believe this loan affords the lowest possible financing available and gives the community surety of making all badly needed repairs. In a previous communication the Board announced a round table discussion between Western Architectures' Architect and Engineer, I & E and two Architects of Gino's choosing. We have _As... confirmed the meeting will take place this coming Monday,September 30th. All parties will be meeting in the clubhouse at 6:30 pm. Owners are welcome to observe but questions will not be allowed. If you have questions you may submit them to the office prior to Monday. We welcome the opportunity to gather these experts for a round table discussion on the project and scope.Thank you Gino for the being the first to share informative, constructive solutions with the Board. This meeting will be recorded and posted online for those that cannot be in attendance and a summary will be mailed to those owners without email. Sincerely, OSHOA Board of Directors Mari Moore, President Thom Bowser, Vice President Dewey Meazell,Treasurer Libbi Albright, Board Member Gino Pieretti, Board Member Page 1 of 1 DianeEWarren From: "OSHOA President"<OSHOA.president@oswegosummit.org> To: <DianeEWarren@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:19 PM Subject: Straw Poll Hello Diane, I do not have the actual votes but 1 found the tally for the straw poll for the loan and project. A total of 173 polls were returned, 105 in favor,68 opposed. The percentage was 61%to 39%. All polls were forwarded to Stuart Cohen for verification. Thank you! Mari B.Moore OSHOA Board President 11/12/2013 Pam Sheehan RECEIVED 127 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego, OR 97035 NOV 1 2 2013 November 11, 2013 City of Lake Oswego Community Deveioprn nt Deot. Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego Re: Case File# LU 13-0042 Exterior remodel of all building on site; request to modify the previously approved Case File#'s DR 8-75 and DR 3376 abiding by all current codes when approved and are in effect in perpetuity. Dear Design Review Commission: A rebuttal letter at this time is a last effort to try and persuade the commission to understand the plight of the owners at Oswego Summit. Attached is a picture from the Oregonian of a planned low income apartment building in Portland. Note the blocking of color which always seems to be used in all of these low income designs...colors similar to the ones chosen by a designer for Oswego Summit. Yes it is the look and feel of low income housing throughout the Portland area. Does the City of Lake Oswego really want this look in Mt Park? I think not. The owners at Oswego Summit have had no say in this choice of color pallet. The project manager from Western Architectural misspoke when he alluded to the fact that Oswego Summit's Architecture Committee approved these colors. Having served on that committee I can assure we did not choose these colors. I am hoping the commission can help us with this issue. Oswego Summit needs a repair project not a total remodel to have our community look like an urban low income housing development. Where in Lake Oswego are there so many buildings in one location with that color pallet? We are a different environment tucked away at the top of Mt Park. Up until now we have fit in to the lush woods of the area. If this project as is goes through we will definitely stick out and not for the best reasons. Just because someone is a designer it doesn't mean they understand the culture of Mt Park and living in a lush wooded environment. Oswego Summit is not an urban community!! Why is it that the majority of home owners understand this and a designer cannot? Oswego Summit must now rely on the good taste and goals of the planning/building services for a Lake Oswego Community. Just imagine 25 buildings with big blocks of multiple colors...especially BARN RED! Good grief! The majority of owners again will tell you that they bought in Oswego Summit because of the natural looking cedar shakes, tile roofs and unique architectural design of the buildings. Yes keep the good shakes, replace the bad, treat them, stain them and save both money and the environment. Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion. Respectfully, EXHIBIT G-264 LU 13-0042 3 015 MICRO-APARTMENTS Noparking, 1 bat h irate neighbors I 1 By Elliot Njus 1 enjus@oregonian.corn 1 ' A big-city trend of very small apartments has arrived in Port- l land,and it may reignite the _ it city's debate over when apart- _ ment developers should be re- '' ,.- _ 4. --- I quired to provide parking. 1 A Snohomish,Wash.,devel- ,-..--------01*," - ,.-,,i iAi — — i oper has started construction 1.. — " „=� —�° on one micro-apartment build- I a 'III- ..2 +: ,y I 1 ing in Northwest Portland,and 2-'- ._ — it has proposed a second in the '<. ,] ' a .Hollywood - 1 _—•••Ir ——-le 1: , i 1 • neighborhood of ,` I ! tit j S ! ,__.. .,,.,, ._.r Northeast Portland.The apart- I r a': ments start below 200 square • feet—a living area and a bath- ` ._ room,with a shared kitchen _.---_.._ x;„ ; down the hall. Footprint Investments, _ .- which has built several micro- _ , housing projects in the Seattle ELLIOT NJUS/THE OREGONIAN I area,says it's addressing a need Footprint Thurman,an apartment building under construction at 2250 N.W.Thurman St.in for low-cost housing in some of Portland,would replace a single-family house with 56 micro-apartments with shared kitchens. • the country's most expensive rental markets. A rendering shows the According to Multifamily '� finished micro-apartment NW, a rental-industry asso- - - building in Northwest elation,rents in the Portland , ---F; .r.e .. Portland. area have climbed 6 percent i s` �"-a"-' FOOTPRINT INVESTMENTS to 7 percent a year since 2010. . ,. ,#. -3.: Ti' , P.` This year,they reached$827 a ,* '; -� l?i'. month for studio apartments l ; .,�: ...4,..=., ,, — more than$1,000 a month ` "y',• F�.:*-,'�,r: '',.:1.a .:1'/ ti ' in Northwest Portland. 4'i','. -k`:1, r2.1 i., 1�°x tr% ''1 Micro-apartments Footprint's apartments rent "`` I k1,' '- I I n , .,„„-2.,,,,,A,...- �-t7 Ir k� .,,.�, Q i t for about 60 percent of the pre- .,. vailing rent for new apartments � Y'` �,- ,,, - tinder construction in the area,founder Jim Pot- 49116'd ''F 1` '...'" 4E Broadway ter said. 1� r ' .Adam ' .,,,_ '"� "We're at a price point that -- ' ,5.4 �{, N `i no one else is delivering,'Pot- 4. z '�` N Proposed ter said. It's not for everyone, Pbuilding Y t'; V rY m 5. fen choices. largely identical to one pro- Portland has flirted with t . but its a choice,and we liked- The 56-apartment is a single-family house. .' g Y Footprint's first Portland posed at 1525 N.E. 41st Ave. micro-housing before. WDC development,Footprint Thur- Both would be four stories tall Properties' ekoHaus portfo- :•!+� u man,is already under construe- —with another below ground MILE'S tion at 2250 NW Thurman St. —built on lots last occupied byPlease see APARTMENTS,Page C4 P DAN AGUAYO/THE OREGONIAN cam.. ',Kx,vx`iR't a4 t• t4: T�r Ty �y4 "�F'•..., ▪ t t ! I. • ..fi s 3 J1.w`{-A„'•"''` tri ,n a x�.Y, hit t',, i • J ,'��1}a�'1r -4. ,4 ?tea Ya „6 '�l: 51,1 y :I• t� i Y i t, /k uy - .. �i44 i 1, 07,„ £ .. , y s :a:4 ^[ y ! 4n *1. . p:",. y.: y +J '°lam fr . lik i' - ,.moi...F ! \!q {t ' ms II r flX i '� :. d,t+G fr f �fi:s d£ * / L ' .- ::-.! A4s"��t { ,...) , rt�t' r•;.. Y i i f To: Planning Department RECEIVED City of Lake Oswego NovFrom: Martha Dougherty 20i` 70 Oswego Summit(building 10) City of Lake Oswego Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-1061 Comm!inib D;v.ii^rent Dept. Lived in Oswego Summit Phase 1 (buildings 1 through 21) since 1977 Re: Rebuttal letter Case#: LU 13-0042 Date: November 12, 2013 Dear Commissioners and Staff, In my previous letters, dated 10/15/13 and 11/4/13 along with pictures, I expressed my concerns about the redevelopment of Oswego Summit. I just want to add that Oswego Summit was built in the original spirit of Mt. Park. It was build before all the other buildings around it except the Mt. Park church. Why does it have to be matchy-matchy with its surrounding buildings? Let's keep the wonderful character of Oswego Summit. Let's keep its wonderful design features including the windows and doors neglected in the renderings of the new design. Let it be a rest for sore eyes after looking at surrounding structures that are all the same with little sense of visual dimensions and texture. Thank you for all the time you are spending on consideration of this project. Sincerely, Martha Dougherty Ase O Page 1 of 1 Case#: LU 13-0042 Oswego Summit EXHIBIT G-265 LU 13-0042