Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 021208• CITY OF A TA SCA DERO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, February 12, 2008 Redevelopment Agency: 6:30 P.M. City Council: 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California • REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: 6:30 P.M. REGULAR SESSION: 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member O'Malley ROLL CALL: Mayor Brennler Mayor Pro Tem Beraud Council Member Clay Council Member Luna Council Member O'Malley APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call PRESENTATIONS: 1. Presentation of Employee Service Awards • 2. Recognition of Former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Rick Mathews 1 A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to • be routine and non -controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the item before action is taken.) 1. City Council Meeting Minutes — January 8, 2008 ■ City Clerk Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2008. [City Clerk] 2. September 2007 Investment Report ■ Fiscal Impact: None ■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Treasurer's report for September 2007. [City Treasurer] B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Citv Council Aaenda Format ■ Fiscal Impact: None. • ■ Recommendation: Council introduce for first reading by title only the Draft Ordinance, amending Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) relating to Council Procedure. [City Manager] C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. Update on Printery and Community Center ■ Description: This update will include current programs and activities, FEMA funding, and site conditions. ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council receive and file report. 2. City Appeal of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Funding — City Administration Building ■ Fiscal Impact: The City is requesting $10,002,696 in new funding from FEMA and is requesting the reclassification of $9,106,080 from Hazard Mitigation Funding to Repair Funding. ■ Recommendation: Council approve the First Level Appeal of PW 229-1 (Atascadero City Hall) submitted to the Office of Emergency Services (OES) on February 1, 2008. [City Manager] 2 C7 3. Atascadero Road Program ■ Description: An update report on the Atascadero Road Program. • ■ Fiscal Impact: If Council directs staff to include bike and pedestrian access or emergency access routes, other funded road projects would have to be eliminated. ■ Recommendations: Council: 1. Receive report on the Atascadero Road Program; and, 2. Direct staff to proceed on the design for the Del Rio Road and San Jacinto Ave Road Rehabilitation Projects without increased width for bicycles and pedestrians due to cost constraints; and, 3. Provide staff direction on emergency access route projects and funding. [Public Works] 4. Atascadero Trail Project ■ Fiscal Impact: The public process, design, right-of-way and construction of this project could cost the City an estimated additional $200,000.00. Acceptance of this project would require the elimination of a budgeted project. ■ Recommendation: Council provide staff direction on the acceptance of the Atascadero Trail Project Grant [Public Works] COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to • address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to five minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. The Council may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless changed by the Council.) COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.) 1. Mayor Brennler a. Motion to Reconsider Council action - January 22, 2008 #C-1: Economic Development Strategy Consultant Selection (If Council votes to reconsider January 22, 2008 #C-1) b. Economic Development Strategy Consultant Selection ■ Fiscal Impact: Depending on the level of public outreach and input, the cost of developing the strategy will range from $90,000-$120,000. • Related support costs and costs for the public process are estimated to be $20,000. Additionally, the cost for the "Just Listening... Summit on Downtown," (which Council authorized staff to conduct in February, 2008) will be approximately $10,000, for an estimated total of $150,000. 3 In June, the Council budgeted $110,000 for economic studies. Of that • amount, $7,000 was spent on "Just Listening... Thoughts on Economic Development," and $14,500 has been allocated to tourism studies, leaving a balance of $88,500. To fund the full study and related activities, an additional $61,500 is needed. Funding is available in Redevelopment Fund Reserves. If the Council approves moving forward with the study and related public outreach activities, staff will return to the Redevelopment Agency to request appropriation of these additional funds. ■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Applied Development Economics of Walnut Creek, California, to serve as the City's economic development consultant to update the City's Economic Development Strategy. [City Manager] C. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary): Mayor Brennler 1. County Mayor's Round Table 2. Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 3. Finance Committee Mayor Pro Tem Beraud • 1. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) 2. City / Schools Committee Council Member Clay 1. City / Schools Committee 2. Atascadero Youth Task Force Council Member Luna 1. Finance Committee 2. S.L.O. County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Water Resources Advisory Committee 3. Nacimiento Water Purveyors' Contract Technical Advisory Group 4. North County Water Purveyors Group Council Member O'Malley 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) 3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) 4. League of California Cities — Council Liaison and CITIPAC Board Member 0 r� D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: . 1. City Council 2. City Clerk 3. City Treasurer 4. City Attorney 5. City Manager E. ADJOURNMENT: • • Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office. I, Shannon Sims, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the February 12, 2008 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted on February 5, 2008 at the Atascadero City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location. Signed this 5th day of February, 2008 at Atascadero, California. i� Shannon Sims, Deputy City Clei' City of Atascadero 5 City of Atascadero WELCOME TO THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., at the City Hall • Council Chambers, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Front Counter of City Hall and on our website, www.atascadero.org. An agenda packet is also available for public review at the Atascadero Library, 6850 Morro Road. Contracts, Resolutions and Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeting will reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the City Clerk's office. Council meetings are video taped and audio recorded, and may be reviewed by the public. Copies of meeting recordings are available for a fee. Contact the City Clerk for more information (470- 3400). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office or the City Clerk's Office, both at (805) 470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service. TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code) Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will give their report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is open and will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to the podium. If you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way: 1. You must approach the podium and be recognized by the Mayor 2. Give your name and address (not required) • 3. Make your statement 4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council 5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other individual, absent or present 6. All comments limited to 5 minutes (unless changed by the Council) 7. No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so, and no one may speak more than twice on any item. If you wish to use a computer presentation to support your comments, you must notify the City Clerk's office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations brought to the meeting on a USB drive or CD is preferred. Access to hook up your laptop to the City's projector can also be provided. You are required to submit to the City Clerk a printed copy of your presentation for the record. Please check in with the City Clerk before the meeting begins to announce your presence and turn in the printed copy. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be heard by the Council. TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM", the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with the Council to: • Please approach the podium and be recognized • Give your name and address (not required) • State the nature of your business This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). • 0 II/yl _ �w ITEM NUMBER: A-1 DATE: 2/12/08 CITY OF ATASCA DERO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Tuesday, January 8, 2008 • Closed Session: 6:00 P.M. • Redevelopment Agency: 6:30 P.M. • Public Financing Authority: Immediately following the Redevelopment Agency Meeting • City Council: 7:00 P.M. 10 CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 P.M. • 1. PUBLIC COMMENT — CLOSED SESSION: None 2. CALL TO ORDER a. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Govt. Code Sec. 54956.8) Property: Easement from Capistrano Avenue to Stadium Park along APN# 029-105-028 Agency Negotiator: Wade McKinney, City Manager Negotiating Parties: Dr. Gary Renzaglia and Ms. Sandy Hughes Under Negotiation: Instruction to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment 3. ADJOURN: 6:42 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Brian Pierik announced that there was no reportable action from the Closed Session. CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 1 of 10 7 REGULAR SESSION: 7:00 P.M. Mayor Brennler called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and Council Member Clay led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members Clay, Luna, O'Malley, Beraud and Mayor Brennler Absent: None Others Present: City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson, Deputy City Clerk Grace Pucci Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Assistant City Manager Jim Lewis, Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Community Development Director Warren Frace, Community Services Director Brady Cherry, Public Works Director Steve Kahn, Police Chief Jim Mulhall, Fire Chief Kurt Stone and City Attorney Brian Pierik. Mayor Brennler stated that the community's thoughts and prayers go out to Atascadero Superintendent of Schools John Rogers who is recovering from a serious accident. Mayor Brennler thanked the Public Works staff and PG&E for their efforts during the recent storm in keeping the storm drains clear. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Beraud to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. PRESENTATION: 1. Main Street Presentation on Winter Wonderland by Executive Director Steve Martin Atascadero Main Street Executive Director Steve Martin gave a PowerPoint presentation on this year's downtown Winter Wonderland. Mr. Martin also spoke about the upcoming Sweetheart Stroll (see Exhibit A). Pi CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 2 of 10 A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Meeting Minutes — November 13, 2007 ■ City Clerk Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2007. [City Clerk] 2. City Council Meeting Minutes — November 27. 2007 ■ City Clerk Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of November 27, 2007. [City Clerk] 3. July 2007 Investment Report ■ Fiscal Impact: None • Recommendation: Council approve the City Treasurer's report for July 2007. [Treasurer] 4. September 2007 Accounts Payable and Payroll ■ Fiscal Impact: 3,085,684.97. • Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for September 2007. [Administrative Services] 5. October 2007 Accounts Payable and Payroll ■ Fiscal Impact: 4,471,101.64. ■ Recommendation: Council approve certified City accounts payable, payroll and payroll vendor checks for October 2007. [Administrative Services] 6. Title 9 Planning and Zoning Text Amendment - PLN 2007-1238 - Processing timeframes, lot size requirement and accessway setbacks (City of Atascadero) ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt on second reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance A approving Zone Change 2007-0138 based on findings. [Community Development] 7. Planned Development Overlay District #9 - PLN 2007-1248 - 800-955 EI Camino Real (Westar Associates) ■ Description: Adoption would allow hotels and motels, and eating and drinking places with drive-through facilities in the PD -9 overlay zone subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. ■ Fiscal Impact: Hotels typically generate more revenue per square foot than retail uses because of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The proposed zone change would allow hotels in addition to retail on the project site. Staff anticipates this change will likely result in a positive fiscal impact to the City if a hotel is built on the site rather than a retail commercial building. CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 3 of 10 E ■ Recommendation: Council adopt on second reading, by title only, Draft Ordinance A approving amendments to the conditionally allowed use for the PD -9 Overlay Zone based on findings. [Community Development] 8. Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement ■ Fiscal Impact: The City will collect a 2% Administrative Charge from all reimbursements. This charge will be deducted from the total amount refunded. • Recommendation: Council approve the attached Sewer Extension Reimbursement Agreement with Gary L. Hix and Barbara Lynch. [Public Works] Items pulled: David Broadwater, Item #A-5. MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve Items #A-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. (Item #A-6 Ordinance No. 524, Item #A-7 Ordinance No. 525, Item #A-8 Contract No. 2008- 001) Item #A-5 David Broadwater spoke about a discrepancy between an invoice and a disbursement check written to Mathis and Associates, and requested that Council specify what they are actually authorizing to this vendor in their approval of this item. Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard explained that this is a disbursement report which only reflects what amount the checks were actually written for. MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Beraud and seconded by Council Member Luna to approve Item #A-5. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. B. MANAGEMENT REPORTS: 1. San Luis Obispo Countv Office of Education Surplus Propertv Offer — 10801 EI Camino Real (City of Atascadero) ■ Fiscal Impact: Declining purchase of the subject property would have no fiscal impact on the City. If the property were to be privately developed for high-density residential, conditions of approval would be applied to assure that the residential development remained revenue neutral. ■ Recommendation: Council adopt Draft Resolution A and decline purchase of the subject property. [Community Development] CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 4 of 10 10 • Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Greening asked whether Hidden Oaks had any kind of secondary access, and if this property were to be developed would it be required to have a secondary access. Community Development Director Frace stated there is only one access at this time, but any future development would have to meet Fire Department standards. Mike Zappas, owner of Hidden Oaks Village, stated a secondary access was created to the State Hospital on the backside of the property, and that an appraisal was done on this property. Joan O'Keefe stated that if Hidden Oaks had been developed under the usual format for the Multi -Family designation most of the trees would have been destroyed. She asked if the property doesn't sell, would it be possible to consider it for open space in the future. Mayor Brennler closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member O'Malley and seconded by Council Member Clay to adopt Draft Resolution A and decline purchase of the subject property. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. (Resolution No. 2008- 001) 2. Update on City Council Strategic Planning Goals ■ Fiscal Impact: None. ■ Recommendation: Council provide direction on the progress and status of the City Council's strategic planning goals. [City Manager] Improving the City's Economic Base Assistant City Manager Jim Lewis gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT Joan O'Keefe spoke about downtown issues including older property owners who are not making any improvements to their property, and the need to recruit restaurants. She also spoke about progress at the outlet center and the importance of considering all the facts when looking at the figures presented. CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 5 of 10 11 Tom Comar, Oppose Wal Mart spokesperson, spoke about the Atascadero Shield Initiative, stated it is important to sharpen Atascadero's vision, and indicated his support for hiring the economic consultant. Lee Perkins spoke in support of hiring an economic consultant to look at the big picture. She also referred to the growing wine industry in San Luis Obispo County and the related businesses which will profit from it. Bruce Bevens spoke in support of hiring an economic consultant to come into the city and look at what opportunities are available. He would like to see Atascadero more diversified; strengthening locally owned businesses and improving tourism. Joanne Main, President/CEO Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, stated her agreement with hiring a consultant, but was concerned that the Shield Initiative was ill timed and would actually block business. She encouraged the city to be proactive in bringing businesses in. Eric Greening encouraged the Council to investigate the backgrounds of the consultants prior to selecting one, and suggested contacting the jurisdictions that had used those consultants in the past. Kelly Gearhart spoke about downtown economics and questioned whether the city would actually listen to what the consultant says. He explained that it takes too long to process a building permit for a business in this community, and that there is too much criticism in Atascadero and not enough decisions made. David Broadwater stated he was in favor of making the investment for a consultant to look at the larger picture, and that in the long term spending the money to get a comprehensive detailed review is important. Chuck Ward explained why he believes the city has an anti business reputation. He spoke against hiring a consultant stating there are other places to spend the money, and against the Shield Initiative which he believes will discourage developers from coming into Atascadero. Tino Santos questioned the decision to turn down a study which would have been funded by Wal Mart, and now wanting to spend the city's dollars to hire a consultant. He explained his concerns regarding the economic troubles in Atascadero. Steve Martin related a story about Paso Robles, and explained his idea for a city—wide summit. He asked the Council to commit to either taking the advice of the consultant or the suggestions resulting from the summit he had proposed. Dan O'Grady spoke about the Planning Commission's recent approval of a drive through restaurant and stated the appeal process is a normal part of city government and should not be degraded. 0 CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 6 of 10 12 0 Mayor Brennler closed the Public Comment period. • There was Council consensus to continue on with current projects, do the downtown summit, and come back in two weeks with the economic consultant recommendation. It was decided that an ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Brennler and Council Member Clay would participate in the summit with the business community. Mayor Brennler recessed the hearing at 9:38 p.m. Mayor Brennler called the meeting back to order at 9:55 p.m. Campaign Reform Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT David Broadwater spoke about the fiscal impacts of this program and questioned how much would be spent on it. He expressed concern with the list of individuals who were contacted by the consultant and stated the process should be inclusive of all people in town. Mark Phillips stated that the original goal of this issue was to put a campaign contribution cap in place, and he expressed concern regarding the people who were contacted to meet with the consultant. Marty Brown expressed her disappointment and concern regarding the exclusion of certain individuals from this process. Tino Santos spoke against limiting campaign contributions stating it limits citizens' freedom, and commented on the lack of civility between the people of Atascadero on both sides of certain issues. Lee Perkins spoke of the need for campaign finance reform in Atascadero. She requested that staff include an extended amount of time during the proposed program for citizens to ask all the questions they have. Tom Comar explained Oppose Wal Mart's interest in campaign reform and their support for campaign contribution limits. CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 7 of 10 13 Ron Walters stated he is against the government putting limits on what he can or can't do for a political candidate. He was concerned with groups who act as PAC's but are not registered as such, and suggested in-kind contributions should have a dollar amount attached to them. Garth Wilwand said there should be campaign contribution caps and Atascadero should take the lead on this issue. He was also concerned that certain groups were excluded from the process. Mayor Brennler closed the Public Comment period. Ms. Torgerson addressed issues raised during the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Council Member O'Malley and seconded by Council Member Clay to go past 11:00 p.m. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll -call vote. (Luna opposed) There was Council direction to do the workshops on campaign reform and involve as many people as possible. Continue Emphasis on Roads Public Works Director Steve Kahn gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT — None There was Council agreement to accept staffs' review of this item. Repair City Hall Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT — None There was Council agreement to accept staffs' review of this item. Enhance Public Safe Police Chief Jim Mulhall and Fire Chief Kurt Stone gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 8 of 10 14 PUBLIC COMMENT — None There was Council agreement to accept staffs' review of this item. Natural Resources Program Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report and answered questions of Council. PUBLIC COMMENT — None There was Council agreement to accept staffs' review of this item. COMMUNITY FORUM David Broadwater clarified the comments he made at an earlier meeting regarding an overpayment to Mathis and Associates. City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson responded to Mr. Broadwater's comments. 0 Mayor Brennier closed the Community Forum period. • COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: None C. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Mayor Brennler 1. Air Pollution Control District (APCD): they will be conducting a survey regarding housing, land use, air pollution and transportation. 2. Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC): Mayor Brennier thanked the EOC and their staff for their patience and their work for those less fortunate. 3. Mayors Roundtable: the report from Sacramento was bleak, and in this time of economic uncertainty the city's finances must be watched. Council Member O'Malley 1. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA): is currently being managed through SLOCOG while SLORTA seeks a new manager. CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 9 of 10 15 D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: City Manager The City is receiving a lot of public records requests, including several very large ones and he will be bringing on some temporary help to manage the requests. E. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Brennler adjourned the meeting at 12:37 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council on January 22, 2008. MINUTES PREPARED BY: Grace Pucci, Deputy City Clerk The following exhibit is available for review in the City Clerk's Office: Exhibit A - Sweetheart Stroll and Winter Wonderland Information CC Draft Minutes 01/08/08 Page 10 of 10 16 • 0 • Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Treasurer ITEM NUMBER: A-2 DATE: 2/12/08 September 2007 September 2007 Investment Report RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the City Treasurer's report for September 2007 REPORT IN BRIEF: • Cash and Investments Checking $ 209,857 Money Market Accounts 1 Certificates of Deposit 7,332,507 Government Securities 10,921,517 LAIF 17,315,836 Cash with Fiscal Agents 126,147 Cash in Banks at September 30, 2007 $ 35,905,865 Deposits in Transit - Outstanding Checks (724,947) Cash and Investments at September 30, 2007 $ 35,180,918 Investment Activity Securities Purchased: Purchase Date Description Type Cost Maturity Date 09/26/07 Discover Bank CD $ 97,540 04/07/08 09/26/07 First Security Group Bank CD 97,359 05/13/08 09/26/07 Banco Bilbao CD 96,111 06/28/10 09/26/07 Federal Farm Credit Bank gov't security 490,880 10/20/11 Securities Matured: Maturity Date 09/05/07 09/06/07 09/12/07 09/18/07 09/19/07 09/25/07 Description Oak Hills Bank Nbank of Commerce Frances Slocum Bank Fed Home Loan Mtg Corp First Natl Bank of Shelby Broadway Bank Type CD CD CD gov't security CD CD Oriainal Cost $ 97,000 99,000 95,000 296,400 97,000 99,000 Amount Matured $ 97,000 99,000 95,000 300,000 97,000 99,000 Page 1 of 15 17 Securities Sold/Called Prior to Maturity: None Other Reportable Activities: None 18 Page 2 of 15 • • CITY OF ATASCADERO TREASURER'S REPORT CASH & INVESTMENTS ACTIVITY SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2007 Balance per Banks at September 30, 2007 $ 209,857 $ 35,569,861 $ 126,147 35,905,865 Deposits in Transit - Outstanding Checks (724,947) Adjusted Treasurer's Balance $ 35,180,918 I0 Page 3 of 15 19 CHECKING FISCAL ACCOUNT INVESTMENTS AGENT TOTALS Balance per Banks at September 1, 2007 $ 736,329 $ 37,436,178 $ 331,163 $ 38,503,670 Receipts 1,735,368 192 637 1,736,197 Disbursements (4,128,349) - (205,653) (4,334,002) Transfers In 3,838,400 1,9711,891 - 5,810,291 Transfers Out (1.971.,891)(3,838. 400) - (5,810,291) Balance per Banks at September 30, 2007 $ 209,857 $ 35,569,861 $ 126,147 35,905,865 Deposits in Transit - Outstanding Checks (724,947) Adjusted Treasurer's Balance $ 35,180,918 I0 Page 3 of 15 19 20 M r O, N O O Q V1 r ►� ti vl O o O, V1 O, r m D\ D` o O, r o O, Vt m �o O, 4\ t Q o. m O` Q r v O+ O O o O O O o O r M 10 Ol M O - M N m Vl 10 o o ^ O w m vi vi oo rn r r r .n oo b o: O M O, N a O, O\ O\ O, 01 O, Cl T O M O` M M h N a V1 k a a a a a a `d N N a oo \tl � O v Q 10 — 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 Cl 0 O O O O O 0 r _ V O M 00 M vi O O '0'1 O a O Ooi O T O On, O O m O a O U O O O O O Or. O Cl N VMl O Fr ao W N � h C r O O 000 OOO � M Ml O � Vl oNo M � frl N M1 vO1 f'�1 O fel 1'�1 M M W R N h h �i Q O OR 0 epi O m r�i O M M h M Mvi0 O O O 0 O O O M M O O ri O 0 ni 1.4 o �+i M 96 O 0 0 1 a a a a a 1 a a 0 a 0 a a a W uW� v " N L u A u A u A u A u A u A u A u A u u u I7 p d O O O O O O O O O G O p O u .0 a .l � .J >• u W 4:. 4: W W 4: W W o W E o �:. to � o C7 u U u U u U u U u U u U u U u U u U C7 u U C7 u U W Q Q N N N N Q Q Q Q M Q O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 d Q 0 a o m aa~ alY z U a � x# E °o° o p a 'e F u a g o°o w F W �a u w WS d c aH o :a e a d u o o Ca Fad �¢w 17 ° g �+ a d as w ai= Uv x U3 5C7 U wU as Ly e r O r o n o r O r o n 0 r 0 r o r O o y r O m O m o m 0 V1 w O, \ O, N 141 C {; 20 N O Q r O0 v� IR N N10 � ` v v v v j V � in o, o o, r Q h r h Q M r M Vl 00 Q V1 M I� Q Q N vt Q a M N r N N 00 I N .� a a, a a, rn a ol v rn a rn rn C, a rn N N M 4f Q va`i O O O 8 O O C 00 o O O O O Z O IL O O O O O LL w r r h O UD OD 00 O �n N r of C, T r o0 00 O, D\ O, O, N D` D` ON a D\ O, U5 61O 69 ttl ed �d R ,tl N W 'G O 0 O O O O O $ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O r o0 00 0 w w M o" vi vi o ol rn r m 00 Vo, of a o o. a o N m o o 0% 0%o 0 Cl J w O O v v o 0 C, 0 0o v o C7, o m r o Q h M M M M M M M M M M Q Q Q 4, o Q L4 N o Alai O V O vi O O O O O r P N N OM N D h M M N V O O O O v h 10 10 10 10 a n a a n a a a u u cl u O 10� " q q p Q Q v u v u u w O O C0 Q A 0 a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 F. u U U U C7 U U U C7 C7 U C7 U U U U U Q ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � �0 3 ,o `j Q O N N pp pp o 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � 0 4 o e v o a e Y vCO. 0 3 q q a\ q ±4 j J Q Y 7999 x d x U y Y W z u X yy e> 9 01 v 0, Y v 0, W m a Q m o= x qa °o e a o o ^. •°a o �, 0 3 a u a o gg ,o S 34 e F $ v 0.J q o o b a d No y a d vii a v h u i W cn �a wS e Q p p p O O O O O O O O O O O O O 21 22 \ O V � r O 10 o r a �o o vi r 0o o, a r a, 00 10N o, o ai o. of N a o0 c C, r a C, v O a ao e` a, a, v rn w � W o O a �n \0 o O o; 0 O r' 0 O r" o O o O O a 0 O a, 0 o v 0 O v 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 O Cl O o 0 O r O O� o o\ Cl ol oh a, N C;\ a, al T of o\ of o, O a\ j j ttl c � v R 2 td c R c N e N c ltl N N N etl N td tC N O aq 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o O 0 o 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 o O o o O T a U a ol N a P m a a Ol a O ani Vi 0 eo 0 o e o e e e e e e o e o 0 o [r V o 00 O Vt O v't V't O O V1 �n Vt Vt V1 O y O h O O O W O Q 00 M Vl O N O ^ `O I'D llD lO Vl M lO O Wt y h 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o a 0 n a a a a a a a a a a a a W w O w O w O w O w O C w O w O w OO w w O w O w O w O C w O m MU 18,V m E A w m a a a V V uo o U U U U U C7 m U u U u U ° U U u U u U u U C7 ani U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 .n j Q o ^ = -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 a a o a Y m d ° U 0 Y 60 Y aoa d a 0 m E; `e 16 �v°i o o >> in3 w u E 6 o 'wa wa 3� wv az Ua w uU do wx wt7 .°U cv �. o0 00 00 00 00 0, rn o, v. rn rn a o, N Q O ^ O O O O O O O O O O O 22 N V j C~e7 w IV W Iq V1 10c ol `D O O, Ol � V N � fR o pp r O O O O O p p O O O O O r O O O C O O � r O O O O O O O N O O O O 4, W vi ve o0 0 oo h c r r oo r r' r o" Ol Q\ O. Ol 119 N N Vl � N N td N W N R of `d N N to X C, v h 4O p O O O O O O S O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 Ci 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `e e o o e o e o o e a e e e e o r v� vi vi vi -� vi vi o 0 a s n w C N N N N v N Q C� o v p: O M L4 Fe e o o e e e �° o e o o � � O OLQ to til N1 ri H1 V V1 O R < R R �/e t+l M 'C a h h 4 4 0 0 r� o O 0 r� 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 u v u u � En A O A O y A A A in W W W W W W W W W W W W W O O C O O O p O O O O C O O O N td E ea W ttl m a m N N a N E p Y y o u d L d O u u d o c7 v v u u y O O O O O OO O O O O OO o O O O O O O O O O O O O O y a a o U ci Y U q so a e a A m tl a Q w ay fi uiG a x y euX W e o� o. Z pw �a o� Pa CJ tla a C fi UKP x� O� aCN Uu� Z .?S rn -r b W' dA. Y O d CIO O Yi'cn �a 'y W 2 9C1 .7 wu z� 3aa wu win z Ov wA wcai a> � wH wu 0 0 Cl 14 O a b V1 a N O p N o tp�1 `1 O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 23 24 G i h v M �: N M V O M M M O M O r N O N M M N O N t�?Q j C w r7 R D\ 69 O R D\ O < O O Yl O. O of O� O %O Q r N M Oi �D C4 N O U D\ O oO Ol O R Q. O O of. O Vt T O V1 D` O O vi N O .+ O+ O 171 O. O � Ln O O O. O O O, O O of O O O\ O O of o, Vl M o: N O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0+ of O O O+ O O - T O O w T O O - O O Cl N O O vi Tfl� O O m O. Ln O �1 c Z e Z 2 Z c � O trl U C 4 O 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O O W 0 C) rn 0 O C7, 0 O a 0 o ol a 0 O Cl o 0 0 C. 0 o 0 0 O o°ll 0 o rn 0 C rn 0 0 a 0 0 ol o C v0 O C a o 0 rn (A q e o 0 e e o 0 0 o e o e e e e e � J Ly O O O �/? o O -- �'� O O O vi O O h O O O O OO N N N O N O O q4 C O -It Vl V <f < 1 � 'Q R In R V a o 1,14 0 0 0 0 0 e e e 0 0 0 0 e 0 e e W e O U o0 h O O O O O O O N N N CD O ii O; h o O d O V O V O N V U V Op N Op, 6l O Y Op, L O N V O Cai .� V O O q N O O a O 1.1N O O d q E p p E O ee O a O m O W N p' E a W^ W e e W 4=W W 4. W p W u u u u u C7 C7 C7 u u u u u C7 U C7 O O O O O O O O O O O Of� O O WN O O O a►I Q 0 0e'1 0 O � N N O O QM ON O O O 44 a � m O U h Y C7 Y OC O � � eo 00 wo 6s' e e a m o 4 E Ci a� eo CEJ oG6y a U 4i a °o °� �� °� wM D o �> u M Y se Y •O ] # a F q w t b z p D Z M w# .9 u u N# ep`a id ap`�� a1 a`^ ° i E uu W u �. on° q ap`� "$ E S3 po oc H3 xaa u0 u0 wu wu wu �3 ¢w wx x� wu xx wu w rn 0 a 0 o, 0 rn 0 o+ 0 ol 0 rn 0 rn 0 a 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 e N N O� O M T b O O M O Vl ^ b ^ M N O� N �5 N o0 N 01 O 0o NQ O O O ^ ^ .N. .N. O O O O O O O 24 25 N Q 0 00 T rn oo O v o ° `D ao Ol v $ yr c c � j � w �D O Ol O r7 V1 a hQl O V1 pl 'Q pl �' p. °� Vl O\ Y1 a V1 P N N V O O 6A O O O O O O O O M b Z O W $ rz r o o U c 000 Cl 000 D\ o O c N N m O� O� c v N °� p� 1p s U � � az z F z a 6 G a a, a day �o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CD a a j rz a a P p� O\ a O N O V N VOOi sig h h e N % n O v1 < 7 � � h K er 'R Q R h •7 Q R vi O O 4 O i+~r q N Z � � N M N •7 fry N m d h N O N t7 4 h ° 10 r 10 m [. c ° a Q a A c A A a O 0 A &91 A A W A y A 0 0 w w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w u u o °u 0 c 0 V V V V V V V V V V > ` V �' Ly U O N b N b T p r r O O ^ 0 O j0 a, 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 a w A ti L d f O a L p Z �0 -• 4p m m m 0 Y a a e> E+ �' Y mQ im ■ p a07 Z7 ,� mU' a Z 0.s ..1U a e'n.0.40 C3 o, :i� 0 y« O 'r x A m O v b r1 Z A a m oda V m u Q w O W >> 'SY ti> b pp 0 C iy # .7' w O a A O A wm wE� m� �+ v$ O td xx >> ww 3x wv ww my ow' wu m> a w V W P 00 O b N r 00 N N OO N O O rq O O O O O O ^ O O 25 0` m lc� m O M M �O vi O T oo N O O P C N m oo O M O O W v'w e N oo a C, of V1 O N o0 0o O N O < ^ O M O. O O. Ml O� O �/1 O O O a N N ^' N O N M M h M M V M Yi ' O r '7 a M O O O� W 00 O O O O O� r h M O eo WOW o: oo of o � c ol a,g ol vi rn a o a N M < M O��J C 2 c m o � N z$ v v pp v O N Vl v Go 0 V 4 a � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 W j c 8 o rn o Ol v0i o o 7D o S o 0 oNo U N N M R N a M M M n M fA O W O P O O b C a , v, oo v c c M o 1p v v, M o o v Q0 e vi Vi Vi vi vi vi Vi V �/1 vi vi vi vi Ly N Q R O v, h � a = = a a 10 U U V U Y V Y N U Si V U U on � v, 12 con rn v, EY E E �p ,p7 v E W E m y aEi ani e� u > >> > 0 > 0 > > > > > > > > > C7 V 0 u CD u u 0 0 C7 u CD a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 1,14 oo N v, o 00 o r rn p a cu oo CD 0 a N 3 r o0 0. r o rn r o — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a d d d L OO O h u u a m PO d m Oq o� o� C1 or F Ww °a¢ Irl ^ °°w w Wy °aU a -M aw °a a{ atTQ(��q1 FSU X0.01 Sw. Srn w dX o SiC °� � x SOw °w S>C �YiS V CLN�I ° w y� =�, E� E� Em �L E� d E� °10E� Em =`Mo Ey E^ `M° W w e o 0 0 M z o o a m Mx M �y M w M `t. M ve xt u an 4c at w o a sk x ae at at u x :ft pp,, wL p w p w w w L L rn L CA C L q L L q L y L L rn L m L rn Y y Y� Y y Y y � � Y y U Y y Y y Y y Y y Y y Y y Y N Y y Y (n wU wU wU X u wU zU wU w w w wv w wU wU cLv w N O V1 l� .. r r W W V1 00 OO O M N Q a N ^ O O O O O O O O O O 26 �T 3 H 27 e Z H [� o v T y H pp p pp O O O p W rn rn rn V � H j Z Z 2 2 V W j O o, O P O a �e H e o e 0 � ltd CD N vii vi h vi e 6y N c W e e e C V1 V'1 o Pf vt �n Cl! h d h r n m q u u u E � � o � u C7 U U F ^ G m N m M o0 O O O b Z O`a m O U e ON pq� aO m U h v a O w U U w z � N N �T 3 H 27 City of Atascadero Investments by Type September 2007 Cash with Fiscal Agent 1% Other l.erlll ICU les of Deposit 20% Investment September 2007 LAIF $ 17,315,836 Certificates of Deposit 7,332,507 Government Securities 10,921,517 Cash with Fiscal Agent 126,147 Other I $ 35,696,008 28 Page 12 of 15 • • • C� • City of Atascadero Investments by Maturity September 2007 Within One Month One Month to One Year 2% 10% kill vcuwuu 39% 49% Investment September 2007 On Demand $ 17,315,837 Within One Month 589,605 One Month to One Year 3,630,496 One to Five Years 14,0331,923 S 35,569,861 Page 13 of 15 29 City of Atascadero Investments by Custodial Agent September 2007 Custodial Agent September 2007 State of California S 17,315,836 Other 53,217 Union Bank 18,200,808 Bank of New York 126,147 $ 35.696.008 30 Page 14 of 15 York • • • City of Ataseadero Investment Yield vs. 2 -Year Treasury Yield For the Month Ended September 30, 2007 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% " 1.00% 0.00% OHO 00 OHO OHO O� O� O� O� O� O� O� O� 01 rp rL0 r10 T T �O ti0 ti0 ti0 ti0 ti0 ti0 �O e` time` Fie` 5eQ`� O° --City Yield 2 -Yr Treasury Weighted Portfolio Yield • Page 15 of 15 31 2 -Yr Treasury Weighted Portfolio Cite Yield Yield September 2006 October 2006 4.58% 3.84% November 2006 4.60% 3.83% December 2006 4.66% 3.91% January 2007 4.70% 4.05% February 2007 4.72% 4.02% March 2007 4.72% 3.88% April 2007 4.76% 3.98% May 2007 4.80% 4.07% June 2007 4.83% 4.23% July 2007 4.82% 4.12% August 2007 4.82% 3.87% September 2007 4.82% 3.74% Page 15 of 15 31 • • 32 • • Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office RECOMMENDATION: ITEM NUMBER: B-1 DATE: 2/12/08 City Council Agenda Format Council introduce for first reading by title only the Draft Ordinance, amending Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) relating to Council Procedure. DISCUSSION: At the City Council's January 22, 2008 meeting, the Council discussed the format of their agendas and options to improve the flow of their meetings. The Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) currently states that the City Council meets in the Historic City Hall on Palma in the Rotunda at 7:00 p.m. Since the San Simeon earthquake of December 22, 2003, the City Council held their meetings at the Pavilion until the current City Hall was ready for occupancy. The City Council meetings are now held in the current City Hall Council Chambers on EI Camino Real. The City Council also desires to streamline their agendas to allow for an earlier start time and an adjournment at a reasonable hour. It was decided by the Council to update the AMC as follows: • Update the location of their meetings • Move the start time of their meetings to 6:00 p.m., or immediately following the Redevelopment Agency meetings, which will now be at 6:00 p.m. • Change the public comment time period to three (3) minutes The Council also decided to move the Community Forum to after the Consent Calendar. This change does not require an amendment to the AMC and will be implemented when the proposed ordinance goes into effect. 33 The following are the requested amendments to the AMC: 2-1.01 Meetings. The Council shall hold regular meetings in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, every second and fourth Tuesday evening. The Council meetings will commence at -76:00 p.m. unless there is a Community Redevelopment Agency meeting commencing at 6:00 p.m.. in which event the Council meeting will commence immediately following the conclusion of the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting. The Council will also meet on aid en -such other days, at such other times, as may be designated in a - ardernotice for a special meeting. A special meeting may be ordered in accordance with the provisions of Sections 54956 and 54956.5 of the Government Code of the State. When the day for any regular meeting of the Council falls on a legal holiday, the meeting shall not be held on such holiday, but shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding day thereafter which is not a holiday, or at such other time as shall be determined and noticed by the Council. (Ord. 186 § 1, 1988: Ord. 142 § 1, 1986: Ord. 19 § 2-1.01, 1980: Ord. 1 §§ 1, 2, 1979) 2-1.14 Manner of addressing the Council: Time limit. (a) Manner: Time. Each person addressing the Council shall approach the Council table and step up to the public microphone, if available, give his or her name and addFeso in an audible tone of voice for the record, and, unless further time is granted by the presiding officer, shall limit his or her address to three 4ye 53 minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof. No person, other than a Councilmember and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion without the permission of the presiding officer. (b) Spokespersons for Groups of Persons. Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council and, in the event additional matters are to be presented at the time by any other member of such group, to limit the number of persons so addressing the Council so as to avoid unnecessary repetitions before the Council. (Ord. 19 § 2-1.14, 1980) FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may decide to not adopt the proposed amendments to the AMC. ATTACHMENT: Draft Ordinance 0 34 • DRAFT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 1 OF THE ATASCADERO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO COUNCIL PROCEDURE The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero has previously adopted Atascadero Municipal Code Sections 2-1.01 concerning Meetings, and 2-1.14 concerning Manner of addressing the Council: Time Limit; and, WHEREAS, the Historic City Hall was badly damaged on December 22, 2003 by the San Simeon earthquake, causing the building to be vacated until repaired; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the Atascadero Municipal Code with the current location of City Council meetings; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the Atascadero Municipal Code relating 0to the time limit for public comment at City Council > THEREFORE meetings. NOW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO > HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 2-1.01 of the Atascadero Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in full as follows: 2-1.01 Meetings. The Council shall hold regular meetings in the Rotunda R---1 ""8 A a _ Building, 6500 Palma Avenue—,Council Chambers of City Hall. 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, every second and fourth Tuesday evening. The Council meetings will commence at -76:00 p.m. unless there is a Community Redevelopment Agency meeting commencing_ at 6.00 p.m. in which event the Council meeting will commence immediately_ following the conclusion of the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting The Council will also meet -mon such other days, at such other times, as may be designated in a_n-eFdefnotice for a special meeting. A special meeting may be ordered in accordance with the provisions of Sections 54956 and 54956.5 of the Government Code of the State. When the day for any regular meeting of the Council falls on a legal holiday, the meeting shall not be held on such holiday, but shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding day thereafter which is not a holiday, or at such other time as shall be determined and noticed by the Council. (Ord. 186 § 1, 1988: Ord. 142 § 1, 1986: Ord. 19 § 2-1.01, 1980: Ord. 1 §§ 1, 2, 1979) 35 SECTION 2: Section 2-1.14 of the Atascadero Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in full as follows: 2-1.14 Manner of addressing the Council: Time limit. (a) Manner: Time. Each person addressing the Council shall approach the Council table and step up to the public microphone, if available, give his or her name aa -address in an audible tone of voice for the record, and, unless further time is granted by the presiding officer, shall limit his or her address to five (i -three J3)_minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof. No person, other than a Councilmember and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion without the permission of the presiding officer. (b) Spokespersons for Groups of Persons. Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council and, in the event additional matters are to be presented at the time by any other member of such group, to limit the number of persons so addressing the Council so as to avoid unnecessary repetitions before the Council. (Ord. 19 § 2-1.14, 1980) SECTION 3: A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published twice: at least five days prior to its final passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero, and; before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its final passage, in the Atascadero News, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Atascadero. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the City Clerk's Office on and after the date following introduction and passage and shall be available to any interested member of the public. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on , and PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero, State of California, on , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., City Clerk 0. CITY OF ATASCADERO Mike Brennler, Mayor C, • APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney • • 37 • • �J all • Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office ITEM NUMBER: C-1 DATE: 2/12/08 Update on Printery and Community Center (This update will include current programs and activities, FEMA funding and site conditions.) RECOMMENDATION: Council receive and file this report. DISCUSSION: The City Manager will provide a verbal report on all related issues concerning the Printery and the Community Center, including current programs and activities, FEMA funding, and site conditions at the new Community Center. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard's Memo, dated 01/18/08 2. Printery and Community Center Timeline 3. Colony Park Community Center, 5599 Traffic Way Timeline 39 • C� 1e Attachment A City of Atascadero Office of Administrative Services TO: City Council FROM: Rachelle Rickard, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Federal Emergency Management Agency assistance to the City of Atascadero in the case of the Printery Building DATE: January 18, 2008 The purpose of this memo is to provide you with information regarding the City's use of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Printery building funding for the construction of the new Colony Park Community Center. I appreciate your desire to have the most complete information available on this subject. To that end, I've attached a 14 -year timeline of activities regarding the Printery to this memo. Additionally, I'd like to provide you with a brief recap of FEMA's regulations and process with regard to their Public Assistance (PA) program. FEMA, along with the State Office of Emergency Services (OES), provided an informational briefing soon after the disaster. Through that briefing, and additional follow up meetings, City staff members were informed of the regulations of the Public Assistance Program. According to "Public Assistance; Public Assistance Guide" (Guide) published by FEMA (publication FEMA 322), there are four basic eligibility criteria for public assistance funding: 1. Applicant 2. Facility 3. Work 4. Cost Applicant The first requirement to obtain public assistance funding is to qualify as an eligible applicant under FEMA's official definition. The Guide lists four types of categories of eligible applicants. Included in that list is local government. 41 Fad After being established as an eligible applicant, the PA program requires that the facility to be funded also meets the requirements as eligible. Facility Defined According to page 16 of the Guide, "A facility is defined as any publicly or PNP - owned building, works, system, or equipment; or certain improved and maintained natural features." The Printery is a building and therefore meets this criteria. Legal Responsibility An eligible applicant must be legally responsible for the damaged facility at the time of the disaster. Page 25 of the Guide states that, "Ownership of a facility is sufficient to establish the responsibility for work to repair the facility." The City was the owner at the time of the disaster, and was legally responsible for the building from July 1994 to March 2006. Located in Disaster Area The building must also be located within the designated disaster area. The declared disaster area included San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Active Use Additionally, the facility must be in active use at the time of the disaster. Occupancy of the building would meet this requirement. Many activities were taking place in the Printery at the time of the San Simeon quake including cheerleading practice, rental of space to a photography studio and a karate studio, and utilization of portions of the building by the Masons and the George C. Beatie Skate Park users. The building was far from vacated. Work FEMA defines three general types of work that may be eligible: 1) debris removal; 2) emergency protective measures; and 3) permanent restoration. Each type has its own criteria to meet. The funding the City received for the Printery fell under the permanent restoration type. Cost On page 33 of the Guide, FEMA defines "costs that can be directly tied to the performance of eligible work" as eligible. Such costs must be reasonable, necessary, compliant with all procurement regulations, and net of all applicable credits. FEMA determined eligible costs for the Printery. Improved Proiects The Stafford Act (the governing legislation for the PA program) allows eligible applicants to request Improved Projects. According to page 85 of the Guide, "The improved facility must have the same function and at least the equivalent capacity as that of the pre - disaster facility." Because the Printery was being used for several activities at the time of the quake and because the Colony Park Community Center carries at least the equivalent capacity as that of the Printery, the City is eligible for the improved project. 42 • FEMA/OES has extensive proof process that the City had to successfully complete prior to being considered eligible for improved project funds. City staff followed all regulations and provided all requested documentation during that process. The estimated cost to repair earthquake damage to the Printery Building was $7,260,000. FEMA responded with a commitment to the City in the amount of $4,051,020, which is the amount that FEMA calculated it would cost to replace the Printery. After evaluating all of the options, the Council determined that it was in the best interest of the community to apply for an improved project rather than repairing the Printery building. By making this decision, the Council would be able to accomplish many goals simultaneously: they would provide a new and better planned facility for the youth; the Printery building would be preserved for future generations through the use of private, not public, funds; and FEMA, and ultimately the taxpayers, would save a significant amount of money, estimated in the millions of dollars, all through the legal and ethical use of FEMA's Public Assistance Program. FEMA has very lengthy policies and requirements. The simplified executive summary of those regulations. I would issue in further detail and provide additional backup information 0 Attachment: Printery and Community Center Timeline above information is a be happy to review this 43 • s m 4 4 4 Attachment B PRINTERY AND COMMUNITY CENTER TIMELINE /24/94 Council votes to accept the Atascadero Temple Association's (ATA's) proposal to donate 99% of the building and 100% of both lots. Council also approves a resolution authorizing the Agreement to Convey Real Property and the Joint Occupancy Agreement with the understanding that they are to be amended before the close of escrow and come back for final approval by the City Council 07-12-94 Council gives final approval of the Agreement to Convey Real Property and the Joint Occupancy Agreement relating to the acquisition of the Masonic Temple 07-12-94 City and Atascadero Temple Association execute Joint Occupancy Agreement and through Agreement to Convey Real Property. Atascadero Temple Association conveys 99% 07-29-94 interest in Printery to City, subject to joint occupancy agreement 1994 City owns and maintains the Printery Building (remainder of year) Activity reports are not available for activities held at the Printery, but newspaper archives and recollections suggest activities at the Printery include clean up days, fund raising activities, and dances 1995 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Activity reports are not available for activities held at the Printery, but newspaper archives and recollections suggest activities at the Printery include fund raising activities, meetings and clean up days 1995 Fund raising and planning activities are held for the George C. Beatie Skate Park next to the Printer 06-27-95 Council report on Architect's Analysis of the Youth Center/Printery Building. Council directs staff to "continue the present usage policy" 1996 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Activity reports are not available for activities held at the Printery, but newspaper archives and recollections suggest activities at the Printery include fund raising and skate park activities 03-23-96 George C. Beatie Skate Park opens 04-09-96 Council receives report on seismic retrofit and the financing / fundraising plan. Council endorses the financing/ f undraising plan 1997 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Activity reports show that Printery holds activities such as Kids Night Out, Atascaplazza, rentals for weddings and various church organizations, a movie night, a harvest party, teen variety night, karate, volleyball and other activities 1998 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Activity reports show that Printery holds activities such as youth basketball, Teen Variety Night, baton class, Mommy & Me, Atascapooloozza, rentals for weddings, youth task force meetings, dance classes, pitching clinics, and other activities 1999 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Activity reports show that Printery holds activities such as youth basketball, Teen Variety Night, ARCC meetings, Youth Task Force meetings, karate, volleyball, Girls Scouts slee over, creative performing classes, and other activities 12-14-99 Council gives direction to discontinue efforts to renovate the Printery building as a Youth Center, initiate fund-raising effort and develop plans for a Gymnasium to be built on a site to be determined Page 1 of 6 45 PRINTERY AND COMMUNITY CENTER TIMELINE 2000 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Activity reports show that Printery holds activities such as youth basketball, Teen Variety Night, superbowl party, census training, jazzercise, karate, fencing, adult volleyball and other activities. 02-24-00 Atascadero Temple Association requests a decision from the City regarding the intentions for future occupancy of the Printery Building. 05-23-00 Council directs staff to develop an ad hoc committee of service organization representatives to review alternatives for the future of the Printery building. 11-15-00 City goes out to bid for design services for a Youth/Community Center 2001 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Activity Reports show that Printery holds activities such as Kite's Away, Slime Science, Camp Kinetic, basketball, fencing, volleyball, Friday Variety Night, meetings, and other activities 01-23-01 Council hires Heiser and Associates as architect for design of a proposed Youth / Community Center site to be determined 07-24-01 Council decides to purchase Hay and Feed Building 11-28-01 City purchases Hay & Feed Building 2002 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Activity Reports show that Printery holds activities such as Art Class, Mommy & Me, AHS Mock Rock, 'azzercise, volleyball, foreign student and other activities 2002 Activities at Hay & Feed include youth basketball, REC Program (summer and Christmas holiday break), fund raising activities, and BMX demonstration 2003 City continues to own and maintain the Printery Building Although use is not as heavy as previous year, Activity Reports show that Printery holds activities such as Mommy & Me, high school concert, youth soccer sign ups, karate, volleyball, AHS Cheer and other activities 2003 Activities at the Hay & Feed include youth basketball and REC Program (summer months and Christmas holiday break April, June & Council discusses disposition of the Printery in closed session July 2003 6-26-03 Mr. Gearhart applies for a building permit for the Masonic Meeting Hall at 2605 Traffic Way 8-12-03 Council votes to: "1. Prepare and execute the necessary agreements and documents to return ownership of the Atascadero Masonic Temple/Printery building to the Atascadero Masonic temple Association and; 2. Include an agreement to have the building placed on the National Registry of Historic Places and; 3. Allow temporary use of the George C. Beatie Skate park, until such time as the skate park can be relocated to Traffic Way Park; and 4. Record a deed restriction to prohibit the demolition of the historic portions of the Printery and, 5. Form a committee of 2 council Members to meet with a developer designated by the Masons to make recommendations back to the full Council to renovate the building in exchange for transfer of Development Credits." Page 2 of 6 M. • is PRINTERY AND COMMUNITY CENTER TIMELINE 2-22-03 Earthquake severely damages building. Building is red tagged and the skate park is closed temporarily 12-22-03 Scheduled activities at the Printeryare canceled i.e. through 12- Volleyball 12-22-03, 12-24-03,12- 3-5pm 31-03 29-03 and 12-31-03 Karate Most days 5-8:30pm Cheer Clinic 12-30-03 10am — 3 m 12-26-03 FEMA Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) teams arrive and staff shows them damage at the Printery Building. Possible ownership and use issues are brought up with FEMA/OES personnel at that time. PDA teams are also shown the Hay & Feed Building 12-29-03 Temporary fencing around Printery building is installed 2004 City continues to own and provide critical item maintenance for the Printery Building. Skate park is open March — September, however portable toilets are brought in as access to the Printery building is forbidden. (In September 2004 a minor earthquake hit the central coast and after an inspection of the building after this minor trembler, it was determined that the skate park could not remain open due to safety concerns 2004 Activities at the Hay & Feed Building include temporary indoor skate park (January - February and October -December) and youth basketball 01-21-04 Wysong Construction completes Emergency Shoring Project to prevent collapse of Printer 01-21-04 Office of Historic Preservation notifies the City that on 1-2-04 the Printery was placed on the National Registry of Historic Places Council discusses the future of the Printery and there was consensus "to keep the (0130-04 Printery, live up to the agreement with the Masons, and re -locate them to the Pavilion until the Printer is restored." -03-04 Kickoff meeting with FEMA/OES is held and projects, procedures and limitations regarding the earthquake are discussed. Staff, FEMA representatives and OES representatives tour damaged facilities ending at the Printery Building. After the tour, FEMA and OES express an interest in documents regarding the use of the Printery and our agreement with the Masons 02-18-04 At the recommendation of FEMA/OES representatives, staff takes a trip to talk with UCLA facilities personnel regarding their experience with the FEMA process during the Northridge earthquake. Staff learns about more about Alternate and Improved Projects 02-24-04 Council holds a closed session regarding the Printery Real Property Negotiations: "City Attorney Roy Hanley announced that by a 3:2 vote (Pacas, Luna opposed) it was decided to perform according to the previously agreed upon agreement with the Masons" February — City staff works with FEMA/OES representatives on an almost daily basis. City provides April 2004 representatives with copies of items such as Joint Occupancy Agreement with Atascadero Temple Association, schedule of activities in the Printery building from 1/1/1997 through 12/31/2003, print outs of expenses and maintenance activities for the Printery, and other requested documentation 03-10-04 At a meeting FEMA and OES representatives discuss the process the City would have to go through if the City would like to consider an alternate or improved project for the Printery building. 03-23-04 City issues building permit for Masonic Meeting Hall at 2605 Traffic Way 05-04-04 At a meeting FEMA and OES representatives state that City should do a full damage assessment and then if they decide to, they can request an alternate or improved project after the fact Page 3 of 6 47 PRINTERY AND COMMUNITY CENTER TIMELINE 05-11-04 Council authorizes staff to hire Hardy, Holzman Pfeieffer Associates and Nabih Youssef & Associates as the architecture and engineering firms for the Printery seismic repairs 06-21-04 Project to renovate the Hay & Feed Building into a youth center goes out to bid 07-22-04 City reimburses Atascadero Temple Association (ATA) per recently submitted invoices. Invoices are for rent of their temporary facilities from January 2004 through June 2004 in accordance with the joint occupancy agreement. (City continues to pay rent for ATA until City returns Printery to ATA. 08-05-04 City receives bids for renovation of Hay & Feed building as a Youth Center. John Madonna Construction is the only bidder and comes in substantially higher than budgeted at $2,409,900 Total project budget is $1.2 million 08-11-04 City's earthquake architecture and engineering teams are here documenting damage to through the Printery building and designing appropriate repair schemes 08-13-04 08-24-04 Council rejects the bid received for the renovations to Hay & Feed building as too expensive 09-09-04 Walk through of Printery Building with FEMA representatives, OES representatives, A&E consultants and with City staff. Everyone tours entire building discussing earthquake damage, pre-existing damage, use of various areas (Mason's areas, photography studio, Ken Yu Kan Karate studio, gym, kitchen, pool room, etc.), possible fixes, etc. 09-14-04 Staff asks Council for direction on whether to look at additional funding sources or revise the plan for the Youth Center (Hay & Feed). There was Council consensus to look at additional funding sources for the Youth Center (Hay & Feed) including utilizing redevelopment funds 09-14-04 Council hears about the Printery money, FEMA and the possibility that 70% of the total cost estimates of the reconstruction can be transferred to another project. Therefore a City Council study session is scheduled to look at FEMA projects 09-21-04 Staff prepares report for study session on FEMA funds. Staff discusses timing of the projects, agreements with the Masons, and timing pressures. Staff also recommends that Council direct the FEMA/OES funds from the Printery project to the City Administration Building 09-23-04 Pfeiffer Partners submits Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan to City, FEMA and OES. 09-28-04 Council unanimously affirms it would not challenge giving the Printery back to the Masons, and Council unanimously decides to take the FEMA funds of $6.3 million and use it on an improved project — a new Youth Center 09-30-04 In response to request by FEMA, City transmits copies of all agreements between City and Atascadero Temple Association to OES 10-26-04 Mr. McKinney updated Council on progress for the Youth Center and asks for direction with respect to processes. Decision points to consider are: 1. How will the location of the new facility be decided 2. Who/how will the approval of the conceptual plan be completed Council deliberates on the discussion points as well as the roll of the Parks & Recreation Commission in the decision making process for the Youth Center 11-23-04 City hires company to move Atascadero Temple Association furniture to storage. City begins paying for Atascadero Temple Association storage unit in accordance with joint occupancy agreement 12-02-04 Meeting with FEMA representatives, OES representatives, architecture & engineering team and City staff occurs to discuss the Printery Damage Assessment Report, the proposed repairs to the Printery, the use of the Printery prior to the earthquake and other items related to issuing a project worksheet for the Printery Building Page 4 of 6 • PRINTERY AND COMMUNITY CENTER TIMELINE 12-09-04 Pre -Design Cost Model Report forwarded to FEMA. Estimated cost to repair earthquake damage to the Printery Building is $7,260,000 12-14-04 Council approves the selection of the Traffic Way/Hay & Fee/City Corporation Yard site for the development of the Recreation Center building and associated facilities, and directs the City manager to proceed with the development of a Youth Center building and site plan for the Traffic Way location and directs the City Manager to prepare a plan for the relocation of the Corporation Yard and the removal of unnecessary waste water related facilities. Motion passed 3:1 Pacas opposed, O'Malley was absent 12-16-04 City submits report entitled "URM Wall to Diaphragm Connection Damage for the Printery Building to OES. OES forwards report to FEMA soon after receipt) 12-21-04 Project Worksheet prepared by FEMA is dated 12-21-04; however support documents prepared by FEMA for the PW are dated February 2005. (The City is not notified that PW exists until March 2005 and notification of funding availability was not received by City until October 2005.) The project worksheet determines that the cost of repairing the Printery Building exceeds the 50% threshold for repair vs. replacement, therefore funding is based on the cost of replacing the Printery. Funding is in the amount of $4,051,020 (75% of this amount will be funded by FEMA, 25% by OES 12-28-04 City transmits (to OES and FEMA) copies of floor plan of Printery showing areas of exclusive use designated in July 1994 agreement with Atascadero Temple Association 2005 City continues to own and provide critical item maintenance at the Printery Building 2005 Activities at the Hay & Feed Building include After School Activities Program (January — Mayouth basketball, skate park (April — December 2-2-05 OES issues a supplemental notice to City for funding in the amount of $160,517 for AhL architecture and engineering costs + administrative costs related to the Printer 03-07-05 City sends letter to Congressman Thomas requesting assistance obtaining Printery funding decisions from FEMA 03-09-05 In conversation with an OES representative, the City is notified that a PW for the Printery had been issued for over $4 million dollars. The length of the appeal process and the City's time pressure to relinquish the building to the Temple Association are discussed. It is suggested that the City complete an improved project request 03-09-05 Press release issued from Congressman Thomas' office regarding FEMA announcement that City would be compensated for loss of Printery 03-22-05 Council approves site master plan for Traffic Way Park (by David Volz Design) and Recreation Center Design Plans (by BFGC 04-25-05 City submits Request for Improved Project for Printery Building to OES. (OES forwards to FEMA 5-12-05 June 2005 City works with FEMA and OES on Environmental / Historical Review of City's improved project request 06-29-05 FEMA notifies OES that project complies with NEPA and with historical requirements. OES forwards notification to Cit 7-15-05 07-19-05 City requests a time extension for the Printery Improved Project 08-18-05 OES approves the City's Improved Project Request for the Printer 08-26-05 Wade McKinney signs Grant Deed to transfer ownership of the Printery Building to the Atascadero Temple Association 09-02-05 OES approves a time extension through December 31, 2007 for the Printery Improved Project 09-23-05 Final inspection of Masonic Meeting Hall at 2605 Traffic Way • Page 5 of 6 &G, PRINTERY AND COMMUNITY CENTER TIMELINE 10-12-05 OES issues a supplemental notice to City for funding in the amount of $4,192,433. $4,051,020 is for the Printery Building and the remaining amount is to reimburse a portion of administrative costs related to the project. PW is dated 12-21-04 11-08-05 Council certifies Mitigated Negative Declaration for Traffic Way Park expansion and Recreation Center Master Plan 2006 City continues to own and provide critical item maintenance at the Printery Building through 3-9-06 2006 The Hay & Feed Building is used as an indoor skate park and holds related activities. The building was closed for renovations in January and February with a grand opening on 02-28-06 03-02-06 Atascadero Temple Association signs Grant Deed for Printery Building. 03-09-06 Grant Deed is recorded, returning the Printery Building to the Atascadero Temple Association 08-17-06 Council awards bid for New Recreation Center to Wysong Construction 2007 The Hay & Feed Building is used as an indoor skate park and holds related activities. 02-23-07 City submits first claim for FEMA/OES reimbursement on New Recreation Center (for appropriate costs paid through 2-23-07 04-16-07 City submits claim for FEMA/OES reimbursement on New Recreation Center (for appropriate costs paid 2-24-07 through 4-16-07 08-15-07 City submits claim for FEMA/OES reimbursement on New Recreation Center (for appropriate costs incurred through 6-30-07 Page 6 of 6 50 • • Colony Park Community Center Timeline 0 5599 Traffic Way • • Attachment C 1937-1983 The Traffic Way property operated as the sewage treatment plant. 1980-2005 Property functioned as the City sewer lift station (consisting of a pump house, turbine and water storage tank) & Public Works Yard; several buildings existed on the property, including a main office, mobile trailer office, paint shop and a Dial -A -Ride storage shed. 11-2004 Komex collected soil samples and concluded that (1) No organic contaminants were detected above their respective method -reporting limits in any shallow soil samples, and (2) metals concentrations in soil samples did not exceed any USEPA Region 9 Residential PRGs. 12-14-2004 City Council approved the selection of the Traffic Way Yard site for the development of the Recreation Center building and associated facilities, and directed the City Manager to proceed with the development of a Youth Center building and site plan for the Traffic Way location, and directed the City Manager to prepare a plan for the relocation of the Public Works Yard and removal of the unnecessary waste -water related facilities. 02-2005 Komex conducted a Phase I environmental assessment and concluded that there was no evidence of any recognized environmental conditions (REC's) at the 5493 property (adjacent to the 5599 Traffic Way property). Komex concluded that there could be a possibility of the following on the 5599 Traffic Way Property: gasoline and/or materials associated with sewage wastewater or sewage treatment byproducts which may have impacted soils and groundwater; asbestos containing materials and lead- based paints could require assessment prior to the demolition of property buildings. 07-2005 ATC Associates conducted a Phase II environmental assessment of the property including soil sampling and analysis as well as assessing the buildings and structures for lead and asbestos. Asbestos tiles and some lead-based paint were found in some structures. These structures were removed in late 2005. Asbestos and lead abatement and disposal associated with these structures were completed in late 2005 as well (SLO Air Pollution Control District Notification # A05-93). 09-2005 Mearns Consulting Corp. conducted a HHRA (Human Health Risk Assessment) based on the soil data from the ATC Phase II assessment. Their assessment recommended soil remediation. 12-2005 ATC Associates supervises a remedial excavation at the property to remove soil containing elevated concentrations of certain contaminants. Three different areas were excavated with a total of 1,249 cubic yards of soil being removed. ATC also collected 17 soil confirmation soil samples. 12/12/05 Santa Maria Sanitary Landfill (SMSL) inspected, accepted and approved for disposal approximately 60 loads of "non hazardous hydrocarbon impacted soil", after specifically stating that only non -hazardous material would be accepted for disposal. 04-2006 SLO County Department of Public Health conducted recommended a comprehensive post -remediation human health risk assessment (HHRA) be conducted. Page 1 of 2 51 Attachment C Colony Park Community Center Timeline 5599 Traffic Way is 05-2006 Mearns Consulting Corp. responds to comments from the County's Environmental Consultant Teri Copeland regarding her HHRA and site characterization reports. 06-2006 After receiving comments from Mearns, Jeff Poehl of the County's Public Health Office, issues a letter stating that a site clearance cannot be offered and that there are still additional questions. 07-2006 Avocet Environmental performed supplemental soil sampling. Organic compounds and semi -volatile compounds were not detected in any of the soil samples analyzed. 07-2006 At the recommendation of the County's Environmental Consultant, the City hires McDaniel -Lambert to perform another HHRA (Human Health Risk Assessment) on the property, the complete text and analysis of which is contained for public review in the attached binder. This report applies relevant USEPA & CaIEPA risk assessment guidance and addressed all the outstanding issues that were of previous concern to the County. 08-29-06 The SLO County Department of Public Health reviewed the McDaniel - Lambert HHRA report and concludes that the final version of the HHRA dated 8/28/06 is complete and acceptable, and that no further action was required for the site to be used as a recreational facility. 08-2006 Council awards the bid for the new Recreation Center to Wysong Construction 12-2007 Completed Colony Park Recreation Center opens to the public. Page 2 of 2 52 • • • Atascadero City Council Staff Report - City Manager's Office ITEM NUMBER: C - 2 DATE: 2/12/08 City Appeal of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Funding City Administration Building RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the First Level Appeal of PW 229-1 (Atascadero City Hall) submitted to the Office of Emergency Services (OES) on February 1, 2008. 0 DISCUSSION: The repair and rehabilitation of our historic City Hall remains a priority, as it is the center of Atascadero's downtown. After receiving disappointing preliminary news from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in May 2007 that our funding would be significantly less than necessary, staff began preparing for the appeal process. Kermani Consulting Group, a firm with considerable experience in working with FEMA, was hired to create a comprehensive document for the first -level appeal. On December 13, 2007, the City received FEMA's much -anticipated project worksheet which indicated a funding obliqation totaling $15.816,218 as follows: Repair j $ 4,628.602. Hazard Mitigation $ 10.830.863. Architecture/En i neering $ 356,753. TOTAL $ 15,816.218. In response, staff prepared official appeal documents and submitted them to OES on February 1, 2008, prior to the February 3, 2008 deadline. The appeal consists of 8 volumes of information. The first volume, which is included in this agenda packet, consists of the Appeal Letter, the Table of Contents for the appeal documents, and three critical summaries prepared for this appeal. The remaining 7 volumes of the appeal are available for review at City Hall and consist of supporting documentation and reports for the appeal. OES will now have 60 days to review the appeal and request 53 additional information, revisions or clarifications before forwarding the document to FEMA. 9 The appeal included the following: Repair of Unreinforced Masonry Walls The classification of funding for the repair of unreinforced masonry walls in the building has been a major issue. FEMA regards the repair method proposed by the structural engineer as not justified by `applicable code', and therefore ineligible for funding as repair. As part of the appeal, the City's submitted information showing: • Recent sample wall corings have been performed in the building, which show the cracks visible from the outside to be through all three wythes of unreinforced masonry. • Non-linear computer analysis of the crack damaged URM walls indicates a 43% loss of strength due to the earthquake. • Chapter 34 of the 2001 CBC states: "... repairs may be made to any building or structure without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with all the requirements of this code, provided the addition, alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new building or structure." • FEMA's proposed repair method of re -pointing and selective brick replacement does not meet current code, does not re -store the structural integrity of the building to its pre -disaster condition, and does not follow FEMA's own guidelines for repair of URM walls. Repair of the City Hall Foundation and Settlement Issue The classification of funding for the repair of settlement in the building has been a contentious issue. As a result of the San Simeon Earthquake, the North side of the building settled approximately 7" relative to the South side of the building. FEMA states that they did not find sufficient evidence to support that claim and therefore is unable to fund repair of the foundation. (FEMA did however approve $7.8 million for up -grade of the foundation as cost-effective hazard mitigation). The City's appeal includes the following: • Geotechnical engineers, Earth Systems Pacific stated "In our opinion, the data and analyses described above support the conclusion that liquefaction did indeed occur at the site during the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake, and demonstrate that the majority of the settlement observed at City Hall is attributable to dynamic settlement of the structure that occurred in conjunction with the liquefaction." • URS (FEMA's geotechnical consultants) stated that "it would not be unreasonable to conclude that soil liquefaction is possible.... for those conditions experienced during the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake." • The settlement is consistent with the directionality of the earthquake. • Since liquefiable soils are well below the surface of the site, no visual surface evidence of the liquefaction would be expected. • Additional boring tests conducted in May 2007 confirm prior boring data regarding liquefiable soils. 0 54 FEMA did not provide funding for repairing the facade of the building for damage caused by re -leveling work. Nor did FEMA provide funding for repairing any cracks or spalls to the 2nd & 3rd floor concrete floors. The City presented arguments and requested that FEMA provide language declaring these repairs eligible when they are found and quantified. Removal of Mold & Pigeon Guano Immediately following the earthquake, the City hired construction firms to remove loose brick and generally seal the building; however there are still areas of the building that were not sealed due to safety concerns. As a consequence, pigeons have taken roost in City Hall and water continues to infiltrate the building. FEMA has denied funding for the removal of pigeon guano and mold, stating they will re -look at it "upon receipt of comprehensive documentation quantifying the damage and delineating and justifying the requested scope of work." As part of the appeal, the City requested that language declaring clean up of the mold and pigeon guano is eligible. • The accumulation of guano, mold and mildew are on-going biological processes that will not end until they are cleaned up, therefore going to the expense of quantifying them at this point does not make sense. • Cal OSHA recommends that resources should be spent to remove mold rather than extensive testing for mold. • The City had a Level I mold assessment performed that indicated the presence of mold and pigeon guano. Heating -Ventilation and Air Conditioning System FEMA continues to contend that damage to the HVAC system was not a result of the earthquake. They also contend that the City has not proved that the system is damaged, or that the proposed replacement is cost effective. The City's appeal includes the following: • Gayner Engineers prepared a new study in June of 2007. They find "The condition of the building mechanical and electrical systems (MEP) systems is a direct result of the earthquake, and the building being vacated after the seismic event." • Gayner finds that the closed circuit cooler, boiler, pumps and associated controllers were irreparable and need replacement. They also found that the 40 heat pumps and associated controllers on the 1 st — 4th floor were also beyond repair and require replacement. • Davis Langdon prepared a Cost Model report showing that the proposed repair methods were the most cost effective repair methods. Re -Start MEP Systems As a result of the Gayner study prepared in June 2007, the cost to drain, clean, leak test, repair and sanitize the MEP systems was identified as a cost the City will incur in order to repair the building. As part of the appeal, we submitted this new information to FEMA and requested funding. J 55 Code Requirements FEMA has denied funding for certain items identified as code requirements by our architects and engineers. These are items that are triggered by the building code because the structural, MEP or architectural repairs will affect an area or system that is not code compliant. As part of the appeal, the City's structural engineer clarifies the 2001 CBC. Paint There are several areas in the building where FEMA and the City disagree on the area eligible for painting. Although the nuance for each specific area is slightly different, the general FEMA argument is that they will pay for painting damaged areas only. The City's appeal points out painting anything less than the entire room would not restore the building to its pre -disaster condition as the rooms were uniformly painted prior to the earthquake. (No matter how closely you match the paint, the walls/areas will have a different level of faded and dirty paint.) Damage to Roof Drains and Second Floor Lavatories As a result of the Gayner study prepared in June 2007, damage to several roof drains and lavatories was found and documented. As part of the appeal, this new information was submitted to FEMA and funding was requested. Lighting FEMA denied funding for lighting replacement stating "The `repair' items are ineligible because of the lack of damage." The City concurs with FEMA's assessment that the replacement of the entire lighting system as proposed in original Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan should not be eligible; however replacement of damaged fixtures should be eligible. The Gayner report documented specific fixtures that were damaged and the City's request for funding for lighting was significantly reduced in this appeal. The City's appeal also requested that lighting that needs to be removed because of structural, MEP, or architectural work also be funded as part of that work. Grounds FEMA has denied funding for repairing the landscaping around City Hall. The City provided several arguments in the appeal as to why this is an important repair element and should be funded. City Costs Incurred to Date FEMA failed to include in the PW funding for various City costs incurred to date. These costs include: • The cost of renting the temporary fence around City Hall. (Installation of the more permanent decorative fence is not an eligible expenditure.) • The cost storing the bricks that have fallen from City Hall. (The City will be re- using these bricks in order to preserve the historic fabric of City Hall.) • The installation of protective netting around the top of City Hall. The City had been assured by OES that these items would be included in the final PW, however they were not included. As part of the appeal, the City is requesting funding for these items. 56 • • Architectural Engineering & Other Services (A&E) FEMA included funding for architectural and engineering services based on a request by the City in January 2005 to increase the amount of funding for preliminary A&E. This request was not intended to cover A&E costs for the entire project. The PW includes funding for eligible A&E costs incurred through January 2005 which amounts to approximately 2% of the current PW amount. The City estimates these costs will come in significantly higher and has requested, as part of the appeal, that FEMA fund A&E services at 19% of the project cost. Items Not Appealed The Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan originally submitted by the City to FEMA included several items that FEMA declared as ineligible and after further research, the City concurs with FEMA's findings. These items that were not appealed include, replacement of the elevator, certain lighting and electrical costs, and other minor items originally believed to be code requirements. SUMMARY Below is a table summarizing the appeal items and their estimated cost, using 2005 1 st ni iartPr rnnstri trtinn rusts. TOTAL APPEAL AMOUNT 2,660,628 16,448,148 (9,106,080) 10,002,696 APPROVED PROJECT WORKSHEET 356,753 4.628.602 10.830,863 15,816,218 TOTAL REQUESTED PROJECT WORKSHEET S 3,017,381 S 21,076,750 $ 1,724,783 S 25,818,914 We are requesting these items that FEMA has funded as Hazard Mitigation be instead funded as Repair. Council Decision Points Based on the table above, staff is requesting an additional $10,002,696 from FEMA. Staff is looking for Council direction this evening to confirm staff requests. Specifically: 57 id OWN natal 5.2 URM Walls $ $ 1,179,941 $ (1,179,941) $ - 5.3 Repair of Settlement 7,838,387 (7,509,567) 328,820 5.4 Mold & Pigeon Guano Abatement 1,308,917 1,308,917 5.5 HVAC System 3,043,908 3,043,908 5.6 Re -Start Systems 902,585 902,585 5.7 Code Requirements 918,612 918,612 5.8.1 Paint 189,734 189,734 5.9 Damage to Roof Drains & 2nd Floor Lavatory 48,563 48,563 5.10 Lighting 9,585 9,585 5.11 Grounds / Sitescape 71,886 71,886 5.12 City Costs Incurred to Date - 36,417 36,417 6.1 Architecture, Engineering, Special Services & Studies 2,660,628 - 2,660,628 6.1 Construction Management, Testing & Inspection - 899,613 (416,572) 483,041 TOTAL APPEAL AMOUNT 2,660,628 16,448,148 (9,106,080) 10,002,696 APPROVED PROJECT WORKSHEET 356,753 4.628.602 10.830,863 15,816,218 TOTAL REQUESTED PROJECT WORKSHEET S 3,017,381 S 21,076,750 $ 1,724,783 S 25,818,914 We are requesting these items that FEMA has funded as Hazard Mitigation be instead funded as Repair. Council Decision Points Based on the table above, staff is requesting an additional $10,002,696 from FEMA. Staff is looking for Council direction this evening to confirm staff requests. Specifically: 57 • Does the City Council approve staff's appeal of the classification of URM Wall repairs and the arguments/facts presented in the appeal? • Does the City Council approve staff's appeal of the classification of foundation repairs necessary to repair the settlement of City Hall and does the City Council approve the arguments/facts presented to FEMA in support of appealing the classification of foundation repairs? • Does the City Council approve staff's appeal of the removal of pigeon guano and mold as an eligible repair and approve the arguments/facts presented in support of such appeal? • Does the City Council concur with staff on the appeal of the repair of HVAC as eligible funding? Does Council find that the supporting facts and arguments were justified? • Does the City Council concur with staff in asking for funding for re -starting the MEP systems, repairing damage to identified roof drains and repairing damage to 2nd Floor lavatories? • Does the City Council concur with staff that building code upgrades triggered by the issuance of the building permit should be appealed as eligible expenditures? • Does the City Council approve staff's appeal of the paint quantities needed to bring the building back to its pre -disaster condition and the arguments/facts presented in the appeal as support? • Does the City Council concur with staff that the appeal amount requested for lighting funding should be greatly reduced from the amount presented in the original Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan and that the City should appeal the amount needed to repair identified damaged light fixtures? • Does the City Council approve staff's appeal of repair of the surrounding grounds and sitescape and the arguments/facts presented in support of the appeal? • Does the City Council approve staff's appeal of City costs incurred to date and support of the facts/arguments presented in support of such appeal? • Does the City Council concur with staff that the City should appeal amounts included for architecture, engineering and construction management services? • Does Council support staff in not appealing items such as replacement of the elevator, and certain MEP costs originally thought to be code requirements, later found not be code requirements? FISCAL IMPACT: The City is requesting $10,002,696 in new funding from FEMA and is requesting the reclassification of $9,106,080 from Hazard Mitigation Funding to Repair Funding. ATTACHMENTS: Volume I of the First Level Appeal of PW 229-1. • First Level Appeal 0 Atascadero CityHall • Volume I of VIII 0 CI*tY of Atascadero February 1, 2008 59 CITY OFATASCADER 19,� . 1 February 1, 2008 Mr. Charles Rabamad, Public Assistance Officer Governor's Office of Emergency Services Public Assistance Section 3650 Schriever Avenue Mather, CA 95655 SUBJECT: Ataseadero City Hall First Level Appeal, PW 229-1 FEMA -1505 -DR -CA, P.A. ID 079-03064-00 City of Ataseadero Dear Mr. Rabamad, The City of Atascadero (City), in accordance with Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 206.206, hereby submits a first level appeal regarding the eligible scope of work and estimated repair funding claimed by the City for the above referenced project as contained in the Notification of Obligation and Payment received from the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES).' Attached to the notice from OES was the Project Application Summary from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).z The summary includes an analysis of costs contained in Project Worksheet 229-1 (PW).' The Notification of Obligation and Payment advised that if the City disagrees with the determination made by FEMA an appeal must be submitted to OES by February 3, 2008, which is 60 days from the date of the notice. As the result of a presidentially declared disaster, the Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288 (Stafford Act), obligates FEMA to restore the function of City Hail to its pre -disaster co11011ition.4 At a minimum, the City requests FEMA to restore the function of City Hall to its pre -disaster condition according to applicable codes and standards, sound 'Notice of Obligation- State Supplement 420, OES, December 5, 2007. The notice was transmitted by OES to the City by letter dated December 5, 2007, and received by the City on December 13, 2007. (Attachment 1) 2 Project Application Summary (P.2), FEMA, October 22, 2007. (Attachment 2) 3 Project Worksheet 229-1, FEMA, October 25, 2007. (Attachment 3) 4 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, Section 206.226. (Attachment 4) 6907 EL CAMINO REAL e ATASCADERO, CA 93422 Nff (805) 461-5000 FAX (805) 461-7612 • • • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 2 of 48 engineering practice, and in a manner that is technically practical at the minimum restoration cost possible so that the City's building official, planning director, fire marshal, and the director of public works can issue an "occupancy permit" and allow the City's administrative personnel and the public to re -occupy the building. • In support of this appeal, the City presents the reasons it disagrees with FEMA's determinations, regulations that support the disagreements, and descriptions and dollar amounts of the items in dispute. • Included herein is considerable new information that has not been previously presented regarding the extent of damage. The City appreciates the efforts expended over the past four years by the OES/FEMA team, who developed the final PW that provides a grant of more than $15 million in public assistance funding for the restoration of City Hall. However, central to the City's dispute with FEMA are gross errors in categorizing code required repairs as hazard mitigation, and FEMA's finding that the repair of major components of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other costs are ineligible. The City respectfully requests that the administrative review of this appeal be expanded to include `fresh eyes' within the Region IX and/or the national office of FEMA for the following reasons: • The City and the OES/FEMA team have worked for three years to narrow their technical and funding differences. Unfortunately, after extensive discussion, detailed investigations, additional testing, and clarifying documentation, the parties have made little progress. The prospect for any resolution is remote if the appeal is assigned to, and/or reviewed by, the same FEMA staff, and only serves to prolong the time -line and escalate the costs for the ultimate restoration of City Hall. • FEMA National has offered an opinion regarding issues surrounding the applicable code, interpretation of the code, and application of the code to this project and other FEMA funded projects. National's involvement may assist in resolving issues, accelerating the restoration time -line, and reducing costs. As such, the City requests a change in the eligible scope of work and estimated repair costs which are summarized here and are detailed in the last section of this appeal. • [I Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 3 of 48 0 Request A & E Hazard Summary Services Repair Mitigation Total Approved PW Appeal Request Revised PW $356,7535 2,660,6288 $4,628,6026 16,448,1479 $3,017,381 $21,076,749 $10,830,8637 -9,106,08010 $1,724,783 $15,816,218 10,002,696 14 There are certain repair items such as those related to deferred maintenance of the building for which the City is wholly responsible and would be considered improvements. Those costs are separated out and are not included in this appeal. All items that are hereby appealed, are eligible for either repair funding or hazard mitigation funding. Additionally, all City improvements will be clearly separated out by line item as the City moves forward with construction documents. 1.0 Description of the Building The Atascadero City Hall was originally designed and constructed to be the centerpiece of the Atascadero Colony, a utopian planned community by Edward Gardner Lewis.11 The building construction began in 1914 and was completed in 1918, using local resources including bricks made from local clay. The structure was listed on the National Register of Historic Places (#77000336) in 1977 and was made a California 5 Eligibility Analysis of A & E Services Worksheet, FEMA, pg 23. (Attachment 5) 6 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, pg 32. (Attachment 6) Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, pg 32. (Attachment 6) 8 Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008. p. 2 (Summary C) 9 Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008. p.2 (Summary C) 10 Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008. p. 2 (Summary C) 11 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 3.0, pg. 3. (Attachment 7) 62 • • • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 4 of 48 Registered Historical Landmark (#958) in 1984.12 Designed as a Greek Cross in plan, City Hall houses two separate and distinct rotunda spaces on the first and fourth floors in the center of the building with offices ringing the perimeter. • The 40 foot tall rotunda space on the first floor was designed to be a museum to showcase agricultural and mineral products. It is far more ornate than the fourth floor rotunda due to the decorative plaster, coffered dome, clerestory windows and elaborate chandelier. • The 44 foot tall rotunda on the fourth floor was originally planned to be the community library and was most recently used as the City Council Chambers. This rotunda is more subdued than the first floor space due to the original space plan for the building. • The remainder of the building is filled with offices. • Below the fourth floor, the structural systems consist primarily of cast -in-place reinforced concrete floors and columns that carry the gravity load and un -reinforced masonry (URM) infill walls that perform as the building's lateral system. • Above the fourth floor, the structural systems consist primarily of wood floor and roof framing supported on URM bearing walls. • The foundation system of the building consists of shallow spread footings. Figure H. City Hall floor plan layout. 12 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 3.0, pg. 3. (Attachment 7) and Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume II, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Appendix E (Attachment 8) 63 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 5 of 48 2.0 Earthquake Damage On December 22, 2003, the San Simeon Earthquake struck the small central coast town of Atascadero. The 6.5 magnitude earthquake left the historic City Hall damaged to such an extent that the building official declared it unsafe (red -tagged) and therefore unusable. The building lost forty three percent (43%) of its capacity to resist lateral earthquake forces. 13 Fortunately, the URM walls did the job they were originally designed to do: they absorbed all the ground shaking energy of the earthquake, shattered under the impact of significant lateral forces, and in so doing, protected the main concrete structure from catastrophic failure. While there was significant damage to the building, which was fully occupied at the time of the earthquake, there was no loss of life. The following damage is a direct result of the earthquake: 13 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 5.3, pg. 23. (Attachment 7) 64 • • • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 6 of 48 • The site experienced significant settlement caused by sub -surface soil liquefaction due to the earthquake 14. All the floors share the same angle of slope to the north and all the walls share the same inclination from vertical which indicates that the building settled towards the north as a whole and in a uniform 15 manner. • At the I" through 3 floors, the URM infill walls in both directions have very large cracks all the way through three wythes of brick. (Figures V and VI). 16 • At the 4th and 5th floors, the URM vertical load bearing walls are cracked completely through all three layers of brick and the walls are tilting/leaning away from supporting floor structure. Large sections of the walls are on the verge of collapse (Figure VII). 17 • At the 6th level, large portions of the single wythe brick URM walls collapsed leaving only 1 x 6 wood framing to support the roof (Figure VIII).18 14 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 4.2, p. 13. (Attachment 7) is Earthquake Induced Settlement Damage, Nabih Youssef & Associates, December 2005, pp. 1-2. (Attachment 10) * Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 4.3, pp. 15-16. (Attachment 7) 17 Appeal #I - URM Wall Repairs, Nabih Youseff & Associates, January 17, 2008, p. 10. (Summary B) 18 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume 1, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 4.8, p. 17. (Attachment 7) 65 �f Y^.ti1IK^U,14 Ni MAP `�" North and South 1 i 1.• a Walls Tilt at a Rate of 0.6" per h " Foot All Floors Tilt at a Rate of 0.6" per Foot Figure IV- Illustration of Earthquake Induced Settlement at North Side of Building • At the I" through 3 floors, the URM infill walls in both directions have very large cracks all the way through three wythes of brick. (Figures V and VI). 16 • At the 4th and 5th floors, the URM vertical load bearing walls are cracked completely through all three layers of brick and the walls are tilting/leaning away from supporting floor structure. Large sections of the walls are on the verge of collapse (Figure VII). 17 • At the 6th level, large portions of the single wythe brick URM walls collapsed leaving only 1 x 6 wood framing to support the roof (Figure VIII).18 14 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 4.2, p. 13. (Attachment 7) is Earthquake Induced Settlement Damage, Nabih Youssef & Associates, December 2005, pp. 1-2. (Attachment 10) * Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 4.3, pp. 15-16. (Attachment 7) 17 Appeal #I - URM Wall Repairs, Nabih Youseff & Associates, January 17, 2008, p. 10. (Summary B) 18 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume 1, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 4.8, p. 17. (Attachment 7) 65 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 7 of 48 Figure V. Diagonal cracking through bricks. Figure VII. Fifth floor bulging sections of wall. Figure VI. Cracking through bricks at corners. Figure VIII. Collapse of sixth floor URM walls. 66 • • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 8 of 48 • The concrete floors spalled, cracked and deformed in localized areas.19 • The hollow clay tile walls cracked and lost lateral strength. • Immediately after the earthquake, City staff shut down the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system due to the threat posed by broken gas and water pipes. Because the building was unstable, it was deemed to be unsafe for workers to drain and properly secure the HVAC system in a normal manner. 20 • Although the City hired experts to waterproof and secure the building, some areas were too dangerous to seal completely. Therefore, some cracks and openings in the exterior walls and roof that were caused by the earthquake remain open and exposed. As a result, pigeons took roost in many of the rooms, particularly the Council Chamber rotunda. In addition, the exposure to rainwater over time has created a significant development of mold wherever water has intruded into the building.21 3.0 Chronology of Recovery Events The following summarizes the principal recovery events of the past four years: Dec 2003 City Hall was damaged by the San Simeon Earthquake. Personnel were immediately evacuated, the building was red tagged (later changed to yellow -tagged) and the City was forced to move their offices to a vacant pizza parlor slated for demolition where they remain for two years. (The pizza parlor was the only large vacant space available.) Jun 2004 After completion of the Request For Proposal process, the City retains professional design consultants and begins design of a repair plan. Aug 2004 City receives draft PW for architectural & engineering fees in the amount of $242,000.22 Jan 2005 OES forwards City's letter requesting additional reimbursement of 23 architectural and engineering fees to date in the amount of $178,242. Feb 2005 City receives official notification that FEMA approves $242,000 for architectural and engineering fees. 24 �9 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Section 4.2 — 4.3, pp. 13-14. (Attachment 7) 20 City's Response to Draft PW, City of Atascadero, dated December 12, 2006, Section 2. (Attachment 11) 21 City's Response to Draft PW, City of Atascadero, dated December 12, 2006, Section 6. (Attachment 11) 22 E -Mail and attached Project Worksheet for A & E Services, FEMA, August 24, 2004. (Attachment 12) 23 Request for PW Y'ersion — A & E Services, OES, January 24, 2005. (Attachment 13) 24 Notice of Obligation — State Supplement #13, OES, February 2, 2005. (Attachment 14) 67 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 9 of 48 Apr 2005 The City submits the repair plan to FEMA 25andrequests $22,041,100 for repair of damage, and $1,659,203 for discretionary hazard mitigation. 26 Aug 2005 FEMA inspects City Hall and soon thereafter emails the City a document entitled FEMA City Hall Review which presents FEMA's eligibility criteria, discusses aspects of the City's repair plan, and requests additional information.27 Sep 2005 The City submits their response to FEMA City Hall Review. The response contains detailed studies, citations of applicable code and the additional information that FEMA requested. 28 Dec 2005 The City opens offices in a renovated bowling alley with temporary relocation funds provided by FEMA in the amount of $4,366,000. Dec 2005 OES submits a Hazard Mitigation Benefit Cost Analysis to FEMA.29 Jan 2006 The City submits a City Hall Settlement Report, 30 Jan 2006 The City drafts letters to request additional reimbursement for brick storage, fence rental and rotunda netting. The City is assured verbally by OES that these costs will be included in the City Hall PW.31 Feb 2006 City submits request for status of Request for PW Version — A & E Services, from January 2005 and attaches copies of all invoices for costs incurred to date 32 0 Aug 2006 Two years and eight months after the earthquake, FEMA circulates a draft PW and an extensive narrative. The PW funds $4,628,602 for repair of damage, $10,830,863 for discretionary hazard mitigation which is capped at that amount, and $356,753 for professional services. FEMA denies $12,495,227 of the City's request. Even though it is unofficial, this is the first determination regarding eligibility of the claimed scope of work and repair costs.33 25 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volumes I, II, &III Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005. (Attachments 7, 8 & 9) 26 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume II, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Appendix H, pp. 5-24. (Attachment 8) 27 City Hall Repair Review, FEMA, August 24, 2005. (Attachment 15) 28 Supplemental Information Structural Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, Nabih Youssef & Associates, September 14, 2005. (Attachment 16) 29 Hazard Mitigation Benefit — Cost Analysis Report, OES, December 1, 2005. (Attachment 17) 30 Letter to Charles Rabamad & Related Attachments, City of Atascadero, January 10, 2006. (Attachment 10) 31 Letter to Charles Rabamad Requesting Status of City Incurred Costs, City of Atascadero, January 18, 2006. (Attachment 18) 32 Request for Status of PW Version — A & E Costs, City of Atascadero, February 7, 2006 (Attachment 19) 33 Support Narrative and Worksheets for Draft PW, FEMA, August 9, 2006. (Attachment 20) Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 10 of 48 Nov 2006 The City meets with FEMA to discuss the scope of work and reimbursement issues. The structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer present a power -point presentation that focuses on the issues surrounding settlement and repair of the URM walls. 34 Dec 2006 The City submits their response to the draft PW entitled City's Response to Draft PW.3s Feb 2007 The City submits a study entitled URM Wall Repairs, Cost Study at FEMA's request. The study compares the costs of the City's proposed "overlays" with non -code compliant "in-kind replacement" and code compliant "reinforced replacement" for repair of the URM walls. The City requests that some work categorized by FEMA as hazard mitigation be re - categorized as repair. 36 Apr 2007 FEMA responds to the City's comments on the draft PW in a document entitled Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Wall Repairs. 37 This is the first official letter sent to the City that addresses FEMAs determinations regarding the City's claim of eligible scope of work and estimated repair costs. FEMA informs the City that there shall be "...no additional funding or scope of work or re -characterization of work...': FEMA incorrectly informs the City that they have 60 days to appeal the determination since the City has yet to receive an official PW. Jun 2007 The City notifies OES of their intent to file an appeal to the PW once it is finalized by FEMA and officially received in accordance with FEMA's regulations. 38 Aug 2007 The City is informed by its consultant (through a communication between the City consultant and FEMA's outside consultant) that FEMA received clearance from the State Historic Preservation Officer. This clearance satisfies FEMA's obligation for federal historic review of the City Hall project, which was the final requirement to be fulfilled before the PW could be issued. 39 Oct 2007 FEMA issues the final PW that approves funding of $356,753 for professional services, $4,628,602 for repair, and $10,830,863 for hazard 34 Earthquake Settlement Repair- Power Point Slides, Nabih Youssef & Associates, November 2006. (Attachment 21) 35 City's Response to Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006. (Attachment 11) 36 URM Wall Repairs Cost Study, Davis Langdon, February 2, 2007. (Attachment 22) 37 Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Wall Repairs, FEMA, April 4, 2007. (Attachment 23) 38 Intent to File an Appeal of City Hall Oficial PW, City of Atascadero, June 7, 2007. (Attachment 24) 39 E-mail — SHPO Concurrence for Atascadero, Pfeiffer Partners, September 20, 2007. (Attachment 25) Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 11 of 48 mitigation. The PW funds a total of $15,816,218. The final PW differs from the FEMA letter dated April 2007.40 The City has continued to study the repair problem and has prepared new studies that have not been submitted to FEMA previously. They are included within this appeal where noted and are summarized as follows: May 2007 A report of the existence of mold in the building, entitled Evaluation of Mold Colonization on Surfaces. 41 Jun 2007 An assessment of repairs to the Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) systems which is documented in a report entitled Engineering Assessment Report Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/and Fire Protection Systems. 42 Jul 2007 An additional site soil boring which is documented in a report entitled Results of Additional Subsurface Exploration.43 Jul 2007 Wall cores to assess the severity of URM damage, which is documented in a report entitled Results of Masonry Wall Coring.44 r] Jan 2008 The City's structural engineer prepares two technical summaries of conclusions regarding Earthquake Induced Settlement Repairs—Appeal #las and URM Wall Repairs. 46 0 4.0 The Repair Plan In April of 2005, one year and five months after the earthquake, the City completed, conceptual design of a repair plan and submitted it to FEMA. 47 A summary of the plan follows: 4.1 Elements of the Repair Plan The following is a simple list of the major repair items. • Repair building systems to meet life/safety requirements. • Restore the strength of damaged URM walls using structural overlays. 4' Notice of Obligation- State Supplement #20, OES, December 5, 2007. (Attachment 1) 4 ' Evaluation of Mold Colonization on Surfaces, Donald Bogaert, May 25, 2007. (Attachment 26) 42 Engineering Assessment Report Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/and Fire Protection Systems, Gayner Engineers, June 4, 2007. (Attachment 27) 43 Results of Additional Subsurface Exploration, Earth Systems Pacific, May 17, 2007, revised July 27, 2007. (Attachment 28) 44 Results of Masonry Wall Coring, Earth Systems Pacific, July 18, 2007. (Attachment 29) 4s Earthquake Induced Settlement Repairs- Appeal #1, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 3, 2008. (Summary A) 46 Appeal #1 -URM Wall Repairs, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 17, 2008. (Summary B) 47 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volumes I, II, & III Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005. (Attachments 7, 8 & 9) 70 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 12 of 48 • Correct the foundation that settled. • Abatement of pigeon guano, mold and mildew prior to construction. • Replace the HVAC system. • Complete finishes, lighting and site work. 4.2 Construction Sequence The following describes the complex sequence of construction, beginning in the basement and moving up through the building to the roof as the damaged and unstable building is restored. • Construction begins with the removal of guano deposited by pigeons, mold and mildew to make the work site safe. • The basement is excavated to install piles under the foundation to stabilize building settlement and re -level the building to pre -disaster condition. Foundations are strengthened to support the vertical loads of the new shotcrete and carbon fiber overlays applied to the walls at the six floor levels above. A new slab is poured. • Demolish interior finishes on floors, walls and ceilings as necessary to make repairs at all floor levels and place scaffold. The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, and electrical and plumbing systems are removed as necessary. • At floors 1 through 3, install supporting steel to the existing damaged URM infill walls and concrete floors. Place a four (4) inch thick shotcrete overlay on the interior face of the damaged masonry walls and carry the new vertical loads down to the strengthened foundation. • At floors 4 and 5, repair surface of damaged URM walls and apply a carbon fiber overlay set in an epoxy matrix to the walls. Anchor the overlay to the walls and floors below. • Complete additional structural repairs including hollow clay tile walls, installation of reinforced plaster, installation of veneer anchors, dome diaphragm, roof repairs, and new roof sheathing and reinstall Spanish tile roof. • At the sixth (6) floor, reconstruct the collapsed exterior masonry walls and apply the carbon fiber overlay and anchor to the walls and floors below. • Epoxy inject earthquake -related cracks in concrete floors and re -point and clean exterior walls. • Repair or replace the HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems, reconstruct interior partitions, reconstruct/restore interior finishes, lighting, and sitescaping. 71 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 13 of 48 4.3 Summary of Repair Costs • There is a disparity between the amount that the City's estimates the repairs will cost and the amount FEMA has approved for funding. Repairs Hazard Mitigation The City Requested 48$24,094,131 $1,724,783 FEMA Funded 49$4,628,602 $10,830,863 • The public assistance program allows FEMA to fund restoration costs as `repairs' or `hazard mitigation'. - Based on an eligible scope of repair work, estimated repair costs are funded by an approved PW. After project completion, repair costs are adjusted to reflect increases or decreases such as the low bid amounts, unexpected additional damage, and escalation and are reimbursed to `actual cost'. - Discretionary hazard mitigation must be cost effective, is funded initially based upon an estimate, and should be reimbursable to actual cost based on the past FEMA practice. • FEMA has classified significant elements of the repair work as hazard mitigation and capped the amount funded .50 The City is at risk of significant cost overruns because FEMA will not reimburse the City for amounts over the cap including: - Bids that are higher than the estimates and actual cost of the project. - New damage that is uncovered during construction. - Increases due to labor disputes, material costs and inflation. • FEMA has determined that elements of the restoration work are not eligible for reimbursement by either `repair' or `hazard mitigation' funding. 48 Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008. (Summary C) 49 Notice of Obligation- State Supplement #20, OES, December 5, 2007. (Attachment 1) so Support Narrative and Worksheets for Draft PW, FEMA, August 9, 2006, p. 15 and p. 23. (Attachment • 20) 72 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 • Page 14 of 48 5.0 The Appeal Issues The following are the major issues that have arisen over the past four years regarding the `scope of work' for repair of City Hall. The final PW was received by the City for review on December 13, 2007.51 Enclosed with the PW were the following: • Notification of Obligation and Payment (3 pages) • Project Application Approval (1 page) • Administrative Allowance Payment Report (1 page) • CDAA Obligation Summary (Exhibit "C") (1 page) • Applicant History Report — Federal Obligation (1 page) • Public Assistance Grant Summary (P.5) (1 page) • Project Application Summary (P .2) (3 pages) • Project Worksheet Report (10 pages) There were many references in the PW to attachments that the City did not receive with the PW package. The City did, however, receive an email from Charles Rabamad of OES in late November, 2007, with an attached Excel file named, "Eligibility_Construction_ 032007_SHPO.xls.s52 An additional e-mail in November 2007 told us to reference an August 2006 e-mail with an attached spreadsheet named "Eligibility_4&.E.x1s".53 Although these Excel files were not the named attachments to the official PW, the funding totals in these files matched the amounts on the PW. Therefore, the City used the Excel files essentially as the backup documentation for the PW and relied on the information contained therein to base this appeal. 5.1 Applicable Building Code In April 2005, the City submitted a proposed repair plan to FEMA for review and comment. 54 In August 2005, the OES/FEMA team visited City Hall to inspect the damage. Later in August, FEMA emailed an unofficial document to the City entitled FEMA City Hall Repair Review. 55 In their review, FEMA initially focused attention upon the applicability of FEMA's earthquake damage evaluation guidelines. About the plan, FEMA says: " Notice of Obligation- State Supplement #20, OES, December 5, 2007. (Attachment 1) 52 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, undated. (Attachment 6) " Eligibility Analysis of A & E Services Worksheet, FEMA, undated. (Attachment 5) 54 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volumes I, II, & III Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005. (Attachments 7, 8 & 9) 55 City Hall Repair Review, FEMA, August 24, 2005. (Attachment 15) 73 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 15 of 48 "...the damage documentation, damage evaluation, and development of the structural repairs are based upon the following FEMA publications: ... [FEMA lists the publications] ... These are FEMA guidance documents that have been developed to assist the earthquake design community to evaluate earthquake damage and to design alternative repair and upgrade schemes to address the damage. They were not developed for the purpose of determining eligibility of the potential repair or upgrade scopes of work for FEMA funding. "56 FEMA informs the City that the guidelines do not meet FEMA's five criteria for an applicable code or standard and, in particular, they point out that the City never formally adopted the California Building Code (CBC). Instead, FEMA states that: "The City is requesting funding for upgrades that go beyond the pre -disaster condition of the facility. It appears, however, that these upgrades are not required by any of the above cited codes. "57 In reading the City's repair plan, FEMA made a gross oversight. The City never claimed that the proposed repair work was eligible for FEMA funding because it was required by FEMA's publications. Contrary to FEMA's perception, the City's engineer relied upon FEMA's publications as they are intended to be used, that is for guidance. One year later, FEMA shifts its attention from their oversight concerning the City's use of FEMA's guidelines to concern over application of the City's building code to the repairs. As part of their unofficial initial review above, FEMA requested additional information. In September 2005, soon after their request, the City's structural engineer, Nabih Youssef & Associates, provided detailed supplemental information to FEMA in response to their comments and request for more information about the repair plan. 58 The supplemental information identifies the City's building code in effect at the time of the disaster, documents the code's compliance with the FEMA's five criteria, cites the sections of the code that apply to each of the proposed repairs, and answers the questions posed by FEMA. • The engineer argues that the City's building codes meet the five criteria required by FEMA to qualify as an `applicable code' and further states that... "Per FEMA Policy No. 9527.3, 'if FEMA determines that a code meets all five criteria, the work and associated costs — including any eligible upgrades triggered by the code — will be eligible for funding as a repair under Section 406(e) of the Stafford Act. "59 56 City Hall Repair Review, FEMA, August 24, 2005, p. 1. (Attachment 15) 57 City Hall Repair Review, FEMA, August 24, 2005, p. 1. (Attachment 15) 58 Supplemental Information, Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, Nabih Youssef and Associates, September 14, 2005. (Attachment 16) 59 Supplemental Information, Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, Nabih Youssef and Associates, September 14, 2005, Section 0.0 Introduction. (Attachment 16) 74 • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 16 of 48 • The engineer points out that the 2001 CBC is the `prevailing code' that controls the technical requirements for the structural repair of the facility. He cites the specific sections of code, CBC Section 101.3 and 3403.2, that apply to repair and he concludes that: "Based on the provisions of the 2001 CBC, repairs do not require compliance of the entire structural system with the 2001 CBC. However, the design and construction of the repairs must conform with the requirements of the 2001 CBC.,, 60 In August 2006, nearly a year after the City responded to FEMA's initial review, FEMA produced a draft PW61. The draft was again unofficially forwarded to the City by email on August 9, 2006 and in -part addressed the City's building code. FEMA says: "...the California Building Code does not mandate the proposed upgrades to City Hall. '.6z Furthermore, FEMA says: "... it is FEMA's determination, consistent with prior decisions, that the CBC is not an applicable code that mandates the upgrade of facilities at the time they are being repaired. More specifically, the structural engineering design provisions cited by the City do not mandate the proposed upgrades to City Hall • when repairing the damaged elements. Rather these provisions apply to the design and construction of new masonry structures. s63 FEMA fails to provide specific information or formulate a logical argument as to why the CBC is not an applicable code or why it applies only to new masonry structures. Finally, FEMA concludes: "Therefore, consistent with §7.A.3. b of FEMAs Interim Policy, FEMA need only provide funding to repair the disaster damage in a code compliant manner. This requires that FEMA provide funding sufficient to return the facility to pre -disaster construction, using code conforming methods and materials, to a condition substantially equivalent to its pre -disaster design and structural capacity. " 64 Eight months later the City receives FEMA's first official letter of determination regarding the scope of eligible work and estimated costs. After all of their concern regarding the City's use of the FEMA guidelines and the City's building code to the 60 Supplemental Information, Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, Nabih Youssef and Associates, September 14, 2005. (Attachment 16) 61 Support Narrative and Worksheets for Draft PW, FEMA, August 9, 2006. (Attachment 20) 62 Support Narrative and Worksheets for Draft PW, FEMA, August 9, 2006, p 14. (Attachment 20) . 63 Support Narrative and Worksheets for Draft PW, FEMA, August 9, 2006, p 14. (Attachment 20) 64 Support Narrative and Worksheets for Draft PW, FEMA, August 9, 2006, p 15. (Attachment 20) 75 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 17 of 48 repair, FEMA never states an official position regardin� the applicable code for repair of City Hall. Building codes are simply never mentioned. 5 In short, it appears that FEMA's position is that they only pay for repair to pre - disaster condition irrespective of applicable codes and standards. They will pay for repair of cracks in mortar by epoxy injection or re -pointing the mortar. If a brick is broken, they will pay for its removal and replacement. However, FEMA will not pay to repair the wall to restore lateral capacity to its pre -disaster condition as required by the City's code. In an effort to clarify the interpretation and application of FEMA's regulations and policies regarding the City's building code, the City solicited assistance from OES. Consequently, Mr. Michael Sabbaghian, OES Technical Support, posed the contradictory positions to Mr. Don Smith, Public Assistance Officer, in an email dated January 12, 2007.66 Mr. Sabbaghian cited the applicable sections from the California Building Code (CBC), the City's applicable code, that apply to the repair of City Hall. He pointed out that in the Ford Plant Third Appeal (City of Richmond, July 16, 2005) FEMA funded all the costs for repair of damaged elements and that the repairs conformed to the requirements of the code for a new building as required by the CBC. Because of the importance of the issue to the City and the State, Mr. Sabbaghian suggested that Mr. Smith consult with FEMA National to achieve clarity. After a follow-up telephone discussion with Mr. Smith on February 27, 2007, Mr. Sabbaghian confirmed the discussion by email. He confirms that "...you talked with FEMA HQ and agree with the interpretation (application of the UBC, CBC, and the City's building code) in my email. ,67 The email exchange demonstrated agreement among the agencies regarding application of the City's building code to the repair of City Hall. At the end of February 2007, the City was satisfied that the above email exchange clarified that the City's code was the `applicable code', that it mandated the repairs as a required code repair, and that the repairs are not an upgrade. The City anticipated that FEMA Region IX would reconsider the determinations it made regarding eligible repair work as presented in their unofficial initial review that was prepared in August 2005 and in their unofficial draft PW narrative in August 2006. On December 13, 2007, the City received the official and final PW. The City was disappointed to read that FEMA made no changes to their determinations based upon the email exchange and the discussions between OES, FEMA Region IX, and FEMA National. 65 Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Wall, FEMA, April 4, 2007. (Attachment 23) 66 E -Mail- CBC Chapter 34, sent by OES (Michael Sabbaghian), sent to FEMA (Don Smith), February 27, 2007, Section 2, 1-12-07 E -Mail. (Attachment 30) 67 E -Mail- CBC Chapter 34, sent by OES (Michael Sabbaghian), sent to FEMA (Don Smith), February 27, 2007, Section 1, 2-27-07 E -Mail. (Attachment 30) 76 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 18 of 48 Local and State building codes require the City to repair the damaged URM walls and other damaged building components to current code as if they were new components. The City cannot simply rebuild a damaged component to its original pre -disaster condition and expect that the function of a facility has been restored in a code compliant manner. It is not allowed by any California code, it's not sound engineering practice, and it will not be approved by any permitting agency. The reality is that no engineer or building official in California will approve FEMA's proposed designs for repair to pre - disaster condition, if that condition does not comply with the prevailing code. The City's Position: The City's building code satisfies FEMA's five criteria regarding codes and standards and therefore is the applicable code for repair of City Hall. The code provides that repairs may be made without requiring the entire building to comply with all the requirements of the code, provided the repair conforms to that required for a new building. As such, work to repair earthquake damage as required by the City's code is eligible far reimbursement for actual cost pursuant to the Stafford Act, FEMAs policies, and implementing regulations. 5.2 Wall Repairs In its repair plan, the City states that: "Major damage levels have been observed in the URM walls at levels 4 and 5. '.68 and that ... "Heavy to extreme damage levels have occurred in the East/West exterior walls at the I" and 2"d floor levels. "69 The repair plan recommends the use of structural concrete overlays applied to the URM infill walls at the 1", 2 and 3rd floors and lighter weight carbon fiber overlays applied to the URM bearing walls at the 4th and 5 1 floors. The overlays will restore the pre -earthquake strength and stiffness of the damaged walls. In their initial review FEMA states that... "The proposed CFO, although it seems to provide a needed continuity of these walls at the corners, exceeds what is required to.repair the damaged walls to their predisaster condition. Nor is it justified by an 'applicable code'. 70 FEMA requested that the City explain the purpose, need and justification for the overlays and demonstrate that they are required by an `applicable code'. The City's 68 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, p. 32. (Attachment 7) 69 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume 1, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, p. 31. (Attachment 7) 70 FEMA City Hall Repair Review, FEMA, August 24, 2005, p. 4. (Attachment 15) 77 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 19 of 48 structural engineer responded to FEMA's request with supplemental information which is summarized here.' • Re -pointing the walls is not an effective structural repair technique for the level of damage. • Removal and reconstruction of the masonry without reinforcing does not comply with current applicable codes. • Removal (i.e. demolition) and replacement (i.e. reconstruction) of the wall in conformance with applicable codes (i.e. with reinforcing) is structurally feasible. However, removal and replacement would adversely impact the historic features of the building. • The overlays represent the most viable structural repair techniques in conformance with applicable codes while minimizing negative impacts on historic fabric. The overlays are designed to cost effectively restore the pre -disaster condition in conformity with current applicable codes and is not designed to increase the lateral capacity beyond that of the original design of the building. • • The rebuilding or replacing of URM walls has been prohibited by all California building codes since the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. • Rebuilding or replacing URM walls is prohibited by Chapter 34 of 2001 CBC (3403.1 and 3403.2) which states: 0 "... repairs may be made to any building or structure without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with all the requirements of this code, provided the addition, alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new building or structure. " • Rebuilding or replacing URM walls is prohibited by the current applicable codes in the City of Atascadero (2001 CBC, §2106.1.12.4.2.3) which reads in part... "All walls shall be reinforced with both vertical and horizontal reinforcement. " • FEMA's own publications, which they provide to design professionals as "guidance", advises that rebuilding URM walls is not a code compliant repair technique. • While reinforced masonry wall construction is an acceptable repair technique in the repair of City Hall it has the following limitations: - Rebuilt portions of reinforced masonry walls will be thicker to accommodate the addition of reinforcing steel. - The localized strength and stiffness of rebuilt portions of wall can adversely affect the overall earthquake safety of the building. The walls must be built in a symmetrical plan layout to avoid rotation during an earthquake and they Supplemental Information Structural Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Nabih Youssef & Associates, September 14, 2005, Section 4. (Attachment 16) W Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 20 of 48 must be in a continuous vertical configuration to avoid strength/stiffness discontinuities known as soft/weak stories. - Reconstruction using reinforced masonry is very expensive. - Reconstruction would have a serious negative impact on the historic features of the building and would complicate FEMA's satisfaction of historic review. Both shotcrete and carbon fiber overlays are code compliant structural repair techniques and have the following advantages: - Overlay techniques are less expensive than reinforced masonry reconstruction. - Repair by overlay techniques is far less invasive on the historic materials of the building than reinforced masonry reconstruction. - Shotcrete and carbon fiber overlays have been used for repair of URM walls on many FEMA funded projects damaged by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. As a result of the review meeting on November 28, 2006, FEMA requested that the City prepare a comparative cost study of three URM wall repair methods. The `base scheme' was that proposed by the City using overlays. The `in-kind replacement' scheme replaced URM with URM. The third proposed `replacement of URM with RM' (reinforced masonry). The City's cost consultant prepared a study that concluded: "According to the enclosed cost study, the `base scheme"proposed by the city is clearly the most cost-effective method of repair. "71 In April 2007, the City received FEMA's first official letter of determination regarding the scope of eligible work and estimated costs. FEMA again shifts the focus of their attention regarding the eligibility of URM wall repairs. After their concern regarding the City's use of the FEMA guidelines and the City's building code to the repair of URM walls, which is not mentioned in their letter, FEMA now says that the City's `base scheme' is not cost effective. FEMA says: "Use of the overlay methods exceeds what is required to repair the damage to pre -disaster condition (since it will strengthen the walls). Therefore, in order to consider re -categorization of the hazard mitigation as eligible repair- it must be shown that the desired scheme (i.e. structural overlay) is more cost-effective than the eligible scope of work (i.e. in-kind replacement to repair the moderately damaged URM walls to their- pre -disaster condition). , 73 The City disagrees with FEMA's determination. The City's structural engineer, Nabih Youssef & Associates, provides a summary of the technical information and a 7'` URM Submittal Letter — Cost Study for URM Wall Repairs, City of Atascadero, sent to Charles Rabamad, OES, February 9, 2007. 73 Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Wall, FEMA, April 4, 2007, p.3. (Attachment 23) 79 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 21 of 48 professional conclusion surrounding the URM wall repairs. This information is highlighted here along with new information the City's presents in making its argument. 74 The earthquake damage previously reported is more severe than originally documented. Cracks extend through the entire thickness of the URM walls, severely reducing the structural capacity of the walls. The visible damage contradicts FEMA's position that damage generally occurred in the exterior wythe of walls that are three wythes thick. - The visible crack damage is classified as `heavy', `extreme', or `severe' by all known technical standards, including FEMA's own guidelines. - Computer analysis of the damaged URM walls indicates a tremendous 43% loss of lateral strength to resist future earthquakes. Epoxy injection, as proposed by FEMA, will not restore this lateral strength. - At the 4`h and 5h floor levels large portions of wall are on the verge of collapse. - The only viable options for repair of the damaged URM walls to pre -disaster condition are either re -construction with reinforced masonry that will significantly affect historic fabric or enhancement by use of a structural overlay. These repair techniques are designed to repair the walls to their pre - disaster condition in a code compliant manner and are not designed to strengthen or upgrade the walls. The cost data presented by FEMA are grossly inaccurate.75 - Settlement foundation repair costs were included by FEMA in the wall repairs. These costs were not included in the City's estimate, and resulted in an 84% error in the FEMA cost estimate for the `base scheme'. FEMA included complete 100% replacement of the basement slab on grade in the `base scheme'. This cost was not included in the City's estimate, is not necessary to repair the URM walls, and should not be included in FEMA's cost estimate. - FEMA did not include temporary shoring for the `in-kind' scheme. The City's cost estimate did include shoring that is required for construction. • The City's structural engineer draws the following conclusion. "...the conclusions drawn by FEMA in the April 4, 2007 letter (i.e. the official letter of determination) are based on gross errors in the cost data... The cost data prepared by the City accurately represents the repair conditions and clearly 74 Appeal #1 - URM Wall Repairs, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 17, 2008. (Summary B) 75 Appeal #1 - URM Wall Repairs, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 17, 2008. (Summary B) 1] • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 22 of 48 indicates that the Base Scheme (concrete and carbon fiber overlay) is the most cost effective approach. "16 The City's Position: The reinforced concrete overlays at the I", 2nd and 3rd floors and the carbon fiber overlays at the 0 and Y' floors meet the requirements of the City's building code, minimize the impact of repair on the historic fabric of the building, and are more effective than reconstruction. The overlays are an eligible code required repair and are not an upgrade. The cost of the overlays, which have already been approved by FEMA as hazard mitigation, should be considered repairs reimbursed for actual cost. The City requests additional funding for repair of the URM walls using the overlays. 5.3 Settlement FEMA's initial review of the City's repair plan did not address the issues of soil liquefaction, building settlement, or the City's proposed settlement repair work .77 In August 2006, nearly a year after the City responded to their initial review and over two and one half years after the disaster, FEMA commented on the settlement issue in their draft PW. • FEMA doesn't believe settlement was caused by the earthquake. There is no evidence of liquefaction at ground surface and therefore correcting the settlement of City Hall is not an eligible repair. • URS Corporation, FEMA's soil consultant, questions the hollow -stem drilling techniques that the City's soil engineer used in drilling the core samples and asserts that the engineer failed to use "due professional care" in obtaining the core samples. 79 • However, FEMA's soil consultant admits that: "...if the data obtained... was reliable, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that soil liquefaction is possible, under conditions... experienced during the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake. "80 In their response to the draft PW, the City provides a letter from their soils engineer that clarifies the drilling procedures and addresses the physical conditions at the site. " Appeal #1 - URM Wall Repairs, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 17, 2008, p. 2. (Summary 13) 77 FEMA City Hall Repair Review, FEMA, August 24, 2005. (Attachment 15) 78 Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study Report for URM Wall Repairs, FEMA, April 4, 2007, p.7 (Attachment 23) 79 Memorandum- Geotechnical Comments, review of Geotechnical Report for Atascadero City Hall, California, URS, May 9, 2006, p. 2. (Attachment 31) S0 Memorandum- Geotechnical Comments, review of Geotechnical Report for Atascadero City Hall, California, URS, May 9, 2006, p. 2. (Attachment 31) Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 23 of 48 The procedures used are the Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. 82 The procedures were discussed in detail during the power point presentation to OES and FEMA on November 28, 2006, which addressed the site settlement and structural repairs. 83 • The absence of sand boils at the surface of the site is not evidence that no liquefaction occurred. 84 • There is evidence of earthquake settlement at the handicapped ramp at the southeast corner of City Hall." In their official letter of determination, FEMA reiterates its previous position and concludes that: "There is insufficient physical or scientific evidence to support the City's assertion that City Hall settled or incurred damage as a result of settlement due to the earthquake. ,86 The City disagrees with FEMA's determination. The City's structural engineer, Nabih Youssef & Associates, provides a summary of the technical information and a professional conclusion surrounding the settlement issue. 87 This information is highlighted here along with new information the City's presents in making its argument. • The building settlement damage did not exist prior to the earthquake. The City interviewed design professionals who worked on projects at City Hall in the years preceding the earthquake and none have reported any evidence of settlement. 88 • The building and site moved as a unit and therefore there was no evidence of settlement at utility -to -building connections or concrete slab -to building joints. • The earthquake induced settlement and tilting of the building to the north is consistent with the directionality of the earthquake. 89 81 City's Response to City Hall Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006, Appendix A — Letter from Earth Systems Pacific re: Response to Questions. (Attachment 11) 82 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117- Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, Southern California Earthquake Center- University of Southern California, March 1999. (Attachment 32) 83 Earthquake Settlement Repair - Power Point Slides, Nabih Youssef & Associates, November 28, 2006. (Attachment 21) 84 City's Response to City Hall Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006, Appendix A — Letter from Earth Systems Pacific re: Response to Questions, p. 2. (Attachment 11) 85 City's Response to City Hall Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006, Appendix A — Letter from Earth Systems Pacific re: Response to Questions, p. 3. (Attachment 11) 86 Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Walls, FEMA, April 4, 2006, p.7. (Attachment 23) 87 Earthquake Induced Settlement Repairs — Appeal #1, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 3, 2008. (Summary A) 88 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, p. 20. (Attachment 7) NN • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal, Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 24 o141 • All the floors share the same angle of slope to the north and all the walls share the same inclination from vertical. This indicates that the building and the site settled as a whole in a uniform manner. 90 • An additional boring was recently obtained from the site using `extreme care'. 91 The new boring confirms prior boring data regarding the presence of liquefiable soils below the site. In fact, within the zone of liquefiable soils, the shaft of the drill rig unexpectedly sank 18" into the soil under its own weight where normally the shaft must be power driven. This demonstrates the extreme susceptibility of the soils to earthquake induced liquefaction settlement. • Based upon the physical and geotechnical evidence, it is the opinion of the soils engineer that settlement occurred in the liquefied soils below the water table at a depth of 28.5 feet and was induced as a direct result of the earthquake. 92 The City's Position: City Hall settled in a uniform manner towards the north as a direct result of the liquefaction of sub -surface soils due to the earthquake. If the settlement (which is an eligible repair to pre -disaster condition and not an upgrade) is not corrected it will indicate to the public and City staff that the building has not been properly repaired thus jeopardizing further use. Correction of the settlement, already approved by FEMA as hazard mitigation, is an eligible repair reimbursable for actual construction cost. The cost of correcting the settlement should be 0 categorized as a repair and not hazard mitigation. 5.3.1 Repair of Fagade Due to Re -Leveling As part of the restoration of the building to its pre -disaster condition, the floor will need to be re -leveled. The leveling process will cause differential movements in the foundations that will translate into the rigid and brittle masonry fagade components. In the PW, FEMA denies funding citing: "FEMA disapproves the "allowance for re -leveling work" since the work is not related to earthquake damage repairs. '.93 89 Earthquake Induced Settlement Repairs — Appeal 41, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 3, 2008, p. 2. (Summary A) 9° Earthquake Induced Settlement Damage, Nabih Youssef & Associates, December 2005, pp 1-2. (Attachment 10) 91 Results ofAdditional Subsurface Exploration, Earth Systems Pacific, July 27, 2007. (Attachment 28) 92 City's Response to City Hall Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006, Appendix A — Letter . from Earth Systems Pacific re: Response to Questions, p. 3. (Attachment 11) 93 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, November 26, 2007, p. 45. (Attachment 6) Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 25 of 48 The City disagrees with FEMAs findings: • The building settlement damage did not exist prior to the earthquake. The City interviewed design professionals who worked on projects at City Hall in the years preceding the earthquake and none have reported any evidence of settlement. • The building and site moved as a unit and therefore there was no evidence of settlement at utility -to -building connections or concrete slab -to building joints. • The earthquake induced settlement and tilting of the building to the north is consistent with the directionality of the earthquake. • All the floors share the same angle of slope to the north and all the walls share the same inclination from vertical. This indicates that the building and the site settled as a whole in a uniform manner. • An additional boring was recently obtained from the site using `extreme care'. 94 The new boring confirms prior boring data regarding the presence of liquefiable soils below the site. In fact, within the zone of liquefiable soils, the shaft of the drill rig unexpectedly sank 18" into the soil under its own weight where normally the shaft must be power driven. This demonstrates the extreme susceptibility of the soils to earthquake induced liquefaction settlement. • Based upon the physical and geotechnical evidence, it is the opinion of the soils engineer that settlement occurred in the liquefied soils below the water table at a depth of 28.5 feet and was induced as a direct result of the earthquake. • Because the settlement was a direct result of the earthquake, the cost to level the foundation to pre -disaster condition is an eligible cost. Additionally, in informal conversations with FEMA, FEMA has indicated that even when the City has been able to successfully prove that the settlement was earthquake induced, FEMA will still not include the leveling -related crack repair to the fagade in the scope of work. FEMA's response has been that only documented cracks are eligible for repair; therefore, since the cracks can not be documented until the re -leveling process has been completed, this item has not been included in the PW. The City disagrees with this opinion, citing: By the very nature of leveling, the differential movements in the foundation will translate in to the rigid and brittle masonry fagade components. Cracks related to the leveling will absolutely occur. The exact extent of the cracks is yet unknown. Cracks will be fully documented after the leveling has occurred, but prior to construction repairs for FEMA's information and approval. 94 Results of Additional Subsurface Exploration, Earth Systems Pacific, July 27, 2007. (Attachment 28) Elm • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 26 o141 The City's Position: The Cite requests that FEMA include language in the PW scope of work for repairs that will be necessary due to re -leveling of the building. 5.3.2 Floor Cracks and Spalls Evidence of earthquake -induced cracking and spalling is visible on the I" and 4th floor levels of the building. In the PW, FEMA agrees saying, "Cracking and spalling are visible in reinforced concrete diaphragms due to the earthquake movements of the building. ,95 The 2nd and 3rd floors are typically covered by ceiling and floor finishes and are not directly accessible without extensive demolition of the finishes. Therefore, although earthquake cracks in the 2"d and 3rd floors are not visible at this time, the City's consultants are confident that the damage exists and will need repairs. In response to the City's request to include all earthquake -induced floor cracks and spalls in the scope of work, not just the visible ones, FEMA cites: "Based on the floor's predisaster condition and the level of earthquake damage, FEMA approves all the documented proposed repairs as repairs and the proposed hazard mitigation scopes as hazard mitigation. The approved hazard mitigation scope is proven to be cost effective (see Benefit Cost Analysis section below). The scopes of work that are projected are denied since only actual documented damage is eligible. If additional hidden earthquake related damage is later revealed while performing the eligible scope of work, the City may request supplementing the scope of work. ,96 The City disagrees with FEMA's findings: • Given the level and pattern of damage in the remainder of the building, the City wholly expects that there will be cracking and spalling on the 2nd and 3rd floors level diaphragms similar to what is seen on the lst and 4th floors. 97 " Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, November 26, 2007, p. 39. (Attachment 6) 96 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, November 26, 2007, p. 39. (Attachment 6) 97 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, p. 14. (Attachment 7) �-019 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 27 of 48 • The extent of the scope of work is unknown, but the fact that there is earthquake damage that will need to be included in the scope is reasonable to conclude, based on similar visible damage on other floor levels. • A large portion of the strength and stiffness of the diaphragms is related to undamaged concrete. Earthquake damaged concrete also reduce the stiffness and strength of the beams and columns to support gravity loads. 98 • Because the ability of the building to support gravity loads and to resist earthquake related forces and displacements is based in part on the strength of the concrete floors, the City feels that it is critical that the scope of work be expanded to include cracking and spalling on the 2„ d and 3rd floor levels. 99 The City's Position: The City requests that FEMA include language in the PW scope indicating that work to repair the floor cracks and spalls on the 2"d and 3rd floor levels is an eligible repair. (The worksheet currently states that this is an ineligible item. The City will work with FEMA regarding quantities and a dollar amount as the extent of damage is revealed during construction.) 5.4 Mold and Pigeon Guano Abatement The earthquake caused openings in the walls and ceiling of the upper rotunda dome. Pigeons have taken roost in the building and deposited guano. Water has infiltrated through openings and cracks to nurture the growth of mold and mildew. FEMA disapproves the scope of work due to the lack of supporting documentation. FEMA indicates that the abatement work may be an eligible scope of work if the City can show that the work is specifically related to the earthquake. In their response to the draft PW, the City states the following: California's Department of Occupational Safety and Health recommends that resources should be spent to remove mold (rather than extensive testing for mold), because testing to determine the type and quantity of mold is expensive. FEMA's request for quantities may be a waste of resources, and if they require testing it should be an eligible cost. 100 • 98 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, p. 14. (Attachment 7) 99 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, p. 14. (Attachment 7) ioo City's Response to Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006, Section 6.0 p. 21. (Attachment is 11) :• Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 28 of 48 • The City performed remedial work to protect the building from pigeon and water intrusion, but ultimately decided that complete protection would be ineffective, very expensive, and present a significant threat to workers because of structural instability.101 • The accumulations of guano, mold, and mildew are on-going biological processes that will not end until they are cleaned up. The City proposes to provide quantities of the work to be performed immediately prior to the start of construction.' 02 In their official letter of determination, FEMA reiterates its previous position and concludes that: "Any future consideration relative to the eligibility of this work and its cost is contingent upon receipt of comprehensive documentation quantifying the damage and delineating and justijying the requested scope of work. ­103 The City disagrees with FEMA's omission of guano, mold and mildew cleanup costs from the PW scope of work. • Were it not for direct earthquake damage to the building, there would not be any guano on the floor of the Council Chamber and there would be no mold in the building. • In the November 2006 review meeting, FEMA said they would put the language in the PW scope of work, but not the dollar amount. It is not included in FEMA's final PW. The City's Position: The City requests that FEMA include language in the PW scope of work for cleanup of pigeon guano, mold and mildew. (Tile support documentation for the PW states that these items are "Ineligible")104 Quantities of the work to be estimated immediately prior to the start of construction. The cost of the abatement work and any testing that FEMA requests to establish eligible quantities will be reimbursed for actual cost. 5.5 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System The City's repair plan reported limited earthquake damage to the HVAC system and in their review FEMA determines: 101 City's Response to Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006, Section 6.0 pp. 22-23. (Attachment 11) 102 City's Response to Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006, Section 6.0 pp. 22-23. (Attachment 11) ios Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Wall, FEMA, April 4, 2006, p.7. (Attachment 23) Boa Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, November 26, 2007. p. 62. (Attachment 6) Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 29 of 48 "...the damage reported does not justify the proposed scope of work... " FEMA concludes: "There is no direct relationship between the scope of work proposed and the damage from the San Simeon earthquake. ,105 FEMA requests the City to document and quantify the earthquake damage. 106 In their draft PW narrative, FEMA disapproves the proposed replacement of the HVAC system as an eligible scope of work since the damage is not directly caused by the earthquake. In the City's response to the draft PW, they describe the reasoning underlying their request for replacement of the HVAC system.107 Immediately after the quake, continued operation was impossible because of the threat of broken water and gas pipes. The system had to be shut down, deteriorated quickly, and became inoperable. • The earthquake damaged the building so severely that it was hazardous for workers to enter the building to perform protection, repair and maintenance work. • After the earthquake the City extensively reviewed the work necessary to restart and run the system. The City Engineer and Risk Manager concluded that a system restart was too high a risk for workers. • Repair of the system was considered as a component of repair of the earthquake damage to the building that would occur during construction. After expert consultation, it was concluded that replacement of the system would be a cost effective alternative to repair. In response to FEMA's request for the City to document and quantify earthquake damage, the City hired Gayner Engineers to re-examine the HVAC system. Gayner found that the roof -top package AC unit had been severely damaged by falling brick, the closed circuit cooler, boiler, pumps and controls at the central plant were irreparable and need replacement, and 40 heat pumps and associated controllers on the 1" through 4th floors also were beyond repair and required replacement. Additionally, the entire system 105 FEMA City Hall Repair Review, FEMA, August 24, 2005, p. 6. (Attachment 15) 106 FEMA City Hall Repair Review, FEMA, August 24, 2005, p. 6. (Attachment 15) 107 City's Response to City Hall Draft PW, City of Atascadero, December 12, 2006, Section 2, pp. 6-13. (Attachment 11) • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 30 of 48 needs to be drained, cleaned, leak tested and repaired. The total costs of repairs to the HVAC system total $3,043,908.108 The cost to replace the entire system is only 41% more at a cost of $4,306,055.109 According to FEMA's 50% rule, the more effective solution would be replacement. In their official letter of determination, FEMA reiterates its previous position and concludes that "...for an element to be considered eligible for repair the element must have been damaged by the earthquake. "110 The City disagrees with FEMA's determination that the HVAC system is not an eligible repair cost as a direct result of damage caused by the earthquake. The City argues the following: FEMA routinely pays for repair of elements that are affected by the repair of disaster related damage, but are not caused by the disaster. They pay for repair of damage to roads due to heavy use caused by large trucks that are transporting materials to and from damaged facilities. They pay for repair of damage caused by removal of materials to verify damage, if the damage is eligible. They pay for replacement of concrete, asphalt and soil that is undamaged, but must be removed to repair a buried sewer line or other types of infrastructure. ■ Were it not for direct earthquake damage to the building, the HVAC system would be working today. The City's Position: The cost for replacement of the HVAC system is cost effective when compared to repair and should be included in the eligible scope of work. The estimated replacement cost is eligible for reimbursement for actual cost. 5.6 Re -Start of Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems As a result of moving forward in the construction process and obtaining a more extensive evaluation of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, the City has uncovered repairs that were not presented to FEMA/OES in the Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, April 4, 2005. The initial request to FEMA did not include costs that would be incurred to re -start our mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. The Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems, prepared by Gayner Engineers in June 2007, identifies the following damage, which has not previously been reported to FEMA/OES. 108 Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008. 109 Calculation of HVAC Replacement, based on Davis Langdon Pre -Design Report Cost Model, City of Atascadero, January 29, 2008. (Attachment 33) 110 Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Wall Repairs, FEMA, April 4, 2007, p. 6. (Attachment 23) :• Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 31 of 48 Sanitary Waste and Vent Piping- The Gayner Report identifies that draining, cleaning and leak testing, and repairing the plumbing piping before re -use will be necessary • Domestic Cold and Hot Water Piping- The Gayner Report identifies that draining, cleaning and sterilizing the domestic cold and hot water piping before re -use will be necessary 112 • Dry Standpipe- The Gayner Report identifies that draining, cleaning, leak testing and repairing the dry stand pipe will be necessary to put it back into operation.' 13 These newly identified costs are a result of: ■ The building has been vacant since December 22, 2003, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems have mainly been shut down in order to reduce the risk of fire, flooding or further damage to the building. • It is anticipated that these systems will be breached and repaired as a result of structural, mechanical and architectural repairs to the building. Building code requires cleaning and testing of the system if it has been breached. The City's Position: The City requests that FEMA evaluate this newly identified damage and include funding in the scope of work in order to repair these damaged items. 5.7 Code Requirements As stated in section 5. 1, Applicable Building Code, FEMA agreed in February 2007 that CBC applies to the repair of City Hall. CBC 3403.2 states, "Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building -or structure that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any of the provisions of this code and such additions or alterations shall not cause the existing building or structure to become unsafe. ,114 '" Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems, Gayner Engineers, June 4, 2007, p. 16. (Attachment 27) "Z Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems, prepared by Gayner Engineers, June 4, 2007, p. 5. (Attachment 27) 13 Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems, prepared by Gayner Engineers, June 4, 2007, p. 15. (Attachment 27) 114 California Building Code, Chapter 34, 2001. (Attachment 34) • L r Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 32 of 48 As clarified by the City's structural engineer, "...the design and construction of repairs must conform with the requirements of the 2001 CBC."' 15 In other words, if an area of construction removes or otherwise disturbs an element that is not code compliant, that element must be replaced in a code compliant manner or with a new, code compliant element. FEMA has denied a number of code -required items as ineligible, although they have already agreed that CBC applies to the repair of City Hall. With this concurrence, it follows that FEMA must also agree that Section 3403.2 of CBC applies to the repair of City Hall. These items are listed in the Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, under the category, "Code Requirements," and total $918,612.1' 6 These code requirements by no means represent anything more than the bare minimum that must be done in order to comply with applicable code requirements and be allowed to re -occupy the building. The City's Position: These code requirements include the minimum amount of work to be done to be allowed to re -occupy the building and must be funded by FEMA. 5.8 Painting 5.8.1 Lower Rotunda Painting The lower rotunda area comprises the central core of the building's I" through 3r6 floors. The round room is studded by 16 ornate columns. The elaborate coffered dome stands forty feet high and accents the circular nature of the space. Earthquake damage to the circular wall in this space varied from hairline cracking to plaster de- lamination depending on the area of the wall.'' FEMA disapproves painting a portion of this wall stating that... Figure XI. City Hall Lower Rotunda. "Based on the City's Report, FEMA calculated the approximate gross area of the lower rotunda to be 5,775 SF, equal to the summation of earthquake damaged wall areas and undamaged (wall and door) areas. The City requested, in the Report and in "5 Supplemental Information Structural Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, September 14, 2005, Section 0.0. (Attachment 16) 116 Table of Appealed items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008, p. 8. (Summary C) 1" Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, pp. 44-48. (Attachment 7) Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 33 of 48 the logs, $20,213 to patch and paint 5,775 SF of walls in the lower rotunda. However, only those walls with documented damage are eligible for painting. It is FEMA's determination, based on FEMA's calculation of the damaged wall areas represented in the City's Report, that the wall area to be repaired is 4,421 SF... "118 The City's consultants have calculated the exact wall surface area in the lower rotunda to be 5,775 square feet. (This does not include door areas.) FEMA, however, has disapproved in the PW 1,354 square feet of "un -damaged area" to be painted. 119 The City disagrees with FEMA's omission of 1,354 square feet of painting in the lower rotunda from the PW scope of work. • In Volume III of the City's Damage Assessment, Sheet A251, the round room is broken down into 16 manageable segments of wall. (Figure XII)120 Each segment of the wall has documented cracks, indicating that all 5,775 square feet of the round room should be eligible for painting in the repair category. CA t PART><EBS. - , r If ._ A251 Figure XII. Lower rotunda crack mapping. 118 Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Wall Repairs, FEMA, April 4, 2007, p. 5. (Attachment 23) 119 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on November 26, 2007), p. 52. (Attachment 6) 120 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume III, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, sheet A251. (Attachment 9) 92 • • • • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 34 of 48 • FEMA regulations clearly state that funding will be provided to return a building to its pre -disaster condition. 121 In the case of Atascadero City Hall, that condition included the fact that the wall in the lower rotunda was uniformly painted. The unpainted section of the wall would still not be consistent with the other freshly painted areas of the walls in the room, and the facility would not be returned to its pre -disaster condition. The City's Position: The City requests that FEMA re-evaluate the scope of work so that the entire wall in the lower rotunda can be painted and the room restored to its pre -disaster condition. 5.8.2 Upper Rotunda Painting Continuing the central core of the building up through the 4`h level and above, is the upper rotunda. This octagonal room is encircled by the main wall and presents an inner ring of columns several feet from the wall. The dome stands a full forty-four feet high. Earthquake damage to the circular wall in this space varied from hairline cracking to plaster de -lamination depending on the area of the wall. 122 FEMA approved only a portion of this wall in the scope of work stating that... "The City's original quantity, 3,700 SF, to 'patch and paint existing walls" is related to earthquake (EQ) and non -EQ damage repairs. Therefore, based on Pfeiffer "Damage Matrix", FEMA divided the City's original quantity (3,700 SF) into the following categories: • 1, 743for non -EQ damage repairs • 1,958 for EQ repairs (cracked walls) "123 During a verification process, L Figure XIII. Upper rotunda crack mapping. 121 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, Section 206.226, p. 487. (Attachment 4) 122 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, pp. 44-48. (Attachment 7) 123 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on November 26, 2007). p. 53. (Attachment 6) �j Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 35 of 48 the wall surface area in the upper rotunda was re -calculated by the City's consultants to be 5,788 square feet, not 3,700 square feet as originally calculated. (This measurement does not include door areas or rounded columns.) FEMA, however, has only approved of 1,958 square feet of wall area, thus effectively disapproving of 3,830 square feet of wall area. The City disagrees with FEMA's omission of 3,830 square feet of painting in the upper rotunda from the PW scope of work. • In Volume III of the City's Damage Assessment, Sheets A255 & A256, the room is broken down into 8 manageable segments of wall. (Figure XIII)124 In almost every segment of the wall, there are varying level of documented cracks. • FEMA regulations clearly state that funding will be provided to return a building to its pre -disaster condition. In the case of Atascadero City Hall, that condition included the fact that the wall in the upper rotunda was uniformly painted. The unpainted section of the wall would still not be consistent with the other freshly painted areas of the walls in the room, and the facility would not be returned to its pre -disaster condition. The City's Position: The City requests that FEMA re-evaluate the scope of work so that the entire wall in the upper rotunda can be painted and the room restored to its pre -disaster condition. 5.8.3 Paint Balance of Building In the City's Repair Plan, the City proposes patching and painting 92,947 square feet of existing walls. 12 In the detailed spread sheet e-mailed to the City as an attachment to the PW, FEMA breaks out the request into two separate lines and quantities. FEMA approves funding for 52,696 square feet of patching and painting walls stating: "FEMA has identified the "Patch and paint existing walls, balance of building" quantities required to repair the earthquake damaged walls. The quantities were derived from the City's "Damage Matrix. " ... The calculation of FEMA's eligible 124 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, 6. (Attachment 9) 125 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, p. 12. (Attachment 8) Volume III, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, sheets A255- Volume II, Pfeiffer Partners, April 4, 2005, Appendix H, • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 36 of 48 quantities is presented in the spreadsheet "Damage Matrix Verification" (The spreadsheet is in the backup section of this PW). 426 Although the City does not have access to the Damage Matrix Verification Spreadsheet mentioned above, it is assumed that FEMA is approving patching and painting only those walls that have cracks or visible damage. FEMA disapproves funding for 40,251 square feet of patching and painting walls, stating: "FEMA disapproves the proposed "Patch and paint existing walls, balance of building. " The reason is that the quantity of proposed scope is related to the entire building and is not specifically linked to the damage caused by the earthquake. "127 The City disagrees with FEMA's omission of 40,251 square feet of painting in the rotunda from the PW scope of work. FEMA regulations clearly state that funding will be provided to return a building to its pre -disaster condition. 128 In the case of Atascadero City Hall, pre -disaster condition included the fact that all of the walls in a room were painted the same color. It is assumed that FEMA is providing funding only for walls that have cracks in them. • The result of this approach is that there will now be at least one wall in almost every room in the building that does not match the remaining walls since the walls that will not get painted will have different levels of faded and dirty paint. Using the first floor as an example, the first floor has 23 rooms (excluding closets). 12 of those rooms have 3 or more walls that have cracks that will need to be repaired and the walls repainted. 20 of the 23 rooms have 2 or more walls that have cracks that will need to be repaired and the walls repainted. Contractors charge more to protect the non -cracked walls in place, than they do to just repaint the walls due to the increase in the amount of labor involved. Even if the City paid the contractors extra to protect the unpaintable walls in place, those unpainted walls would still not be consistent with the other freshly painted walls in the room, and the facility would not be returned to its pre -disaster condition. • At FEMA's current level of funding, none of the aforementioned rooms will be completely repainted. Consequently, none of them will be returned to their pre - disaster condition. 126 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on November 26, 2007), p.51. (Attachment 6) 121 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on November 26, 2007), p.51. (Attachment 6) 128 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, Section 206.226, p. 487. (Attachment 4) 95 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 37 of 48 The 047's Position: The City requests that FEMA re-evaluate the current funding so all rooms that have any plaster cracking in the walls can be repainted in their entire to restore them to their pre -disaster condition. 5.9 Damage to Roof Drains and Second Floor Lavatories As a result of moving forward in the construction process and obtaining a more extensive evaluation of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, the City has uncovered additional damage that was not presented to FEMA/OES in the Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, April 4, 2005. The Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems prepared by Gayner Engineers, in June 2007, identifies the following damage which has not previously been reported to FEMA/OES. Roof Drains- The Gayner Report identifies eight roof drains that were damaged on the 3rd Floor Roof 129 It then goes on to propose that the City replace the damaged roof drains and add overflow drains with piping connection to existing drain line. l ° The replacement of these drains will require some patch and repair work to the existing roof in order to properly install the new drains. Plumbing Fixtures- The Gayner report identifies that the lavatories in the Men's Restroom on the 2nd Floor were damaged by the earthquake. It then further recommends replacing "earthquake damaged bathroom plumbing fixtures in 2nd Floor Men's Room. 131 The replacement of these lavatories will require some patch and repair work to the 2nd Floor Men's Restroom in order to properly install the lavatories. The City's Position: The City requests that FEMA evaluate this newly identified damage and include funding in the scope of work in order to repair these damaged items. 5.10 Lighting In the Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, April 4, 2005, the City requested funding to replace the lighting in City Hall with energy code compliant lighting. The reasoning was that most of the lighting would be coming down in order to complete the structural, mechanical and architectural repairs necessary to return the building to its pre-existing condition. Since, for most contractors, it is at least as cost 129 Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems, Gayner Engineers, June 4, 2007, p. 5. (Attachment 27) 130 Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems, Gayner Engineers, June 4, 2007, p. 15. (Attachment 27) 131 Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems, Gayner Engineers, June 4, 2007, pp. 5, 15. (Attachment 27) W Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 38 of 48 0 effective. and sometimes moreso, to replace the lighting rather than remove, protect, store and re -install existing lighting, the City requested replacement. FEMA indicated that this was not an eligible cost: "...FEMA disapproves the proposed scopes of work to 'Repair', 'Deferred Maintenance ' and 'Code Upgrade ' of the `Electrical Lighting, Power and Communication 'Systems since these scopes of work are unrelated to the damage caused by the earthquake and not required by applicable code. The 'Repair' items are ineligible because of the lack of damage. A statement was made that page 370 of the Pfeiffer Rehabilitation Plan [Report] identifies minimal damage... FEMA will review the proposal to repair the City Hall's electrical system if the City provides (a) additional documentation of the earthquake damage, (b) detailed quantification of the repair scope, and (c) detailed cost estimate "132 In June 2007, Gayner Engineers prepared an Engineering Assessment Report of the Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems. In that report, along with the related Davis Langdon Pre -Design Cost Report Cost -Model dated January 29, 2008, the City addresses FEMA's items a -c above. • The Gayner report identifies the following earthquake related damage repair/replacement work: - Replace missing lens at twelve fixtures - Replace missing end plate at six fixtures - Replace missing face plate at six exit signs �3s • This adjusted scope of work will repair only the damaged lighting and does not address replacement or upgrade of any fixtures. The City's Position: The City requests that FEMA pay to replace the fixture elements listed, in order to restore the lighting to pre -disaster condition. In addition, the City requests that FEMA add language to the scope of work indicating that costs to remove, store and re -install existing lighting as necessary for structural, mechanical and architectural work is an eligible cost and that if the contractor can show that replacement of the existing light fixtures is more cost effective than the removal -storage -reinstallation process, that replacement will be an eligible cost. 132 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on November 26, 2007, p. 60. (Attachment 6) 133 Engineering Assessment Report, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Systems, Gayner Engineers, June 4, 2007, pp. 5. (Attachment 27) 97 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 39 of 48 5.11 Grounds/Sitescape The grounds and exterior site of the historical City Hall have long been part of the historic fabric of this important landmark. Antique statues and planters, in addition to trees and other landscaping, are part of the very essence of the site's historic nature, and have become synonymous with the building's history to members of the community. FEMA disallows restoration of the historic site to its pre -disaster condition, citing: "Landscape replacement is not an eligible cost. The eligible cost is to reseed. ,ria The City requests that FEMA include 5,000 square feet of landscape area in the scope of the work and disagrees with FEMA's finding to deny funding. Were it not for direct earthquake damage to the building, the site landscaping would be as picturesque as ever. The site has been sustaining damaged by, and since, the earthquake. Because safety of personnel and passers-by is paramount, the City fenced off the site to protect the public from continuously falling debris. The grounds have not been cared for since the time of the earthquake, due not only to the lack of utilities supplied to the building, but also to prevent putting employees in harm's way to spend the time necessary to care for the landscaping. The site will experience significantly more damage as the site is used as a staging area for construction. Heavy machinery, materials, tools, and workers will likely Figure xrv. crush any remaining plant life, compact City Hall sitescapebefore the soil, and destroy the irrigation system. and Historical consultants remind the City that after the San the landscaping is part of the historical Simeon nature of the landmark, and should earthquake. carefully be restored as such. While funding for seeding is helpful, it will not restore the other aspects of the historic fabric of the setting of this landmark to its pre -disaster condition. FEMA routinely pays for repair of "' Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on November 26, 2007, p. 63. (Attachment 6) M. r� P_j Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 . Page 40 of 48 elements that are affected by the repair of disaster related damage, but are not caused by the disaster. They pay for repair of damage to roads due to heavy use caused by large trucks that are transporting materials to and from damaged facilities. They pay for repair of damage caused by removal of materials to verify damage, if the damage is eligible. They pay for replacement of concrete, asphalt and soil that is undamaged, but must be removed to repair a buried sewer line or other types of infrastructure. The City's Position: The City requests that FEMA support the restoration of the historical fabric of the landmark by funding the cost to return the landscaping to its pre -disaster condition. 5.12 City Costs Incurred to Date Although reconstruction of City Hall has not yet begun, the City has incurred some costs related to pre -construction securing of the building. In January 2006, the City drafted letters to request reimbursement for fence rental, upper rotunda netting and brick storage costs. 135 These letters were never sent, because the City was ultimately assured that these costs would be included in the City Hall PW. • FEMA has not included these items in the PW. In addition, FEMA required the City to conduct mold testing, to prove the City's assertion that mold has begun to colonize in City Hall. • Fence Rental • Directly following the San Simeon earthquake, safety fencing was rented and installed around City Hall, for public protection. • The rental of the safety fencing was included in the PW for City Hall Emergency Protective Measures, but expenditures for the fencing were incurred past the allowable 18 -month timeframe for that type of project, until January 23, 2005. • In January 2005, a more permanent type of fencing was installed, according to City Council direction. • The City is not seeking reimbursement for the new fencing, but requests reimbursement for the additional fence rental expenditures. ... Letter to Charles Rabamad Requesting Status of City Incurred Costs, City of Atascadero, January 18, 2006. 99 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 41 of 48 Netting around Upper Rotunda In April 2005, as bricks continued to fall from the City Hall rotunda, it was determined that a chain link netting would need to be installed to prevent bricks from causing further damage to the exterior of City Hall as they fell, and to protect any passersby from being injured. • The City requests reimbursement for the cost of the chain link netting as well as the cost of the contractor to install the netting around the rotunda. Brick Storage Costs • The earthquake caused much of the exterior brick to loosen and fall off City Hall. • As this is an historic structure, the City is required to reuse the loose bricks when City Hall is reconstructed. This necessitated rental of storage bins to store the bricks until reconstruction occurs. • The rental of storage bins was included in the PW for City Hall Emergency Protective Measures, but expenditures for the bin rental were incurred past the allowable 18 -month timeframe for that type of project. • At a cost of $7,080.00 per year for rental of the storage bins, it occurred to the City that purchasing the storage bins would be more cost effective, because the bricks will need to be stored for an extended period of time, until they are needed during construction. • The City hired temporary workers to transfer the bricks from the rented bins to new, more permanent storage bins. • The City requests reimbursement for the remainder of storage bin rental expenditures, the purchase of replacement storage bins and the cost for temporary workers to move the bricks. Mold Testin>; In discussions with the City in November 2006, FEMA indicated that the scope of work for mold abatement would be eligible to be included in the City Hall PW, if the City could prove the existence of mold in the building. In May 2007, the City hired a consultant to evaluate and report on the existence of mold in City Hall. 136 16 Level I Assessment, IESO Standard 2110, Evaluation of Mold Colonization on Surfaces, Environmental Mold Sampling LLC, May 25, 2007. (Attachment 26). 100 • • • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 42 of 48 • The City requests reimbursement for the cost to hire a mold inspector to report on the existence of mold in City Hall. The City's position: Each of these City costs incurred to date for City Hall are documented in Attachment 35, Listing and Copies of Invoices for City Incurred Costs, prepared by City of Atascadero.' 37 The costs for fence rental and upper rotunda netting serve to protect the public and City Hall. The cost for brick storage is required to protect the historic fabric of City Hall. Mold testing was required by FEMA in order to include the mold abatement scope of work. The City requests that FEMA fund these costs in the City Hall PW. 6.0 Appeal Request The following summarizes funding for the appeal request. 6.1 Architectural and Engineering (A & E) Services Due to the complexity of the restoration project, the A & E services for the repair of City Hall will consist of the following technical and specialized services: • Civil/ Structural Engineering • Architectural Design • As- Built drawing/ Surveying • Geotechnical / Soil Engineering, Testing • Mechanical / Electrical Engineering • Environmental / Historical Studies • Permit fees • Project Engineering/ Management • Construction Management The version 1 to the PW only included 5114,372 for additional A & E services which brought the total approved amount for the project to $356,753. This is approximately 2% of the amount approved by FEMA for the repairs and hazard mitigation. A & E services calculated at 2% is far below the estimates that are customarily used by the industry and much lower than FEMA's own Cost Curve A as provided by regulation. The A & E services approved by FEMA are either a gross oversight on the part of FEMA staff or simply an unreasonably low amount for the magnitude and scope of the project. In the future, the City will submit a request for a PW version based on the actual 137 Listing and Copies of Invoices for City Incurred Costs, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008. (Attachment 35) 101 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 43 of 48 A & E expenditures to OES and FEMA. However, for the purpose of this appeal, the City is requesting that additional funding for the A & E services be approved and included in the PW version. The total A & E services should be estimated at 19% of the repair and hazard mitigation cost of the project (14% for A & E and special services/studies and 5% for project testing/construction management). 6.2 Cost Summary The detailed cost of each of the appeal issues discussed in Section 5 above are shown in a Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair Cost (Summary C).138 To provide consistency over time, the costs shown are from the original Damage Assessment and Repair Plan that the City submitted to OES and FEMA in April of 2005 and are not current estimates. * We are requesting these items that FEMA has funded as Hazard Mitigation be instead funded as Repair. 138 Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008. (Summary C) 102 • A & E Hazard Request Summary Services Repair Mitigation* Total APPROVED PROJECT WORKSHEET $ 356,753 $ 4,628,602 $10,830,863 $15,816,218 APPEAL ITEMS 1 st through 3rd Floors 777,804 777,804) 4th and 5th Floors 402,137 (402,137) - Repair of Settlement 7,509,567 (7,509,567) - Repairing Fagade after re -leveling work 241,575 241,575 Floor cracks & spalling 87,245 87,245 Mold & Pigeon Guano Abatement 1,308,917 1,308,917 HVAC System 3,043,908 3,043,908 Re -Start Systems 902,585 902,585 Code Requirements 918,612 918,612 Lower Rotunda Paint Quantities 7,570 7,570 Upper Rotunda Paint Quantities 21,414 21,414 Re -Paint All Walls in Room 160,750 160,750 Damage to Roof Drains & 2nd Floor Lavatory 48,563 48,563 Lighting 9,585 9,585 Grounds / Sitescape 71,886 71,886 City Costs Incurred to Date 36,417 36,417 Architecture, Engineering, Special Services & Studies 2,660,628 2,660,628 Construction Management, Testing & Inspection 899,613 (416,572) 483,041 PROJECT WORKSHEET REQUEST $3,017,381 $21,076,750 $ 1,724,783 $25,818,914 * We are requesting these items that FEMA has funded as Hazard Mitigation be instead funded as Repair. 138 Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008. (Summary C) 102 • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 44 of 48 The Historic City Hall building has not been visited by FEMA staff for several years. It has been such a long time since FEMA officials have had the opportunity to view the damage first hand, and because there have been additional damage discoveries, the City respectfully requests your office to coordinate a site visit by FEMA prior to the final determination on the appeal. The City further requests that the site visit include the executive level staff from OES and FEMA Region IX, due to the reasons pointed out in the introduction to this appeal. Should you have any questions regarding this appeal, please contact my office at (805) 470-3428. Sincerely, / Rachelle Rickard Director of Administrative Services cc: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 U.S. Congressman Kevin McCarthy 5805 Capistrano Avenue, Suite C Atascadero, CA 93422 Kerman] Consulting Group 49 Thunderbird Drive Novato, CA 94949 • 103 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 45 of 48 Summaries and Attachments The following are documents referenced in this appeal. Summaries To thoroughly understand the issues surrounding this appeal, please make reference to the following documents which provide excellent summaries of key technical information. Summary A Earthquake Induced Settlement Repairs- Appeal #1, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, dated January 3, 2008. This is new information not previously submitted to OES or FEMA. Summary B Appeal #1 -URM Wall Repairs, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, dated January 17, 2008. This is new information not previously submitted to OES or FEMA. Summary C Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated January 31, 2008, Attachments The following documents are provided as backup reference materials. Attachment 1 Notice of Obligation - State Supplement #20, prepared by OES, dated December 5, 2007 Attachment 2 Project Application Summary, prepared by FEMA, dated October 22, 2007. The summary was attached to the "Notice of Obligation." Attachment 3 Project Worksheet 229-1, prepared by FEMA, dated October 25, 2007 Attachment 4 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, Section 206.226. 9527.3 Interim Policy on Construction Codes and Standards for the San Simeon Earthquake, FEMA. Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act), FEMA DAP9526.1 FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy, FEMA. 104 • • • • • Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 46 of 48 Attachment 5 Eligibility Analysis of A & E Services Worksheet, prepared by FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on August 9, 2006). Attachment 6 Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet prepared by FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on November 26, 2007). Attachment 7 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, prepared by Pfeiffer Partners, dated April 4, 2005 Attachment 8 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume II, prepared by Pfeiffer Partners, dated April 4, 2005 Attachment 9 Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume III, prepared by (Drawings) Pfeiffer Partners, dated April 4, 2005 Attachment 10 Letter to Charles Rabamad, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated January 10, 2006. Earthquake Induced Settlement Damage, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, dated December 2005. Evaluation of Liquefaction -Induced Damage to Structure, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated November 9, 2005. Attachment 11 City's Response to Draft PW, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated December 12, 2006 Attachment 12 E -Mail and attached project worksheet for A& E Services, prepared by FEMA, dated August 24, 2004 Attachment 13 Request for PW Version — A & E Services, prepared by OES, dated January 24, 2005. Attachment 14 Notice of Obligation- State Supplement #13, prepared by OES, dated February 2, 2005. Attachment 15 City Hall Repair Review, prepared by FEMA. The review was sent to the City by FEMA via email dated August 24, 2005. 105 Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 47 of 48 Attachment 16 Supplemental Information Structural Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, dated September 14, 2005 Attachment 17 Hazard Mitigation Benefit — Cost Analysis Report, prepared by OES, dated December 1, 2005. Attachment 18 Letter to Charles Rabamad Requesting Status of City Incurred Costs, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated January 18, 2006. Attachment 19 Request for Status of PW Version — A & E Costs & Attached Invoices, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated February 7, 2006. Attachment 20 Support Narrative and Worksheets for Draft PW, prepared by FEMA, forwarded to City via e-mail August 9, 2006. Attachment 21 Earthquake Settlement Repair- Power Point Slides, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associate, dated November 2006. Attachment 22 Submittal Letter — Cost Study for URM Wall Repairs, City of Atascadero, sent to Charles Rabamad, OES, dated February 9, 2007. URM Wall Repairs Cost Study, prepared by Davis Langdon, dated February 2, 2007. Attachment 23 Additional Information for Project Worksheet & Cost Study for URM Wall Repairs, prepared by FEMA, dated April 4, 2007. Attachment 24 Intent to File an Appeal of City Hall Official PW, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated June 7, 2007. Attachment 25 E-mail — SHPO Concurrence for Atascadero, sent by Stephanie Kingsnorth of Pfeiffer Partners, dated September 20, 2007. Section 106 Consultation for Repair, Rehabilitation and Structural of Seismic Retrofit of Atascadero City Hall, prepared by Office of Historic Preservation, dated August 14, 2007. Attachment 26 Evaluation of Mold Colonization on Surfaces, prepared by Environmental Mold Sampling, LLC., dated May 25, 2007. Attachment 27 Engineering Assessment Report Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/and Fire Protection Systems, prepared by Gayner Engineers, dated June 4, 2007. 0 I Mr. Charles Rabamad First Level Appeal. Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Page 48 of 48 Attachment 28 Results of Additional Subsurface Exploration, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated May 17, 2007, revised July 27, 2007. Attachment 29 Results of Masonry Wall Coring, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated July 18, 2007. Attachment 30 E -Mail —Meeting Follow-up, sent by OES (Michael Sabbaghian), sent to FEMA (Don Smith), dated December 18, 2006. E -Mail- CBC Chapter 34, sent by OES (Michael Sabbaghian), sent to FEMA (Don Smith), dated February 27, 2007. Attachment 31 Memorandum- Geotechnical Comments, review of Geotechnical Report for Atascadero City Hall, California, URS, dated May 9, 2006. Attachment 32 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication H 7, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, Southern California Earthquake Center- University of Southern California, dated March 1999. Attachment 33 Calculation of HVAC Replacement, based on Davis Langdon Pre - Design Report Cost Model, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated January 29, 2008. Attachment 34 California Building Code, Chapter 34, 2001 Attachment 35 Listing and Copies of Invoices for City Incurred Costs, prepared by City of Atascadero. 0 107 Table of Contents ,: • • First Level Appeal Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents Volume I Atascadero City Hall First Level Appeal, PW 229-1 Summaries: A. Earthquake Induced Settlement Repairs, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 3, 2008 B. Appeal #1— URM Wall Repairs, Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 17, 2008 C. Table of Appealed Items, Scope of Work and Repair or Hazard Mitigation Cost, City of Atascadero, January 31, 2008 Volume II Attachments: 1. Notice of Obligation — State Supplement #20, prepared by OES, dated December 5, 2007 2. Project Application Summary prepared by FEMA, dated October 22, 2007. The summary was attached to the "Notice of Obligation 3. Project Worksheet 229-1 prepared by FEMA, dated October 25, 2007 4. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, Section 206.226. 9527.3 Interim Policy on Construction Codes and Standards for the San Simeon Earthquake, FEMA Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act), FEMA DAP9526.1 FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy, FEMA 5. Eligibility Analysis of A & E Services Worksheet, prepared by FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on August 9, 2006) 6. Eligibility Analysis of Repair Costs Worksheet, prepared by FEMA, undated (received by City as an attachment to an e-mail on November 26, 2007) Volume III Attachment 7 - Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume I, prepared by Pfeiffer Partners, dated April 4, 2005 Volume IV • Attachment 8 - Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume II, prepared by Pfeiffer Partners, dated April 4, 2005 109 First Level Appeal Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Table of Contents Volume V Attachment 9 - Damage Assessment and Rehabilitation Plan, Volume III, prepared by Pfeiffer Partners, dated April 4, 2005 (drawings) Volume VI Attachments: 10. Letter to Charles Rabamad, prepared by City of Atascadero dated January 10, 2006 Earthquake Induced Settlement Damage, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, dated December 2005 Evaluation of Liquefaction -Induced Damage to Structure, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated November 9, 2005 11. City's Response to Draft PW, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated December 12, 2006 12. E -Mail and attached project worksheet for A & E Services, FEMA, August 24, 2004 13. Request for PW Version — A & E Services, prepared by OES, dated January 24, 2005 14. Notice of Obligation- State Supplement #13, prepared by OES, dated February 2, 2005 15. City Hall Repair Review, prepared by FEMA. The review was sent to the City by FEMA via email dated August 24, 2005 16. Supplemental Information Structural Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, dated September 14, 2005 17. Hazard Mitigation Benefit — Cost Analysis Report, prepared by OES, dated December 1, 2005 18. Letter to Charles Rabamad Requesting Status of City Incurred Costs, City of Atascadero, January 18, 2006 Volume VII Attachments: 19. Request for Status of PW Version — A & E Costs & Attached Invoices, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated February 7, 2006 20. Support Narrative and Worksheets for Draft PW, prepared by FEMA, forwarded to City via e-mail August 9, 2006 21. Earthquake Settlement Repair- Power Point Slides, prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, November 2006 22. Submittal Letter — Cost Study for URM Wall Repairs, City of Atascadero, sent to Charles . Rabamad, OES, dated February 9, 2007 URM Wall Repairs Cost Study, prepared by Davis Langdon, dated February 2, 2007 110 First Level Appeal Atascadero City Hall February 1, 2008 Table of Contents Volume VII (continued) Attachments (continued): 23. Additional Information fro Project Worksheet & Cost Study for UPM Wall Repairs, prepared by FEMA, dated April 4, 2007 24. Intent to File an Appeal of City Hall Official PW, prepared by City of Atascadero, dated June 7, 2007 25. E-mail — SHPO Concurrence for Atascadero, sent by Stephanie Kingsnorth of Pfeiffer Partners, dated September 20, 2007 Section 106 Consultation for Repair, Rehabilitation and Structural of Seismic Retrofit of Atascadero City Hall, prepared by Office of Historic Preservation, dated August 14, 2007 Volume VIII Attachments: 26. Evaluation of Mold Colonization on Surfaces, prepared by Environmental Mold Sampling, LLC., dated May 25, 2007 27. Engineering Assessment Report Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/and Fire Protection Systems, prepared by Gayner Engineers, dated June 4, 2007 28. Results of Additional Subsurface Exploration, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated May 17, 2007, revised July 27, 2007 29. Results of Masonry Wall Coring, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, dated July 18, 2007 30. E -Mail — Meeting Follow-up, sent by OES (Michael Sabbaghian), sent to FEMA (Don Smith) dated December 18, 2006 E -Mail- CBC Chapter 34, sent by OES (Michael Sabbaghian), sent to FEMA (Don Smith) dated February 27, 2007 31. Memorandum- Geotechnical Comments, review of Geotechnical Report for- Atascadero City Hall, California, URS, May 9, 2006 32. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, Southern California Earthquake Center- University of Southern California, March 1999 33. Calculation of HVAC Replacement, based on Davis Langdon Pre -Design Report Cost Model, prepared by City of Atascadero, January 29, 2008 34. California Building Code, Chapter 34, 2001 35. Listing and Copies of Invoices for City Incurred Costs, prepared by City of Atascadero 111 Summary A 112 • • • • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL EARTHQUAKE INDUCED SETTLEMENT REPAIRS 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE APPEAL # i — JANUARY 3, 2005 1.0 Introduction This report is prepared in support of an appeal for the earthquake damage repairs to the Atascadero City Hall. The specific topic of this report is FEMA's classification of the earthquake induced foundation settlement repairs as "hazard mitigation" in lieu of "repair". This classification has significant potential cost implications for the project. In the technical project team's opinion, FEMA's classification of the earthquake induced foundation settlement repairs as hazard mitigation is not consistent with the physical evidence. 2.0 Earthquake Induced Settlement As a result of the 2003 San Simeon earthquake, the North side of the building settled approximately 7" relative to the South side of the building. In fact, the entire building is tilting / leaning to the North. Extensive survey data has been gathered to demonstrate that all of the floors and walls of the building are tilting / leaning to the North (refer to Evaluation of Liquefaction -Induced Damage to Structure report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific dated November 9, 2005). Earthquake Induced Settlement of 7" at North Side of Building Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers North and South Walls Tilt at a Rate of 0.6" per Foot All Floors Tilt at a Rate of 0.6" per Foot 113 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE 3.0 Cause of Earthquake Induced Settlement EARTHQUAKE INDUCED SETTLEMENT REPAIRS APPEAL #1 — JANUARY 3, 2008 FEMA's current position is that the building settlement was not a direct result of the 2003 San Simeon earthquake. In our opinion, FEMA's position is not consistent with the physical evidence as follows: 1. The building settlement damage did not exist prior to the 2003 San Simeon earthquake. 2. The earthquake induced settlement / tilting of the building to the North is consistent with the directionality of the 2003 San Simeon earthquake. The earthquake damage is much more severe in North-South direction URM shear walls (walls on the East and West facades) indicating that the predominant ground motion at the site was in the North-South direction. The building settlement, also in the North-South direction, is consistent with the direction of strong ground shaking. URM Wall Damage North-South Wall Severe Earthquake Damage to Walls running in the North-South Direction 3. The geotechnical data indicates, and FEMA's own geotechnical engineer seems to agree, that earthquake induced liquefaction was probable below the Atascadero City Hall as a result of the 2003 San Simeon earthquake. FEMA's geotechnical engineer states "it would not be unreasonable to conclude that soil liquefaction is possible.... for those conditions experienced during the 2003 San Simeon earthquake." In fact, the geotechnical data predicted an earthquake induced liquefaction settlement of approximately 6" due to the 2003 San Simeon earthquake, very near the actual 7" measured settlement. Nabih Youssef & Associates Page 2 Structural Engineers 114 • • • • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE EARTHQUAKE INDUCED SETTLEMENT REPAIRS APPEAL #1 — JANUARY 3, 2008 4. FEMA's current position that the settlement damage was not a direct result of the 2003 San Simeon earthquake seems to be based primarily on the lack of visual surface evidence of the liquefaction. Since the liquefiable soils are well below the surface of the site (approximately 25' or more below the surface), no visual surface evidence of the liquefaction would be expected. An additional boring was recently conducted at the site using "extreme care" as noted in prior FEMA comments (see Earth Systems Pacific report date July 27, 2007). The new boring data confirms prior boring data regarding the presence of liquefiable soils below the site. In fact, within the zone of the liquefiable soils the shaft of the rig sank 18" in the soil under it's own weight demonstrating the extreme susceptibility of the soils to earthquake induced liquefaction settlement. In normal soil conditions the shaft must be driven into the soil using multiple blows. 6. There is a very large bulge in the basement slab on grade at the low North side of the building. This bulge, which did not exist prior to the earthquake, is indicative of damage caused by the extensive and sudden earthquake induced settlement on the North side of the structure. Settlement Induced Damage North Side of Building 4.0 Conclusion The physical and geotechnical evidence clearly indicates that the earthquake induced settlement was a direct result of the earthquake. Concluding that the settlement was not caused by the earthquake is inconsistent with all of the available data and physical evidence. Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers 115 Summary B 116 • • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE JANUARY 17, 2008 0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0.1 Introduction This report is prepared in support of an appeal for the earthquake damage repairs to the Atascadero City Hall. The specific topic of this report is FEMA's classification of Unreinforced Masonry (URM) wall repairs as "hazard mitigation" in lieu of "repair". 0.2 URM Wall Damage The structural damage to the URM walls caused by the earthquake is severe. FEMA's current position that the damage is moderate and therefore not eligible for comprehensive repair to pre -disaster conditions should be re-evaluated based on the following: The earthquake damage extends through the entire thickness of the existing URM walls, severely reducing the structural capacity of the walls. The visible damage through the entire wall thickness directly contradicts FEMA's current position that "damage generally occurred in the exterior wythe of walls that are three wythes thick" (Page 2 of 8 of FEMA's 4/4/07 letter). Recent test data including both coring of the URM wall cracks and removal of interior plaster finishes confirms the cracking extends through the entire wall. 2. The visible crack damage would be classified as "heavy", "extreme" or "severe" by any known technical standard, including FEMA's own guidelines. 3. Non-linear computer analysis of the crack damaged URM walls indicates a tremendous strength loss of approximately 43% due to the earthquake damage. 4. At the 4`h and 5`h levels, large portions of the wall are on the verge of collapse having been visibly displaced by the earthquake. FEMA's classification of the URM wall damage appears to be based on an incorrect assumption that only the exterior layer of brick was damaged in the earthquake. The classification of the damage as moderate is not supported by the physical evidence, by any known technical standard or by advanced computer analysis of the wall damage. The wall damage should be classified as severe and properly repaired to pre -disaster conditions. 0.3 URM Repair Techniques FEMA has proposed repair of these severely damaged URM walls using "repointing" and "selective removal of damaged bricks and replacement". The FEMA proposed repairs would not restore the building to it's pre -disaster condition, would not restore the original structural integrity of the building and would not comply with current applicable codes. The only viable repair option, based on the level of damage to the walls, is either replacement or enhancement. Nabih Youssef & Associates Page Structural Engineers 117 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY 17, 2008 1. We are not aware of any published guidelines that would recommend re -pointing and selective brick replacement to restore the building to pre -disaster condition. In fact, FEMA's own guidelines indicate that this technique does not repair the URM walls to pre -disaster condition. FEMA's own letter of April 4, 2007 indicates that the repairs currently proposed by FEMA (re -pointing and selective replacement) are not appropriate for severely damaged walls. 3. The URM wall repairs recommended by FEMA are in clear violation of the 2001 CBC, the current applicable code. In fact, there is prior precedence in the City of Richmond appeal for the Ford Assembly Plant to indicate that damaged URM wall should be re -constructed with reinforced brick masonry. The only viable options for repair of the damaged URM walls to pre -disaster condition are either replacement (re -construction with reinforced masonry) or enhancement (use of a structural overlay such as reinforced concrete or carbon fiber). These repair techniques are designed to repair the walls to their pre -disaster condition in a code compliant manner. These repair techniques are not designed to strengthen the walls. 0.4 Cost Data The cost data presented by FEMA in the April 4, 2007 is based on grossly inaccurate information which resulted in grossly inaccurate conclusions. Examples include: 1. Settlement foundation repair costs were included by FEMA in the wall repairs. These settlement foundation repairs were not included in the City's estimate, have nothing to do with the URM walls repairs and resulted in an 84% error in the FEMA cost estimate for the Base Scheme. 2. The cost data prepared by FEMA included complete 100% replacement of the basement slab on grade. The basement slab replacement was not included in the City's cost estimate, is not required to repair the URM walls and should not be included in the cost estimate. 3. The FEMA cost estimate did not include any temporary shoring for the URM `In - Kind' Scheme. The City's cost estimate did include the shoring and it is required for construction of the URM wall repairs. In our opinion, the conclusions drawn by FEMA in the April 4, 2007 letter are based on gross errors in the cost data as described in detail in Section 4.0 of this report. The cost data prepared by the City accurately represents the repair conditions and clearly indicates that the Base Scheme (concrete and carbon fiber overlay) is the most cost effective approach. Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers 118 Page 2 • • • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE 1.0 INTRODUCTION APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY17,2008 This report is prepared in support of an appeal for the earthquake damage repairs to the Atascadero City Hall. The specific topic of this report is FEMA's classification of Unreinforced Masonry (URM) wall repairs as "hazard mitigation" in lieu of "repair". This classification has significant potential cost implications for the project. In the technical project team's opinion, FEMA's classification of the URM wall repairs as hazard mitigation is not consistent with the visible physical damage to the building. Information referenced in this appeal report includes: • Draft Project Worksheet prepared by FEMA for Atascadero City Hall • April 4, 2007 letter prepared by FEMA • Supplemental Information — Structural Damage Assessment & Rehabilitation Plan prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates dated September 14, 2005 • Supplemental Structural Information — URM Wall Repairs prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates dated January 25, 2006 2.0 URM WALL DAMAGE The structural damage to the URM walls caused by the earthquake is severe. FEMA's current position that the damage is moderate and therefore not eligible for comprehensive repair to pre -disaster conditions should be re-evaluated based on the following: 2.1 The earthquake damage / cracking extends through the entire thickness of the existing URM walls, severely reducing the structural capacity of the walls. FEMA's April 4th, 2007 letter incorrectly states "This moderate damage generally occurred in the exterior wythe of walls that are three wythes thick." FEMA's classification of the damage as "moderate" appears to be based on the incorrect perception that only the exterior wythe of brick is damaged. While complete demolition of all interior finishes is not feasible, demolition of representative portions of the finishes has recently been performed to expose the interior surface of the damaged URM walls. In every exposed condition, regardless of exterior crack size, cracking was visible on the interior of the wall as well as the exterior. It is clear based on the visible damage that the entire thickness of the URM walls is cracked / damaged. In addition, core tests were recently completed in representative locations to physically confirm that the URM wall crack damage extends through all three wythes of the brick wall (see July 18, 2007 report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific). Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers Page 3 119 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE Interior Plaster Removed Interior Crack on URM Wall APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY 17, 2008 EAST ELEVATION FACADE REPAIRS Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers 120 WEST ELEVATION FACADE REPAIRS 1 Interior Plaster Removed Interior Crack on URM Wall Interior i Plaster Removed Interior Crack on URM Wall Page 4 • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL ,)nn4 Sem qim F:nN EARTHQUAKE NORTH ELEVATION FACADE REPAIRS SOUTH ELEVATION FACADE REPAIRS Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS .JANUARY 17, 2008 Interior Plaster Removed _ Interior Crack on URM Wall nterior 'laster I emoved Interior Crack on URM Wall Page 5 121 UIN,! R L NORTH ELEVATION FACADE REPAIRS SOUTH ELEVATION FACADE REPAIRS Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS .JANUARY 17, 2008 Interior Plaster Removed _ Interior Crack on URM Wall nterior 'laster I emoved Interior Crack on URM Wall Page 5 121 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE I I I APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY 17, 2008 NORTH ELEVATION FACADE REPAIRS VIC - Interior Plaster Removed Interior Crack on URM Wall Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers 122 Interior Plaster Removed Interior Crack on URM Wall 0 SOUTHWEST ELEV. FACADE REPAIR Page 6 • • • • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY 17, 2008 2.2 The visible crack damage would be classified as severe by any known technical standard, including FEMA's own guidelines. The most widely used document for evaluation and classification of URM earthquake damage is FEMA 306 — Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings. Based on FEMA 306 guidelines, the URM wall damage would be classified as "extreme" based on the number of courses with damaged bricks. We are not aware of any technical standard that would corroborate FEMA's current classification of the URM earthquake damage as "moderate". Crack # (see prior dia rams) Max. Crack Width (inches %° Courses with Cracked Bricks Classification per FEMA 306 1 1/211 75% Extreme 2 3/16" 750/6 Extreme 3 3/16" 58% Extreme 4 3/8" 50% treme 5 3/16" 45% treme !Ex 6 3/4" 100% treme 7 1/4" 35% treme Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers 123 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE Nioderate A,K=0.8 = G.6- =1.0 'As an alter- nati-ve. calcu- late as ,;LK = 0.6 AD 0-9 *As an alter- native, calcu- late as F ,' r Extreme Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers 124 APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY 17, 2008 Criteria: 1. Horizontal crttcks: spalled imortar at bed joints mdicadug that in -plane offset. along the crack. has occurred an&or opening of'the head joints up to approximately 1,4'. creating a stair -stepped crack: par -tern. 2. 5°;0 off courses Or fewer havecracks in masonry unit. �ivrcaI ,i�ta��n�tice: •fes ,{I l Crirerza: 1. Horizontal crass; spa led monac on bedd joirrts indicating that in -plane offset along the crack has occurred author opening of the head joints up to approximately 1,2"', creadne a stair -stopped Crack pattern. 5°6 of courses or fewer have tracks in masonrt- units. Avical:# nce: Direna: • Vertical load-carnri rp ability- is threatened. Tipical Indf- + Stair -stepped movement ment is so significant that rations upper bricks have slid off their supposing brick:. + Cracks have propagated into a significant num- ber of courses of units. Residual sat is so significant that portions of u> sonry at the edges of the pier have begun or are about to fall_ FEMA 306 — Page 169 Page 8 • 11 • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE 2.3 Non-linear computer tremendous strength damage. APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY 17,2008 analysis of the damaged URM walls indicates a loss of approximately 43% due to the earthquake A non-linear finite element analysis was performed for the unreinforced masonry wall panels using the FEW program developed by the Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Research for the National Science Foundation. The -_, _____-- software was designed specifically for the analysis of perforated masonry panels and it is recommended in FEMA 356: PreStandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Section 7.5.2. The FEM/I software performs a nonlinear pushover analysis of a modeled infill panel. FEM/I accounts for FEM/1 Finite Element Model of Typ. Infill Panel. degradation in strength and stiffness when stresses at any point in the panel exceed damage levels. Results from FEM/I have been validated by masonry pier tests conducted at the University of Colorado. The pushover curve generated by the FEM/1 software is used to predict reductions in stiffness and strength of the infill panels when subjected to earthquake -induced displacements. Force vs. Displacement Wall =4 F250.000.0 —r u1 v.ame a i�rai = 150.0 J' 100.0 50.0 X 0.0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 Disp. (in) Capacity vs. Displacement Plot Generated by FEM/I. The ETABS analysis of the City Hall building estimates horizontal displacements of the infill panels from the 2003 San Simeon earthquake to be approximately 0.37 inches on the east and west elevations of the building. Based on the FEM/I force versus displacement plot, displacements of 0.37 inches correspond to a loss in URM infill strength of 43 percent. This correlates very closely with the estimated capacity loss of 40 percent per FEMA 306. Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers y 125 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY17,2008 2.4 At the 4th and 51h levels, large portions of the wall are on the verge of collapse. The walls provide stability for the mezzanine walkway and the low roof framing. These walls having been displaced by the earthquake and are tilting / leaning away from the supporting floor structure as shown in the photographs. In some areas the walls are so precarious that the City has been forced to install a temporary screen to catch any falling debris and protect pedestrians around the building. As previously described in Section 2.2, exterior cracking extends through the full thickness of the walls. In fact, visible damage to the interior surface of the walls is typically more severe than damage seen on the exterior. , ti� 50, ' ze 1 `" / „ue x :� .•'alt ��i��� .; x tg i FEMA's classification of the URM wall damage as moderate is not supported by the physical evidence, by any known technical standard or by the computer analysis of the wall damage. The wall damage should be classified as SEVERE and properly repaired to restore the structural integrity of the building. Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers 126 10 • 0 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE 3.0 URM REPAIR TECHNIQUES APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY 17, 2008 FEMA has proposed repair of the damaged URM walls using "repointing" and "selective removal of damaged bricks and replacement". The FEMA proposed repairs would not restore the building to it's pre -disaster condition, would not restore the original structural integrity of the building and would not comply with current applicable codes. The only viable repair option, based on the level of damage to the walls, is either replacement or enhancement. When URM damage is classified as severe, FEMA's own letter of April 4, 2007 indicates that the repairs currently proposed by FEMA (re -pointing and selective replacement) are not appropriate. "Generally, when damage to a wall is severe, FEMA eligible repairs consist of replacing the entire section of severely damaged URM walls from floor to floor column to column with `in-kind' materials using code compliant methods and materials; in this case, replacing the URM with reinforced masonry." April 4, 2007 letter from FEMA. Based on the level of earthquake damage to the URM walls, as documented in Section 2.0 of this report and in prior reports, re -pointing and replacing a few bricks is clearly not restoring the building to pre -disaster conditions. 2. Regardless of whdther the damage is classified as "moderate" or "severe", we are not aware of any guidelines that would allow re -pointing and selectively replacing damaged bricks (as proposed by FEMA) for restoration to pre - disaster conditions. The most widely used document for repair of URM earthquake damage is FEMA 306 — Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings. FEMA 306 states "Replacement or enhancement is required for full restoration of seismic performance." Re- pointing, crack injection and replacing damaged bricks provides "partial restoration of performance" and does not restore the strength or stiffness of the damaged URM walls to pre -disaster conditions. Restoring the URM walls to pre -disaster conditions requires "replacement" using reinforced masonry or "enhancement" using reinforced concrete / carbon fiber overlays, regardless of damage classification as "moderate" or "severe". Repairs to the building must be performed in accordance with the current applicable code, the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). While the CBC is clear that earthquake repairs to buildings do not trigger full code upgrades of the entire building, the CBC is also quite clear that construction of repairs must comply with all code requirements. "...repairs may be made to any building or structure without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with all the requirements of the Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers Page 11 127 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY17,2008 code, provided the ... repair conforms to that required for a new building or structure." 2001 CBC Section 3403.2 Demolition and reconstruction of the portions of the URM walls (as recommended by FEMA) without reinforcing is in clear violation of the CBC, the current applicable code. "All walls shall be reinforced with both vertical and horizontal reinforcing". 2001 CBC Section 2106.1.12.4.2.3 We are not aware of any precedent that allows partial demolition of an element and then reconstruction using techniques that are in clear violation of the current applicable code. The entire wall thickness will need to be removed since the cracks extend through the entire wall thickness (i.e. the repairs will require the removal of all layers of bricks in the wall). Repair of the damaged URM walls using reconstruction techniques without steel reinforcing is in clear violation of the CBC. There is clear precedent for requiring URM wall repairs to be performed per the CBC. A careful review of the Third Appeal for the City of Richmond Ford Assembly Plant confirms that all repairs must comply with the CBC. "FEMA's position continues to be that the repair of disaster damage must be done in conformity with applicable codes..." Page 1, Third Appeal for City of Richmond dated July 16, 2007. "The interior URM shear walls are being removed and reconstructed with reinforced brick masonry." "These exterior walls are being removed and reconstructed with reinforced brick masonry walls." Page B-5, Third Appeal for City of Richmond dated July 16, 2007. Removal of bricks for the entire wall thickness and then re -building without reinforcing (as recommended by FEMA) is in clear violation of the CBC, the current applicable code. The only viable options for repair of the damaged URM walls to pre -disaster condition are either replacement (re -construction with reinforced masonry) or enhancement (use of a structural overlay such as reinforced concrete or carbon fiber). These repair techniques are designed to repair the walls to their pre -disaster condition in a code compliant manner. These repair techniques are not designed to strengthen the walls. We are not aware of any codes or guidelines that recommend re -pointing and selective brick replacement, as currently recommended by FEMA, as a method to restore pre - disaster structural integrity. FEMA has not presented any technical evidence to demonstrate that their proposed repair techniques will restore the building to the pre- Nabih Youssef & Associates Page 12 Structural Engineers 128 • 0 • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY17,2008 disaster condition and re -construction without reinforcing violates the 2001 CBC which is the current applicable code. A4oderate I cnrerta 1. Horizontal cracksispalled mortar at bed joints indicating that in -plane offset along the crackbas occurred and'or opening of the head Joints up to approximately 1/4". creating a stair -stepped crack pattern. '-. 5% of courses or fewer have cracks it mas=7s units. 'As an alter- Typical Appearance: native, calcis- Y. late as 174,_ r lu:j i,g— 0.6 AQ- 0.6* iD - 0.9 *As an alter- native, calcu- late as Flu z� I'4,. j 1. Horizontal cracksrspalied mortar on bed joints indicating that in -plane offset alone the crack has occurred and•'or opening of the head joints up to approaimately 1 ^", creating a star -stepped crack pattern. 2. 5% of courses or fewer have cracks in masonry units. TYDIcal.ippeararce: Cdrerw: * Vertical load -carrying abilrri• is threatened. Tipical indi- • Starr -stepped movement is so significant that Carron; upper bricks have slid off their supporting brick. * Cracks have propagated into a significant num- ber of courses of units. • Residual set is so significant that portions of mason y at the edges of the pier have begun or are about to fall - Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers Repair Requirements Highlighted Repiacement or enhancement is required for full restoration of seismic peffon- =nCe. For partial re toration of performance- • Repomt spalied mortar and open head joints. • inject cracks and open head joints FEMA 306 — Page 169 *In some cases, a ut injection may actuall`�increase s gth, but decrease deform ior. capac y, by dlangmE behavior from be oint sliding to a less ductile behavior de (see FEMA 30?, Section 1.1.3). Replacement or enhancement is required for full restoration of seismic perfor- mance. For partial restoration of performance: • Repoint spalled mortar and open head joints. • inject cracks and open head joints. i�- 0-8 AQ, = 0.3* nD* = 1.0* *In some cases. gi Yut injection may actually increase rength. but decrease deformation caps ty, by changing behavior from be oiutsliding to aless ductile behavior de (see FEMA 307. Section 4.1.3). • Replacement or enhancement Page 13 1291 ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE 4.0 COST DATA APPEAL #1 - URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY17,2008 The cost data presented by FEMA in the April 4, 2007 is based on grossly inaccurate information which resulted in grossly inaccurate conclusions. 1. Foundations - The FEMA cost data includes the settlement foundation repairs in the Base Scheme and the Reinforced Masonry Wall Scheme. Unfortunately, the settlement foundation repairs have nothing to do with the repair of the URM walls and should NOT be included in the cost estimate for the URM wall repairs. The FEMA estimate should thus be adjusted to remove the foundation settlement repairs. This alone would reduce the FEMA Base Scheme cost estimate by $7,418,974 ($4,636,859 x 1.6), an 84% reduction! However, it is reasonable to include a small amount for new spread footings to support the weight of the new concrete or reinforced masonry walls. This item was included in the City's cost estimate for the Reinforced Masonry Scheme but was not included in the Base Scheme. We recommend that the $32,000 foundation line item in the Reinforced Masonry Scheme also be added to the Base Scheme. 2. Vertical Structure — The FEMA cost estimate dramatically underestimates the amount of damaged URM wall that requires re -construction in the URM `In -Kind' Scheme. We assume that this relates to FEMA's current perception that the walls are not severely damaged and that the damage does not extend through the entire 3 wythes of structural brick. In addition, it appears that the FEMA cost estimate uses the architectural fagade repair drawings to estimate the scope of the structural URM wall repairs. In order to accurately assess the scope of structural URM wall repairs, FEMA should utilize the URM `In - Kind' structural repair drawings SR.URM-1.1 to 1.6 included in the Supplemental Structural Information — URM Wall Repairs report issued on January 25, 2007. Use of the architectural fagade repair drawings R1 to R14 issued in the original April 4, 2005 report is not appropriate for estimating the structural repairs to the URM walls. 3. Floors and Roof Structure — Replacement of the entire basement slab on grade is only required as part of the settlement foundation repairs and is NOT required for repair of the URM walls. The $236,528 ($147,830 x 1.6) line item should be removed from the FEMA estimate. 4. Temporary Shoring — FEMA's estimate does not include any funds for shoring in the URM `In -Kind' Scheme. The walls are damaged in all three wythes of the brick. It is not possible to remove the damaged brick in all three layers of the wall and expect the bricks above to just hang in the air. Shoring is required. Nabih Youssef & Associates Page 14 Structural Engineers 130 • • ATASCADERO CITY HALL 2003 SAN SIMEON EARTHQUAKE APPEAL #1 • URM WALL REPAIRS JANUARY17,2008 In our opinion, the conclusions drawn by FEMA in the April 4, 2007 letter are based on gross errors in the cost data as described above. The cost data prepared by the City accurately represents the repair conditions and clearly indicates that the Base Scheme (concrete and carbon fiber overlay) is the most cost effective approach. Nabih Youssef & Associates Structural Engineers Page 15 131 Summary C 132 • 11 O cz co M i O Q O A O cnI (N O co F - Q) Q) m Q) Q O I- C (z L p cn O O 7 C O" C DW bs �t f` t-- Ln r In N n N t— 00 rl- r O CO O M co O C) M V O CO LO 00 N O O N CD N r C) O t` L7 ti d r N O Lo I— O CD co co Lo 07 d LO co Lo C) CD co m r t` tl- 4 CD co CO CD O co CD N — O M of V ti cD O (6 O M co Uf) n a cc `� cD Q Op ti O O O LO c m LL ._ ti a� O c 0 U O N d > U Y J > — °6 OO O C a)U) y LL U t� E O O a ~ O C C : N O E O � j Q O C C C C O O C to— C_ C C O O O O m co O C (0 (6 V) O.. c0 O C O -0 n (D N O W W O of c -0 00 O 0 rn @a o (D o 0 w c a� Cl) LL t9 N L L (n W Y N(� Q N C U U O O O O U 06 co 0 CD U> O O O OL Wa O° x C _ o 2 o0 o D Of U U - U <- U0 N N N c? O N N N M M M V Lo co. t` O m. m M. r r r T T LCA J.Lf) LC) In Lf") t!� Lfi L(i LC') LD In Ln LO U( Lo Lo CD CD 133 O Co M N L � O Q cB � Q) c z s 7 LL W O UL N > Q � 0 E � E O N a O Q Q O _Q) z 134 to co It CD T T tD N C N CD 00 O T T O 00 00 O Lf) Lf') r r N OM M L m to 00 O 00 t- Q CO O I' N O Cl) N T co 1- N O O T (p r � N d4 'p C 00 N O v O Ln -p T CD h cu 00 00 CD Q) N 1- cD o c r N 6A C O CO Ch04 LO CO r O LO h O lf) r LD M O N M i cz Cq O "D C 7 H to W ca W r 2 Q U Y F- LLL W O W 2 U) Y U F a' ' N O Z N D F a W W m J O t� N of w a > CLCL LU LLI Q > J O J c0 EL O Q O • • LLQ LO � CO LO N O "t O M LO CD t- m t- lzr O CO — Ln O O M N zt Ln N O O Ll O Ln t� Ll Ll OJ CO O D7 �- CD O M O 'ITO N CD "t co CD 00 O N co O O V � M N Efl * O co CD ti C 00 LO LO O ti N m CD @ t` O O N O t- � Lo LO � m Ln N O V O M LO CD ti co O co co t` 'T c- O 00 .-- t-- LO CD co N OJ Ll Ll N Q] cl Ll CD Ll Ll Ln 00 CD Co ti N D7 t'- 0D Cl) N CO r- O 00 O CD O) a O O It 07 O 1Q, O N CD 't r- M m O t` 'T LO N co O O m 00 ti M EA N U N CD T O CO co (� W N 06 Q c O U O Ln O @ O a > U i @ C — O -� O 06 O Q) CD cz coCO cu C p0 Q > dE > � O N O O N O C " p C _ C (n C C C co O O O) p p @ c ❑ a o c c� o co o cc0i C -6m pa c°p °o ai w co LLLq y O O Vi C C C C L Cn U m in C! Q O O m CM O O U O �Q6 O m -O `O c M @ C9 X ao C U c in o o> m O o a d> co 0)° ` 06 o in � cr- Q� LL _ U J ❑ ❑ J U U Q U N N M O r N N N Cl? CO CO In CD ti 00 O 0J OT - Ln lC) Lo I Lo I Ln I n I Ln I Lo r Lo Lo U� I L6 Ln I LO I LO LO CD CD to co It CD T T tD N C N CD 00 O T T O 00 00 O Lf) Lf') r r N OM M L m to 00 O 00 t- Q CO O I' N O Cl) N T co 1- N O O T (p r � N d4 'p C 00 N O v O Ln -p T CD h cu 00 00 CD Q) N 1- cD o c r N 6A C O CO Ch04 LO CO r O LO h O lf) r LD M O N M i cz Cq O "D C 7 H to W ca W r 2 Q U Y F- LLL W O W 2 U) Y U F a' ' N O Z N D F a W W m J O t� N of w a > CLCL LU LLI Q > J O J c0 EL O Q O • • } Q LL Q Q Q Q U -LL U- 0 U W Cn W W W W (n 0 J O V' O O N N N in O Lo O M t� CP N M m 06 15 c o a) @ o o EF N N E N N L ._ @ (n a) a Q N ,yQ Li. O O O O W O O O V O CD Q LO O 00 N CO C)O O N M m t` t` coM O w Cl) Cl)cr) �2 N W N U h LL F o 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 o 0 N 0 00 0 CCO O r O N Lo 5 U O Cl) CL y E E m o 0) CL a EO c a Y ° W w w o Q iL N2 V } Q ll Q Q Q Q W LL V) LL U LL J E m H U w U) w W W 3 `° `�� J 0 E G O @ E 2 3° o C a7 N (D N CD N CD Ln N m O LO a) o�° L o N N LO N @ m �°�a a) @ _tea Cl 7 J @ o ON C > as c v .� O a� o I o m a I o w co O - LL °) c' w '3 E° °> c a 3 c E" @c L N Y`o a� m E o @ v.o O Z =O LL m U U a c U w o > O LL M ° d LV N) E 0 `' o E m 2 r-- ° a 3 v C i v T c U w S T- _ C o c 0 C L• N c o S S S S S S S S M Q J N o N O °@ p o@ @ _c N N ° .5 a N a x> aai x> w0= o W U mE.E w C •° m @ 2 a o x a� c c @-o a2 W0L 0 N w o� ° o J a Q oY c ° 3> o ° r ° c C> 0 CD 0 CD a 0 0 0 coo a Q O '� 0 ° c` m ° ° c •° m a° c@ a'm O N M Ci n co O 0) N CD (h o c 2 Co 'X i!� c°° Cl) Cl) M O N r j t o L) E aEi X� x W _ (n NO' o c @MC� UCS O N �+@Utc� N�@UcC� O O Z X n N J Q L O C a) N C N CO C N@ C N M N C Ca CL O N d° fit 3 O O N 3 p� `; O O O O O O O O O O O O O w 9 w W O O lc:, O O C— t`0 N— C - a L 7 On CP n C u c �0=(L) C C a) O N 0 CC) O d U v N ) N C) r N Q } Q LL Q Q Q Q U -LL U- 0 U W Cn W W W W (n 0 J O V' O O N N N in O Lo O M t� CP N M m N M W Z 0 O H Q U LL cn Q 5 U CL y E E m o 0) CL a EO c a Y ° W w w o Q iL N2 m o N O E 3- -•� a d o D d c 0 a) n N E m o E o@ o o° LU .O ° g o w 3 S° c E 3 `° `�� J 0 E a> > n a) 3 2 @ E 2 3° o C N @ '� o N o O C N ° o a) N .«0 p g Q O a) o�° L o N o N 0 a c `aaai @ m �°�a a) @ _tea O >' U c c 7 J @ o N a .0 N> °a C > as N 3_ v .� O a� o I o m a I o w - o Cl)c' O - LL °) c' a` '3 E° °> c a 3 c E" @c L N Y`o a� m E o @ v.o O Z =O �_ a m U U a c U w o > O LL M ° d 3 v> ° N) E 0 `' o E m 2 r-- ° a 3 v C i v T c U w E 2 C c0 C o c 0 C L• N c o X @ a) ` @@ " N m 0 CL N o C N E O >' E N a? m E @` E@ CD .m `n "0 O .-. E' o o M Q J N o N N .�. °@ p o@ @ _c N N ° .5 a N a x> aai x> w0= o W U mE.E w C •° m @ 2 a o x a� c c @-o a2 W0L 0 N w o� ° o J a Q oY c ° 3> o ° r ° c C> o 3 o E o m- a o 0) (n a) a) o @° °c_' m� a c o ma ca Co. o o° �_ a Q O O LL 2° ° c` m ° ° c •° m a° c@ a'm c> ° E r ° U 0 min 2 c o 0 w � E" 2 c CD o c y w n o c 2 Co 'X i!� c°° °� 2 c°°°> fA a3i M n� W j t o L) E aEi X� x W _ (n NO' o c @MC� UCS O N �+@Utc� N�@UcC� O O Z X J Q L O C a) N C N CO C N@ C N M N C Ca CL O N d° u 3 3 pC N 3 CC N 3 p� `; N rn m m C w 9 w W C N> d -° C N> N -O C C N> -O C C— t`0 N— C - a L 7 LL O C u c �0=(L) C C a) C �a C 3 ._ @ o� m •- m, ._ m a d U v N ) N Q @ O O O C 06 Q7 L a @ @ O _ ojf N > >IE2 x� xE wv aim wc� �m°o@'�°o@.�.c wL)LLU-�Ui� �Qxs� LLw. cnN ,° I°>in wv 135 LL UJ LU A m o Z N d N 7 J y LL O a) L'1 ENL �O 0 Qa w_ O O O O P� O O O O O O O O LO W O M N O W Q cl N cc V Cfl 00 M V 't M r i0 a O) 00 m �' N r N 0 N CDO 7 O CD 0 O O O O O OOO +" Z O� LO 0 CD Q •+1- p a N Cl)O N �� LO •� WLL Q N? ,+ J w w w w LL ai U) chi) U)i >, W N co 0 M Cl) Cl) m M 00 O V Cl) M Cl) Cl) C � O U- a > O S S 2 S 2 S S S 2 S 2 a CD LO 0 co CY) N d'i OOi N coO V CO 00 M V K = U W ° m m V fD v CN `' t N `o 0 m 2 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O U Era) ? � LO N OM LO O LO � to a Q) is C N w W w = J (n U) W W W W U) Cn OOILo O = N 07 O M M Cl Cl) C 00 O M M d' U ) ,Q C Cl) (•7 M Z O Ch d v+ C Q Q) g co Q N U O L 3 N O N Cl c Q Q (Nn 2 O N C N O Cl E N N Cl L .L) ` _ (a m a >, E C1 Q L7. L Co fa X 2 a) L C � Y a7 m N C 1 LU a) 3 �' Z c o 0 L 2 o L 3 O m o> m 3 0 o 0)) a v O a J LL m 3 0 3 E CD E E L) L L y 2 a m a o .Q 0) m E O O U) O N �° c fa )n O n LL O >,LL S >Q > iC> U O L �C d D O 3 N N > L a O C c U c 0 0 3L m U COO^m aai o '0 r �-2 O o �)(i�ppo OZ Q Q °;� C @ �o .U. o �L U EL Cl �' 0 3 .N U wL U (� v 2 a) r C U y Ow LL O �'a _y Q) •X M m o o CD u c m m� CL cU u7� CL c�a a) >0 m �. 3. m E 2 �. m 0 o °moo °�� �ELL)C, O m v o 0 n n� O a L� a) c- a0� N �> _ a °� a p `n ate% Q Jw V �vN CL c co O O -O -Oc0 >, 0 v o N L Q Q LL E a) X E c a o" M N Da E C a .� U C U N -D •- N E CO C a0 H J a) �.a a)� a) cc00 U: Z �� X W : (n in S N CL Q� 0 iL: N C� o Off' N NT r r T r C G` h m m A NT �p N O LL 7 N C` O 3 O O In 'C O C •O •- d > O C •- a) > O C 'O a) > O C d •O •- 1 C •- > - R O C m N= fa a7 y O l0 .+ C N •- �a 7 C N a7 7 C N al 3 c N lC 3 c N> to 7 W O. U as - 3 x 3 m cn rn° m° cm o 3' w N N N N N N N Q N N N R Q h CL W 0) 0) m rn m N C c 0_0 a`)'0 �io a)'0a) o 0= = N LCA �� >fn �2 >Cn >(n 2 Lu C) WU X� WU XT WU X� WU 0>f0a)=_ LL>ULL 136 P -j • Zi CL LU �L r Z W W J H H W U) M Lf1 N! 137 0 Ln c c O E a N E c s c mrn d n 0 Q fr Q 0 0p 0 O" 0 0 O O N o r- M U7 0 N O O I- ao C LO Q N � CV It O) U 'a U) O N M N U) M U) O i N O O O O O O O O O O Ln I- O O O O O O L6 r O O O UJ f- O O) O C a0 U7 co M N M U W U U -j -i (n U) co co 0 co EnN O ON O a0 h N O O) C ti U) 2Go S S 2 S 2 2 S S 2 C) O O O Q) N M U) N o r` O 0 �n r r` ao 0 0 Op NC6 N 'IT a) U 0O 06 N M NX) M U) O N 0 00 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 rn o 0 0 C � o 0 i° 0 o of O 07 0 M M N os U w U U -� N U) (07 (D 0N 04 O C O co Cl) d (D O o x co XX 0 0• O m° C a) a o c�mv o - a �. m o)E O c C: c m o -.- — ' V m r o c m com-0 v c m N Co 'O c a C C O o U) a� in > O o d > E c o m e o c iu o a� m a m E a) E 0 U) c p = O. a) U y U O Cp V c m Vl a 3 E C N C= N C c Mn O U a) O rm.L a o O u y m p U :a •� 0 :n 0 d o m - - o ch E > a) 8 b C a) Z a 0 C y c c L) o 2 c C L) o .c a > c o O � U w (D m 0 cc -0d o L m 8 L) m N d o m _o c m a C L O O C L O yU C O p 'C N? p fn L C O N N y m 0 N U m m p 0 N Y L m 0 O >(p O) C C) C C) N U O N d L o E C C U C to U rn 3 E 0 C m Q 00 m� �� w0 w L) L) z� Q) CD d O 2 a) p o ='a d O _ d O v = Or O ar O > d O o y m m °� m 0 m m o d �a p a) �v p d aS Lv d m C p C MC V C C v= C V= C V== V= p d C V C y= 7 X -y p 7 'y 0 7 'd 0 7 'y 7 w 'd 7 w 0 3 C y 0 7 W V w wit 0 w W V w it 0 u0- d' V d' U lL U �r0. N N N N N N M N 0 '@ 0 m 'o 10 7� @ 'a 76 ' m oa c rn U m C O p > O p > LOL LL LL LOL LL LLL LL LL d' (n LLL N! 137 0 Ln C O m O) Z U L C O O L U m 2 Q:c 0 � U C � m °1 m i E UJ O O Q) N Q 0 (D m 0 En Q) _C m @ 4 U) Q Q O Q1 ML -01 V Z 0 Z LL W D Cf W cr CD Z J LU w J Nw Li O w Z 0 J_ m LL a a w r M L6 u� Lo N fH H Z m O Q J Q W IL IL Z J w LU J W Q H O H V Z Z LL cn W W W - U) J Q IL U) 0 Q Y 9 U LCL O O J LL N M �a Lo C C p CD m O a) E a N C3) C) m � C) d Q Q O O O Lq O co LL O U) O cu o J W c c N M Lo O Q) O m LL c U) L2 r - O p N o M V OM of co 0 c N Y Ln 3 0 O c C N >N .o > p a vD�_ E E T O U oN Q) c o .-z C) U o ° m C m � U m Q o 't V)L)w c _ Co mf 2 o a L- O 'C _ OLo N O U O .0 C C) m 0 fU m p o N o cp N) ll o O O CI N 9 C) O N d w w C O C O m J G `O C m C m N m 'O N N U C CO m O c co C 'O C) E T C m c W U V) u� Lo N fH H Z m O Q J Q W IL IL Z J w LU J W Q H O H V Z Z LL cn W W W - U) J Q IL U) 0 Q Y 9 U LCL O O J LL N M �a c c p o m p C3 E d N C3) E m h C) O O Q Of Q O O O O O Ln co O J W O O c c c L2 O p co o m OM N co 0 0 Ln o co J w h V V LL o c E E m M M U O m y > O Q O Y � O N d C U O �6 m J N U C) `O C _ y 'O T O O N U C CO 2 E co E a) Eo m C m c V) aL)iL m O �(jw CD O .O 'O p Ln m O y C L) -0 C V .m U o m L o O C O- C C C) O p p w U0�- O O d d C C a.00.� 0 O 7 O N O 7 O N M N M N N O 0-2 O LL Q' LL Q �V IA • 11 LLZ� O w oU Q )n �o w~~ a - V W aci (DE d N Ix wZ B O0 J O) N M U) N a LL y Z p O N N a — LL o a a w 0 0 0 0 m 0 F - w 0 0 0 cn o )n ai :-a r- U') co ,Q c try = Z LL LL U) U) ccnn Q � 0 0 0 LLL F- O N ° W ° CD /Y T ~ W C C C C N V) fN W N N V) p) @ O (p r O) a7 C0 M •fid. C°9 yr d► L co T) L N N c � o 0 a, r- LO co o cs W •C rr LL. LL LL (n Cn (n � 0 0 _ O 0 N N ch ° •Q c co O Cl) C7 F - v Z O O co c� J a N CL <n W a) d Q �� o a oU) 5•9 o N O u_ ° 0 'o Q CD F� W �U L c c O a - O c W C9 H o m nl Loc E ° d m O cOi W �- O O 2(n U W oti a a c ��° o O 0 i0c6 o�� (D�s�M°io < y O @ O Q Q 0 c�cLa) E w a) > 06o o) a) a G O O � Z c c mom o Q > w > w d °aa°i o o m m ai m m o a) Z mvv>LL M M r O ,W V O O a m L S- 139 C,i75 01-13: 140 co m W H cn } cn U a LCi ui N U o N U o 0 ,n �p cd)c0 U cn N cd) c() ai O 0) N a) E vi0) p N N O) CN o2S r 0) N y °23 L, cn cu m N ❑ N O m N N ❑ a) ❑ 0 a) m 'c CO E 0)) = o E °n' = o y O Q Q d O Q Q a` n o 0 0 o C) 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 � Iq o cn C7 u'i M LL LL LL Cn fn to O O O CL) m a) Z c N p p CD O O O O o O O `C r N O O O O O O N04 Cd W) )A N O O O (D O O r 00 00 M o (o O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O to M CPOM CD O O O O O O U-) p cn LQ O cn Lr C7 )n P, <n N f` N LL Cn LL (n LL (n Cn Z O cn N N J) m U) (n O I` O M O O O O p V O O O n c7 0006 () Ln Cl) o LO U LY x x x °) ui m a o — c) aci m MM 4= -NU0 2 m O Oo O mLo aa)o cO 6le c _ ) in � ` 0) Co Ly UmE 0 O 'cO c a) a h ❑N a V` UoE m c N 0) o 10 -6 c > N o a) • c ' >na U c Uc LLJ , N c0 am -0x c o C N 3: E a : c=m CoN @aa) a) m c0) CL 7 a E m c N c Ln r c U 'x p U 0 0 a) CO E` a) m L m E wpp L U d N L N N 3 �'' O N 0 U w _m - o E o Y aY 3 E C (D a `O O 0) cnm O c s Cn d 3 c N'0 O O U y rC m E E N 7 L U c c` CL -�-' 0 7 a O o c o c c c m `� E CO a U Q m m •o c° m m °) m a a c o c V O m LL m E- o > cca E v v v ° 0 CU °)o 'c :F- E to ui > Q 0 m ). p c O= N c m a a (�) m m m a) C U f�0 a U c f6 V a) N L N n in F E N E U a E is n a o a m m a) w o m a c m❑ 00 O> d n a) 0) LL CL M CL' w (n N O E 0 m N a L O 0 0 0 G= O a N O O O O d L O 5; w m 0 0 0 c a) c c c @ @ @ r m a) a) '�a aa) m an) aa) oo (D U U U x O la: ao cccc ni cac� ��mO 'd •a) Q Q m O m U CO U LL>ULL > LL> C U LL a) N a) 2>'62 O N 0 2> Z>=>.6 0 N 0 a)a) S> a)LL> W J Z m O Q Q w CL CLQ w H N U) Q S fa - O H E. • OD • • 0 C6 Ell Q) U N N O _ O O j 00 a.0o O a�2-`DC N N 'V Lr Q �"C"4 c- N m P- O M NN �"> O IO IO to O N C6 0 N LL LL LL U) V) 0 Lnv O O a7 co co co co Lo LoN 01 to H Z O Q J Q W CL a Q LU H N r co F Q H N LU J Q H 141 0 C, 142 �I N to C6 T ti! F - Z O a J Q W a a Q N H Z W 2 W O W x W 0 O U J Q H O l� u Ll • U a) E E boa 0) E a t0 'o c o oQQ 0o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 Ln O 0 0 o r- o Ln O O M LO O N V LL Q Q Ll LL 0 W W U) J O O C) O O m m a) a) a) C C C C O O O tfi O Q7 M O OJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (D O O O O O O O O r (D to M O to O O M N r N C C O C O O L O O O cf) 00 r, V o 00 O 4 O 00 N V rn 00 N V N O M O in Cl) N N 07 V M O O O O O O O O O to n O lr� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lr) O OO O r- O M O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O L[) O O C to Lr O N V tD V N M V' to 07O m O In LL Q Q LL LL LL LL Q in Q Q Cn Q Q Q Q m U) 0 (n W W 0 (n cn W J W W J W W W W a) J J r N M V 00 00 00 co Co co O M V M cc cc co LO U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U m z c m i9 O (D V. V N O U iv d X '- N n. o U E o � m` a ° - m a °� c � > a C N a) O P O C_ a) m U '� a) N O a) U -O N .N. D NE jn fn E a) N U_ _.� N N p >, O C° a N m X ca ca C Cm U ^C. Q1 c N m U .U- C o o w ° ° N .� ma @ _ V m o _ m .0 _ o m m N N C U o C U Q a c= N m C C L a a ° C m — D `n c C CL O U ?i O O U Y C O N O a) 'O Y Y a) Q) .N O> > Y c0 p) 'X T `-' O N N U W O_ a) 0) m E Q 3 E a a) C O) C 0) O N C N m C L N N O a) N L a) N `m _ cn O O o 0 N a m a .� > C 3 p V) m m- E E c Y c - oto C Q) X o U) a) m N o �° a� c_ c E N E m °° m a W C o o ax) o N N s u° O m m' mYn ° m N �n`a am a p c @m a a > o o o cE 'o m E— c`o`o o °° o a) m c� U m m N c m E c m 'o c m s m 3 3 E�_ E 3 ca ° v° °o o a) o E0 .x � � �>Do� Z Z a) O Z .0 LL Q n = C Q C oan) LL U� � an) x U U Z W L mm cc 0 0� fQ t4 m m C m C o C a) C C a) a) C o C E E E E E E a) o) a E a a) a E E 1m!) �, N �, N N �, VI 41 C a) 'D 'O a) 7 a) 7 'D a) 7 Q) C a7 -p -O a) -O Q) a) Z1 7 Q1 Z1 41 7 -O Q m Z1 a) -O N ._ N V) •'.� N ._ N m m @ Q W W G W a W W UC� U U x U of U0� U0� UU U U Cf U U� U U 00 C N C) C N C CO C N N ') O h t0 f` L6 tD tD tD tD N ' M O W N m O ' T N N N N N N N o c N N N N N _ o c °) c N O O N - E° ° E a m - m m m c m m L m cz m L o N °o m N L o a ca ca ca cd m m cdWJ E [if ami ac) am W UJ2>= a W a W m W _m JW o WJ a) W a) W �I N to C6 T ti! F - Z O a J Q W a a Q N H Z W 2 W O W x W 0 O U J Q H O l� u Ll • • • ° LO c LO C C C) o m Q) O C °p a) m N E W O � U +,-, O N n" ( m N N v LL U) m N a� E LL � N (Eo N N d N co m C Q Q ❑ Q Q z o.0- n 0 0 0 0 0 0 tOLn o LL LL O �=- o LL 0 ri N H N O O Z � Z LL U) 0 LL M Z o Z = O z o LL LL �=- LL F- H N N LU LL, m m m o) W Wi ° z c c O`- O O C) O N N N r ao ^ N V, O 07 O V N r N CD U3 to M O O O Lq h Cl) N W LO LL LL O LO � � N M O � F Z H Z F Z O O O Q J J W a a� ° E LU CL m E w a E a Q � n d Q m a p a Q o n o � o m p a) z o o 6 (D CL >p Dm z a) n ❑ O> < �Noca ❑o �' �H n(J M -W U !- L Q Z oa) CC T e �i cO C0 >, ,>,. 0 m c U L) c w N C U C C o (o U c J 3 a° .� 3 o a w m cr. Q LLT__ a d = Ln i ti c U °w Cl) x Ln o m U W cn� < o -cc U) V) U W F O a c U Q a) I- c� C _ °o o F' Q D O Oti fir) Z Q m aoL Z m ��� d Z CL oo m�v d n o%= a a° U `� J 0 v c J Q c U C Q ~ cvCn m o H H ccv� 0 �•°-°0 1' Z a m O•mc O O N o a) r o ~ O N L (� ) V N L a C ° f" G� �_°' C a) OJ F- LJ.. N ch ❑ OJ QL m I� a) > J CD O O Q) a_ CDoo°' a�c�oLIJ o J W Q d O N a- ` J - 'co _ m C co m Z_ ^ a a a CL n. a N cYs Cl . C-6T7a3 00 0 MOR _co 0 m "' 0 _ ° m �� LO L� LO 1L 143 144 Z E Z U- cn w N� w Li Q Q O O J LL N 06 U) Z w 0 LL O O W C� Q O Q CL W N Ci U') 0 c U m 0 N N 06 Q) _ O N C --,C O a> O d � 2i -O) ON m N Oco a _ N O N c 00 O O O o O O O O m CO O N N O Z t- O O O O O O O O O O Z O O O O Z) o m cD o U- v a:) J W W J W co I-- M _ C n O C O E 0o W CL 0 c ` N O > n O O N O) C O a) U _0 O O O CO O Q X O C O T O U L x c0 0 _0 o C°a c o .0 o a @ n ca c� 0 .= O N_ O N > a ca V) L) W co CD O p N U .0 (0E O > U C (0 '- '0 p 0 v Z, a O` O a =3 0N U C O O O O O O O 0 0 E a cn c 0 3 0 C O M. o o O -E a = O ao Q ° Q ° CD o o a a a a E C IG �q O m C W Ci A O r C cc D M_ N C CO r N 0 O C O CD m O N a O N N 06 C q6 -0 E S] E _ 0 C O> C- CE > c- 2 >, d (n O T d fn O>>O LL> U V) 4A • i 0 0 m N Oco a _ N O N c 00 n o C O Q N Z F5 Z Z) U- W M W LL O O O Ln O O O CO O LQ M O O O O O O O CD O N N N w w LU N tD CO a) E a O C N a o a>i U m 0 � oa o U c c -o D 6 a o m� a U .c V C C CD U C U O W 0 a) n U ul c m m m o 0 0 (f) y N _ p LL 2 N E C h C r 0 U C U U O @ p:. m U I9 N O N N L O a O o as an aa) coo° CL n. a F- - c co C co r.- C'� O N N /2 V ' ' O U U U L 3 L r a 07 O Q 0 0 a In W J d W J d W J 4A • i 145 .o C C p U a) a) o c d o m E a a U co U) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z U- z p U) Es z z p LL o LL � N W a C) LU D Ui o) m Cf W o ° W O 0 (p M Q) N G O G G7 o G r.- r. G cl co 00 O M V (D Itr (D N U) rfi v► G O O) LL U) p CD O U) C a) E a o > 'o m C `o a) n U � � n co co Lu C ` O OD T U L2 c W 21 Q a ^ Q — O M O U U o p_)�p Q N vi NO C W C p v) cn U LUa V O c0 p_ cn Q) N U C O oo O W C O a O) T > fn ° U U` L) o c O a) ac N L 01 o N z (0 o a) L 0 �/ 1L N U U Y co a C C)° C O G7 C i a d U m O O C� o o° U Z z c LL N H O cnO U Q � � W � � U N r Ln (n Q &S 145 14 r CO C M F O O r V C N Q t0 Z 70co (p O t0 m v �a rn U- Cl) O ,It N O n r Z (O (D N of a M D y r- vS LL N LO o J 69 a N O U F- Q w O .n CD CO M r W N D a W 7 w r CO C M F O O r M o O c (n rn U) m v �a rn U- Cl) O ,It N O n C M (O 0 O 0 of a of E r- vS n(n N LO o J 69 rn N O U CD1 7 m C: 0 U 2 N c 0 U U A) 0 d E m m 0 CL CL Q m N f - i N N U) C (0 OD V) C U_ N cb O N 7 OO �Q o E U) O N C m U N O C 7 C U 2 C O N C mU E U W aa) m L) N 'O c .O d m o �w �d a) o U p \° d 2 `O 0 Q Q • • Cl)' w (O n O O N N N O Cl) O ,It N O n U M (O of a of C r- vS n(n LO o n rn N O U O O O a O CD CO M r N 7 U 69 w us v� m CD1 7 m C: 0 U 2 N c 0 U U A) 0 d E m m 0 CL CL Q m N f - i N N U) C (0 OD V) C U_ N cb O N 7 OO �Q o E U) O N C m U N O C 7 C U 2 C O N C mU E U W aa) m L) N 'O c .O d m o �w �d a) o U p \° d 2 `O 0 Q Q • • • Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Public Works Department ITEM NUMBER: C-3 DATE: 01/22/08 Atascadero Road Program (An update report on the Atascadero Road Program) RECOMMENDATIONS: Council: 1. Receive report on the Atascadero Road Program; and, 10 2. Direct staff to proceed on the design for the Del Rio Road and San Jacinto Ave Road Rehabilitation Projects without increased width for bicycles and pedestrians due to cost constraints; and, 3. Provide staff direction on emergency access route projects and funding. REPORT -IN -BRIEF: Historically, Atascadero has had difficulty maintaining its roads system due to inadequate funding. The City has 141 miles of roads, more per capita than any other City in the County. The Atascadero Road Program was created as a focal point for a variety of initiatives, improvements and projects dealing with the road improvement. This report will provide background and an update of the Atascadero Roads Program including plans for the Program over the next year. The report includes an analysis of Del Rio Road and San Jacinto Ave Road Rehabilitation Projects and the costs to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities and an analysis of emergency access routes. DISCUSSION: Background: Like all cities and counties in California, Atascadero suffers from a funding shortfall for road maintenance due to the aging road system, limited transportation funding and State budget reductions. Atascadero has 141 miles of City Maintained 147 Roads and 29 miles of Non -City Maintained Roads. Atascadero's rural nature exacerbates the problem because its low population and high road miles translate to low funding levels, since many road maintenance funds are derived from population statistics. Road maintenance and rehabilitation for Circulation Plan Roads have been budgeted at $3.0 million for fiscal years 2007-2009, yet even with funding at that level, there remains a huge deficit. The Atascadero Road Program was developed to focus the City's efforts in maintaining and protecting the roads of Atascadero in an organized, efficient and cost-effective manner (See Attachment A for Atascadero Road Program Map). While the program has been effective with the funding that it has been given, it is clear that the existing sources are inadequate to completely fund this commitment. Additionally, the stability of these funding sources is uncertain. The Program has made significant progress in improving the average condition of roads in Atascadero since it's inception in 1999. The City uses a Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) to determine the condition of all the Circulation Plan Roads in the City. The rating scale is 1 being best and 5 being worst. The Program has been successful so far in improving the average condition of these roads from 2.85 to 2.30 since its inception. Road T e Miles of Road Cost Circulation Plan Road 61 $17,325,000 City Maintained Local Roads 76 $11,375,000 Atascadero Road Program Update Some of the highlights of this Program are: • Strategies Created strategies for road repair, maintenance and rehabilitation to use our funds most effectively and provide a well maintained circulation system for the traveling public. Since 2000, we have paved 16 miles of Circulation plan roads and 9 miles of local roads through the various programs. • Pot Holes Public Works Operations continually identify and repair pot holes and failed trenches, conduct routine road inspections to identify and repair road problems as they are found. • Funding Increased funding for road maintenance, including an annual $250,000 contribution from the General Fund. The 2007-2009 City Budget programmed over $3.0 million for road maintenance and rehabilitation. • Trench Cuts Approved the Trench Cut Ordinance. Studies have concluded that utility trenching degrades and shortens the life of the surface of the road. This degradation increases the frequency and cost of maintaining the road surface. The Ordinance requires that trench cuts be constructed to City Standards and inspected. UM • Is • • Neighborhood Road Repair Approved provisions for non -licensed persons to work in the Colony right-of-way. This has helped citizens maintain their roads. • Development Requirements Approved Ordinance for road improvement requirements for the construction and maintenance of roads for new developments to mitigate the impact on the circulation system. • Development Maintenance Require development projects to provide funding for future road maintenance of project roads through assessment districts or home owner associations. • Cold Mix Creation of a Cold Mix Program. This Program makes asphalt -patching cold mix material available to residents to fill potholes on non -city maintained roads. The cold mix is available at Fire Station #1 off Traffic Way. The public can access and load the material into their vehicles off of the Traffic Way driveway ramp. • Road Loan Program This is a City sponsored Program that allows low interest loans to neighborhoods that want to maintain and pave their non -City maintained road. A local bank loans the funds for the work to the homeowners. The City guarantees the loan, which provides a low fixed rate for the homeowner. Residences on Otero Road, Ortega Road and Encinal Ave have taken advantage of this program and their roads have been repaved. • Staffing The Streets Division of Public Works Operations has added one new employee and replaced another. We now have 5 full-time staff members in this Division. The new employees are Mark Russo and Bill Rainwater. • Local Road Paving We include all Public Works Operations staff in the annual local road repair program, by using Parks, Facility Maintenance and Wastewater employees to assist the Streets Division when appropriate. Staff repaved the following road with in-house paving machine and related equipment: ✓ Colorado Road — San Rafael Road to San Diego Road ✓ San Marcos Road — Vista Road to Water Tank ✓ San Marcos Road patching — Vista Road to Sierra Vista • Circulation Plan Road Repaving The following roads were repaved and repaired by contractors: ✓ Traffic Way - Olmeda Avenue to Via Avenue ✓ West Front — Portola Road to Santa Rosa Road ✓ Santa Rosa Road Repair — Morro Road to Avenal 149 Circulation Plan Road Maintenance Circulation Plan Roads are roads that have higher volumes of traffic and affect a larger percentage of the community and are eligible for State and Federal funding. These are roads where a majority of the City's funding and efforts are spent. Staff monitors the condition of the roads and the traffic volumes to create a Pavement Management System. This information is used to select roads for rehabilitation. For a complete list of Circulation Plan Roads, including unfunded projects, please see Attachment B. Council has budgeted $3.0 million in the 2007/2009 Budget for the paving of Circulation Plan Roads. Listed below are roads that will be paved during the summer of 2008: ❑ The following roads are planned for paving in the summer of 2008 by contractors: ✓ San Jacinto Road — EI Camino Real to Nogales Ave ✓ Del Rio Road — Obispo Road to San Anselmo Road ✓ Portions of San Fernando Road ✓ Atascadero Ave Repair — San Diego Road to San Rafael Road ✓ Mountain View Drive - Portola Road to Santa Rosa Road I] ❑ Slurry seals and other types of seals are a cost effective way to extend the life of new paving. The City has paved many roads over the last 7 years and it is time to slurry seal some of these roads. The Road Program includes $500,000.00 for slurry seals in the summer of 2008. 0 Staff will continue to update and use the Pavement Management System to select future projects. Local Road Maintenance Public Works Operations Division will be continuing to perform "maintenance work" paving City Maintained Local Roads in the spring and fall. These are roads where Federal and State funding is not available. The purchase of asphalt and other materials will be funded from the Public Works Operations Operating Supplies. The costs of these materials have increased to $110,000.00 for materials for 1 mile of road. Contract services, such as street sweeping, water truck rental, tack coat application and other service to assist the operation will be funded out of Public Works Operations Contract Services. The criterion that is used in selecting City Maintained Local Roads for paving is as follows: • Poor condition of road surface. (Pot holes, base failure, alligator cracking) • City Maintained Local Road per the Circulation Element. 150 • • • • Traffic Control. Public Works Maintenance has a small staff. Proper traffic control can require considerable manpower. We will look for roads that can easily be closed to through traffic or traffic control is not too difficult. • Population served by the road. We will select Local Roads that serve the most residences. Staff will be will be working on major road patching and repair in the spring of 2008 and repaving Dolores Ave from San Jacinto to San Anselmo in the fall of 2008 Following is a list of potential roads to pave in the near future, we still have many miles of local roads to pave. Roads with were paved in previous years. For a complete list of Local Road Paving Projects, including almost $11.4 million in Unfunded Road Paving Projects, please see Attachment C. 151 LOCAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS Road From To Dolores San Jacinto San Anselmo Alamo Ave. Barrenda Ave. Rosario Ave. Cortez Ave. Curbaril Ave. End Mountain View Dr. Portola Road Santa Rosa Rd. Violeta Ave. Santa Lucia Rd. Aguila Ave. Navidad EI Verano Vida Alamo Delores Honda �Jln Alla San. AnsQlmG) 4w4- igionAta 'AA,_. 151 • Analysis: The Council has directed staff to report back on the following issues: • Bike and Pedestrian Access • Emergency Access Routes This section of the report will provide information on these two subjects. Bike and Pedestrian Access Many of Atascadero's roads are narrow, on hillside terrain and do not have the needed shoulder space for bike lanes and pedestrian paths. An additional consideration, when paving roads, is the extent of improvements needed to better accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. Public Works staff believes it is worthwhile to evaluate all future road rehabilitation projects to determine where improvements can be made for bicyclists and pedestrians. The accommodation of bike lanes and pedestrian paths during road paving will likely result in substantial grading, installation of retaining walls, drainage reconfigurations, tree removal and utility pole relocations due to the terrain along side many of our roads. Unfortunately, the costs to construct or improve bike lanes and pedestrian paths, in coordination with a road rehabilitation project, can result in a significant project cost increase. 0 Staff has two budgeted paving projects for this summer, Del Rio Road and San Jacinto Ave. Staff had cost estimates produced to include bike lanes and DG shoulders on Del Rio Road and a pedestrian path on San Jacinto Ave. The following table details the cost differences to include these improvements: 152 Cost for Road Cost with Surface Pedestrian and Rehabilitation Bike Lane Scheduled Road Rehabilitation project Only Improvements San Jacinto — ECR to Nogales $ 266,210 $ 482,570 Del Rio- Obispo to San Anselmo 522,470 1,397,190 Sub -Total costs w/o Contingency or Inspection 788,680 1,879,760 Inspection Services @ 5% 39,430 93,990 Contingency @ 20% 157,740 375,950 Total projected project cost $ 985,8501$ 2,349,700 152 The total remaining allocated funding for the two road rehabilitation projects listed above is $904,000.00. An additional appropriation of approximately $1.4 million would be required to fully fund the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Currently, there are no additional un -allocated road improvement funds available. In order to pay for these additional improvements, funding would need to be diverted from other scheduled road rehabilitation projects or other funding sources would need to be found. Staff does not recommend that we fund the additional work on these roads, since it will substantially remove funding from other road rehabilitation projects. Staff will be working on the design of paving projects on San Andres Ave, from Morro Road to Santa Lucia Ave and Santa Rosa Ave, from US 101 to Morro Road, during the next two years. This will include studying the feasibility and cost on providing a pedestrian corridor on the south side of San Andres Ave and the north side of Santa Rosa Ave. Emergency Access Routes Atascadero is a unique City in the way it was first subdivided. In most cities, lots are created in subdivisions and the roads are constructed at the same time. In Atascadero's case, the entire Colony was subdivided into lots in 1914, and the roads were built at different times. This left some road sections unbuilt. The City Council has expressed concern regarding emergency access routes for neighborhoods, specifically those areas where only a single point access is available. The concern is that access may be restricted if a fire or other disaster disrupts or blocks the single point access route. The City Council directed staff to identify significant single point access routes, develop a priority system for improvement and identify potential second route funding opportunities. The Fire and Police Chiefs and the Public Works Director worked together to identify existing roads that would provide a second emergency access route, if completed. The route list was provided in a previous staff report. The list included a description of the existing condition, areas of the City that will benefit from the improvements, and the estimated improvements required. Listed below are the funding criteria that Council directed staff to use to rank the access routes. 1. Number of residences affected by having only one way out. 2. Potential for the existing single access route to be blocked. 3. Shortening of emergency response time by installation of improvement. 4. Wildland Fire Hazard Severity rating of the area. 5. Cost of construction of the emergency access route. 6. Fiscal, or other, participation by residences. 7. Environmental impacts of the construction of the emergency access route. 153 Staff has developed a point system in order to rank the access routes according to above mentioned criteria. The ranking criteria were either scored progressively or regressively depending upon the criteria's nature. For example, the ranking criteria for environmental impacts were assigned a regressive point system. This means that the larger the environmental impact, the fewer points the access route was given. On the opposite side, some criteria warranted a progressive point structure that awarded more points for greater risk. As an example, a high Wildland Fire Hazard Severity rating was awarded more points than a lower Wildland Fire Hazard Severity. The points were tallied after ranking to determine funding priority. Each ranking criterion includes a footnote identifying which ranking point system was used. The ranking chart for emergency access routes and estimated costs of improvements is attachment E. The highest ranked roads are the Balboa Road and Llano Road access routes. The two roads serve the greatest number of properties, whose inhabitants could be affected by interrupted access. Staff believes that access route blockage is most likely to be due to washout of the bridge crossing Graves Creek or a fire approaching from the west. These two roads were ranked together since they both provide a second way out for area residents. FISCAL IMPACT: . Staff has projected existing revenue sources over the next 5 years and applied them to the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program as approved in the 2007/2009 City Budget (See Attachment F). This analysis shows that the 5 Year Capital Program can be completed under current scenarios but will have almost no funding remaining for future proiects. This does not account for State government raid on exiting funding sources, above average inflation or other unforeseen funding impacts. This means in order to fund any emergency access routes, existing funded projects must be eliminated or new funding sources must be found. The following projects could be eliminated or reduced to add funding for Bike and pedestrian Access or Emergency Access Route: • Minor Street Overlay Projects ($205,460.00) This is for the repaving of Mountain View, San Fernando and Santa Rosa Road. Santa Rosa Road has been completed so some of the funds have been used. • Road Rehabilitation — 5 Year Maintenance ($500,000.00) This project is for slurry sealing road we have paved in the last 8 years in order to extend the live of the past projects.' • 2006/2007 Road Rehabilitation Project This project includes the rehabilitation of both San Jacinto Road and Del Rio Roads. Council could choose to reduce 154 sections of this project in order to include bike and pedestrian access on the remaining sections. • Santa Rosa Road Rehabilitation ($845,000.00) Major road rehabilitation of Santa Rosa Road from US 101 to SR 41. This project will include road resurfacing, minor drainage improvements, pedestrian access improvements and restriping. • Atascadero Ave Rehabilitation ($643,500.00) Major road rehabilitation project for Atascadero Ave from Santa Rosa to San Diego Road. This project will include road resurfacing, minor drainage improvements, pedestrian access improvements and restriping. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Atascadero Road Program Map Attachment B — List of Circulation Plan Roads Attachment C — City Maintained Local Road Lists Attachment D — Non City Maintained Local Road Lists Attachment E — Emergency Access Routes Rating and Costs Attachment F — 5 Year Capital Improvement Program Funding Projections • 155 • • • 156 • • • LSCADERO ROAD PROGRAM WINTER 2008 :LEND MENEM COMPLETED REHABILITATION PROJECT PROGRAMMED REHABILITATION PROJECTS CITY STAFF PAVING PROJECT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT PROJECT CIRCULATION PLAN ROADS CITY MAINTAINED ROADS NON -CITY MAINTAINED ROADS i UNBUILT ROADS STATE HIGHWAY -- CITY LIMITS COLONY BOUNDARY REV. 2/5/2008 L CLARK b N b N M tb m b m tD N m M M V) V) 00 V) R M N N h b h h W m m b b N h n m h et b N V) b m b to N to to b^ N m N "f R b b M N V) b er V) M M M M t` b b ^ m h R R 0 10 b -- m N b M b �- N V) N N- N b V) R b N M h N b b O N N O N 0 m �- n t\ Cb �- V) 0 0 0 M O' b O N 0 0 tD N O M tV O O O '� O b �- O N M O O O N R O N •- -0 t` N b V) M t0 tb n t` t0 to N h b V) �} m b 00 N N t-- Cl) c) n N n b O M M b N N V) M O O Ni �- C7 U U U U J J J J U J U U J U J U U J J J U J J J J J EEEEFraa a ¢ Ea ¢ �¢� �a L<Ll a a a w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w mmmm m m m m m m m C Q a Q a U U a a J Q J J J Q J Q U Q Q V% J J J J to a 0 U% J J J J N J J .� dF - F-PP It QwJW J��¢¢¢�a(nH�ln fnJJ��H_�F_JF-Si JWaaQ J<w (nw 2�Q _cr j ifQ � ����g� CO d A J J W -j W --� W J W W W W 2 K cr W W W --� � J W --I W K w w w W W m of x -1 W W -'I J J= W � J W 0 J T J cV 0 »`n(n>m> >>m»>r> } m »ma}m}>>m>a>>>>>�ofxm>>m>mmm>aacc n> (n cn O y a g J J LU Uj a O o O 0 O a 000 ¢ O J g J J J 0 0� J J a g 0 J a 0 J O O O O O J J J COO T Q x� J O J J J a' O J m J 0' �x w�Z)D D Z) �D x C/)w to to to Uiir wU tn(nCl) Z) Z)xZ) V) to U)Un E U) W W w W F- F- H F- w !- W w F- w F- w w F- F- F- W F- H F- F- )- >>>> D D 7 D > D > > D > D> > D D :D> D D D Z:) 0 0 0 0 W W LL LL O W O O LL O LL O O LL W LL O LL LL LL LL LL 0 o O o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 000000 oo(noln0000000000000(nOoo(noon(noo(n(n(n(n(nOoo(n(nln(no(n(no(n 0000 00 d y V V O V b VI N O f, N O R V O V) V 0 0 0 b b Q Q M N O O O N r r (D V) V) V) V) V) V? M N N r N 0 C m m tO m� t0 (0 b (O V) p (O V r' m O m n 0 N 00 0 0 0 0 0 Q V V V V M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (V 0 C M M M IL d, X U 'p V Q Q V �- M '- M •- M Q M M M V M N V N N N M M N V V M V M N M M M M M N N N M M Q N M N N N M N N in a c J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o 000000 o O o N a N N o O O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 Cl W M V) O V) t0 b n �� 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O VN N W) r O VO V) O V 0) Q � O b V V0 Cl (O V (O � V � t` Q V Q' � V) V) V) � M � O M m (O (0 V) � (O N (O .- C Q .R (: V2 V�� V V V V V M; M m M N M V N V Q' Cl) N N CO CO .- (0 - N- (O - N- - - -- N N N V Q V N - -- .- M - M co r r- r y m M Q CO M 0 0 a0 Cl) b O N Cl) m V) V) N V) N N O O (n b to N m r• m r V) O N m V) N m N R f� V 0 W 0 M V b N r a0 V m N f m M 0 b V) W Q' CM M M M M W. M t N t0 V M m Q V) m M m (0 (O C0 CO b V V V) 00 �- O m V N V) '- V m M N N b b b N N O r- V) Q O �- r V �- CO 0J 'E O O O - 00 00 -066 0 0 0 O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66060 O O N 0 0 0 0 66 -6- 66 0- O O .- .- O- O- 0 0 0 0 N O O r- c� GC C O 7 O Y 0 O Q '0 d C C C d p � E � m> ; mw °>' y cc'O �° � m > O d m d a a 3 U ¢ X 0 0 0 N C T m O ¢ E p L m C N O T 0 O O m p O D O LL ll W y e N ° O U N m CL m o 0�_ a) < m d °c m m m a`) 2 a) ami 0 c w iu o 00 v10i s O c d p i5 o w p co E °2 E��?'m Eom 0oM0 °c .E maa m °�a�m E a: mom mU o�°�omo50m Cc -0 d m 0 im d 0 d c 00 EC 5 o O m 0 to 2 ` U m o m :° 4 O m C 2 m n Q w o o U m (n c O C O o O to O� U .m m >p CO o o (n��a p mU— °— m'' o o m �' W Q $ �� maw mQ Ea(nU m d d om p da o mat da o to o0 2Q_ o� a m O .,'o(nE$m��ffW(0 cEEU�22 ��100of ¢oU$ooh° a' a'voo�oo�o�0 20°UO� m m L no �rAa. oTEa�mUODomd mm mmCJsE C U) 0 O -udi 0 C O C O O C to a p 0° '0> C o 0 0 7 O 'd0 > O O T O O >, ,O U �` E C N C O) .0 0 0 .0 N C 2 C, T Oq C, .91 V C O p o m o c a 'E '- '� ° 'E U c T m o m m J v m 0 c mmm m m m w. m m a y E d mmm m C '- a) m a 'E m m 'E m (p o '� a m m m m d m m o a to d o o a? W m p o 0 3 3 0 0 U 0 o 0 m an d m � U m o�¢� a C E o m� g m p �a U m o o m y m 0 2 0 E o U� m E o 0 o m o o m o m m o g m m rn m m 2 m m m m o 0 0 m m mmm m m °i 0 0 m m U o co F Mmw 3: W, EUEOmw 5; um) 222 mLLm am 0<F-222(n0M:Z<(7tncn00InZ2 EcnvltnmtnrnU(n S U�LL1(n(n w a ¢` it • d c C C C C N N N 0) N N a) N Q d > > O m> v O d d o 0 0 ¢ a o a a s -M¢ a T T T C m m o H .n a a w—> m o° K c � d d E 0 c m E T m a) m `m a m O O O O O O m 0 m m �' O T-- to O d C m N j d N d ° T (tea EEEE EE�E030'Ea��ao °Qmmmm¢Q�anUm�mU-mm�'LL�m'�Jmo ��mtLd� od>0mm@m� m m In mmmm mm ma m o QO�a`mC9od o �a��¢o� w o aE? �0 OUmoC9 p UUUUUU�U���mUo��mommmmmmm����omm�moo��m�mcu mmdm���0mmmmmmdmo EEEMFU F-wOF-r-(n w �-� cna tncncncncn(n(n0J>UJ¢(nU(na2wcDmU(ncn0 (n¢ (n �(nF-¢(n � tnacn(n¢ (n to a 157 O O m m m N d d N d -_ Q a Q N N m O O O O t0 0 7 W O N N N N O (n N Z a)CD E E E L m E E U yO N u N > (n > 0 (n 0 > (n > to to n 00 m a) N N N N N d Ncr O Q N N E E E E E a _0 `o 0 o m m m m o EL s d d d U d d a U d C, O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 r` o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M o 0 o N o ao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l� o 0 0 o m o o a o 00 0 Stn O O O u] t90tA OfAO (�tH O O O V r' 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 NtA '0000000000 O O O o O V) O O t0 o b OOdi N V) 000tA0 0M 00 0? O V OSAM eA O to V) C C O V) M O 0 C r O t`) O V) m O m 0 0 otor O to V to O (D O V) V) M O y V) V) O r M m m O V) V) O O Q b 0 0 O 4 (O N O O N O V Q h V f` r M M Q' M r m N 4/i N I V) 0 N N M 0 r M 0 0 0 t0 � n O) Q V O Q b� M V) V') O N Q N C b M� O M M V) m N (fl V) N M F Ova V) V V) m to vi efl to b rn N N t» 9 N Vi tH V G'J f� EA to to M N t2 '. V) va V) t» Cl) to Q V b e» Efl NY tf3 N N V) N E HB to a> w t» to t» (O M to <n to EA fA V3 M to (» to U to to e9 y W U U U U J J J J U J U U J U J U U J J J U J J J J J EEEEFraa a ¢ Ea ¢ �¢� �a L<Ll a a a w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w mmmm m m m m m m m C Q a Q a U U a a J Q J J J Q J Q U Q Q V% J J J J to a 0 U% J J J J N J J .� dF - F-PP It QwJW J��¢¢¢�a(nH�ln fnJJ��H_�F_JF-Si JWaaQ J<w (nw 2�Q _cr j ifQ � ����g� CO d A J J W -j W --� W J W W W W 2 K cr W W W --� � J W --I W K w w w W W m of x -1 W W -'I J J= W � J W 0 J T J cV 0 »`n(n>m> >>m»>r> } m »ma}m}>>m>a>>>>>�ofxm>>m>mmm>aacc n> (n cn O y a g J J LU Uj a O o O 0 O a 000 ¢ O J g J J J 0 0� J J a g 0 J a 0 J O O O O O J J J COO T Q x� J O J J J a' O J m J 0' �x w�Z)D D Z) �D x C/)w to to to Uiir wU tn(nCl) Z) Z)xZ) V) to U)Un E U) W W w W F- F- H F- w !- W w F- w F- w w F- F- F- W F- H F- F- )- >>>> D D 7 D > D > > D > D> > D D :D> D D D Z:) 0 0 0 0 W W LL LL O W O O LL O LL O O LL W LL O LL LL LL LL LL 0 o O o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 000000 oo(noln0000000000000(nOoo(noon(noo(n(n(n(n(nOoo(n(nln(no(n(no(n 0000 00 d y V V O V b VI N O f, N O R V O V) V 0 0 0 b b Q Q M N O O O N r r (D V) V) V) V) V) V? M N N r N 0 C m m tO m� t0 (0 b (O V) p (O V r' m O m n 0 N 00 0 0 0 0 0 Q V V V V M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (V 0 C M M M IL d, X U 'p V Q Q V �- M '- M •- M Q M M M V M N V N N N M M N V V M V M N M M M M M N N N M M Q N M N N N M N N in a c J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o 000000 o O o N a N N o O O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 Cl W M V) O V) t0 b n �� 0 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O VN N W) r O VO V) O V 0) Q � O b V V0 Cl (O V (O � V � t` Q V Q' � V) V) V) � M � O M m (O (0 V) � (O N (O .- C Q .R (: V2 V�� V V V V V M; M m M N M V N V Q' Cl) N N CO CO .- (0 - N- (O - N- - - -- N N N V Q V N - -- .- M - M co r r- r y m M Q CO M 0 0 a0 Cl) b O N Cl) m V) V) N V) N N O O (n b to N m r• m r V) O N m V) N m N R f� V 0 W 0 M V b N r a0 V m N f m M 0 b V) W Q' CM M M M M W. M t N t0 V M m Q V) m M m (0 (O C0 CO b V V V) 00 �- O m V N V) '- V m M N N b b b N N O r- V) Q O �- r V �- CO 0J 'E O O O - 00 00 -066 0 0 0 O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66060 O O N 0 0 0 0 66 -6- 66 0- O O .- .- O- O- 0 0 0 0 N O O r- c� GC C O 7 O Y 0 O Q '0 d C C C d p � E � m> ; mw °>' y cc'O �° � m > O d m d a a 3 U ¢ X 0 0 0 N C T m O ¢ E p L m C N O T 0 O O m p O D O LL ll W y e N ° O U N m CL m o 0�_ a) < m d °c m m m a`) 2 a) ami 0 c w iu o 00 v10i s O c d p i5 o w p co E °2 E��?'m Eom 0oM0 °c .E maa m °�a�m E a: mom mU o�°�omo50m Cc -0 d m 0 im d 0 d c 00 EC 5 o O m 0 to 2 ` U m o m :° 4 O m C 2 m n Q w o o U m (n c O C O o O to O� U .m m >p CO o o (n��a p mU— °— m'' o o m �' W Q $ �� maw mQ Ea(nU m d d om p da o mat da o to o0 2Q_ o� a m O .,'o(nE$m��ffW(0 cEEU�22 ��100of ¢oU$ooh° a' a'voo�oo�o�0 20°UO� m m L no �rAa. oTEa�mUODomd mm mmCJsE C U) 0 O -udi 0 C O C O O C to a p 0° '0> C o 0 0 7 O 'd0 > O O T O O >, ,O U �` E C N C O) .0 0 0 .0 N C 2 C, T Oq C, .91 V C O p o m o c a 'E '- '� ° 'E U c T m o m m J v m 0 c mmm m m m w. m m a y E d mmm m C '- a) m a 'E m m 'E m (p o '� a m m m m d m m o a to d o o a? W m p o 0 3 3 0 0 U 0 o 0 m an d m � U m o�¢� a C E o m� g m p �a U m o o m y m 0 2 0 E o U� m E o 0 o m o o m o m m o g m m rn m m 2 m m m m o 0 0 m m mmm m m °i 0 0 m m U o co F Mmw 3: W, EUEOmw 5; um) 222 mLLm am 0<F-222(n0M:Z<(7tncn00InZ2 EcnvltnmtnrnU(n S U�LL1(n(n w a ¢` it • d c C C C C N N N 0) N N a) N Q d > > O m> v O d d o 0 0 ¢ a o a a s -M¢ a T T T C m m o H .n a a w—> m o° K c � d d E 0 c m E T m a) m `m a m O O O O O O m 0 m m �' O T-- to O d C m N j d N d ° T (tea EEEE EE�E030'Ea��ao °Qmmmm¢Q�anUm�mU-mm�'LL�m'�Jmo ��mtLd� od>0mm@m� m m In mmmm mm ma m o QO�a`mC9od o �a��¢o� w o aE? �0 OUmoC9 p UUUUUU�U���mUo��mommmmmmm����omm�moo��m�mcu mmdm���0mmmmmmdmo EEEMFU F-wOF-r-(n w �-� cna tncncncncn(n(n0J>UJ¢(nU(na2wcDmU(ncn0 (n¢ (n �(nF-¢(n � tnacn(n¢ (n to a 157 O O W m^� to O m m Q N 0 N; m W (n Q (n (D Q N Q h m o 1 .- t to (n O M 0 0 0 t\ h D� M N N M W h co O t\ .- try O) r Q 0 0 O �- � O� 0 0 0 0 •- (D O o o N �- 0 0 '- �- .- o o M O as (D O (n Q O o M (No O �n O O N (D Q rn Q pOj M J J J J U J J J J 0 N a) E U L o w N 0 N m E 0 m 0 m m cl0 ° 0 U d U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n a O EA (f3 O !H t9 O Vi 0 0 In V) to EA o C EA EH E9 fA (n O to O '- b9 O EA (A (f1 b9 o (n (n O 0 c (n o O c (n o o v a o rn N V lC Lo n M O (n of (n o w In D7 to (�9 O rn N U9 T VHN m m N M N V to .- M to to to t!3 to to to to r to -J-JJ JJ J U J J J J U zaa aaaa a aRaaaa w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w �ln (n J(n (n Q(n In In (n J(n (n (n (n_j 0 Un Q(n WWM J J Q } } a } } LL } } } } a } > } } a } }. LL } } } } a a LL J J J J J? J J J W W J J J J J� W W W> J J J J Zto (n (/J (!J}(n CO CO (n (n to CO (n �>>(n}(n(n 0(n>>Q�>} w w D w w a W w w w 7) w w W W D w 00 W a w W w W 0 0 D 0 a U d' -- w' a, Q� J LL' J W' ' J -� W w H H H H H H H H H H w H H H F- W = D D> 7) D Z) D Z) Z) n Z) D> Z) D D Z) > LL LL (L LL D LL LL 4. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O LL LL LL LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n o O O V O (n O O g O O O O O O to a0 N O O O (n In 0 0 0 In In 0 0 0 0 N O � O O rn O M O m o W r� r (D N 0 (n to (n M M N N N � (n � � N � r V' .- � � � N � � •- � N � M M � V' � r- '- � N M M N M� 00000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o (n( m (D O N V r' V (D — 0 0 C Mr" r r o O aJ (n (n d• M V' Cl (n N N N N N— N N N N N N (n O M r O rn ( a2 m M N O m O m v 0 rn O MO N LL) N M M V aJ '- (D V N o M O O M 1� M N (n N V' r— (D (n In. - o o .- O O o o o o o O o 0 o— M o 0 o o o- O o o O o O O o 0 O J a m H '0 a O m — N cc C C mf Uo UcmU °J 0 02 > E 7mm o T o w$° w m m m m m� c m (i m E m (n is W U E .°� o o m 0° > a N Q° E 0 o 6- S o °' 0 0 `" o 0 o m> s m = o m o m o m m o m= m o m o (n U m o o , y (n > .m I o �° m o � 0 Q—� m� U m� r o 0 0. N 0 c � " 0 m m w m 0 m m o> o m o m 0 o c m o 0 0 ?:E E E a`) IL W W o `m U o� m 0. a Z> -- (n � 0 m 0 LL 11- -0 o U m 5 C E E a o o ll�m o a o a o rn -0 U (n m o m m S o U= c O C C m m w C 0 m C C 3 O� 0 a) O` O` o o C M T Q' @ 0 0 0 0 T T EEgmmacu EJm�mJ�mmmo' oE0 000 m m m y o u o 0 m m "a N o om m o 2 2 o m Q o n o m a 0 L L 0 0 0 C m c m c U c m c 2 c c r U v, C E' dU W W 2i Un Q in Q in W(n Q�¢ Un W ln(n(10 W -Z>U>ma Um 0 0 W J K W IL V) V) 0 U W O zz K L) tL 0 c C Z m Co > _ m N m m 0 0 a o C (n .0 0) m E o o a m o_ o T C a OV h C 0 U m E O C N N 1] 7 (Y m C T T N j O = N m, < -D mJ m =.�.E c m m 2 c. > E o mo o n m a > 0 0 a �a u y m C7 moa E m 22 o E 0 m m m m mm m0�mm mmmm�mmo� cc,)mm�omm�m�om` (n(nUW UwUC�(n>(n(n¢ ¢atn(naUUwcn(n22:rC) cnaaU 158 J V Q 2 z W CO O (n J a W > LL U 7 } J = -'�W tai U) >> z j0 0 _j 0 W LU > > LL O 0 0 0 A V V y N U U U 11V U LL IL IL v a(ovwLL Q U U N M tT 0 e- N M • • • • �.i Maintained Local Roads Attachment "C" LPnath Cost Street Segment (miles) Alamo Dolores to Honda 0.55 $83,096.59 Alcantara Marchant to Marchant 0.22 $32,727.27 Alegre Atascadero Road to end 0.08 $11,988.64 Alturas Balboa to Del Rio 1.04 $156,250.00 Amargon Falda to San Anselmo 0.321 $48,295.45 Andrita Sierra Vista to Casanova 0.10 $15,028.41 Arcade EI Camino Real to EI Corte 0.35 $52,130.68 Ardilla Monterey to south of Balboa 0.70 $104,687.50 Ardilla Atascadero Mall to San Anselmo 1.01 $151,761.36 Arena San Benito to Yerba 0.651 $96,960.23 Arizona Estrada to San Jacinto 0.37 $55,681.82 Arroyo Gancho to Rosario 0.19 $28,750.00 Ash Street EI Camino Real to Catalpa 0.08 $12,698.86 Bajada Traffic Way to Dulzura 0.33 $49,431.82 Balboa Graves Creek to San Fernando 1.33 $198,863.64 Barranco Carmelita to end 0.58 $86,875.00 Barranco Heights Barranco to Lucinda Lane 0.11 $16,875.00 Barrenda Alamo to Traffic Way 0.42 $63,636.36 Bella Vista San Marcos to end 0.74 $110,738.64 Birch Catalpa to end 0.05 $7,556.82 Buena Miramon to end 0.16 $23,437.50 Cabrillo Ensenada to Capistrano 0.32 $48,153.41 Capistrano West Mall to Santa Ysabel 0.32 $48,295.45 Carmelita San Andres to Curbaril 0.46 $69,715.91 Carrizo Traffic Way to EI Camino Real 0.56 $83,607.95 Casanova Andrita to Carmelita 0.60 $89,829.55 Cascabel Santa Lucia to Ardilla 0.69 $103,267.05 Cascada EI Centro to EI Camino Real 0.09 $12,897.73 Castano Maleza to Palomar 0.55 $83,096.59 Castenada Lane Toloso to end 0.20 $29,829.55 Catalpa San Rafael to end 0.23 $34,801.14 Cebada Santa Ana to end 0.30 $44,971.59 Cemetery Capistrano to Mercedes 0.15 $22,443.18 Cenegal Laurel to end 1.08 $161,931.82 Chandler Lane San Rafael to end 0.10 $14,318.18 Chico Traffic Way to Del Rio 0.20 $29,261.36 Colima San Benito to San Anselmo 0.61 $91,477.27 Colorado San Rafael to San Diego 0.50 $0.00 Conejo Ramona to end 0.15 $22,727.27 Coromar Marchant to Portola 0.72 $107,698.86 Corona Santa Ana to end 0.76 $113,636.36 Corriente San Fernando to end 0.76 $113,636.36 Corriente Llano to end 0.14 $21,306.82 Cortez Maleza to end 0.49 $73,494.32 Country Club Capistrano to Mercedes 0.13 $20,028.41 Cristobal San Andres to Curbaril 0.41 $61,903.41 Cuesta Court San Rafael to end 0.13 $19,886.36 Del Rio San Gregorio to San Gregorio 1.70 $255,681.82 159 Devon Court Santa Ynez to end 0.05 $6,875.00 Dolores San Anselmo to Traffic Way 0.96 $143,607.95 Dulzura Gancho to Fresno 0.59 $88,068.18 East Front San Gabriel to Santa Rosa 0.38 $57,301.14 East Mall EI Camino Real to Lewis 0.15 $22,727.27 EI Centro Arcade to Cascada 0.07 $9,801.14 EI Corte Arcade to La Linea 0.29 $42,840.91 EI Dorado Arcade to La Linea 0.24 $35,426.14 EI Monte Santa Lucia to City Limits 0.76 $113,636.36 EI Verano Dolores to Vida 0.51 $76,704.55 Enchanto Balboa to end 0.49 $73,863.64 Ensenada Capistrano to Capistrano 0.42 $63,210.23 Entrada Lewis to EI Camino Real 0.15 $22,159.09 Escalon Miramon to Hildago 0.08 $11,647.73 Estrada San Ansemo to San Jacinto 0.37 $55,397.73 Falda San Benito to Amargon 0.30 $45,596.59 Flores Santa Lucia to Los Gatos 0.21 $31,306.82 Fresno San Jacinto to Rosario 0.34 $50,284.09 Gabarda Curbaril to Wastewater Plant 0.44 $65,823.86 Gancho Dolores to Rosario 0.46 $69,744.32 Garcero Santa Ana to end 0.45 $67,045.45 Garcia Santa Cruz to east end U.61 $91,9tS8.b4 Graves Creek San Fernando to Santa Ana 0.38 $56,818.18 Hermosa Navarette to San Clemente 0.19 $28,323.86 Hermosilla Cayucos to San Jacinto 0.30 $45,738.64 Hildago Sycamore to Sycamore 0.35 $52,272.73 Honda Traffic Way to Bajada 0.30 $45,738.64 Junipero EI Camino Real to end 0.68 $101,988.64 La Canada Del Rio to end 0.28 $42,613.64 La Linea EI Corte to State Route 101 0.46 $69,659.09 La Luz San Benito to Arena 0.46 $69,460.23 La Paz Atascadero Road to end 0.27 $41,221.59 Lake View Portola to Santa Rosa 0.47 $70,511.36 Las Lomas EI Bordo to end 0.45 $68,039.77 Laurel Santa Lucia to end 0.43 $63,920.45 Lewis Traffic to East Mall 0.38 $56,818.18 Liga Arena to Amargon 0.18 $27,500.00 Llano Santa Lucia west to Balboa 1.61 $241,477.27 Lomitas Santa Lucia to end 0.99 $149,147.73 Los Gatos Santa Lucia to end 0.48 $72,244.32 Los Osos San Rafael to Old Morro Road East 1.14 $170,596.59 Lucinda Lane Entire length 0.35 $52,982.95 Magdelena Cemetery to Mercedes 0.22 $33,380.68 Magnolia Capistrano to Mercedes 0.27 $39,772.73 Maleza Castano to Cortez 0.08 $11,931.82 Maple EI Camino Real to Catalpa 0.08 $12,698.86 Marchant Morro Road to Portola 1.37 $205,255.68 Marchant Way Pismo to Santa Rosa 0.33 $49,318.18 Maricopa San Anselmo to end 0.54 $80,397.73 Mariquita Rosario to Olmeda 0.26 $38,778.41 Miramon Sycamore to Sycamore 0.48 $72,727.27 Monita ISan Gabriel to Sierra Vista 0.19 $28,948.86 160 • • • • • Montecito Las Lomas to East Front 0.16 $24,573.86 Monterey Court Monterey to end 0.09 $14,204.55 Mountain View Portola to Santa Rosa 0.46 $69,403.41 Musselman EI Camino Real to end 0.27 $40,767.05 Nacimiento Atascadero Mall to end 0.11 $15,965.91 Navajoa Santa Ynez to Curbaril 0.79 $119,034.09 Navarette San Marcos to Santa Lucia 0.59 $87,869.32 Navidad EI Verano to Vida 0.21 $31,420.45 Nogales Dolores to Dulzura 0.78 $116,818.18 Obispo Traffic Way to Del Rio 0.63 $94,772.73 Old Morro Road Morro Road to Morro Road 1.64 $245,880.68 Old Morro Road East Morro Road to Morro Road 0.43 $63,920.45 Olmeda San Jacinto to West Mall 0.76 $113,636.36 Palma San Jacinto To East Mall 0.81 $122,159.09 Palomar Yesal to EI Camino Real 0.97 $145,965.91 Paseo Pacifico Santa Cruz to end 0.13 $19,062.50 Pinewood Court Catalpa to end 0.05 $6,931.82 Pino Solo La Linea to Principal 0.33 $49,659.09 Plata Lane EI Camino Real to end 0.09 $13,863.64 Potrero Traffic Way to Del Rio 0.34 $50,482.95 Prado Court San Rafael to end 0.09 $13,920.45 Principal EI Camino Real to Las Lomas 0.15 $22,159.09 Pueblo Sombrilla to San Luis Avenue 0.34 $50,284.09 Ramona Del Rio to Monterey 1.17 $175,028.41 Rayar Lomitas to Nudoso 0.06 $8,522.73 Ridgeway Court Rosario to end 0.04 $5,681.82 Robles Santa Ysabel to Sombrilla 0.09 $13,778.41 San Andres Atascadero Avenue to Marchant 0.27 $40,056.82 San Ardo Arena to Dolores 0.23 $35,227.27 San Clemente San Marcos to San Marcos 0.44 $65,568.18 San Diego Road Atascadero Road to State Route 101 0.59 $88,068.18 San Diego Road San Dimas to City Limits 0.52 $78,125.00 San Diego Way EI Camino Real to State Route 101 0.24 $36,022.73 San Dimas Lane Los Osos to end 0.10 $14,687.50 San Dimas Road Los Osos to San Diego Road 0.66 $99,431.82 San Gregorio Garcia to Santa Ana 2.37 $355,113.64 San Guillermo San Gabriel to end 0.17 $25,085.23 San Lucas EI Monte to end 0.21 $31,250.00 San Luis Avenue Pueblo to Curbaril 0.23 $34,517.05 San Palo San Anselmo to Ardilla 0.47 $71,221.59 San Pedro Gancho to Alamo 0.191 $28,409.09 San Rafael EI Camino Real to State Route 101 0.12 $18,210.23 San Rafael Atascadero Road to West Front I C'-- +„ I „C ncnc 0.51 n 46 $77,130.68 569.034.09 oaii F1.01 Out San Ramon -- Del Rio to Caltrans right of way 0.28 $42,471.59 San Vincente Dolores to San Jacinto 0.31 $46,022.73 Santa Ana Santa Cruz to Lot 10 0.30 $45,454.55 Santa Ana Santa Lucia to Balboa 2.46 $369,318.18 Santa Fe EI Corte to EI Dorado 0.12 $17,755.68 Santa Ynez Morro Road to Morro Road 1.14 $170,312.50 Serra Atascadero Avenue to San Andres 0.17 $25,369.32 IS erra Vista IMonita to San Marcos 0.31 $47,017.05 161 Sinaloa Curbaril to Pueblo 0.24 $35,653.41 Solano EI Camino Real to La Linea 0.15 $22,301.14 Sombrilla Curbaril to end 0.64 $96,022.73 Sycamore Capistrano to Miramon 0.85 $126,988.64 Tampico Gabarda to end 0.33 $49,715.91 Tecolote Llano to gate 0.08 $11,363.64 Toloso San Dimas to City Limits 0.44 $65,568.18 Tunitas Bajada to Traffic Way 0.36 $53,409.09 Valle Palomar to end 1.15 $172,869.32 Venado Santa Lucia to Ardilla 0.78 $116,363.64 Via Traffic Way to Ensenada 0.13 $19,034.09 Vida Nogales to San Jacinto 0.64 $96,676.14 Violeta Santa Lucia to Aguila 0.30 $45,653.41 Vista San Marcos to Ibsen Tract 0.28 $41,789.77 West Front Portola to State Route 101 0.96 $143,409.09 Willow EI Camino Real to end 0.02 $3,181.82 Yerba Estrada to Dolores 0.29 $43,181.82 Yesal Curbaril to Castano 0.21 $31,704.55 TOTAL 76.31 $11,372,244.32 162 • • 163 Non -City Maintained Roads Attachment "D" Length Street Segment (miles) Aguila Venado to Venado 0.85 Alondra Santa Barbara to end 0.23 Alta Vista Navarette to Navarette 0.38 Amapoa Curbaril to Portola 0.40 Aragon Tampico to end 0.05 Ardilla Portola west to end 0.14 Ardilla Graves Creek to end 0.11 Ardilla Balboa to end 0.38 Artiga Balboa to end 0.05 Atajo Chauplin to end 0.05 Atascadero Mall EI Camino Real to State Route 101 0.04 Atascadero Road Santa Barbara to end 0.09 Aurora Tampico to end 0.05 Avenal Pismo to Santa Rosa 0.05 Azucena Curbaril to Portola 0.42 Balboa Otereo to Llano 0.47 Bolsa Santa Lucia to end 0.28 Calle Cynthia EI Camino Real to end 0.09 Calle Refugio Via Tortuga to end 0.07 Campbell Lane EI Camino Real to end 0.11 Campo Monterey to end 0.14 Casitas Sierra Vista to end 0.24 Cayucos San Anselmo to Lobos 0.33 Cemetary Mercedes to end 0.28 Chauplin Venado to Santa Lucia 0.57 Cholare Morro Road to end 0.14 Chorro Santa Lucia to end 0.38 Circle Oak San Rafael to end 0.14 Cole Court Portola to end 0.09 Constancia Marchant to end 0.05 Corta Santa Lucia to end 0.04 Cortez North end 0.05 Cortina Pinal to Valle 0.19 Cristobal Curbaril east to end 0.21 Curvado Circle Dolores to Dolores 0.14 Eagle Creek Court Santa Barbara to end 0.14 EI Centro Cascada to end 0.14 EI Descanso Larga to end (2 sections) 0.09 EI Parque Pismo to Santa Rosa 0.09 EI Retiro San Andres to end 0.11 Encinal Valle to end 0.28 Encino Santa Lucia to end 0.42 Escarpa Pinal to Valle 0.19 Escondido Portal to end 0.47 Falda Amargon to San Anselmo 0.30 Gallina Llano to end 0.11 Gusta EI Camino Real to end 0.09 Hermosilla Cayucos to Lobos 0.09 163 Hospital Drive Capistrano to Capistrano 0.22 Jaquima Corona to end 0.09 Jolon Barrano to end 0.11 Jornada Lane EI Camino Real to end 0.19 Juanita Sombrilla to end 0.09 Juarez Barrenda to end 0.09 La Costa EI Camino Real to end 0.11 La Uva EI Camino Real to end 0.05 Larga Navarette to San Clemente 0.38 Las Casitas EI Camino Real to Los Pueblos 0.24 Linda Vista Navarette to end 0.11 Lobos San Anselmo to Nogales 0.43 Lobos Court Lobos Lane to end 0.05 Lobos Lane Nogales to end 0.19 Los Cerritos San Andres to Navarette 0.09 Los Pueblos Las Casitas to Las Casitas 0.28 Madera Place EI Camino Real to end 0.09 Maleza Castano to Pinal 0.28 Mananita Dolores to Estrada 0.24 Marco Lane EI Camino Real to end 0.15 Maya Lane EI Camino Real to end 0.15 Mira Flores San Andres to end 0.11 Montura Lane Coromar to end 0.05 Nudoso Rayar to Lomitas 0.57 Ortega Atascadero Road south to City Limits 0.52 Otero Balboa to end 0.38 Pajaro Coromar to end 0.19 Palo Verde Old Morro Road to Lot 19 0.76 Pequina Larga to Larga 0.19 Pescado Venado to end 0.13 Piedras Altos Curbaril to Portola 0.38 Pinal Curbaril to end 0.66 Portal San Marcos to end 1.04 Portola Way Portola to end 0.09 Ramage Portola to end 0.09 Realito Vista to end 0.38 Rio Rita Del Rio to end 0.24 Rivera Bonica to Maduro 0.14 Ropa Court San Gregorio to end 0.38 Rosita Avenue San Anselmo to Nogales 0.38 Rosita Court San Anselmo to end 0.09 San Benito EI Camino Real to State Route 101 0.09 San Carlos San Rafael to City Limits 0.14 San Cayetano Cenegal to end 0.38 San Fernando Monterey to Balboa 0.85 San Francisco Marchant to Azucena 0.19 San Gabriel San Marcos to Santa Lucia 1.04 San Marcos Sierra Vista to Portal 0.85 San Marcos Los Altos westerly to end 0.71 San Rafael Los Osos to easterly end 0.19 Santa Barbara Atascadero Road to Atascadero Road 0.13 Santa Cruz Ramona to Graves Creek 0.09 164 Santa Cruz EI Camino Real to Traffic Way 0.47 Santa Cruz Garcia to Graves Creek 0.28 Sausalito Balboa to end 0.14 Seperado San Jacinto to San Anselmo (2 sections) 0.38 Serena Mercedes to end 0.38 Sierra Vista Monita easterly 0.19 Silla Colima to end 0.23 Sonora Pinal to Valle 0.28 Tecorida San Andres north to end 0.19 Tecorida Curbaril to end 0.05 Tecorida Marchant to end 0.05 Tecorida San Andres south to end 0.14 Tranquilla San Anselmo to Rosita 0.24 Vega Ardilla to end (2 sections) 0.28 Vernalis Tampico to end 0.19 Via Tortuga Atascadero Road to Coromar 0.25 Viscano Dolores to end 0.24 Vista Ibsen Tract 0.47 TOTAL 29.43 11 • 165 166 � � � 02 . % 2 2 IL 22= 2_ & o 7§� e© §f E__ ± 22 »{w � 2 ® =Jt g =§o a� /0 3 % rE ±{L z -0k )§ Z I w < 0 W � 2 U } �� ° 1 k 22 7= 0 mac■ �0P §f2 %-\ �% §e &o£ &�) 2\y o 2� §�) 2�a oao E§� oo- 0 o$LL Q O■■ �g »,±£ -1oo »2f§ 012 2�\c a2_o »\2\ ou2o »\f§ o -g - ® §>E o® &p�2 Em e=�� Er �2>E o �E:E m2 c � m e&; f 77 7&§ $0 IL §}< J�3 fe J�# 0 ƒf � f� \� f$ \ � � 2�\k�&k \ / _ /\» / ■� =:28 17 = 7e �rn _ o� U 3 ±;�3L I ±¥ / \) ƒ f ))e 6 r r � 2�■2£� _ _ � _ _ \LL=a) I I 3 I I U) C E 0) {- )/ ec■E COO E2\ =< E)c <3� K)% =<e 2> �4� �2\0 5U,; k> �K� 2;b �7� �k��� >U) E w 2 E G3 Eo ��. 0 4) » -0 §I ID » ) » % /ff2 \ /f7} \ Z 2 m L)% %$■��cc uc=0 / E 12 0Ccwp E Z_ �§2 o!e�1sm22 �a E � � k� � k§/E� k� 2 2���-- 3 cU)C p ui 2/ƒ02[ / a $� �/ 2ƒ«k_ o�i 4t °jacn §ƒ //� �k_ \. / 2 [ »j ■\M e o te L) @/�co, _j M< U\ fR 166 � � � 9 E 0 167 CD $ 2 / . a 22= ' ■2 .2:, £ 2w �20g �B E\CD Q� »5\ »§z »27&2 oma- oma. oo- 5_0 ± .ef �,� a§\ �/< /cc \ \ � CL 0 k �I� } k k= z z tk6 §kf 200 2§\ 2k& �c2 w_ 0 �_ o0A W¥ 0 �_ §o2 005 O.2 �U- LL �Uc 'aL _ oa0 #§a2 »2�£ �Q3£ »_�£ �7� »Q22 o��m \�°° >E>E \��© \�$( �� 2 ��e 22. ��s ��§ 0. few E>E 00 ƒ�§ 2>E 00 \J§ L cU) §I2 J$2 2. §$J J/2 �_ § 21 > ��/ 2 \ k 0� k)/ �2_ §«22 §\a �2 o- 5�- 03� 5202 ���f 5-§ ��� �/m 3 § £ ±� U� �m Ic$o �/ &� / v ƒr0 7 / & ± £ ± 22 2 I cu �m§ - cc \ k k �■ 2 ® �CD / E£o £ 2» Q; £ m ■ ■E 2no a a 2 //k %ia. b\ \ \\0 a§� s �7� ¢§ ƒ w f � � k ° § Kk/ § §r § -k/ amts �I 9 af3 eo // k 00 /R/ m 0 c �220 \E \/ /Jd zw \ 3 2§ c/c 22 0)7§7 0 0% Z dam \cz ■a2/ �0-0w §mak02 0.20 2 E 2 2§£ 2 t o° c° 0 ��� $��� MCa w2//� ■ 2k « 167 • • • C M (h M r � •O r r r r r IL N D y C m C N M 0 'O f0 0 > m C V W 7 V L aa)�[ Of L �c y '� OIm LU C L c- N �Nami mW -0 C C: U) �+r = 2 U Y`o 2 da' w~ Np�r c =� Y 2U>yU rn= m +CO+ V Q 3 cn N v> a IL ., w U m E c 0 Zv_ 0 Zv_ o Z� m c rn d o 0) N m« Enm a) O N m a) 0'6 CD y m 0 0 0 0 4 m w•cv0=%=0M4J C 41 C C N ;•-0 o o i M'C -c 00U00a)> CW2 mO 3 " _ .m'C-mVCmdp U D p ._C1 -O -0 LL -0 L LL S, a) o =�'nC�a O J O d �= =2 OJO OOOJ Lu cc OOQ •aC3 O {.L(�,+� J3 T Of> E > E O N >>-0 )) J O C OU) Oh N O'Oc 'O (D a E O 'a3C=�O) c00 «O 2;,O N 0 N (n < a)w•a 0�c yr ma o>U 7 Y J J 0 p J y 7 Y N C p _ V m m c « o o m c '0 .O- CDc O L cn V r 0 O P)m 2 ) �� m _�� �� m 2U� m y v _� �� m 2U� U N Z c m O U m U) LL D = i ` cm C N L N Q) rn cu CD _ccm _rn >,p C 'a cc L)(D 0 9> 'o m-0 O N o o ' 01 N FO Ea '> � od Q oin J O vN m� go cL W E m a y JX c;)tmCL a •3 � L 'D C H 'O Y C C m0 '0 La T Y C ; C m 0 Y rn O� O J =U.. 003:,- JCOO c>� J 03>wo@m Jmc2 -as0rm IL 0O �. = 7 m m m v m O v = d 00 O O .. O O E,a?6_ > o 0C) O D 7 3 J Z u= N d 'a p o 0 O aci Q> N U O O Y C C G1 W N O > a Q- lc ui c a p a o a) m � a m O Z w O p> m N La -p U) rn o _� °o o e�O R' L)> ev 0.0 m C� �e U core L O !Q O�� O— O m� C1 C•a (A Q e0 cc (6 —_ m 'C r o d U) m a� m a> ��°Q Q# Na U • • • 0 169 / o . a 020 /\2 � > �k ) 2 ��/§7 2 4) a 2 u o ± ± o « &f a �Q aI1 �cr kkE o W_ \s e 2§£ �£ ' �g 005 k�) o c / \-10 / { 11 • CL§ ' �/ ME2 2 � § 2 \\§ ��k e k IML _j 0)< (>o / \ E� C ell 2a 0 k0.0 0\ 0 U) k § Q �_j @ r c CLo =■2 -cam®■� = c 2 ■ nCL M & M ± f , M _U) -a 11 00 � © E cn © � Ck�§t § k2 $ CD CL.- o 0 3 P E� 2 c � Wo � n . - W_ 0-0 co E-§ c \_ 0/ 0 a. k K ■ e CD COO 2 »p $■ k.2 � f § § LU m 2$ « a_ r.L z r- 00 (�% 22§� I p 00 oR 2§ Q ■� 169 N t U 170 • • O o + 0 c + C 0 co 40 -eo N N N O C4ti mN9O O O w V- e�o� O� �' 040 S3 Ix to to C N O O w� O eo U mm� O m = c R >r m Q L. to C9 C9 Q G O O O to O O O O O O C G O OCD O O 60, O c ��,Q 0 0 to <a o r o r I o 'et W to l0 N Cl) CO) CO) N JJ mmm v> 4a. � `o U N Z O � °' rn IL m a) N QU Q U) W p Ca. >1 >.0 _0 z I>CU I 1 I I I v 1 Wego t'oa tea ego w W W I w w N (Y > 'p C -1) O t`o v to to t`a t`o to to w "0Ur S3 S7 >3 m 'O 0 S3 IL c c c cc C cc c cc C mD m C N U) U) W mN r� N Qo L) U) U U U U U ca C) U O O V m C13 to N N > a� Q c ` o 0 Y @ ' �° � � m E � o a m cc > 0-p OQ U N W Q S3 V E O Z m � p ° t�0(� � � c� � � � * o mac: 0 � ow I m ea � 'a °' cc O 0 ; g 0 :;w > N S7 0 p J 0 =C: 0 O" ww Q 7 cc 1 O C O Z E U w-0 O U 0:Ix 0 U) it J N L.E Cc 0 C tU 0 O +�+ > � Q I O to OU N y O 7 C O i c Q U to U O U L-w ca Q to U) Ui J m U • • C7 • • 171 o� -o co CL �N I c RE r i (n fR as m O � C :a + 0 0 0 0 .a CD N m 0 0 O C O 0 O O o O o O �° y= N GLO O N Or le4 'CM p_ m to 40 iA iA fA iA fRcl 49. 40T O a) > a) I d O a V .a O 0o .a a n = ea to Co e0 t0 lC � r w W. W. 0 �Y �Q a a V '0 e`a w w w w �o .a o o C O C m C = cc w r lC w 4 O N co N to NM N co N U U 5 U U U V V U U c m m O O °' 0 Y T >"O ° c V N 0 'D O -O N oU c ao oE EmL) we -0 o m a Uw� m U �m� a aO �O > O C C O >a) M 75 (1)cc O LCN) O a) a)- O O U 0 ca O NN C� C� 0c: U O Z C W co d lE M > O 'D ed -Q)-DO (n f0 Q a C U N U f0 N Q C C O ` V C7 N Q <w 171 LL Z W U Q Q if 172 000 ' ' ' ' ' O O O O ' ' ' v O ' O ' ' ' ' ' O ' ' "T a) N v 00 CO O OD N O O M co O 0) 1- NLOO O It NO m O v O 1� 00 N N CD O 'i L T O T •� CD cq O N - v� N T co V U O O 00 O O O O p p O N r - Q C'M M O I O 0 0 � ONO N O 0) m co O M a) N LL M N LO Lt) 00 m m ' N CL) .T. L v M a) fn C!> U N CA i p i i p i 0 p i C) co i i p i i p O_ t0 'Ir Cl O O 0 a) OD CO L[) tt CO T OD 0) N � C N N C O m U Q m p i p T O In LO LO C CA O 00 OO O d r M M "=' C v d N O N O N O LL C1 O (L C T O O O ' ' ' ' O O O ' O ' ' ' ' ' ' ' T O ' O N N O N T Ln O O O O T LLQ O O CO 03 N L` O� � Cn O OD M V - O LC) I U S C J Q LO Cl) CO h CA 00 O co v LO N T o) ti Cl) N co Cfl O 0) Cn LC) co LL U) CO - h Cl) � d CO F T F- co T 000 ' ' ' ' ' ' O ' ' ' ' OOOT OOO U O N T O CA OD Oi-OD O OD T O 0) LOOfl- CY) Cp O O ON T L- O O O ONv O O O C) O v N v to v N O CO Nr Cn O CO N d C OD CO LO 0) N I M L- N CA N co 00 0) LO O N M LO CD 0 M CNI _ O LL T N N T 'a m U 0 0 c_ c U U c -0 c U c aNi CU U a) O eif U d U C C O IL a) _o c0 a) C CCU E N o N .- o� C O C`6 d O O O O C L a 'C O) m U 0) CO O aa'i _ •p m 0) C «� m C M O C aa� •C o E (D0 o °� U) o� � � m Q (D M wm0 a) a) Mcoa!a a) a) pm= CO >- p— E ca o = c =gym Q'p O T - N CO a) Lo ` >+ to > C > m m ` N (D Lo 0 N Co L 2 d a E E- L a) O' — a) m C CO O 0) O U_ C D ca 2 U a O O C N U O 0 O, a) a) >, W O 70 O a)m O Q E T :a3) CO n >- N > O 3 -0- C Cp @ a) w O -W co N O > 3 mmN N COL O O=0 a) w 0)a)�zg , � O'OO CO p.. j�>� OCO O N p) 0 2 >1 N N N C U) C Q O 0 U CO co O M m O O N Q U to a O (n U) O) .r N 0- L O CO C f0 O (� N`> N CO C p) ` C 'V Q 0 C O p O O fn 0) C) L a) to 00 a) O O N b V O C U U '0 f� N C � 0 CON V a 7 'p N U d CO 7 0 C O a) O V 0 0C c C 0 U M C Cp N O t N C N a) �� N -p m N p C 0 U C O c (>oo C N C O O CO O O C�tnN F-(nQ'�J�O�cnZd� O CSO CO N m u G >0(D c'ON�'Qcn2U) p fC6 C N C6 0 _ d d m m m N m m C_ i5 C LL m Co C) C C � 0 U N 0 IL I C m a C a) E a) 0 Q i (6 C2 cu U cu N } S • m 0 0 0 0 1 O 1 1 1 1 St O ' 0 1 1 1 1 O� O 1 1 1 1 1 &-I- )-I'N O (1) O O 00 O— O O - C ' ' O O O O ' ' ' O c O to CD 7 O— N O 0 M O co O O LL O N O O Nvet O N O O v —co O N O CII0 O O a) cn O ti N O L O O M m . ° •— U) t O O N C O 0 1 1 O I 1 1 1 1 C C 0� 00 N `n c aa)) N M00 O c N o O j Cl) LO co) N M O N Co 0= co J0. LL CA 00 0 Cl) N co a) co cc d�� 0a N a) N C cc m 0 E c� O 'o O O w a) O F - > C Q c 0 0 0 d� m C U U E c� - N M a) (n E > C� m I " � � (n E 4) a) 00 M > a) 0 M Cfi d J `-' > W> 0 O (O U 9 a) CL N T CO o c o c a) E� o c 0 m m c-0 - mm E.5 O c U3 m 0 CU� - to M M 0 C m O ' C) ' ' ' ' ' ' O O ' O O ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' O O ' O O ' ' ' O U O O U C Cl) O O O y U U C C C� 0 a) 0 m Ca C.) CO O M O O O 0 a) c M >O(9 OO a0 C9 Fs O W X00 N O O O a �w N O O O N C1 E N O co N O It Cl CO O O O CD (1) r O O Cl) 1- (D O `7 M r` (D N LL OD O v r N LL a) r - WZ 2 (2 O 1 C) 1 1 I 0 1 1 cr) 0 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 CD C) 1 0 1 1 O 1 tm c (a O_ o O o O Cl O O O Co O O O o N 0 CD 0 O U F- to N 0 N N ti O QO O 0) N O Cl) �- � Cl) N CV m� v Q m V Q y} ttt m C_ i5 C LL m Co C) C C � 0 U N 0 IL I C m a C a) E a) 0 Q i (6 C2 cu U cu N } S • m 0 0 0 00 " o " ' O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 C O O O CD O O O .- 0-0 O 00 N CO N - C ' ' O O O O ' ' ' r r C) ' to CD 7 O N O 0 M O ti O O LL O r- co C> I-- C) Nvet C1 N O v —co co O N CCI) c J a) cn c ° ca Vi L O O M m . ° •— U) t ° ° C O 0 1 1 O 1 I 1 1 1 1 t . O O O `n c aa)) 0 to c (D O o O j Cl) O C U V N Co 0= co J0. LL CA co N co a) co cc d�� 0a N a) N C cc m 0 E c� O 'o O O w a) O F - > C Q c 0 0 0 d� m C U U E c� - N M a) (n E > C� m I " � � w 0 0 0 o o II o' O N O O 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O d O O t- 't L O 3 N ' � Lacu(tea U- ' ' O O O O ' ' ' C) ' 0- 0 0 1- O O) O cu O 0 M O ti O C) O o 0 1 I I I 1 1 1 I O N O O co co O 0 0 O O N (5 O O r r I- C) N C) ' � O ' ' ' ' O O O O ' ' ' C) ' O 0 0 1- O O) O O O 0 M O ti O O O r- co C> I-- C) Nvet 1- N O v —co co O 10 O Cl 0 v O O N O O CO O N r- N 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cf} CD L') v O � LO 'cr CN V- o O LO O N O N O O c o C ° c 5 v 000 0 0 1 666 O O LO 0 C) N N0N r ' � O 10 O Cl 0 v O O N O O CO O N r- N 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cf} CD L') v O � LO 'cr CN V- o O LO O N O N O O 173 c o C ° c 5 U O 7 O C rn () 2 in C O rn U E9 N O O _ C @LmN to '0 O N Q a N m U C N S � C a) Y (TE () N CCI) c J a) cn c ° ca L O O M m . ° •— U) t ° ° c C,) s c a) w C: a°i — w c N 'a o `n c aa)) — W c N N a) U• a) N= tp r 0= otS O C U V N Co 0= CiS C N O N ���� Q� O a) E N 2 0a- d�� 0a N a) N C cc m 0 E c� O 'o O O w a) O a) > C Q c 0 0 0 d� m C U U E c� - N M a) (n E > C� m I " � � (n E 4) a) 00 M > a) 0 M m _E N I- d J `-' > W> 0 O (O U 9 a) CL N T CO o c o c a) E� o c 0 m m c-0 - mm E.5 O c a) m -o a) --a m 0 CU� - to M M 0 C m (D O a) z N c0 ca ca a) c m N O rn '� ca a� CO m C 06 Cn () O L c •= a) . a) N CO O rn N (a C N C 3 O C J O M ° Ui a) . O m co w p) 06 C O 0 .`. �. L J C: m O> U (a LL C C Q '� j 'p 'N a) )n U .0 U (6 a3 LL C C U C C C Q O C O C tT N (d O a Q V C f° C to N C m y U U C C C� 0 a) 0 m Ca C.) CO O C Cn (Cp N a) C a) C . Ca N N 0 0 (p 0 O V a) 0 a) c a) U C_ a) a) . m O E U >O(9 E oQc)Wc) X00 c a0 C9 Fs cncnu» W X00 C �OC7 o5cn��Q c a �w d mw a m m 173 • • • 174 • Atascadero City Council Staff Report - Public Works Department Atascadero Trail Project RECOMMENDATION: ITEM NUMBER: C-4 DATE: 2/12/08 Council provide staff direction on the acceptance of the Atascadero Trail Project Grant. REPORT -IN -BRIEF: The Upper Salinas -Las Tables Resource Conservation District (RCD) was awarded an $833,868.00 grant from the Resource Agency of the State of California for the design and construction of the Atascadero Creek Trail and Restoration. The RCD has >� requested the City take over the Grant due to financial issues. This report will analyze factors to be considered in accepting the grant. DISCUSSION: Background: The Upper Salinas -Las Tables Resource Conservation District (RCD) was awarded an $833,868.00 grant from the Resource Agency of the State of California in 2003 for the design and construction of the Atascadero Creek Trail and Restoration Project (Project) (See Exhibit A for Grant Agreement and Budget). The Project is funded through Proposition 40 - River Parkways Grant Projects. The City has received a request from the RCD to take over the Grant and complete the Project. The reason the RCD gave for this request is "serious financial issues with the way that the Resources Agency administered the grant" (See Exhibit B for letter). City Staff have been in discussion with RCD Staff to find out all the details about the Project and their "financial issues." They said their issues are two fold: 1. The grant will only pay direct costs. These costs include staff salaries, health benefits, medicare, etc. The grant will not pay indirect costs like office space, utilities, printers, etc. The RCD Board had a problem with this because it did not have a funding source for indirect costs. 175 2. Reimbursement of expenses. This grant is designed to be a reimbursement of project expenditures. The expenses are supposed to be incurred by the RCD, the RCD pays the bills and a payment request is submitted to the Resources Agency. This creates a situation where the RCD is funding the project short term, until they are reimbursed. The RCD Board had a problem with this due to limited funds available to carry the debt. The Project is broken into two reaches as follows: Reach B-1. Reach B-1 is along or near Atascadero Creek from EI Camino Real to the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail at the Salinas River. This Reach has side spurs that go to Stadium Park and Colony Park Community Center. 176 1 ] C pw K ; "W,�-�1' AW vl! VW i s:.�F .yam, i' $"';,� ®: }tea 'VIX " '� i 4 + i .� y 'r A t •'�'k � 'a_, wfy � � k +wa , A IT Reach Bill T;qT[�.. ,may � rW _, .�g4J�md''..F Y'�{, �' 7'��.p-*Y � � '`✓ �JO'i yy h �% it KLEGE� �,ti ► -. 9 Existing 1 rails Proposed Restoration Juan BaLitista do Anza, National Hisb�rlc Trail imm F,,istiri Walking Path The RCD decided to build Reach B-2 first. The route of Reach B-2 was changed to end at San Gabriel Road instead of continuing to the Three Bridges due to neighborhood opposition. This Reach is now 75% constructed. Portions of the Reach, inside the Caltrans right-of-way, were not completed due to issues Caltrans had with the design. The RCD and Caltrans say these issues have been resolved. Construction documents now have to be revised and resubmitted to Caltrans for encroachment permit issuance to complete the work. The grant time line was extended in the last State Budget and all construction must be finalized and invoices submitted by May 2011. Analysis: Should the City take over the grant from the RCD? There are some issues to consider before this decision can be made. Below is a summary of these issues. ➢ Trail Route Reach B-1 The current route for Reach B-1 is along or near Atascadero Creek from EI Camino Real to the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail at the Salinas River. There are design constraints with this route as follows: ✓ Right-of-way. Right-of-way along the route is not all publicly owned. Easements will need to be acquired to construct and use the trail. ✓ Parking. The trail may displace vehicles from parking along certain roads. ✓ Creek bank stability. In some areas Atascadero Creek bank is steep and unstable. The creek bank may need substantial repair in order to install the trail. Staff will have to deal with these and other issues with the acceptance of the grant. The City can revise the route with the approval of the Resource Agency. If the City Council wants to accept the grant, it is recommended that staff study potential routes and report back to the City Council on options, impacts and costs. ➢ Work to be completed Reach B-2 ✓ Construction Documents must be amended per the agreement the RCD had with Caltrans ✓ Plans submitted to Caltrans for approval ✓ The trail must be completed between Portola Road and San Gabriel Roads Reach B-1 ✓ City Council to give staff direction on the new route for this reach ✓ Complete topographic survey ✓ Environmental documents completed for the route 178 ✓ Permit applied for from Federal and State Agencies ✓ Right-of-way, if any, must be acquired ✓ Construction documents completed ✓ Construct ➢ Staffing City staff has a very large Capital Project Program planned in the current budget. There is no staff capacity to add additional projects; therefore current projects would need to be eliminated to provide the staff time necessary. If Council directs staff to assume this project, we anticipate much of the design work will be completed in house to keep costs down. Engineering services like geotechnical engineering, structural engineering and right-of-way services would be contracted out. Funding The total spent to date is: ✓ Design $148,200.00 ✓ Construction $199,204.00 ✓ Contingencies $98.00 The remaining funding is a total of $486,366.00, broken out as follows: ✓ right-of-way and Design 600.00 $ 35, ✓ Construction $442,566.00 ✓ Contingencies $ 8,200.00 Until a final route of Reach B-1 is determined staff is unable to estimate the design and construction costs. The remaining design budget is very small and will likely not be enough to complete the design work based on past experience. It is estimated the public process, design, right-of-way and construction could need an additional $200,000.00 to complete. Depending on the scope of the construction work, more funds could be needed. ➢ Controversy The planning and building of this trail will cause some public controversy. The RCD had neighborhood controversy in the planning of Reach B-2 west of San Gabriel Road. There have been discussions relating to the potential creek setback ordinance concerning trails. Staff recommends that if the City assumes the project and grant, that a public process to select the route and examine the impacts is initiated. • 179 Conclusion: Staff would like direction on the following questions: 01 Is the City Council interested in taking the Project over from the RCD? Where will the funding come from to complete the design, right-of-way, City indirect costs and others? What route should the trails take? FISCAL IMPACT: The public process, design, right-of-way and construction of this project could cost the City an estimated additional $200,000.00. The City does not have any funding for this project. If the City Council wants to assume this project, other protects must be eliminated or funds taken from the General Fund Reserve. The sources of funding we have that could be used are: • Paloma Park Playground ($225,000.00 General Fund) This project will replace the existing playground that is in disrepair. This project has started with public input on the Paloma Park Master Plan and the playground equipment has been bid out. The following projects are funded by the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency may fund projects in the RDA Area. If Council chooses to move forward with this grant, RDA funds may only be used on the portion of the trail from EI Camino Real to the railroad tracks. The following is a list of potential projects that can be eliminated in order to free up funds for the trail project. • Lake Park Sign and Frontage Renovation ($270,000.00 RDA) This Project will provide frontage improvements and signage for the Lake Park from Portola Road to the Zoo. The improvements would include landscaping and pedestrian access. • Shoreline Wall and Walkway Project ($355,000.00 RDA) This project will replace the collapsed retaining wall at Atascadero Lake edge between the Pavilion and the bandstand. It will provide better pedestrian access and complete a portion of the Atascadero Lake Master Plan. • Zoo Restroom Project ($263,000.00 RDA) This project will replace a small single, non ADA compliant bathroom at the Zoo with men's and woman's ADA compliant bathrooms. This is important for the continuing of the ZOO's accreditation. :m • • Zoo Entrance Improvement Project ($500,000.00 RDA) This project will replace an old leaky portable building that is used for the entrance booth and gift shop. This is important for the continuing of the ZOO's accreditation. • Zoo Wall and Signage Project ($270,000.00 RDA) This project will build an attractive 8 -foot tall wall between the Zoo and Morro Road. The wall will include signage about the Zoo. This is important for the continuing of the Zoo's accreditation. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Original "Atascadero Creek Trail and Restoration Project" Grant Agreement and Budget Exhibit B — Letter from Upper Salinas -Las Tables Resource Conservation District • • 181 • • 182 ATTACHMENT A State of California The Resources Agency — GRANT AGREEMENT California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and . Coastal Protection Act of 2002 Sierra Nevada Cascade River Parkways Grant Program (Proposition 40) • APPLICANT: Upper Salinas — Las Tablas Resource Conservation District PROJECT TITLE: Atascadero Creek Trail and Restoration Project AGREEMENT NUMBER: 40716-06 PROJECT PERFORMANCE PERIOD IS April 30, 2005 — May 1, 2007 Under the terms and conditions of this agreement, the applicant agrees to complete the project as described in the project description, and the State of California, acting through the Resources Agency pursuant to the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, agrees to fund the project up to the total state grant amount indicated. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See project description on page 1 and Exhibit A of the Agreement Total State Grant not to exceed $ 833,868. (or project costs, whichever is less) The Special and General Provisions attached are made a part of and incorporated into the Agreement. UPPER SALINAS- LAS TABLAS RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Applicant By Donald J. Funk Title Executive Director Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY Elaine Berghausen Title Deputy Assistant Secretary Date CERTIFICATION OF FUNDING AMOUNT OF ESTIMATE AGREEMENT NUMBER FUND FUNDING $833,368.00 40716-06 6029 Resources Bond (Prop 40) ADJ. INCREASING APPROPRIATION ENCUMBRANCE $" 006029-2002-101 ADJ. DECREASING FUNCTION ENCUMBRANCE $ Local Assistance UNENCUMBERED LINE ITEM ALLOTMENT CHAPTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR BALANCE . $ 0540-101-6029(6) 379 2002 2002 T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO. INDEX OBJ. EXPEND PCA PROJECTNVORK PHASE 540 751 10716 I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE 183 Agreement No. 40716-06 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY GRANT AGREEMENT California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 - River Parkways Grant Program (Proposition 40) GRANTEE NAME: UPPER SALINAS- LAS TABLAS RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROJECT TITLE: ATASCADERO CREEK TRAIL AND RESTORATION PROJECT AGREEMENT: 40716-06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Plan and construct 4.5 miles of pedestrian trail and trailside amenities along the Salinas River in the City of Atascadero in San Luis Obispo County. Amenities include interpretive signage, picnic tables, benches, pedestrian bridges and boardwalk. Approximately 40 acres of riparian habitat will also be -restored. Detailed project scope and activities, project schedule and project budget are described and attached hereto as Exhibit A. 0 Grantee agrees that if the Grant Funds are received and the property is developed, the development will provide improved river access, pedestrian trail linkages and trailside amenities for a minimum period of twenty (20) years. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF GRANT Special Provisions Recipients of Grant Funding pursuant to the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 shall post signs acknowledging the source of the funds pursuant to the sign guidelines issued by the Secretary of the Resources Agency. Size, location and number of signs are subject to mutual written agreement by Grantee and the State. Signage during construction phase must be in place before Grant Funds for construction will be released. As precedent to the State's obligation to provide funding, Grantee shall provide to the State for review and approval a revised detailed budget, specifications, work plan and detailed site plan. Approval by State of such plans and specifications, or any other approvals -provided for in this Grant Agreement, shall be for scope and quality of work and shall not relieve Grantee of the obligation to construct and maintain the facilities, or carry out any other obligations required by this Grant Agreement, in accordance with applicable law or any other standards ordinarily applied to such work or activity. As precedent to the State's obligation to make any funding available pursuant to this . Agreement, Grantee shall provide evidence satisfactory to the State no later than October 1, 2005 of a legal agreement entered into with the City of Atascadero that: 184 Page 1 . , jreement No. 40716-06 a. Grants permission. to the Upper Salinas — Las Tablas Resource Conservation District to develop the project on all properties owned by the city within the defined project area. b. Transfers responsibility for on-going operations and maintenance to the City of Atascadero for the completed Development on all properties within the defined project area for a period of not less than 20 years. 4. As precedent to the State's obligation to make any funding available pursuant to this Agreement, Grantee shall provide evidence satisfactory to the State no later than October 1, 2005 of the following: a. Certification from Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) that: • The Atascadero Land Preservation Society (ALPS) is not currently in breech of their Land Preservation Contract. ■ The AMWC will not exercise their first right of refusal on the subject properties after the trail has been developed. • The AMWC is aware that a grant has been awarded to the Upper Salinas — Las Tablas Resource. Conservation District for development of a trail on the subject properties. ■ The AMWC is aware that the completed Development must be operated and maintained for not less than 20 years and it grants permission to the City of Atascadero to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the completed trail for not less than 20 years. b. Certification from Atascadero Land Preservation Society (ALPS) that: It is aware that a grant has been awarded to the Upper Salinas — Las Tablas Resource Conservation District for development of a trail on the subject properties. • It is aware that the completed Development must be operated and maintained for not less than 20 years and it grants permission to the City of Atascadero to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the completed trail for not less than 20 years. General Provisions A. Definitions 1. The term "Act" means the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. 2. The term "Agreement" means grant agreement number 40716-06 3. The term "Application" as used herein means the individual application form and its required attachments for grants pursuant to the enabling legislation and/or program. 4. The term "Development" means improvements to real property by construction of new facilities or renovation or additions to existing facilities. 5. The term "Grant Funds" means the money provided by the State to the Grantee in this Agreement 6. The term "Grantee" means an applicant who has a signed agreement for grant funds. 7. The term "Project" means the acquisition, development or other activity described on page 1 of this Agreement to be accomplished with grant funds. 0 8. The term "State" means the State of California, Secretary of the Resources Agency. Page 2 :11 0 F -=reement No. 40716-06 i' Project Execution 1. Subject to the availability of Grant monies in the Act, the State hereby grants to the Grantee a sum of money (Grant Funds) not to exceed the amount stated on the signature page in consideration of and on condition that the sum be expended in carrying out the purposes as set forth in the description of Project in this Agreement and its attachments and under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Grantee shall assume any obligation to fumish any additional funds that may be necessary to complete the Project. 2. Grantee shall complete the Project in accordance with the time of Project performance set forth on the signature page, unless an extension has been formally granted by the State and under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Extensions may be requested in advance and will be considered in the event of circumstances beyond the control of the Grantee,but in no event abe and May_ 2007. 3. Grantee shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et. seq. Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) and other environmental laws before any Grant Funds for Acquisition or Development are made available. Grant Funds for planning and document preparation may be available sooner tf included in the grant work plan. CEQA compliance shall be completed within one (1) year from start date of the Agreement. 4. Grantee certifies that the Project plans comply with all current laws and regulations which apply to Development Projects, including, but not limited to, legal requirements for 6onstruction contracts, building codes, health and safety codes, and disabled access laws. Grantee shall certify to the State prior to commencement of construction that all applicable permits have been obtained. 5. Grantee shall permit periodic site visits by the State to determine K Development work is in accordance with the approved Project Scope, including a final inspection. upon Project completion. 6. Prior to the commencement of any work, Grantee agrees to submit in writing to the State for prior approval any deviation from the original Project Scope per Exhibit A and the Application. Changes in Project Scope must continue to meet the need cited in the original application or they will not be approved. Any modification or alteration in the Project as set forth in the Application on file with the State must be submitted to the State for approval. 7. Grantee shall provide for public access to the Project facilities. 8. Grantee must have (1) fee title, (2) leasehold, or (3) other interest to Project lands and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State that the proposed Project will provide public benefits that are commensurate with the type and duration. of the interest in land. 9. Grantee shall provide photographs of the site and the project during and after implementation of Project at the request of the State. C. Project Costs The Grant Funds to be provided to Grantee under this Agreement will be disbursed for eligible costs as follows, but not to exceed in any event the amount set forth on the signature page of this Agreement: a. On a reimbursement basis for preliminary costs or construction and development costs, ten percent (10%) of the reimbursement amount will be held back and issued as a final payment upon completion of the project. Page 3 ,eement No. 40716-06 • b. Remaining Grant Funds shall be paid up to the total amount of the Grant Funds or the actual Project cost, whichever is less, on completion of the Project, receipt of a detailed summary of Project costs from the Grantee found to be satisfactory by the State, and the satisfactory completion of a site inspection by the State. c. Advance payments may be made if warranted by compelling need at the discretion of the State. d. Payment Documentation: All payment requests must be submitted using a completed Payment Request Form. This form must be accompanied by an itemized list of all charges documenting check numbers, amounts, dates, recipients, purpose of expenditures and clearly identify charges to work plan tasks and elements. Any payment request that is submitted without the itemization will not be authorized. Copies of paid invoices or other records demonstrating proof of payment must accompany the payment request and support all charges. If the itemization or documentation is incomplete, inadequate or inaccurate, the State will inform the Grantee and hold the payment request until all required information is received or corrected. Any penalties imposed on the Grantee by a contractor because of delays in payment will be paid by the Grantee and is not reimbursable under this Agreement. 2. Grant Funds in this award have a limited period in which they must be expended. All Grantee expenditures must occur prior to the end of the term of this Agreement. 3. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Grantee shall expend Grant Funds in the manner described in the Project Budget approved by the State. The dollar amount of an item in the Project Budget may be increased by up to ten percent (10%) through reallocation of funds from another item or items, without approval by the State; however, the Grantee shall notify the State in writing when any such reallocation is made, and shall identify both the item(s) being increased and those being decreased. Any increase or decrease of more than ten percent (10%) in the amount of an item must be approved in writing by the State. In any event, the total amount of the Grant Funds may not be increased, nor may any adjustments exceed the limits for preliminary costs as described in the program's grant guidelines. D. Project Administration 1. Grantee shall promptly submit written Project reports as the State may request. In any event Grantee shall provide State a report showing total final Project expenditures. 2. Grantee shall make property and facilities acquired or developed pursuant to this Agreement available for inspection upon request by the State. 3. Grantee agrees to use any Grant Funds advanced by the State under the terms of this Agreement solely for the Project herein described. 4. If Grant Funds are advanced, the Grantee shall place these Funds in a separate interest bearing account, setting up and identifying such account prior to the.advance. Interest earned on Grant Funds shall be used on the Project, as approved by the State. Any overpayment of Grant Funds in excess of final project costs shall be returned to the State within sixty (60) days of completion of the Project or the end of the Project performance. period as shown on the signature page, whichever is earlier. Page 4 187 •eement No. 40716-06 5. Grantee shall use any income earned by the Grantee from use of the Project to further Project purposes, or, if approved by the State, for related purposes within the jurisdiction. 6. Grantee shall submit all documentation for project completion and final reimbursement within ninety (90) days of Project completion. 7. This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement in writing between Grantee and State. Any request by the Grantee for amendments must be in writing stating the amendment request and reason for the request. The Grantee shall make requests in a timely manner and in no event less than sixty (60) days before the effective date of the amendment E. Project Termination Prior to the completion of construction of the project, either party may terminate this agreement for any reason by providing the other party with seven (7) days notice in writing. If the State terminates the agreement prior to the completion of construction, the Grantee shall take all reasonable measures to prevent further costs to the State under the Agreement and the State shall be responsible for any reasonable and non -cancelable obligations incurred by the Grantee in the performance of this Agreement prior to the date of the notice to terminate, but only up to the undisbursed balance of funding authorized in this Agreement. 2. If the Grantee fails to complete the project in accordance with this Agreement, or fails to fulfill any other obligations of this Agreement prior to -the termination date, the Grantee shall be liable for immediate repayment to the State of all amounts disbursed by the State under this Agreement (plus accrued interest). The State may, at its sole discretion, consider extenuating circumstances and not require repayment for work partially completed. This paragraph -shall not be deemed to limit any other remedies the State may have for breach of this Agreement. 3. If the Agency terminates prior to the completion date, the Grantee shall take all reasonable measures to prevent further costs to the Agency under this Agreement. The Agency shall be responsible for any reasonable and non -cancelable obligations incurred by the Grantee in the performance of the agreement prior to the date of the notice to terminate, but only up to the unpaid balance of funding authorized in this Agreement. 4. Failure by the Grantee to comply with the terms of this Agreement or any other Agreement under the Act may be cause for suspension of all obligations of the State hereunder. 5. Failure of the Grantee to comply with the terms of -this Agreement shall not be cause for the suspension of all obligations of the State hereunder if. in the judgment of the State such failure was due to no fault of the Grantee. At the discretion of the State, any amount required to settle at minimum cost any irrevocable obligations properly incurred shall be eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement. 6. Because the benefit to be derived by the State, from the full compliance by the Grantee with the terms of this Agreement, is the development of river parkways and the restoration of Riparian habitat, Riverine aquatic. habitat; and other lands in close proximity to rivers and streams and for river and stream trail projects available to the people of the State of California, and because such benefit exceeds to an immeasurable and unascertainable extent the amount of money fumished by the State by way of Grant Funds under the provisions of this Agreement, the Grantee agrees that payment by the Grantee to the State of an amount equal to the amount of the Grant Funds disbursed under this Agreement by the State would be inadequate compensation to the State for any breach by Page 5 • reement No. 40716-06 the Grantee of this Agreement The Grantee further agrees therefore, that the appropriate remedy in the event of a breach by the Grantee of this Agreement shall be the specific performance of this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed to by the State. 7. Grantee and State agree that if the Project includes Development, final payment may not be made until the Project conforms substantially to this Agreement as determined by the State. F. Hold Harmless 1. Grantee shall waive all claims and recourses against the State, including the right to contribution for loss or damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of or in any way connected with or incident to this Agreement except claims arising from the gross negligence of State, its officers, agents, and employees. 2. Grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend State, its officers, agents and employees against any and all claims demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability costs arising out of the Acquisition, Development, construction, operation or maintenance of the property described in the Project description which claims, demands or causes of action arise under Government Code Section 895.2 or otherwise, including but not limited to items to which the Grantee has certified, except for liability arising out of the gross negligence of State, its officers, agents or employees. Grantee acknowledges that it is solely responsible for compliance with items to which it has certified. 3. Grantee agrees that in the event State is named as codefendant under the provisions of Government Code Section 895 et seq., the Grantee shall notify State of such fact and shall represent State in the legal action unless State undertakes to represent itself as codefendant in such legal action, in which event State shall bear its own litigation costs, expenses and attorney's fees. 4.. Grantee and State agree that in the event of judgment entered against the State and Grantee because of the gross negligence of the State and Grantee, their officers, agents or employees, an apportionment of liability to pay such judgment shall be made by a court of competent jurisdiction. Neither party shall request a jury apportionment. G. Financial Records Grantee shall maintain satisfactory financial accounts, documents and records for the Project and to make them available to the State for auditing at reasonable times. Grantee shall also retain such financial accounts, documents and records for three (3) years after final payment and one (1) year following an audit 2. Grantee and State agree that during regular office hours each of the parties hereto and their duly authorized representatives shall have the right to inspect and make copies of any books, records or reports of the other party pertaining to this Agreement or matters related thereto. Grantee shall maintain and make available for inspection by the State accurate records of all of its costs, disbursements and receipts with respect to its activities under this Agreement. 3. Grantee shall use any generally accepted accounting system. Page 6 :• 190 jreement No. 40716-06 H. Use of Facilities 1. Grantee shall maintain, operate and use the property funded pursuant to this Grant for a minimum of twenty (20) years, consistent with the Land Tenure requirements included in the Application Guidelines. With the approval of the State, the Grantee, or the Grantee's successor in interest in the property, may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property in accordance with this requirement. Grantee may be excused from its obligations for operation and maintenance of the Project site only upon the written approval of the State for good cause. "Good cause" includes, but is not limited to, natural disasters that destroy the Project improvements and render the Project obsolete or impracticable to rebuild. 2. The real property (including any portion of it or any interest in it) may not be transferred without the approval of the State. 3. Grantee shall use the property for the purposes for which the Grant was made and shall make no other use of sale or other disposition of the property. This Agreement shall not prevent the transfer of the property from the Grantee to a public agency, if the successor public agency assumes the obligations imposed by this Agreement. If the use of the property is changed to a use that is not permitted by the Grant Guidelines, or if the property is sold or otherwise disposed of, an amount equal to (1) the amount of the grant (2) the fair market value of the real property, or (3) the proceeds from the sale or other disposition, whichever is greater, shall be reimbursed to the State. If the property sold or otherwise disposed of is less than the entire interest in the property funded in the Grant, an amount equal to either the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of the interest or the fair market value of the interest sold or otherwise disposed of, whichever is greater, shall be reimbursed to the State. 4. The Grantee shall not use or allow the use of any portion of the real property as security for any debt or for mitigation without the written permission of the State. I. Nondiscrimination 1. The Grantee shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, religion, ancestry or physical handicap in the use of any property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this Agreement. 2. The Grantee shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of residence except to the extent that reasonable difference in admission or other fees may be maintained on the basis of residence and pursuant to law. 3. All facilities shall .be open to members of the public generally, except as noted under the special provisions of this Agreement or under provisions of the Act J. Application incorporation The Grant Guidelines and the Application and any subsequent changes or additions to the Application approved in writing by the State are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement as though set forth in full in this Agreement K. Severability If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Agreement which can be given effect without Page 7 • 0 greement No. 40716-06 the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are severable. L. Waiver No term or provision hereof will be considered waived by either party, and no. breach excused by either party, unlesssuch waiver or consent is in writing and signed on behalf of the parry against whom the waiver is asserted. No consent by either party to, or waiver of, a breach by either party, whether expressed or implied, will constitute consent to, waiver of or excuse of any other, different or subsequent breach by either party. M. Assignment This Agreement is not assignable by the Grantee either in whole or in part. Page 8 191 192 AS ment No. 40716-06 Exhibit A Page 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY GRANT AGREEMENT California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 - River Parkways Grant Program (Proposition 40) GRANTEE NAME: UPPER SALINAS - LAS TABLAS RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROJECT TITLE: ATASCADERO CREEK TRAIL AND RESTORATION PROJECT AGREEMENT NUMBER: 40716-06 PROJECT SCOPE: Design and construct two reaches of pedestrian trail 4 - 6ft. wide, surfaced with decomposed granite, in the city of Atascadero: Reach 1 starts at the Civic Center and links to the existing Juan Bautista de Anza historic frail: • Approximately 3 mile pedestrian trail connecting to Traffic Way Park and the existing youth center as well as to trails at Stadium Park and Pine Mountain. ■ Two sections of boardwalk will be installed, one along the top of the creek bank between Atascadero Creek and Capistrano Road near the West Mall Bridge (approximately 100 linear ft) and one northeast of the Old Bowling Alley along the creek bank next to Capistrano Street (approximately 150 linear ft.) to provide a stable trailbed in steep, erosion -prone areas. ■ P short wooden hand -rail fence will also be installed in.this section for visitor safety. • Two small wooden pedestrian bridges of approximately 10 feet in length will be constructed northeast of the West Mall Bridge to negotiate small drainage swales. ■ Two small parking areas (graded and surfaced with decomposed granite, bordered with wood or boulders) will be constructed to accommodate this new reach of trail. One will be located near the Via Bridge and the other will be located near the West Mall Bridge. Both parking lots will support 4 vehicles maximum. • Approximately eight benches and five picnic tables will be installed alongside this reach of trail to accommodate users. Reach 2 begins at the parking lot for the Atascadero Lake Park, crosses to Portola Street, and continues west between the creek channel and Highway 41 to the Three Bridges area: • Approximately 1.5 miles of pedestrian trail will provide access to existing restrooms and trails at Atascadero Lake Park. • Two boardwalk sections of approximately 250 ft. each will be installed along the creek bank along narrow sections between San Gabriel Road and Three Bridges. • A small 20 to 30 ft. boardwalk or footbridge is proposed between Highway 41 and the creek on the east side of San Gabriel Road to accommodate a seasonal swale. • Bollards will also be installed alongside parts of the trail located closest to Highway 41 to improve .pedestrian safety and inhibit vehicular access to the creek channel. • Three wooden foot bridges (approximately 20-25 ft long) and eight smaller wooden bridges (approximately 10 ft. long) are planned for this area to negotiate small drainage seasonal swales. • One small parking lot graded, surfaced with decomposed granite and bordered with wood, will be constructed near San Gabriel Road. This' parking lot will provide 4-5 parking spaces maximum. Approximately eight benches and five picnic tables will be placed alongside this reach of trail to accommodate users. Bilingual interpretive signage (in English and Spanish) will be installed along both Reaches to highlight areas of historical and/or environmental significance. A total of 40 acres of riparian habitat will be restored through noxious weed removal and native plant revegetation. .0 • • A ement No. 40716-06 Exhibit A Page 2 \ 1 t r r LJ C P•1l 11 C• rtCu.l�u J�Activity Description Approximate Dates Design, Planning, CEQA compliance and Permits April — August, 2005 Submit to State for Approval: Detailed Plans, Specifications and Bud et September - October, 2005 Submission of Required Agreements for State Approval October 2005 Noxious weed removal May 2005 — April 2007 Construction September 2005 — March 2007 Riparian revegetation September 2005 — March 2007 Site Inspection, Project Close-out and Final Payment Request to State I Aril 2007 PROJECT BUDGET: See attached Exhibit Al 193 0 0 0 0 co O V). O O O O cc IR o Co (D r CO 69 cc O O 0 0 � 0 v r ff3 Vi O 000000000 C)O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C° CCCC) fR 6F)N CC fA EA (f4 O O N CO co ��Q 64 69 V! Vi to 0 00 Po 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O o cc o O o O o 0 0 O cc 00 00 0 0 0 tff fR C° CC) N C' Cn N O Cn O CD N N O -V m naD C) CD O r Vi N Ch r fA Vi V3 ;; V3 tFT Vi Vi V! O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O in 0 0 0 uo to LO Q Q M er 0 0 0 m Q Q Q ER fA V} to (fi V) V) Vf ffi to V). OCD O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C4 C N Cl)NP V� r 0 Cl) Cl) COD N r O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O I O 0 0 o o o o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 21 m O O 00000 0000 O O Cj y OO 69 69.0 to 69 00 t!a 64 f a 69 0 0 O f0 O 0 0 0 0 0 OC' u» ffi 69 O fR O O CNC) A O OA O y p c o m CD U o 0 m U u- Cl) m (D rn U c m U a) O U o Z c= 0) U E U 0 m >- U o a) _ c L a) Z U L w O U C ac) `� a p 0 c m 0) M p 3 o c m _ a) m �p m a rn v ° M S o N? 3 o - v f0 c C: o r ac) E a c o Q c ami c) ° a)— o o c m e oo M0 tM N C- (� U c O O O U W QI y Q J O) j W C N W U) C CD .0 .0 Ur IV) O w stn ca a) m `o) �° m o. E c� LL m 194°°°" `°o�S< woan,wo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O OOO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 u» ffi 69 O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O N Cn CL') C- Cn COQ') M N Cq r V3 Ffl r tfi tii 0 0 6%o CC) 0 r O O O O C) °i Q fA 0 O tog, o rn N N fA 0 O O O O Or QO) CCD COD t�l O N co I C n CC) CD M N Cep co co CA b9 to An. tfi 0 0 0 0 O O OOO O e0s 609 O O O O O O O O O O OA O y p COD CD O O O O r O O N 6f6 -31r r r Vi h V3 F 4& � C7 0 0 6%o CC) 0 r O O O O C) °i Q fA 0 O tog, o rn N N fA 0 O O O O Or QO) CCD COD t�l O N co I C n CC) CD M N Cep co co CA b9 to An. tfi co co O v O N 0 0 00 o 000 o O O o CO V) O to fA fA to 00 0 0 0 0 O O r CO &3 fA • • 0 0 O O OOO O O O N O O O � 64 to O CD U y p Q r CC) r C•j N r N 6ci r CC) h 69 4& C7 to to; V! 0 0 0 w U) v E s cd x 00 0 F- )- U (C O y� E y E O 3 c C 69 69. 69 64 69 co co O v O N 0 0 00 o 000 o O O o CO V) O to fA fA to 00 0 0 0 0 O O r CO &3 fA • • y F.. y O U 0 w U) v E s cd x v x m F- )- U (C O y� E y E O 3 c C }- U)o � V No N 10 .E ` c 0 a C v p )9 U c c a`) o c = 0 io c 0 U Z C'OC m U C Ca C)p Ca y Q N _p 7E! J N C C C w y H c p (C CO J y° E o a d c c ar L Cl Z z N C C ` x °) C C ` ` � C M O} .1 U Q O U c D .. o cp `.v c M o 0 r v c c.'i c Z F W w 0 - 0 o ! to a — c ea O E , ; m o, c to Q ~ N iii c CD a) V a° c° c 0 C c a) E° �+ c c CDa)O y .a.. 0 JZpa. ' J �' 5 t1 'O C C L a) a) C to CL m E o o >> Cl ` M mQUU 0 M d 3 W o m {¢- O O o "" F-¢�U tnC7U0 F-Ut7r Salinas River Trail and Habitat Restoration Project 4e, Salinas -Las Tablas RCD, California Conservation Corps, and Planning and Conservation League Foundation ach B, Atascadero Creek, City of Atascadero PRELIMINARY COSTS Materials Hours Rate Total hr. cost: Design, Coord. w/ agencies $2,000.00 1360 $40.00 $54,400.00 & Sign Design/Spanish translation Evaluation of topographic survey, $0.00 320 $40.00 $12,800.00 aerial, and other data for design Drafting and Rendering $0.00 400 $32.00 $12,800.00 Logistics Coordination w/CCC $1,600.00 480 $40.00 $19,200.00 Initial Environmental Study (RCD) $0.00 320 $45.00 $14,400.00 Archaeological Pre -Review (consult) $0.00 150 $90.00 $13,500.00 Topo Survey and Legal $40,000.00 80 $40.00 $3,200.00 Engineering including const. manage $0.00 320 $90.00 $28,800.00 Design Collaboration with CCC $0.00 300 $45.00 $13,500.00 Administrative Assistance from CCC $0.00 800 $45.00 $36,000.00 Planning & Cons. League Found. $0.00 240 $45.00 $10,800.00 Permits and Review DFG $3,000.00 $0.00 City processing $1,000.00 $0.00 Other Expenditures Insurance $5,000.00 $0.00 TOTAL $52,600.00 $219,400.00 CONSTRUCTION Ipper Salinas -Las Tablas RCD menities incl. parking, signs, benches & fencing eed removal and plant restoration -onstruction Team Leader/Members Labor for trail construction (including bridges and boardwalks), installation of trail amenities, planting native plants, and removal of exotics Biological Monitoring (during) Arch. Monitor (During) California Conservation Corps Trails, incl. boardwalks & bridges Corpsmembers Labor for trail construction (including bridges and boardwalks), installation of trail amenities, planting native plants, and removal of exotics Subconstractors (to be determined) Grading Concrete SUBTOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS, ATASCADERO REACH: 1 Percent contingency 0RAND TOTAL Materials Hours Rate Total hr. costs $96,500.00 $22,700.00 $0.00 2788 $40.00 $111,520.00 $1,050.00 700 $40.00 $28,000.00 $8,000.00 40 $40.00 $1,600.00 $1,704.00 $130,500.00 $0.00 16300 $13.00 $211,900.00 $15,000.00 0 $40.00 $15,000.00 $288,750.00 Rev. Dec. 2005 River Parkways $56,400.00 $12,800.00 $12,800.00 $20,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43,200.00 $28,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $5.000.00 $18:,,800.00 Total $96,500.00 $22,700.00 $111,520.00 $29,050.00 $9,600.00 $130,500.00 $211,900.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $641,770.00 $825,570.00 $8,298.00 $833,868.00 Page 1 Budget Salinas River Proj Atas 12-08-05 195 �J •t ATTACHMENT B RCDvPPerSafinas-LasTa6fas Resource Conservation District Conserving Resources 65 Main Street, Suite 107, Templeton, CA 934651(805) 434-0396 ext. 4 / fax 434-0284 91rtwding Srnu'c,Sincr 1951 River 7rails and "hancement Project August 28, 2007 Steve Kahn City Engineer City of Atascadero 6905 El Camino Real Atasradero CA 93422 RE: Grant Administration and Contract for Atascadero Trails Projects: Atascadero Trail and River Enhancement Project Grant No. 40716-06 Dear Steve, The Upper Salinas -Las Tablas Resource Conservation District Board of Directors has decided that the RCD can no longer be the grant manager for the Atascadero Trails Project. We continue to fully support the trail project and think that it will be one of the most significant recreational and community improving projects in the history of the City. We think that it will have far-reaching educational, social, cultural, environmental, and economic benefits for the City. However, the RCD had serious financial issues with the way that the Resources Agency administered the grant. We would be happy to provide design, site construction administration and other services should the City of Atascadero request those services from us, in a manner similar to the contract that we currently have with the City of Paso Robles. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 239-8755 or Chris Robinson at 434-0396 ext. 4. Sincerely, Chuck Pritchard President 0 CC DJ Funk 197 • • •-0 Council Announcements & Reports Item No. 1 0 February 4, 2008 Mr. Wade McKinney City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, Ca 93422 Dear Mr. McKinney In accordance with the Atascadero Municipal Code 2-1.12 (d), this letter shall serve as notice of my intention to make a motion to reconsider as related to the two items specified below. 1 - The Economic Development Strategy Consultant Selection (Agenda Item C-1), which was deliberated and voted upon during our last regularly scheduled meeting of January 22, 2008. 2 - The Community Redevelopment Agency Appropriation of Funds (Agenda Item RA -B1), which was deliberated and voted upon during our last scheduled RDA meeting of January 22, 2008 and into the morning hours of January 23, 2008. The primary basis for requesting reconsideration was the attachment of two elements to the motion for approval, indicated as follows: "Motion by Council Member O'Malley and seconded by Council Member Clay to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Applied Development Economics of Walnut Creek, California, to serve as the City's economic development consultant to update the City's Economic Development Strategy, including the revised timetable that the study will be brought to the Council for action in October 2008." Mike Brennler, Mayor Cc: City Clerk • • • C`