Photos showing the change in condition from 2006 to 2012 are located in Appendix A.

Transcription

1 January 27, 2012 Ms. Theresa Gallavan Economic Development Director City of Lompoc 100 Civic Center Plaza Lompoc, California RE: Lompoc Theater Limited Visual Condition Assessment Dear Theresa: Representatives of Walter P. Moore and Associates performed a limited visual structural condition assessment on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 visually assessing the physical condition of the Lompoc Theater, located at 112 N. H Street in Lompoc, California. The assessment was performed from the ground or building floors without the use of lifts, ladders or scaffolds to gain access to any framing member. No existing finishes were removed in order to observe concealed framing. No material testing was performed as part of this assessment. The theatre building was unoccupied during our assessment and no electric lights were available. The original building was constructed in 1927 and building consists of two stories of office and commercial space to the west and theater space to the east. The office and commercial space is partially occupied and the theater is currently unoccupied. The scope also includes a historic harness shop adjacent to the theater. In 2006, Walter P Moore performed a cursory structural analysis and assessment and the findings were presented in a report dated June 16, A description of the existing structure is found in Section II of the 2006 report. At that time, the owner was planning to architecturally renovate the existing structure and reopen the theater for public use. It is our understanding that the theater is currently unoccupied, but the City of Lompoc is considering reopening the theater and would like a structural opinion on the condition of the structural elements of the building. This assessment was performed to evaluate the existing structure in its current state; structural modifications to the existing structure will require additional analysis in localized areas. Information used in this report includes: 1. Site visit conducted by our office on January 11, Previous evaluation/seismic retrofit report dated June 16, 2006 Photos showing the change in condition from 2006 to 2012 are located in Appendix A W E S T O L Y M P I C B O U L E V A RD, SUI TE L O S A N G E L E S, C A L I F O R N I A PHO NE: FAX: A L T E R P M O O R E. CO M

2 Our findings in 2006 included the following items listed below. Our findings in 2012 are indicated in bold italic. 1. It was our opinion that the existing building structure is adequate to support the current existing occupancy. Based on our observations at the January 11, 2012 walkthrough, it is our opinion that the existing building structure is still adequate to support the current existing occupancy. 2. We expect the structure to be capable of supporting the anticipated renovation, possibly with limited localized strengthening. Based on our observations at the January 11, 2012 walkthrough, it is our opinion that that the existing building structure is still adequate to support the previously designed renovation. 3. It is recommended that water leaks in the existing structure, particularly at the locations of the exterior walls between the roof and wall, be repaired. We noted that the water leak may ultimately be absorbed by the studs in the wood walls, causing deterioration. We understand the water leaks have not been repaired. At the January 11, 2012 walkthrough we noted water intrusion in the theater as well as the office space. The roof structure over the office space was accessible and appears to be in serviceable condition, however the walls and the theater roof were not accessible at the time of the walkthrough and the condition of these elements is unknown. The stucco ceiling and walls in the theater are deteriorating. We recommend that an investigation be conducted to determine the source of the water intrusion and prepare recommendations for remediation in order to limit further deterioration. 4. The existing members that we observed appeared to be in serviceable condition, with no obvious visual indications of distress. Furthermore, we expect the structure to be capable of supporting the anticipated renovation, possibly with limited localized strengthening. As mentioned above, the roof structure over the office space was accessible and appears to be in serviceable condition; however the condition of the walls and theater roof is unknown. 5. Although no cracks were seen in the existing concrete structure during this assessment, it was recommended that the owner conduct a thorough walk-through to verify the absence of cracks in all concrete elements. We recommended any cracks be injected and sealed with an epoxy. Cracks were observed at one of the second story windows in Suite 8. Cracks were observed at this window both in the interior and at the exterior. The cracks were observed in 2006 and currently appear to be slightly larger. We recommend the cracks be injected and sealed with an epoxy and monitored for further changes. 6. During the walk-through, the stucco on a wall beneath the balcony on the northeast corner of the seating area appeared to be severely cracked. It was recommended that the stucco be removed and the wall inspected for additional cracking and repaired if needed. It appears that the stucco in this area was removed, and no additional cracks were observed. 7. The ceiling joists are not adequate to support maintenance loads. It was recommended that any access to the crawl space between the roof joists and ceiling joists be closed. This area appears to be in the same condition as it was in We recommend the crawl space be closed. 8. The existing columns may pose of problem to the seismic performance of the structure. Therefore, it was our recommendation to verify the existing reinforcement within the

3 columns (longitudinal and ties). We understand that the existing reinforcement has not been verified. We recommend that ground penetrating radar (GPR) or other non-destructive evaluation technique be utilized to determine the column reinforcement prior to the commencement of any renovation work. In addition, we observed the following on January 11, 2012: 1. Since our walkthrough in 2006, the stucco ceiling in the theater has fallen in several locations. This deterioration of the theater ceiling indicates water intrusion that could cause deterioration of roof sheathing, roof joists, ceiling joists and other framing. 2. In addition, two of the sidelights have fallen since our walkthrough in Since 2006, the easternmost sidelights have fallen from both the north and south walls. 3. The paint on the interior concrete walls of the theater is peeling, but the concrete appears to be in serviceable condition. The peeling paint is possibly an indication of moisture drive through these walls. This could be a long term serviceability issue with interior finishes or possibly promote the growth of mold. The walls should be investigated to determine the source of the moisture and prepare recommendations for remediation. 4. There appears to be an opening in the roof of the fly loft above the stage. It is unclear if the opening is due to an open door or due to roof damage. Bird feathers and droppings were observed on the stage, and do not appear to be present in the 2006 photographs. 5. In the storage area below the stage, what appeared to be fungus, or other organic growth was observed on our January 11, 2012 walkthrough that was not observed in 2006, indicating water intrusion. 6. Water damage was observed on our January 11, 2012 walkthrough in the office areas that were not accessible in We recommended the following items in 2006: Obtain a soils report of the project site from a registered geo-technical engineer. Verify the accuracy of the existing structural drawings with the as-built conditions. Test the compressive strength of the concrete in the existing concrete walls. Obtain information regarding the nailing/connection of the existing plywood diaphragm to the existing structural members. We also recommend: We recommend an investigation of the roofing to determine the source of the water intrusion and prepare recommendations for remediation.. We recommend an investigation of the exterior walls to determine the source of the moisture and prepare recommendations for remediation. We recommend the cracks in the concrete walls be injected and sealed with an epoxy and monitored for further changes.

4 We recommend the ceiling crawl space be closed. We recommend that ground penetrating radar (GPR) or other non-destructive evaluation technique be utilized to determine the column reinforcement prior to the commencement of any renovation work. We recommend that an environmental engineer assess the building for mold or other environmental hazards. The contents of this report are based the information provided by the Owner/Architect in 2006, the field visit conducted by our office in 2006 and the field visit conducted by our office This report only considers the structural stability of the existing structure and our findings and recommendations are based on only what was visually observed. This report is not a warranty or guarantee of the items noted. The extent of our evaluation was limited and cannot guarantee that the condition assessment discovered or disclosed all possible latent conditions. The evaluation required that certain assumptions be made regarding existing conditions and some of these conditions cannot be verified without expending additional sums of money, or destroying otherwise adequate or serviceable portions of the facility. In this study, we did not include review of the design, inspection of concealed conditions, or detailed analysis, to verify adequacy of the structure to carry the imposed loads and to check conformance to the applicable codes. The assessment also does not provide specific repair details, construction contract documents, material specifications, details to develop construction cost, or information on means and methods of construction. Any comment regarding concealed construction or subsurface conditions are our professional opinion, based on engineering experience and judgment, and derived in accordance with standard of care and professional practice. This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the City of Lompoc. This report and the findings contained herein shall not, in whole or in part, be disseminated or conveyed to any other party or used or relied upon by any other party, in whole or in part, without our prior written consent. If there are any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at (310) Sincerely, WALTER P. MOORE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Joseph M. Ales, Jr., Ph.D., S.E. Principal and Managing Director Patti Harburg-Petrich, P.E., BD+C Senior Associate

5 Lompoc Theater Limited Visual Condition Assessment January 27, 2012 S APPENDIX A Figure 1a. Theater ceiling condition in 2006 Figure 1b. Theater ceiling condition in Note the add l damage. Figure 2a. Theater ceiling condition in 2006 Figure 2b. Theater ceiling condition in Note the add l damage. Figure 3a. Back of theater in 2006 Figure 3b. Back of theater in Note the additional ceiling damage. A

6 Lompoc Theater Limited Visual Condition Assessment January 27, 2012 S Figure 4a. South wall in 2006 Figure 4b. South wall in Note the additional ceiling damage. Figure 5a. North wall in 2006 Figure 5b. North wall in Note the missing sidelight. Figure 6a. Storage area below stage in 2006 Figure 6b. Storage area below stage in Note mold on the ceiling. B

7 Lompoc Theater Limited Visual Condition Assessment January 27, 2012 S Figure 7a. Cracked stucco wall in 2006 Figure 7b. Stucco wall in 2012 Figure 8a. Fly loft in 2006 (looking up) Figure 8b. Fly loft in 2012 (looking up) Figure 9a. Cripple wall ceiling joists in 2006 Figure 9b. Cripple wall ceiling joists in 2012 C

8 Lompoc Theater Limited Visual Condition Assessment January 27, 2012 S Figure 10a. Cracking at window in south wall in 2006 (interior) Figure 10b. Cracking at window in south wall in 2012 (interior) Figure 11a. Cracking at window in south wall in 2006 (exterior) Figure 11b. Cracking at window in south wall in 2012 (exterior) Figure 12.Close up of cracking at window in south wall in 2012 (exterior) D