Guadalupe City Council
September 13, 2022

Agenda Item No. 11

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Shannon Sweeney Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Le Roy Park Phase II Scope of Work and Budget
RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council provide guidance to City staff on Le Roy Park Phase II Scope of Work and Budget.

DISCUSSION:

With direct support and sponsorship from Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Salud Carbajal, the City received an earmark of $1.7M in federal funds to proceed with phase II of Le Roy Park. It is now time for the City to submit an application to have those funds applied to this project. The funds are intended to allow previously unfunded park features to be completed, including a 2,000 square foot community center extension to the west side of the recently renovated community center, third barbeque area, amphitheater at the north side of the park, and adult exercise area.

The most recent engineering estimate from the design consultant, provided on June 13, 2022, indicated a total project cost of $2,117,043.20 if all original intended project elements are included. This estimate is well above the grant fund amount.

Since the total cost estimate exceeded the funding amount, City staff requested that the design consultant evaluate costs based on various scopes. The table below summarizes the results of that evaluation.

Scope Cost Estimate
Building, parking, BBQ, amphitheater, exercise $2,117,043.20 Building only $1,549,922.58
Building, parking $1,757,993.08
Building, BBQ $1,676,087.46
As can be seen in the table above, there is insufficient funding to proceed with anything more than just the building. Even if the City proceeds only with the building portion of this project, it is estimated that less than 10% contingency will be available to complete the project, which is not typically desirable for a project of this nature.

Shannon Sweeney

City staff reviewed the engineering estimate with the consultant and considered several options. First, the engineer’s estimate was reviewed to determine if there were any items from the building construction that could be eliminated to reduce cost. From this review, there were no obvious ways to reduce cost. City staff also considered the potential of redesigning the project for value engineering. The City would incur significant cost for this redesign with no guarantee that a redesign would reduce cost.

At this point, although it is not ideal, it makes most sense to proceed with the intent to construct only the building and proceed with other elements if funding allows.

City staff recommends that an application be submitted for the multipurpose building addition itself, with the addition of other features as funding may allow. When bidding the project, City staff recommends that the project be bid as just the building as base bid, with the other features as additive alternates, to be constructed if funds are available.

Agenda Item No. 12

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Shannon Sweeney Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Bonita Pacifica Land Transfer
RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council deed a small portion of City property to three adjacent landowners.

DISCUSSION:

In 1975, the City acquired a 0.31 acre parcel (APN 113-320-097) from the Bonita Pacifica development. This loosely triangular parcel remains largely vacant, with only a bus stop and development sign. No additional use of this property has been identified. The far southerly portion of this parcel tapers to a point. See Figure 1 and 2.

Three property owners have requested access from Pioneer Street to develop or improve their properties. The three properties are APN’s 115 – 201 – 004, 115 – 201 – 013, and 115 – 201 – 012.

The property owner for APN 115 – 201 – 004 has a single dwelling on site with access from Tognazzini Avenue but wishes to add an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with access from Pioneer Street. The other two properties are undeveloped, and both property owners wish to build a primary structure with access from Tognazzini Avenue, and an ADU with access from Pioneer Street. The letter from the property owners of those two properties is included as Attachment 1.

Providing these property owners access to the ADU’s from Pioneer Street allows for most efficient use of these properties. Given the interest in providing housing and the fact that all other infrastructure in the vicinity supports increased density housing at this location, City staff considered alternatives for accommodating this request. At first, City staff considered the option of an encroachment agreement, wherein the City maintains the property but provides the property owner nonexclusive access over the property through an agreement. However, the City Attorney recommended divesting the City of the small pieces of property altogether and deeding them to the individual property owners to reduce City liability.

Shannon Sweeney

Figure 1; APN 113-320-097
Figure 2: Strre view

Figure 3: Impacted Area
Figure 3 and Table 1 shows the square footage of land to be deeded to each of the individual property owners. The more usable portion of APN 113 – 320 – 097 remains available for City use.

APN Approximate area (square feet)
115-201-004 20
115-201-013 300
115-201-012 700
Table 1: Impacted Area
To proceed with this process, City staff would hire a surveyor to develop a legal description of the land to be deeded, to be paid for from application fees paid by the property owners with submittal of lot line adjustment applications. Deeds will then be recorded with the County after execution by the parties. Staff is recommending that the Mayor be authorized to sign the grant deeds on behalf of the City.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could reject staff’s recommendation to transfer these small portions of property to the three adjacent property owners.

The City Council could approve transferring the property to the private owners but require that an appraisal be performed and that the property owners pay for property they are receiving from the City. Staff does not recommend this option, however, because of the high cost of the appraisal and

the likelihood that, due to the small sizes of the land to be transferred and their unsuitability for most purposes, that the value of the land is unlikely to be of any significant value (except to the adjacent property owners).

FISCAL IMPACT:

Deeding these small portions of otherwise unusable property will reduce City liability, and slightly reduce the City’s costs to maintain the property. The fiscal impact on the property owners is a small increase in property taxes, associated with enlargement to their property.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Request from Property Owners

2. Resolution No. 2022-82
ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-82

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY GUADALUPE
APPROVING LAND TRANSFERS OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY (PORTIONS OF APN 113 – 320 – 097 TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OF APN 115 – 201 – 004, 115 – 201 – 013, AND 115 – 201 – 012) WHEREAS, in 1975, the City acquired a 0.31 acre parcel (APN 113-320-097) from the Bonita Pacifica development, which remains largely vacant at this time; and WHEREAS, adjacent property owners of APN’s 115 – 201 – 004, 115 – 201 – 013, and 115 – 201 – 012 have requested access from Pioneer Street to develop or improve their properties; and WHEREAS, the southerly portion of APN 113 – 320 – 097 is not useful to the City but can help maximize the efficient development of housing on these adjoining properties by providing them access from Pioneer Street; and
WHEREAS, the approximate area of land to be deeded to each property is approximately 20 ft.² to APN 115 – 201 – 004, 300 ft.² to APN 115 – 201 – 013, and 700 ft.² to APN 115 – 201 – 012; and WHEREAS, the significantly larger or more usable portion of APN 113 – 320 – 097 will continue to belong to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1: City staff is authorized to hire a surveyor to develop legal descriptions of the land to be deeded, to prepare grant deeds to be executed by the Mayor on behalf of the City and by the parties receiving the land, and to proceed with recording such deeds with the County of Santa Barbara.

SECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 13th day of September 2022 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTACHMENT 2

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-82, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held September 13, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

Agenda Item No. 13

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Shannon Sweeney Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: City Hall Structural Assessment
RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council provide guidance to City staff on funding and schedule to address City Hall structural deficiencies.

BACKGROUND: The current City Hall at 918 Obispo St., Guadalupe was originally built in 1930 as a school.

Since then, the building has served multiple purposes, most recently as the City of Guadalupe City Hall.

The need to address a leaking roof prompted City staff to commission a structural assessment of the building so that the building’s structural deficiencies that should be coordinated with roof replacement are completed at the same time for cost efficiency and to ensure that the building serves the long-term interests of the community. An additional purpose of the structural assessment was to develop a comprehensive plan to address all building structural deficiencies to understand the budget needed to do so. A Notice of Award was issued to Ashley & Vance Engineering Inc. (A&V) on April 12, 2022, to perform this structural assessment. A&V completed a draft report on July 13, 2022, and met with City staff on July 14, 2022, to discuss the results of their assessment and to discuss options for addressing deficiencies. A&V provided a final report to the City on August 31, 2022, taking into consideration input from City staff. Attachment 1 is the final report. Attachment 2 is an addendum to that report that was prepared to evaluate the additional cost to phasing the repairs, reflecting available funding.

DISCUSSION:

The cost of addressing all deficiencies identified in the structural assessment is estimated at $1,931,763.

The City has $554,000 in ARPA funding earmarked for this project that must be spent by December 31, 2024. While the City does not have the sufficient funds at this time to complete all the identified work, the City is anticipating receiving approximately $1,828,492 in development fees from Pasadera earmarked to the City Hall building once the final tentative map south of the railroad is approved ($1.5 million + 2% interest since 2015), which is currently estimated to occur in 2027.

The consultant evaluated the increase in costs associated with phasing the work to align with funding availability and determined that deferring some of the work to a later date will cost the City an additional $374,741, for total estimated cost of $2,306,504. An additional $60,000 was added to the cost to pay for plans and specifications for the second phase of work.

Shannon Sweeney

Staff originally evaluated the cost of pursuing all of the roof work, and deferring wall and floor repairs to a later date. The results are shown in the Funding and Project Schedule Plan, Alternative 1 of Attachment

3. Unfortunately, even when redirecting funds from other already budgeted projects, such as the City Hall generator, the Vet’s Hall wood repair, and Facilities Master plan, the project is underfunded by $327,515.

Staff then evaluated the cost for completing the roof work for only the main hall and auditorium, which is approximately 65% of the total roof area, while deferring work on the remainder of the roof. This calculation is shown as Alternative 2 of Attachment 3. There are possibly adequate funds to pursue this option, but still require that the Vet’s Hall wood repair and Facilities Master Plan funding be redirected to this project.

Work on the walls and floor (and remainder of the roof if Alternative 2 is selected) can be planned for when Pasadera’s City Hall funding is expected, which is currently 2027. The sum of $1.5 million, and 2% interest accruing since 2015, estimated at $1,828,492 will be available to the City at the approval of the final tentative map south of the railroad. Once this funding is available, there is sufficient funding to pay for most of the remaining work.

Options available to the City are as follows:
• Pursue Alternative 2 of Attachment 3, by redirecting funds from Vet’s Hall wood repair and Facilities Master Plan to complete 65% of roof now and completing remaining work upon receipt of relevant Pasadera development fees.
• Complete approximately $270,000 in immediate roof leakage and rot repairs now and defer all additional work until receipt of relevant Pasadera development fees. Redirect approximately $284,000 in ARPA funds to other projects; a suggested list of potential projects is included as Attachment 4.

Staff evaluated the option of pursuing all repairs immediately and bonding for the needed funding.

After speaking with a fiduciary agent, City staff determined that the City would not be able to cover the payments necessary until the Pasadera funding comes in, and in addition, cannot risk the possibility that the funding might be delayed.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report – Guadalupe City Hall, dated August 31, 2022

2. Addendum to above report, dated August 31, 2022

3. Funding and Project Schedule Plan

4. Other potential ARPA funded projects

QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL

EVALUATION REPORT
Guadalupe City Hall
A&V PROJECT NO. 22391

PREPARED FOR
City of Guadalupe, California
31 AUGUST 2022
Image Courtesy of City of Guadalupe
https://ci.guadalupe.ca.us/galleries/town-meeting/
ATTACHMENT 1
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California ii AUGUST 2022

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 1. Executive Summary 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Building Data ..................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Summary Estimate of Upgrade Cost .......................................................................................... 8 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Exclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 8

2. STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Building Construction History.................................................................................................. 10

2.1.1Historical Building Status................................................................................................. 10

2.2 Structural Description................................................................................................................. 11

2.2.1Vertical Load-Resisting Elements ................................................................................. 12

2.2.2Lateral Load-Resisting Elements ................................................................................... 15

2.2.3 Diagrammatic Plan Views ............................................................................................... 16

3. SITE HAZARDS ............................................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Seismic.............................................................................................................................................. 18

3.3 Wind .................................................................................................................................................. 19

3.4 Snow .................................................................................................................................................. 19

4. EVALUATION AND UPGRADE PROCEDURES.......................................................................... 20

4.1 Structural Deficiencies ................................................................................................................ 20 Gravity .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Seismic.............................................................................................................................................. 21 Wind .............................................................................................................................................. 21 Snow .............................................................................................................................................. 21

4.2 Structural Detetrioration ........................................................................................................... 21

4.3 Additional Deficiencies ............................................................................................................... 22

4.4 Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Deficiencies............................................................ 22

4.5 Energy Efficiency Upgrades ...................................................................................................... 22

5. FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................... 23

5.1 Structural Deficiencies ................................................................................................................ 23

5.2 Structural Deterioration ............................................................................................................. 24

5.3 Non-Structural Deficiencies ...................................................................................................... 25

5.4 Furnishings and Contents .......................................................................................................... 25 Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 2 AUGUST 2022

6. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 26

6.1 Structural Upgrade Measures ...................................................................................................... 26

6.2 Non-Structural Upgrade Measures ............................................................................................ 27

6.3 Furnishings and Contents ............................................................................................................. 27

7. UPGRADE COST BREAKDOWN .................................................................................................. 28

7.1 Cost Breakdown for Linear Construction ................................................................................ 28

7.2 Cost Breakdown for Phased Construction............................................................................... 29

8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 31

8.1 Applicable Codes & Standards ..................................................................................................... 31 List of TABLES
Table 1: Building Data Overview..................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Building Parameters for Cost Estimates ...................................................................................... 8 Table 3: Probable Upgrade Cost Summary .................................................................................................. 9 Table 4: Total Upgrade Cost Breakdown ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Building Construction Data ........................................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Structural Observation Overview ............................................................................................... 11 Table 7: List of Record Documentation ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 8: Site Hazard Overview Design Criteria ....................................................................................... 17 Table 9: Soils Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 18 Table 10: Seismic Design Criteria ................................................................................................................ 18 Table 11: Wind Design Criteria .................................................................................................................... 19 Table 12: Structural Deficiencies ................................................................................................................. 23 Table 13: Structural Deterioration .............................................................................................................. 24 Table 14: Non-Structural Deficiencies ....................................................................................................... 25 Table 15: Content Deficiencies ..................................................................................................................... 25 Table 16: Structural Upgrades ...................................................................................................................... 26 Table 17: Non-Structural Upgrades ............................................................................................................ 27 Table 18: Content Upgrades .......................................................................................................................... 27 Table 19: Structural Upgrade Costs ............................................................................................................ 28 Table 20: Non-Structural Upgrade Costs ................................................................................................... 28 Table 21: Content Upgrade Costs ................................................................................................................. 28 City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 1. Executive Summary 3

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Diagrammatic Structural Foundation and Floor Plan. ....................................................... 16 Figure 2: Diagrammatic Structural Roof Framing Plan. ....................................................................... 16 Figure 3: Area Map of Project Location...................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4: Venn Diagram of Upgrade Interaction ..................................................................................... 30 Figure 5: Gymnasium Interior 01 ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 6: Gymnasium Interior 02 ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 7: Gymnasium Interior 03 ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 8: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 01 ................................................................................... 3 Figure 9: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 02 ................................................................................... 3 Figure 10: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 03 ................................................................................ 3 Figure 11: Interior Roof Framing over Main Entry, Gymnasium 04 ................................................... 4 Figure 12: Interior Roof Framing over Main Entry, Gymnasium 05 ................................................... 4 Figure 13: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 06 ................................................................................ 4 Figure 14: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 07 ................................................................................ 5 Figure 15: Interior Roof Framing over Main Entry, Gymnasium 08 ................................................... 5 Figure 16: Interior Wall Separating Gymnasium and Stage................................................................... 6 Figure 17: Floor Sheathing and Finishes at Stage. .................................................................................... 6 Figure 18: Water Damage at Ceiling above Stage. ..................................................................................... 6 Figure 19: Crawl Space Below Gymnasium. ................................................................................................ 7 Figure 20: Exterior Wall at Fire Department 01. ....................................................................................... 7 Figure 21: Exterior Wall at Fire Department 02. ....................................................................................... 7 Figure 22: Cantilevered Sheathing at Raised Floor................................................................................... 8 Figure 23: Beam to Support .............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 24: Interior Ceiling Finish. ................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 25: Storage Racks - No Anchorage 01. ............................................................................................. 9 Figure 26: Storage Racks - No Anchorage 02. ............................................................................................. 9 Figure 27: Colonnade at Exterior Courtyard. ........................................................................................... 10 Figure 28: Exterior Courtyard and Bell Tower........................................................................................ 10 Figure 29: Exterior Courtyard. ...................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 30: Colonnade at Courtyard 01. ...................................................................................................... 11 Figure 31: Column Base Connection at Colonnade. ............................................................................... 11 Figure 32: Beam to Column Connection at Colonnade. ........................................................................ 11 Figure 33: Exterior Wall at Courtyard 01.................................................................................................. 12 Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 4 AUGUST 2022
Figure 34: Exterior Wall at Courtyard 02.................................................................................................. 12 Figure 35: Exterior Crawl Space Vents at Courtyard. ........................................................................... 12 Figure 36: Exterior Wall and Infill at Courtyard. .................................................................................... 13 Figure 37: Structural Deterioration at Crawl Space Vents 01. ........................................................... 13 Figure 38: Structural Deterioration at Crawl Space Vents 02. ........................................................... 14 Figure 39: Structural Deterioration at Crawl Space Vents 03. ........................................................... 14 Figure 40: Structural Deterioration at Crawl Space Vents 04. ........................................................... 14 Figure 41: Crawl Space Framing and Sheathing. .................................................................................... 15 Figure 42: Post, Beam, and Pad Foundations at Raised Floor. ........................................................... 15 Figure 43: Interior Support Line at Raised Floor. .................................................................................. 15 Figure 44: Roof Composition at Courtyard 01......................................................................................... 16 Figure 45: Roof Composition at Courtyard 02......................................................................................... 16 Figure 46: Mechanical Equipment at Roof. ............................................................................................... 17 Figure 47: Roof at Mechanical Equipment. ............................................................................................... 17 Figure 48: Sloping and Drainage at Roof. .................................................................................................. 18 Figure 49: Interior Plaster Ceiling Needs Repair at Bell Tower. ....................................................... 18 Figure 50: Exterior Finishes .......................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 51: Interior of Bell Tower 01. .......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 52: Interior of Bell Tower 02. .......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 53: Existing Gutters Require Maintenance. ................................................................................ 20 Figure 54: Ceiling Framing 01. ...................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 55: Ceiling Framing 02. ...................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 56: Exterior Grading and Stucco at Foundation 01. ................................................................. 22 Figure 57: Exterior Grading and Stucco at Foundation 03. ................................................................. 22 Figure 58: Exterior Grading and Stucco at Foundation 02. ................................................................. 22 Figure 59: Enlarged Foundation & Floor Plan ......................................................................................... 24 Figure 60: Enlarged Roof Plan ...................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 61: Detail 1 - Shearwall at Existing Footing ................................................................................ 26 Figure 62: Detail 2 - Shearwall at Existing Footing ................................................................................ 27 Figure 63: Detail 3 - Holdown at Existing Footing ................................................................................. 28 Figure 64: Detail 4 - Typ. Post and Pier Foundation.............................................................................. 29 Figure 65: Detail 5 - Dry Rot at Exterior Footing .................................................................................... 30 Figure 66: Detail 6 - Regrading at Exterior Foundation ....................................................................... 31 Figure 67: Detail 7 - Post Base at Existing Slab ....................................................................................... 32 City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 1. Executive Summary 5 Figure 68: Detail 8 - Solar Standoff to Roof Framing............................................................................. 33 Figure 69: Detail 9 - Shear Transfer at Existing Roof ............................................................................ 34 Figure 70: Detail 10 - Shear Transfer at Existing Roof ......................................................................... 35 Figure 71: Detail 11 - Shear Transfer at Existing Roof ......................................................................... 36 Figure 72: Detail 12 - Shear Transfer at Existing Roof ......................................................................... 37 Figure 73: Detail 13 - New Roofing ............................................................................................................. 38 Figure 74: Detail 14 - New Roofing ............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 75: Detail 15 - Framing at Exterior Posts .................................................................................... 40 Figure 76: Detail 16 - Exterior Wall Stucco .............................................................................................. 41 Figure 77: Detail 17 - Dry Rot at Floor Sheathing .................................................................................. 42 Figure 78: Detail 18 - Dry Rot at Floor Sheathing .................................................................................. 43 Figure 79: Detail 19 - Wall Strengthening................................................................................................. 44

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Checklists
Appendix B: Photographs
Appendix C: Schematic Structural Plan Views and Details Appendix D: Preliminary Design Parameters
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 6 AUGUST 2022

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this report is to perform a qualitative condition assessment of the existing building and identify structural deficiencies in the primary gravity, seismic and wind force resisting systems.

Recommendations and preliminary cost estimates for remediation of deficiencies identified have been provided. It is our understanding that these recommendations will be implemented at the discretion of the City of Guadalupe based on level of importance, available funding and schedule.

Pursuant to the request of Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director and City Engineer, we met with the Guadalupe City Staff on Monday May 2, 2022 to observe and asses the existing condition of the City Hall structure. Our observation was limited to the interior of all rooms with the exception of the last two rooms in the 10th street wing, the basement under the main entry, the upper media room, four crawl space access points, the belltower and exterior of the structure. Our evaluation is limited to a qualitative assessment based on visual observations as no destructive testing or calculations have been performed. All available reference documentation, provided by Shannon Sweeney of the City of Guadalupe, can be found listed in Section 2.

Through observation and review of reference documentation, various structural and non-structural elements of the building were found to be non-compliant with current standards. ASCE 41, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Rehabilitation, was utilized to determine non-conforming elements of the structure (Refer to Appendix A for additional information). Non-conforming structural elements include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Overall plan irregularities were observed and lack adequate reinforcement at re-entrant corners and diaphragm openings.

2. Horizontal (Roof/Floor) sheathing does not meet maximum aspect ratio and/or span requirements.

3. Most of the roof areas have inadequate connections and load transfer from roof diaphragm to supporting walls below.

4. Most sill plates observed were fastened with heavily corroded anchor bolts, insufficiently sized and spaced.

5. Connections were not observed between floor girders and supporting posts or between posts and supporting foundations.

Additionally, structural deterioration was observed and include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Corroded anchor bolts.

2. Rot was observed at floor joists and sill plates located at exterior wall lines. Rot was also present in roof joists and beams, specifically at rafter tails.

3. Settlement was observed in various locations throughout the structure including exterior colonnades and walls at the perimeter.

4. Evidence of water intrusion into the crawl space was observed below the floor framing.

Non-conforming non-structural elements include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Deterioration of exterior finishes was observed.

2. The roof has been reported to leak and the majority of the roof does not appear to drain to roof gutters.

3. Content anchorage of storage racks was not observed.

Upgrade recommendations for the deficiencies outlined above can be found in Section 6. An overview of the approximate upgrade costs associated with each item has been provided in Section 1.2.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 1. Executive Summary 7

1.1 BUILDING DATA
The following table provides an overview of the existing structure.

OVERVIEW
APN 115-083-002
Address 918 Obispo St, Guadalupe, CA 93434
ASCE41 Building Type W1, W2
Year Constructed 1930
Year(s) of Addition(s) N/A
Approximate Building Area 30,000 sq. ft.

Number of Stories 1
Basement Yes
Table 1: Building Data Overview
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 8 AUGUST 2022

1.2 SUMMARY ESTIMATE OF UPGRADE COST
Estimated probable costs below have been provided with the following assumptions and exclusions. Refer to Section 7.0 for additional cost breakdown.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. Estimates are captured at the schematic design level only and are based on prevailing wage rates.

2. Construction is anticipated to be completed in a single phase, beginning March, 2023 and concluding September 2023.

3. Areas of construction are anticipated to be clear of owner equipment, furnishings and personnel as required.

4. Please note that some upgrade items may apply to more than one bid option (ie. removal of existing roofing is part of item S1 & NS1). For these items, the cost will only be included in a single option.

5. All estimates assume a linear construction sequence and does not include inspector fees, architectural fees for construction documents or hidden costs associated with the construction process such as displacing workers from the building during construction.

EXCLUSIONS

1. Furnishings & equipment

2. Travel & per diem costs

3. Dewatering of excavations

4. Hazardous material abatement

5. Removal of existing equipment or furnishings

6. Modifications to the existing sprinkler system

7. Modifications to the existing electrical system

8. Supply and installation of the Solar PV system

9. Foundation repair and replacement

10. Any other work not specifically noted in this estimate (e.g. - modifications to any sprinklers, electrical, or mechanical systems; removal & reinstallation of existing flooring or ceiling systems).

BUILDING PARAMETERS
Total Floor Area 32,250 SQ FT
Composite Shingle Roof Area 21,780 SQ FT
Building Perimeter 1,426 LINEAR FT
Shearwall Area 5,484 SQ FT
Stucco Replacement Area 6,064 SQ FT
Table 2: Building Parameters for Cost Estimates
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 1. Executive Summary 9

PROBABLE UPGRADE COST SUMMARY

AREA (SQ FT) COST/SQ FT UPGRADE COST
Structural Upgrades 32,250 $26 $834,665
Non-Structural Upgrades 32,250 $34 $1,087,672
Content Upgrades 32,250 N/A $9,427
Total 32,250 $50 $1,931,763
Table 3: Probable Upgrade Cost Summary

TOTAL UPGRADE COST BREAKDOWN
Direct Cost Subtotal $1,229,539
General Requirements $95,605
Mark-Up Cost $209,022
Contingency Cost $397,598
Total Upgrade Cost $1,931,763
Table 4: Total Upgrade Cost Breakdown
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 10 AUGUST 2022

2. STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTION
The following is a description of the structure based on site observations, communication with City Staff and reviewed documentation.

2.1 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
The following is a description of the known history and data pertaining to this building.

APPROXIMATE DATE DESCRIPTION
1930 Original Construction
1980's Gymnasium framing repairs and strengthening
2011 Roof issues identified (no known repairs implemented) 2019 Floor issues and finish cracking identified at Fire Station 2019 Evaluation report (no known repairs implemented)
2020 Estimate for Floor Repairs provided (no known repairs implemented) 2021 Roof leaks identified (no known repairs implemented) 1956 - Current Various interior & exterior alterations
Unknown Floor framing repairs at Fire Station
Unknown Replacement of posts at both exterior colonnades Table 5: Building Construction Data

2.1.1 HISTORICAL BUILDING STATUS
Per the Office of Historic Preservation, the Building’s OTIS ID number is 483095 and falls under their classification of 2S2: individually determined eligible for National Registers (NR) by consensus through Section 106 Process and listed in the California Registers (CR) as it has received federal or state funds in the past. Projects that are not considered long term maintenance repairs on the building should go through local planning for an environmental review and/or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Local planning has jurisdiction in implementing or waiving these requirements. Additional repairs and alterations may be required if the building is to be included on the NR. The schedule, cost and extent of any such repairs are unknown at the time and not included with this report.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 2. Structural Description 11

2.2 STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTION
The following includes a description of the existing structure based on observation and available record documentation provided by city staff.

OBSERVATION OVERVIEW
Site Visit Date May 2, 2022
Engineer(s) V. Ramos, I. Shoebridge
Number of Stories 1
Basement Yes (Partial)
Table 6: Structural Observation Overview
Record documentation includes the following:

AVAILABLE RECORD DOCUMENTATION
Structural Evaluation
Report
Parolini, Michael, and Cheyne Kight. SSG Structural Engineers, San Luis Obispo, CA, 2019, pp. 1–10, Evaluation Report.

Structural Damage
Notification
Received by Shannon Sweeney, FW: Foundation / Floor Damage, 25 Oct. 2019.

Known Roof Leak
Locations
Sweeney, Shannon. “Roof Leaks 2021.”
Table 7: List of Record Documentation
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 12 AUGUST 2022

2.2.1 VERTICAL LOAD-RESISTING ELEMENTS
O - Field Observations, T - Testing, D - Drawings
**Exact date and extent of retrofit is unknown

GYMNASIUM

HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS
ROOF
Sheathing: Straight Sheathing Source: O
Joists: 2x @ approximately 24" o.c. (Roof), 2x6 @ approximately 24" o.c. (Ceiling) Source: O Purlins: 6x @ approximately 8’-0” o.c. Source: O
Beams: Site built timber trusses @ approximately 8’-0” o.c. Previously retrofitted** Source: O FLOOR
Sheathing: 1x Diagonal Sheathing Source: O
Joists: 2x12 @ approximately 16” o.c. Source: O
Girders: 6x8 @ approximately 8’-0” o.c. Source: O
Basement: 8" Concrete Wall Source: O

VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Columns: Unknown Source: O
Walls: 2x8 @ 16" o.c. stud walls Source: O
Floor Foundations: 6x posts and pad foundations Source: O Wall Foundations: Continuous foundations, 3x sill plates w/ anchor bolts @ 4'-0" o.c. Source: O Basement: 8" Elevated Concrete Slab w/ 1/2" sq. reinforcement @ ~8"o.c. Source: O Basement: Square Concrete Columns and Beams Source: O
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 2. Structural Description 13

BUILDING ENTRY & WINGS

HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS
ROOF
Sheathing: Straight Sheathing Source: O
Joists: 2x @ approximately 24" o.c. (Roof), 2x @ approximately 24" o.c. (Ceiling) Source: O Purlins: 6x @ approximately 8’-0” o.c. Source: O
FLOOR
Sheathing: Diagonal Sheathing Source: O
Joists: 2x @ approximately 16” o.c. Source: O
Girders: 6x @ approximately 8’-0” o.c. Source: O

VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Columns: Unknown Source: O
Walls: 2x stud walls Source: O
Floor Foundations: 6x posts and pad foundations Source: O Wall Foundations: Continuous foundations Source: O

COLONNADES

HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS
ROOF
Sheathing: Straight Tongue-and-Groove Sheathing Source: O Joists: 4x @ approximately 24" o.c. Source: O
Beams: 8x Source: O
FLOOR
Type: Concrete Slab-on-Grade Source: O

VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Columns: 8x8 Source: O
Walls: 2x stud walls Source: O
Floor Foundations: Unknown Source: O
Wall Foundations: Continuous foundations Source: O
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 14 AUGUST 2022

BUILDING BELL TOWER

HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS
ROOF
Unknown Source: O
FLOOR
Unknown Source: O

VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Walls: Unknown Source: O
Foundations: Unknown Source: O
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 2. Structural Description 15

2.2.2 LATERAL LOAD-RESISTING ELEMENTS
O - Field Observations, T - Testing, D - Drawings
**Exact date and extent of retrofit is unknown

GYMNASIUM

HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS
Diaphragms: Straight sheathing acting as flexible diaphragm Source: O

VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Shearwalls: Unknown Source: O
(Plywood sheathing applied over wood studs assumed based on verbal description by City Staff)

BUILDING ENTRY & WINGS

HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS
Diaphragms: Straight sheathing acting as flexible diaphragm Source: O

VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Shearwalls: Plaster applied to straight sheathing over wood studs Source: O

COLONNADES

HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS
Diaphragms: Straight tongue-and-groove sheathing acting as flexible diaphragm Source: O

VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Shearwalls: N/A Source: O

BUILDING BELL TOWER

HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS
Diaphragms: Unknown Source: O

VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Shearwalls: Unknown Source: O
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 16 AUGUST 2022

2.2.3 DIAGRAMMATIC PLAN VIEWS
Figure 1: Diagrammatic Structural Foundation and Floor Plan.

Figure 2: Diagrammatic Structural Roof Framing Plan.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 3. Site Hazards 17

3. SITE HAZARDS
The following section includes site hazard data, including general project information as well as site specific design criteria related to soils, seismic, wind and snow.

Figure 3: Area Map of Project Location.

CRITERIA
Coordinates 34.9694849, -120.5688772
Elevation 85 ft
Risk Category IV
Table 8: Site Hazard Overview Design Criteria
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 18 AUGUST 2022

3.1 SOILS

3.2 SEISMIC

BASIC PARAMETERS
Name Value Description
Ss 0.899 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s)
S1 0.336 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s)
Sms 1.079 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
Sm1 *Null Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SDS 0.719 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA
SD1 *Null Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA
Table 10: Seismic Design Criteria
*See ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8
Reference: ATC Hazards by Location

SUMMARY
Description Known as the Salinas series, the site consists of deep, well-drained soils that formed from sandstone and shale. [Courtesy of CA Soil Resource, UC Davis] Soil Type D - Default (Assumed)
Soils Stability Unknown
Location Cycles of rain and drought are common for this area and can result in expansion and contraction of soils, potentially causing foundation settlement and/or cracking.

Table 9: Soils Design Criteria
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 3. Site Hazards 19

3.3 WIND
Reference: ATC Hazards by Location

3.4 SNOW
Snow loading is not applicable for this location; therefore, evaluation and upgrade procedures are not applicable.

PARAMETER DESCRIPTION
Wind Speed 102 mph (RC IV)
Site Exposure Category C
Site Exposure Description Located on a relatively flat site and approximately 6 miles from the coastline, the structure is surrounded
by one to two stories buildings.

Table 11: Wind Design Criteria
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 20 AUGUST 2022

4. EVALUATION AND UPGRADE PROCEDURES
The objective of this report is to perform a qualitative condition assessment of the existing building and identify structural deficiencies in the primary gravity, seismic and wind force resisting systems.

Recommendations and preliminary cost estimates for remediation of deficiencies identified have been provided. It is our understanding that these recommendations will be implemented at the discretion of the City of Guadalupe based on level of importance, available funding and schedule.

California Legislature determined in 1986 that buildings providing essential services should be capable of providing those services to the public after a disaster. This resulted in the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA) of 1986 and requires in part that buildings be designed to resist forces generated by earthquake, gravity and wind (see California Health and Safety Code section 16001 for more information).

Due to this building housing both fire and police services, it is our opinion that this building provides "essential services" and is subject to the requirements of the ESBSSA. Final determination and enforcement is made by the local building jurisdiction in conjunction with the Division of the State Architect (DSA). If the building is determined to be subject to the requirements of the ESBSSA, additional seismic strengthening upgrades may be required. The extent of these additional seismic strengthening upgrades is unknown at this time but at a minimum would likely include improvements such as: new roof and wall sheathing, new anchor bolts, new seismic clips at the roof and floor. A complete seismic analysis has not been performed at this time but preliminary seismic strengthening upgrades and initial cost estimates have been included as part of this report.

If the building is determined to not be subject to compliance with the ESBSSA and depending on the scope of work proposed, seismic strengthening may be minimized.

4.1 STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES

GRAVITY

EVALUATION PROCEDURE
The gravity (i.e. dead plus live loads) demand shall be evaluated based on acceptance criteria in accordance with the requirements of the applicable local building code.

UPGRADE PROCEDURE
Deficient and/or deteriorated members that do not meet the above evaluation procedure are recommended as a mandatory upgrade in compliance with full demand and capacity criteria of the current building code.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 4. Evaluation and Upgrade Procedures 21

SEISMIC

EVALUATION PROCEDURE
Seismic evaluation shall utilize the ASCE 41-17 Tier 1, Structural and the ASCE 41-17, Non-Structural checklists as a screening tool (Refer to Appendix A). Critical structural and non-structural elements are identified as acceptable or deficient based on the checklists as well as engineering judgement.

Deficiencies are noted and evaluated utilizing the requirements of ASCE 41 for the above identified seismic demands and the associated acceptance criteria.

UPGRADE PROCEDURE
Deficient members that do not meet the above evaluation procedure are upgraded to be in compliance with the following demand and acceptance criteria. Considering the essential services that this building provides, a full lateral upgrade and analysis will be required. Initial estimates for the extent and cost of the upgrades have been provided.

WIND

EVALUATION PROCEDURE
The wind demand and acceptance criteria are in accordance with the requirements of the applicable local building code.

UPGRADE PROCEDURE
Considering the essential services that this building provides, a full lateral upgrade and analysis will be required. Initial estimates for the extent and cost of the upgrades have been provided.

SNOW
Snow loading is not applicable for this location; therefore, evaluation and upgrade procedures are not applicable.

4.2 STRUCTURAL DETETRIORATION
It is recommended that a certified building inspector be retained to perform a complete inspection of the building. Areas of rot, water and pest damage shall be identified and brought to the attention of a structural engineer. Based on the damage observed, the structural engineer shall provide recommended repairs.

Structural repairs will be on a case-by-case basis.

Asbestos and lead abatement is beyond the scope of this report. It is recommended that a qualified professional be retained to survey the building and identify the presence of these materials along with the appropriate abatement measures. All areas where building modifications are proposed shall be abated in conformance with all applicable regulations.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 22 AUGUST 2022

4.3 ADDITIONAL DEFICIENCIES
Evidence of differential settlement and water intrusion around the building foundations were noted while onsite. Exposure to moisture can cause some types of soil to expand and contract. This repeating cycle of expansion and contraction can damage structural components and architectural finishes on buildings. While significant structural damage due to differential settlement was not observed, non-structural implications such cracking of finishes and uneven floors can be undesirable for owners and tenants. It is recommended that a foundation specialist perform a manometer survey of the building identifying areas of settlement and provide remediation measures. The extent of repairs, if deemed necessary, are unknown at this time.

4.4 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING DEFICIENCIES
An evaluation of the existing mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems was not performed and it is recommended that a qualified mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineer(s) be retained to review the existing systems and make recommendations for the appropriate upgrades. The building mechanical systems could likely be improved to better heat and cool the building efficiently. The electrical system may be adequate for the building but improvements such as additional outlets, energy efficient lighting and emergency power and egress lighting may be required. The existing plumbing should be videotaped to identify blockages and assess the overall condition of the existing piping. New plumbing will likely be required if accessibility modifications are made to the restrooms.

4.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES
Elements such as wall and roof insulation were not observed. While these are non-structural items, they do improve tenant comfort and the building's energy efficiency. A complete energy upgrade is likely not feasible but small improvements could be beneficial.

It’s the understanding of this office that roof mounted solar panels may be added in the future. Based on our initial observations, limited areas of the existing roof structure would be potential candidates for the increased gravity loads imposed by solar arrays. Strengthening and or replacement of roof joists may be required. Ballasted solar arrays are not recommended and the system selected must be limited to a maximum distributed weight of 3 pounds per square foot (psf). A structural engineer should be retained to evaluate the existing building for the proposed solar arrays.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 5. Findings 23

5. FINDINGS

5.1 STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES
Per ASCE 41-17, observed non-conforming structural elements of the existing structure are outlined below.

Refer to Appendix A for the completed ASCE 41 checklists and additional information as required. *G - Gravity, EQ - Earthquake, W - Wind, S - Snow
Note 1. Areas of the existing gymnasium appear to have been previously retrofitted. These connections have not been evaluated but may be adequate.

STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES
REF. ITEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO NO. TYPE*
S1 Roof Diaphragms Portions of the existing roof diaphragms are inadequate
9, 13 EQ, W
S2 Roof to Wall Connections Most of the roof areas have inadequate connections and load transfer from roof
diaphragm to supporting walls below (See
Note 1)
11, 13, 15 EQ, W
S3 Wall to Foundation
Connections
Most of the sill plates observed had
anchor bolts that were heavily corroded
and likely insufficient size and spacing
41 EQ, W
S4 Floor Framing to
Foundations
Connections were not observed between
floor girders and posts or between posts
and pad foundations.
19, 42, 43 EQ
S5 Structural Sheathing Wall sheathing was not observed. 11 EQ, W Table 12: Structural Deficiencies
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 24 AUGUST 2022

5.2 STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION
Observed deterioration of structural elements of the existing structure are outlined below.

Note 1. Termite damage was not observed, but should be confirmed by a certified building inspector.

STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION
REF. ITEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO NO.

SD1 Corrosion Corrosion observed in foundation anchor bolts 41 SD2 Rot Significant rot was observed in the following
locations:
a) Floor joists and sill plates at exterior walls
b) Roof joists and beams, specifically at rafter tails
32, 37, 38, 39,
40 SD3 Settlement Evidence of differential settlement was observed at the exterior colonnades and exterior walls at
various locations around the perimeter of the
building
35, 57, 58, 59
SD4 Water Intrusion Evidence of water intrusion at the roof and into the crawl space below the floor framing was observed
10, 17, 41
Table 13: Structural Deterioration
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 5. Findings 25

5.3 NON-STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES
Note 1. Exterior finishes and paint are an important part of building maintenance and should be repaired or replaced.

Note 2. City staff has identified areas where water leaks have been observed. A certified building inspector shall be retained to perform a thorough investigation of the existing building and provide a report identifying areas damaged by water intrusion, pests, etc. The report shall be used in conjunction with a structural engineer to determine the scope and evaluation of necessary repairs.

Note 3. In order to comply with ADA and State regulations regarding accessibility, a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) shall be retained to perform a consultation and inspection of all publicly accessible areas of the building. As part of the services provided by the CASp, a report should be included identifying all barriers to public access along with proposed improvements to remove barriers. This report will be used to determine the scope and valuation of the recommended improvements. Areas requiring accessibility shall be identified by the CASp and will likely include (but not limited to): entrances, egress, restrooms, parking, stairs and doors.

5.4 FURNISHINGS AND CONTENTS

NON-STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES
REF. ITEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO NO.

NS1 Cladding Significant deterioration of exterior finishes and paint was observed. See Note 1
20, 21, 36
NS2 Roofing The roof is reported to leak and the majority of the roof does not appear to drain to roof gutters. See
Note 2
10, 44, 45, 46,
48, 53
NS3 ADA Compliance See Note 3 N/A
Table 14: Non-Structural Deficiencies

CONTENT DEFICIENCIES
REF. ITEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO NO.

C1 Content Anchorage Inadequate bracing and anchorage was observed for various contents, including file storage shelving
25, 26
Table 15: Content Deficiencies
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 26 AUGUST 2022

6. RECOMMENDATIONS
An important distinction is to be made between code required repairs or improvements and cosmetic or convenience improvements. This distinction must be clearly defined by the City in conjunction with the structural engineer and other design professionals. The intent shall be to address the code required upgrades first and there may not be enough budget available to incorporate all cosmetic or convenience upgrades.

6.1 STRUCTURAL UPGRADE MEASURES
The following table includes structural deficiencies per Section 5.0 and proposed upgrade measures.

STRUCTURAL UPGRADES
REF. DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.

S1 Install plywood sheathing over existing straight sheathing. 67, 72, 73 S2 a) Install A35 clips and blocking between existing roof rafters to provide shear transfer from roof diaphragm to wall below.
b) Install H1 clips at every existing roof rafter, connecting it to the wall below. 68, 69, 70, 71
S3 /
SD1
Install post-installed anchor bolts at all exterior walls, connecting the existing sill plate to the existing concrete foundation below.
60, 61
S4 Provide connections from posts to beams and concrete foundations below. 63, 66, 74 S5 Install wall sheathing at various locations throughout the structure 62, 68, 69, 70, 71
SD2 a) Like-in-kind replacement of damaged sill plates, rim joists and floor joists around building perimeter
b) Like-in-kind replacement of damaged existing roof joists and beams c) Like-in kind replacement of damaged existing wall framing 64, 76, 77
Table 16: Structural Upgrades
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 6. Recommendations 27

6.2 NON-STRUCTURAL UPGRADE MEASURES
The following table includes non-structural deficiencies per Section 5.0 and proposed upgrade measures.

6.3 FURNISHINGS AND CONTENTS
The following table includes content deficiencies per Section 5.0 and proposed upgrade measures.

NON-STRUCTURAL UPGRADES
REF. DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.

NS1 a) New roofing material shall weigh no more than existing roofing materials b) Install new roof gutters as required
72 NS2 Replace exterior finishes and install appropriate moisture barrier 65, 75 NS3 Install solar panels (Voluntary Upgrade) 67
Table 17: Non-Structural Upgrades

CONTENT UPGRADES
REF. DESCRIPTION FIGURE NO.

C1 Provide adequate anchorage of contents including, but not limited to a) Storage racks
b) Water heaters
c) Suspended mechanical equipment
Table 18: Content Upgrades
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 28 AUGUST 2022

7. UPGRADE COST BREAKDOWN

7.1 COST BREAKDOWN FOR LINEAR CONSTRUCTION
The following tables provide a breakdown of the proposed upgrade costs as outlined in Section 1 based on linear construction.

Table 19: Structural Upgrade Costs
Table 20: Non-Structural Upgrade Costs
*Cost and installation of solar PV system shall be provided by others. Approximate upgrade costs includes installation of new structural blocking only as required per Figure 67, Detail 8.

Table 21: Content Upgrade Costs

STRUCTURAL UPGRADES

UPGRADE TOTAL COST
S1 - Roof Diaphragms $131,383
S2 - Roof to Wall Connections $9,500
S3 / SD1 - Wall to Foundation Connections $60,789
S4 - Floor Framing to Foundation Connections $162,534
S5 - Structural Sheathing $196,208
SD2 - Rot Repair $274,251
Total Structural Upgrade Cost: $834,665

NON-STRUCTURAL UPGRADES

UPGRADE TOTAL COST
NS1 - Roofing and Roof Gutters $759,370
NS2 - Exterior Finishes $325,322
NS3 - Solar Panels* $2,980
Total Non-Structural Upgrade Cost: $1,087,672

CONTENT UPGRADES

UPGRADE TOTAL COST
C1 - Content Bracing and Anchorage $9,427
Total Structural Upgrade Cost: $9,427
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 7. Upgrade Cost Breakdown 29

7.2 COST BREAKDOWN FOR PHASED CONSTRUCTION
Please refer to the addendum, dated August 31, 2022, for additional information regarding phased construction.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 30 AUGUST 2022
Figure 4: Venn Diagram of Upgrade Interaction
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 8. References 31

8. REFERENCES

8.1 APPLICABLE CODES & STANDARDS
The design codes, standards and references below serve as the basis of this evaluation for building and nonbuilding structures including all lateral force resisting systems, components, and cladding.  2019 California Building Code (CBC).
 ASCE 7-16: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.  ASCE 41-17: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A:

CHECKLISTS
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 2 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 4 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 6 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 8 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 10 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 12 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 2 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 4 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 6 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX A
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 8 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
APPENDIX B:

PHOTOGRAPHS
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 2 AUGUST 2022
Figure 5: Gymnasium Interior 01
Figure 6: Gymnasium Interior 02
Figure 7: Gymnasium Interior 03
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 10: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 03
Figure 8: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 01
Figure 9: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 02
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 4 AUGUST 2022
Figure 11: Interior Roof Framing over Main Entry, Gymnasium 04 Figure 12: Interior Roof Framing over Main Entry, Gymnasium 05 Figure 13: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 06
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 14: Interior Roof Framing at Gymnasium 07
Figure 15: Interior Roof Framing over Main Entry,
Gymnasium 08
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 6 AUGUST 2022
Figure 16: Interior Wall Separating Gymnasium and Stage.

Figure 18: Water Damage at Ceiling above Stage.

Figure 17: Floor Sheathing and Finishes at Stage.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 19: Crawl Space Below Gymnasium.

Figure 20: Exterior Wall at Fire Department 01.

Figure 21: Exterior Wall at Fire Department 02.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 8 AUGUST 2022
Figure 23: Beam to Support
Figure 22: Cantilevered Sheathing at Raised Floor.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 24: Interior Ceiling Finish.

Figure 25: Storage Racks - No Anchorage 01.

Figure 26: Storage Racks - No Anchorage 02.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 10 AUGUST 2022
Figure 27: Colonnade at Exterior Courtyard.

Figure 28: Exterior Courtyard and Bell Tower.

Figure 29: Exterior Courtyard.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 30: Colonnade at Courtyard 01.

Figure 31: Column Base Connection at Colonnade.

Figure 32: Beam to Column Connection at Colonnade.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 12 AUGUST 2022
Figure 33: Exterior Wall at Courtyard 01.

Figure 34: Exterior Wall at Courtyard 02.

Figure 35: Exterior Crawl Space Vents at Courtyard.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 36: Exterior Wall and Infill at Courtyard.

Figure 37: Structural Deterioration at Crawl Space Vents 01.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 14 AUGUST 2022
Figure 38: Structural Deterioration at Crawl Space Vents 02.

Figure 39: Structural Deterioration at Crawl Space Vents 03.

Figure 40: Structural Deterioration at Crawl Space Vents 04.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 41: Crawl Space Framing and Sheathing.

Figure 42: Post, Beam, and Pad Foundations at Raised Floor.

Figure 43: Interior Support Line at Raised Floor.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 16 AUGUST 2022
Figure 44: Roof Composition at Courtyard 01.

Figure 45: Roof Composition at Courtyard 02.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 47: Roof at Mechanical Equipment.

Figure 46: Mechanical Equipment at Roof.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 18 AUGUST 2022
Figure 49: Interior Plaster Ceiling Needs Repair at Bell Tower.

Figure 48: Sloping and Drainage at Roof.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 50: Exterior Finishes
Figure 51: Interior of Bell Tower 01.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 20 AUGUST 2022
Figure 52: Interior of Bell Tower 02.

Figure 53: Existing Gutters Require Maintenance.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 55: Ceiling Framing 02.

Figure 54: Ceiling Framing 01.

Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 22 AUGUST 2022
Figure 57: Exterior Grading and Stucco at Foundation 03.

Figure 56: Exterior Grading and Stucco at Foundation 01.

Figure 58: Exterior Grading and Stucco at Foundation 02.

City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C:

SCHEMATIC STRUCTURAL PLAN VIEWS & DETAILS
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 24 AUGUST 2022Figure 59: Enlarged Foundation & Floor Plan City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 60: Enlarged Roof Plan
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 26 AUGUST 2022
Figure 61: Detail 1 - Shearwall at Existing Footing
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 62: Detail 2 - Shearwall at Existing Footing
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 28 AUGUST 2022
Figure 63: Detail 3 - Holdown at Existing Footing
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 64: Detail 4 - Typ. Post and Pier Foundation
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 30 AUGUST 2022
Figure 65: Detail 5 - Dry Rot at Exterior Footing
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 66: Detail 6 - Regrading at Exterior Foundation
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 32 AUGUST 2022
Figure 67: Detail 7 - Post Base at Existing Slab
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 68: Detail 8 - Solar Standoff to Roof Framing
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 34 AUGUST 2022
Figure 69: Detail 9 - Shear Transfer at Existing Roof
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 70: Detail 10 - Shear Transfer at Existing Roof
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 36 AUGUST 2022
Figure 71: Detail 11 - Shear Transfer at Existing Roof
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 72: Detail 12 - Shear Transfer at Existing Roof
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 38 AUGUST 2022
Figure 73: Detail 13 - New Roofing
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 74: Detail 14 - New Roofing
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 40 AUGUST 2022
Figure 75: Detail 15 - Framing at Exterior Posts
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 76: Detail 16 - Exterior Wall Stucco
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 42 AUGUST 2022
Figure 77: Detail 17 - Dry Rot at Floor Sheathing
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX C
Figure 78: Detail 18 - Dry Rot at Floor Sheathing
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 44 AUGUST 2022
Figure 79: Detail 19 - Wall Strengthening
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D:

PRELIMINARY DESIGN PARAMETERS
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 2 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX D
Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report | City of Guadalupe, California 4 AUGUST 2022
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | APPENDIX D

QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL

EVALUATION REPORT - ADDENDUM
Guadalupe City Hall
A&V PROJECT NO. 22391

PREPARED FOR
City of Guadalupe, California
31 AUGUST 2022
Image Courtesy of City of Guadalupe
https://ci.guadalupe.ca.us/galleries/town-meeting/
ATTACHMENT 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Summary Estimate of Upgrade Cost .......................................................................................... 1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Exclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 1

7. UPGRADE COST BREAKDOWN .................................................................................................... 3

7.2 Cost Breakdown for Phased Construction.................................................................................. 3

7.2.1. Recommended Phasing ...................................................................................................... 4 List of TABLES
Table 1: Building Parameters for Cost Estimates ...................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Probable Multi-Phase Upgrade Cost Summary ......................................................................... 2 Table 3: Total Multi-Phase Upgrade Cost Breakdown ............................................................................. 2 Table 4: Single vs. Multi-Phase Comparison ............................................................................................... 2 Table 5: Structural Upgrade Costs .................................................................................................................. 3 Table 6: Non-Structural Upgrade Costs ........................................................................................................ 3 Table 7: Content Upgrade Costs ...................................................................................................................... 3 Table 8: Proposed Phase 1 ................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 9: Proposed Phase 2 ................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 10: Proposed Phase 3 .............................................................................................................................. 4 City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT - ADDENDUM ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 1. Executive Summary 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this addendum is to provide an alternative for phased construction of the proposed upgrade measures. Please reference the original Qualitative Structural Evaluation Report, dated August 31, 2022 for additional information not shown.

1.1 SUMMARY ESTIMATE OF UPGRADE COST
Estimated probable costs below have been provided with the following assumptions and exclusions. Refer to Section 7.0 of the original report for cost breakdown of linear, single phase construction.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. Estimates are captured at the schematic design level only and are based on prevailing wage rates.

2. Construction is anticipated to be completed in multiple phases, beginning March, 2023 and concluding January 2027.

3. Areas of construction are anticipated to be clear of owner equipment, furnishings and personnel as required.

4. Please note that some upgrade items may apply to more than one bid option (ie. removal of existing roofing is part of item S1 & NS1). For these items, the cost will only be included in a single option.

5. All estimates assume a linear construction sequence and does not include inspector fees, architectural fees for construction documents or hidden costs associated with the construction process such as displacing workers from the building during construction.

6. Phased construction assumes scopes of work to be awarded as funding becomes available. Without a clear delineation of work, this approach may require previously completed work to have to be redone to accommodate the new work.

EXCLUSIONS

1. Furnishings & equipment

2. Travel & per diem costs

3. Dewatering of excavations

4. Hazardous material abatement

5. Removal of existing equipment or furnishings

6. Modifications to the existing sprinkler system

7. Modifications to the existing electrical system

8. Supply and installation of the Solar PV system

9. Foundation repair and replacement

10. Any other work not specifically noted in this estimate (e.g. - modifications to any sprinklers, electrical, or mechanical systems; removal & reinstallation of existing flooring or ceiling systems).

BUILDING PARAMETERS
Total Floor Area 32,250 SQ FT
Composite Shingle Roof Area 21,780 SQ FT
Building Perimeter 1,426 LINEAR FT
Shearwall Area 5,484 SQ FT
Stucco Replacement Area 6,064 SQ FT
Table 1: Building Parameters for Cost Estimates

PROBABLE MULTI-PHASE UPGRADE COST SUMMARY

AREA (SQ FT) COST/SQ FT UPGRADE COST
Structural Upgrades 32,250 $31 $996,580
Non-Structural Upgrades 32,250 $40 $1,298,668
Content Upgrades 32,250 N/A $11,255
Total 32,250 $72 $2,306,504
Table 2: Probable Multi-Phase Upgrade Cost Summary

TOTAL MULTI-PHASE UPGRADE COST BREAKDOWN
Direct Cost Subtotal $1,229,539
General Requirements $95,605
Mark-Up Cost $209,022
Contingency Cost $772,338
Total Upgrade Cost $2,306,504
Table 3: Total Multi-Phase Upgrade Cost Breakdown
SINGLE VS. MULTI-PHASE COMPARISON
Single Phase Cost Estimate $1,931,763
Multi-Phase Cost Estimate $2,306,504
Cost Differential $374,741
Table 4: Single vs. Multi-Phase Comparison
City of Guadalupe, California | QUALITATIVE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT - ADDENDUM ASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERING, INC. | 7. Upgrade Cost Breakdown 3

7. UPGRADE COST BREAKDOWN

7.2 COST BREAKDOWN FOR PHASED CONSTRUCTION
The following tables provide a breakdown of the proposed upgrade costs as outlined in Section 1 based on linear construction with an approximate start date of March 2023 and completion date of January 2027. *Cost and installation of solar PV system shall be provided by others. Approximate upgrade costs includes installation of new structural blocking only as required per Figure 67, Detail 8.

STRUCTURAL UPGRADES

UPGRADE TOTAL COST
S1 - Roof Diaphragms $156,870
S2 - Roof to Wall Connections $11,343
S3 / SD1 - Wall to Foundation Connections $72,582
S4 - Floor Framing to Foundation Connections $194,064
S5 - Structural Sheathing $234,270
SD2 - Rot Repair $327,453
Total Structural Upgrade Cost: $996,582
Table 5: Structural Upgrade Costs

NON-STRUCTURAL UPGRADES

UPGRADE TOTAL COST
NS1 - Roofing and Roof Gutters $906,680
NS2 - Exterior Finishes $388,430
NS3 - Solar Panels* $3,558
Total Non-Structural Upgrade Cost: $1,298,668
Table 6: Non-Structural Upgrade Costs

CONTENT UPGRADES

UPGRADE TOTAL COST
C1 - Content Bracing and Anchorage $11,255
Total Structural Upgrade Cost: $11,255
Table 7: Content Upgrade Costs

7.2.1. RECOMMENDED PHASING
The following provides phasing recommendations to reduce the potential for rework during construction.

PHASE 1
S1 - Roof Diaphragms
NS1 - Roofing and Roof Gutters
SD2 - Roof Rot Repair
NS3 - Solar Panels*
Table 8: Proposed Phase 1
PHASE 2
SD2 - Floor Rot Repair
S4 - Floor Framing to Foundation Connections
C1 - Content Bracing and Anchorage
Table 9: Proposed Phase 2
PHASE 3
S2 - Roof to Wall Connections
S3 / SD1 - Wall to Foundation Connections
S5 - Structural Sheathing
SD2 - Wall Rot Repair
NS2 - Exterior Finishes
Table 10: Proposed Phase 3

FUNDING AND PROJECT SCHEDULE PLAN
Item Amt, Option 1 Amt, Option 2 Source
City Hall roof upgrade & assoc. repairs $ 400,000.00 $ 400,000.00 ARPA City Hall Bathroom Redesign $ 154,000.00 $ 154,000.00 ARPA Borrow from generator $ 50,000.00 $ - ARPA
Total ARPA $ 604,000.00 $ 554,000.00 Must be spent by 12/31/2024 Vet's Hall Wood Repair $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 Fund 76
Auditorium Stage & Chambers Repairs $ 11,500.00 $ - Fund 76 Facilities Master Plan $ 90,000.00 $ 90,000.00 Fund 76
Total Fund 76 $ 171,500.00 $ 160,000.00 Available anytime Fund 78 $ 35,588.00 $ 35,588.00
Development Fees $ 1,828,492.00 $ 1,828,492.00 Pasadera, available in 2027 (est.) Enterprise Fund Contribution $ 69,000.00 $ 69,000.00 Available anytime Total available $ 2,672,992.00 $ 2,611,492.00
Avail. at approval of final tent. map s of rr. $1.5M + 2% interest per year since 2015.

Assume 5 year escalation of 25%
Alternative 1: 100% roof now
Item FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Structural engineer - assessment and roof $ 70,495.00
S1 – roof diaphragms $ 156,870.00
S2 – roof to wall connections $ 11,343.00
S3 - wall to foundation connections $ 72,582.00
S4 building to foundation connections $ 194,064.00
S5 structural sheathing $ 234,270.00
SD2 - rot repair $ 70,000.00 $ 257,453.00
NS1 – roofing and roof gutters $ 906,680.00
NS2 - Exterior Finishes $ 388,430.00
NS3 – solar panel prep $ 3,558.00
C1 – content bracing and anchorage $ 11,255.00
Plans and specs - wall and floor $ 60,000.00
Total $ 1,207,603.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,229,397.00
Available $ 880,088.00 $ 1,828,492.00
Difference $ (327,515.00) $ 599,095.00
Alternative 2: 65% roof now, remaining in FY 26-27
Item FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Structural engineer - assessment and roof $ 70,495.00 $ 40,000.00 S1 – roof diaphragms $ 101,965.50 $ 54,904.50
S2 – roof to wall connections $ 11,875.00
S3 - wall to foundation connections $ 75,986.25
S4 building to foundation connections $ 203,167.50
S5 structural sheathing $ 245,260.00
SD2 - rot repair $ 45,500.00 $ 281,953.00
NS1 – roofing and roof gutters $ 589,342.00 $ 317,338.00 NS2 - Exterior Finishes $ 406,652.50
NS3 – solar panel prep $ 2,312.70 $ 1,245.30
C1 – content bracing and anchorage $ 11,783.75
Plans and specs - wall and floor $ 60,000.00
Total $ 809,615.20 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,710,165.80
Available $ 818,588.00 $ 1,828,492.00
Difference $ 8,972.80 $ 118,326.20

CITY HALL REPAIR
Potential Funding Sources
ATTACHMENT 3
Other Potential Projects that meet ARPA criteria ATTACHMENT 4 Project Estimated cost
O’Connell Park gate $10,000
Le Roy Park west parking lot $165,000
O’Connell Park irrigation renovation $54,000
City Hall main hall painting $22,000
City Hall exterior painting $33,000
Total $284,000
1 Agenda Item No. 14

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022
_____________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Michael Cash, Public Safety Director Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Informational report from Public Safety staff on the feasibility of establishing City of Guadalupe Public Safety Department Impact Fee Nexus Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment that is charged by a local governmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project. (Gov. Code § 66000(b).) The legal requirements for enactment of a development impact fee program are set forth in Government Code §§ 66000- 66025 (the "Mitigation Fee Act"), the bulk of which were adopted as 1987’s AB 1600 and thus are commonly referred to as “AB 1600 requirements.” A development impact fee is not a tax or special assessment; by its definition, the fee must be related to the impact(s) created by development or be reasonably related to the cost of the service provided by the local agency. If a development impact fee does not relate to the impact created by development or exceeds the reasonable cost of providing the public service, then the fee may be declared a special tax and must then be subject to a two-thirds voter approval. (Cal. Const., Art. XIII A, § 4.) The Guadalupe Public Safety Department (“Department”) provides first-responder life safety protection services throughout the city. Specifically, the Department’s services include police and fire protection, prevention, detection, investigation, and suppression; emergency medical response; rescue and hazardous materials response.

Currently, the City does not have a formal adopted public safety impact fee process for new single-family housing, multi-family housing, retail/commercial, office, and industrial development respectively.

If authorized by the City Council, a Public Safety Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) will be prepared pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (”Act”) as found in Government Code § 66000, et seq. The purpose of this Nexus Study is to establish the legal and policy basis for the collection of new public safety impact fees (“fees”) on new residential and nonresidential development within the Department’s service area. As growth occurs, public safety impact fee revenue will be used Michael Cash
2 to expand the Department’s police and fire protection facilities, apparatus, and equipment so the Department can maintain its existing level of service. The Act does not allow for fee revenue to be used for Department staffing, maintenance, or other operational costs.

In order to impose such fees, this Nexus Study will demonstrate that a reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development that occurs within the Department’s service area and the need for public safety protection facilities, apparatus, and equipment as a result of new development. More specifically, this Nexus Study will present findings in order to meet the procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, also known as AB 1600, which are as follows:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (“benefit relationship”).

4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public safety facilities and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (“impact relationship”).

5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (“proportional relationship”).

To determine the Department’s public safety impact fees consistent with these procedural requirements, this Nexus Study utilizes an existing facility standard methodology. Under this method, the Department’s ratio of existing public safety protection facilities, apparatus, and equipment to existing development establishes the standard for determining new development’s fair share of the cost to expand the Department’s public safety system as growth occurs. Existing development is determined based on the assumption that 50 percent of the need and demand for public safety service (and associated facilities, apparatus, and equipment) is related to the persons (residents or employees) and the other 50 percent of the need is related to the structural area (i.e., living area or nonresidential building area) in which they live or work. The value of the Department’s existing public safety system is determined using the replacement value of the Department’s existing inventory of public safety protection facilities, apparatus, and equipment.

These costs are then applied to four land use categories in proportion to the need they create for public safety protection and emergency response services.

Staff is recommending that funding for the Nexus Study come from the Public Safety Department’s restricted Funds 40 and 42 (Proposition 172 funding).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Receive presentation from staff; and
2) Accept public comment; and
3) Close public comment; and
4) Deliberate and file the report; or
3 5) Direct staff to select a vendor to complete the study and return to Council when an impact fee study is ready for consideration; or
6) Continue to another Council meeting for further discussion and deliberation DISCUSSION:

In bringing this information to Council, we would like to know if you have a desire for the Public Safety Department to select a vendor and complete an Impact Fee Nexus Study.

As an example, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department selected a consulting group to complete a Fire Impact Fee Nexus Study in 2014.

The previous fees from 1996 were.
• Residential Development (Single Family) - $0.10 per square foot • Nonresidential Development (Commercial) - $0.10 per square foot The fees implemented in 2014 were.
• Residential Development (Single Family) - $0.59 per square foot • Nonresidential Development (Retail / Commercial) - $0.77 per square foot The City of Santa Maria implemented a Growth Mitigation Fee Program within their Municipal Code, Section 8-15.23 in 2016 through 2024. They had separate fees for fire and police.

Police Mitigation Fee
• Residential Development (Single Family) - $0.34 per square foot • Nonresidential Development (Commercial) - $0.27 per square foot Fire Mitigation Fee
• Residential Development (Single Family) - $0.49 per square foot • Nonresidential Development (Commercial) - $0.70 per square foot Staff is looking forward to an informative discussion with Council along with input from the public as well as other departments to determine what direction we will go with this topic.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the Impact Fee Nexus Study would be between $25,000 to $50,000. This would be paid through Proposition 172 funding.

During the budget process, these funds from Prop. 172 were not going to be spent and no expenditures were budgeted from these funds, Fund 40 and 42, this fiscal year. These funds were to be saved and used to purchase public safety equipment (i.e., vehicles or fire truck) in subsequent years. However, Staff is requesting approval to use these funds for this Impact Fee Nexus Study and amend the budget for Funds 40 and 42.
4 ATTACHMENT:

1. Santa Barbara County Fire Department Fire Impact Fee Nexus Study – September 2014

2. City of Santa Maria Growth Mitigation Fee Program – City Ordinance No. 2017-22

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
AUGUST 2014
PUBLIC REVIEW REPORT V1.2
PREPARED BY:

SCIConsultingGroup
4745 MANGLES BOULEVARD
FAIRFIELD, CA 94534
PHONE 707.430.4300
FAX 707.430.4319
www.sci-cg.com
ATTACHMENT 1
(This page intentionally left blank)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Fire Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared by SCI Consulting Group (“SCI”) under contract with the Santa Barbara County Fire Department (“Department”). The work was accomplished under the general direction of Michael Dyer, Fire Chief of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.

We would like to acknowledge special efforts made by the following individuals and organizations to this project:

Diane Sauer, Santa Barbara County Fire Department
Deputy Chief Eric Peterson, Santa Barbara County Fire Department Deputy Chief Chris Hahn, Santa Barbara County Fire Department (retired) Scot Alderete, Santa Barbara County Fire Department
Santa Barbara County Assessor’s Office
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE ii
(This page intentionally left blank)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF GENERAL FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 3 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 4 DETERMINATION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 6 SERVICE POPULATION ...................................................................................................... 6 STRUCTURAL AREA ......................................................................................................... 6 FIRE FACILITIES DEMAND FACTOR .................................................................................... 7 EXISTING FIRE FACILITIES DEMAND EDUS ......................................................................... 9 DETERMINATION OF EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES ................................................... 10 DETERMINATION OF THE FIRE IMPACT FEE ............................................................................. 11 FIRE FACILITIES STANDARD ............................................................................................ 11 RESIDENTIAL FIRE IMPACT FEES ..................................................................................... 12 NONRESIDENTIAL FIRE IMPACT FEES ............................................................................... 13 PROJECTED FIRE IMPACT FEE REVENUE ......................................................................... 14 NEXUS FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 15 FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ......................................................... 17 ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 17 ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 17 ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 17 FIVE-YEAR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... 18 FIRE IMPACT FEE CREDIT ............................................................................................... 18 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................ 19 APPENDIX A – MAPS OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT .............................. 20 APPENDIX B – ESTIMATE OF CURRENT EMPLOYEE SERVICE POPULATION .......................... 22 APPENDIX C – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTORS ..................................................... 23 APPENDIX D – FIRE SYSTEM INVENTORY AND REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES .................. 24

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE iv

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 – SUMMARY OF CURRENT TOTAL FIRE IMPACT FEES .................................................. 3 FIGURE 2 – SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEPARTMENT-WIDE FIRE IMPACT FEES ............................. 4 FIGURE 3 – FIRE FACILITIES DEMAND FACTOR ......................................................................... 8 FIGURE 4 – EXISTING DEMAND EDUS ...................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 5 – ESTIMATED COST OF EXISTING FIRE SYSTEM FACILITIES ....................................... 10 FIGURE 6 – FIRE FACILITIES STANDARD ................................................................................. 11 FIGURE 7 – PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FIRE IMPACT FEES ......................................................... 12 FIGURE 8 – PROPOSED NONRESIDENTIAL FIRE IMPACT FEES ................................................... 13 FIGURE 9 – PROJECTED FIRE IMPACT FEE REVENUE .............................................................. 14 FIGURE 10 – ESTIMATE OF CURRENT EMPLOYEE SERVICE POPULATION ................................... 22 FIGURE 11 – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTORS .............................................................. 23 FIGURE 12 – EXISTING LAND INVENTORY ............................................................................... 24 FIGURE 13 – EXISTING FIRE STATION INVENTORY ................................................................... 25 FIGURE 14 – APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORY ........................................................... 26

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
The Santa Barbara County Fire Department (“Department”) provides first-responder fire protection services countywide except to the Cities of Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria; the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District; the Montecito Fire Protection District and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Specifically, the Department’s services include fire prevention and suppression; emergency medical response and transport; rescue and hazardous materials response.

Currently, the County of Santa Barbara (“County”) imposes “fire protection mitigation fees” on all new development within the Department’s service area in the amount of $0.20 per square foot for non-sprinklered structures and $0.10 per square foot for sprinklered structures. (Section 15-48 et seq.). Established in 1996, these fire impact fees are outdated and insufficient to mitigate the impact of new development. These fees have never been adjusted for inflation and only include fire apparatus and equipment costs.

Additionally, the County, on behalf of the Department, also imposes fire facility impact fees on new development within the Orcutt Community Plan (Section 15-72 et seq.) and the Goleta Community Plan (Section 15-79.20 et seq.).

This Fire Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) was prepared pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (”Act”) as found in Government Code § 66000 et seq. The purpose of this Nexus Study is to establish the legal and policy basis for the collection of new fire impact fees (“fees”) on new residential and nonresidential development within the Department’s service area. As growth occurs, fire impact fee revenue will be used to expand the Department’s fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment so the Department can maintain its existing level of service. The Act does not allow for fee revenue to be used for Department staffing, maintenance or other operational costs. The proposed fire impact fee program would replace the three aforementioned current fire impact fee programs.

In order to impose such fees, this Nexus Study will demonstrate that a reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development that occurs within the Department’s service area and the need for fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment as a result of new development. More specifically, this Nexus Study will present findings in order to meet the procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, also known as AB 1600, which are as follows:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 2

2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (“benefit relationship”).

4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the fire facilities and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (“impact relationship”).

5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (“proportional relationship”).

To determine the Department’s fire impact fees consistent with these procedural requirements, this Nexus Study utilizes an existing facility standard methodology. Under this method, the Department’s ratio of existing fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment to existing development establishes the standard for determining new development’s fair share of the cost to expand the Department’s fire system as growth occurs. Existing development is determined based on the assumption that 50 percent of the need and demand for fire service (and associated facilities, apparatus and equipment) is related to the persons (residents or employees) and the other 50 percent of the need is related to the structural area (i.e. living area or nonresidential building area) in which they live or work. The value of the Department’s existing fire system is determined using the replacement value of the Department’s existing inventory of fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment. These costs are then applied to four land use categories in proportion to the need they create for fire protection and emergency response services.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 3

SUMMARY OF GENERAL FINDINGS

1. The County of Santa Barbara (“County”), on behalf of the Department, currently imposes Department-wide “fire protection mitigation fees” in the amount of $0.20 per square foot for non-sprinklered structures and $0.10 per square foot for sprinklered structures. Established in 1996, these fees are outdated and insufficient to mitigate the impact of new development. These fees have never been adjusted and only include fire apparatus and equipment costs. Additionally, the County, on behalf of the Department, also imposes “development impact mitigation fees” for fire protection facilities for two planning areas within the Department’s services area.

FIGURE 1 – SUMMARY OF CURRENT TOTAL FIRE IMPACT FEES
Land Use Category
Unincorp.

Area
City of
Buellton
City of
Solvang
Goleta
Planning
Area 1
Orcutt
Planning
Area
Residential Development
Single Family Residential $184 $184 $184 $1,035 $1,027
Other Residential $98 $98 $98 $730 $670
Nonresidential Development
Retail Commercial $100 $100 $100 $697 $681
Non-Retail Commercial / Industrial $100 $100 $100 $941 $917 Notes:
2 For comparison purposes, the total impact fees shown include the Department-wide service area fee for apparatus and equipment only of $0.10 per square foot of sprinklered area and reflect average living areas of 1,841 square feet for a single family home and 978 square feet for an other residential unit.

Department Sevice Area
Per Dwelling Unit 2
Per 1,000 Building Sq. Ft.
1 The Goleta Planning Area includes the City of Goleta and the surrounding unincorporated area.

2. Department-wide fire impact fees for facilities, apparatus and equipment are needed to ensure that the Department can adequately expand its fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment needed for the resident and employee growth and structural area created by new development.

3. A reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development in the Department’s service area and the need for additional fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment as a result of new development.

4. The proposed department-wide fire impact fee is consistent with the policies of the Santa Barbara County General Plan.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 4

SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings presented in the Nexus Study, the following general recommendations are presented:

1. The Department should establish new Department-wide fire impact fees to fairly allocate the costs of providing fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment to new development. The following fire impact fees for the Department are proposed:

FIGURE 2 – SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEPARTMENT-WIDE FIRE IMPACT FEES Land Use Category
Proposed
Department-wide
Fire Impact Fees 1
Residential Development Per Unit
Single Family Housing $1,086
Other Residential Housing $738
Nonresidential Development
Per 1,000 Building
Sq. Ft.

Retail Commercial $771
Non-Retail Commercial / Industrial $727
Notes:
1 Fees are rounded to the nearest dollar.

2. Since only Cities and Counties have authority to impose fees as a condition of project approval, the Department’s proposed fire impact fees must be adopted by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the respective City Councils of Buellton, Goleta and Solvang on behalf of the Department.

3. The Department’s new fire impact fees should be adopted and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000 et al.).

4. The Department’s new fire impact fee program should be administered in accordance with Government Code § 66006 and other applicable provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 5

5. The cost estimates presented in this Nexus Study are in 2014 dollars. The ordinance and/or resolution establishing the new Department-wide fire impact fees should include a provision for annual inflationary adjustments based on a Department review of an appropriate construction cost index.

6. The Department should periodically conduct a review of facility, apparatus and equipment costs and building trends within the Department. If costs change significantly in either direction, this Nexus Study should be updated and the fire impact fees adjusted accordingly.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 6

DETERMINATION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
The Department serves both residences and businesses throughout their service area. As such, the demand for the Department’s fire protection services and associated fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment is measured by its service population and the structures it protects. This section will first determine the service population and structural area within the Department’s service area. This data will be used to establish a fire facilities demand factor for the various residential and nonresidential land uses within the Department’s service area, which in turn will be used to determine existing development’s total fire facilities demand.

SERVICE POPULATION
The Department provides first-responder fire protection services countywide except to the Cities of Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria and the CarpinteriaSummerland Fire Protection District, the Montecito Fire Protection District and Vandenberg Air Force Base.1 The Department currently serves an estimated total population of 158,854 which includes 148,208 residents in households and 10,646 in group quarters. For the purpose of this Nexus Study, the population in group quarters is accounted for in the nonresidential population. The resident population estimate is based on figures from the 2010 Census for the Department’s service area and adjusted by annual growth rates provided by the California Department of Finance.

For nonresidential development, it is estimated that there are approximately 58,200 employees. Current employment is based on May 2014 employment figures provided by the California Employment Development Department (“EDD”) for the cities and censusdesignated places closely approximating the service area of the Department.2

STRUCTURAL AREA
The Department provides fire protection to approximately 57,098 occupied and vacant housing units and approximately 24.7 million square feet of nonresidential building area.

Estimated total housing units are based on figures from the 2010 U.S. Census for the Department service area and adjusted by annual growth rates provided by the California Department of Finance. Nonresidential building area is based upon an average employment density assumption of 2.36 employees for every 1,000 square feet.

1 Maps of the Department’s service areas are provided in Appendix A. 2 Current employment by city or census-designated place is provided in Appendix B.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 7

FIRE FACILITIES DEMAND FACTOR
To determine the relative demand for fire facilities for various land uses, this Nexus Study relies on equivalent dwelling unit (“EDU”) factors to compare fire facilities demand across various residential and nonresidential land uses. For purposes of this Nexus Study, it is assumed that 50 percent of the demand for fire protection and emergency response services is related to the persons (residents or employees) and the other 50 percent of the need is to protect the structural area (living area or nonresidential building area) in which the persons live or work. The equivalent dwelling unit (“EDU”) is also used to convert the nonresidential building area to a residential dwelling unit value. This approach allows for the cost of fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment to be fairly apportioned among residential and nonresidential land uses.

Figure 4 on the following page shows the calculation of the fire facilities demand factor for four land use categories. The residential land use categories are expressed per dwelling unit and the nonresidential land use categories are expressed per 1,000 square feet of building area. By this measure, for example, one single-family home creates the demand for fire facilities equal to 0.68 per 1,000 square feet of retail building area.

PAGE 8

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
FIGURE 3 – FIRE FACILITIES DEMAND FACTOR
Land Use Category
Residents per
Unit /
Employees per
1,000 Sq. Ft. 1
Persons per
Unit EDU
Persons
Demand
Factor
Structural Area
per Unit (sq.
ft.) 2
Structural Area
per Unit EDU
Structural Area
Demand
Factor
Fire Facilities
Demand
Factor
Calc a b = a / 2.91 c = b * 50% d e = d / 1,841 f = e * 50% g = c + f Single Family Residential 2.91 1.00 0.50 1,841 1.00 0.50 1.00Other Residential 2.42 0.83 0.42 977 0.53 0.27 0.68 Residential 2.77 0.95 0.48 1,595 0.87 0.43 0.91
Retail Commercial 2.56 0.88 0.44 1,000 0.54 0.27 0.71
Non-Retail Commercial / Industrial 2.31 0.79 0.40 1,000 0.54 0.27 0.67 Nonresidential 2.36 0.81 0.41 1,000 0.54 0.27 0.68
Source: Santa Barbara County Assessor's Office; Southern California Association of Governments and U.S. Census BureauNotes:
2 The persons weighting factor represents the use of fire protection facilities by the people occupying a structure.1 Residents per unit is based on census data from the 2010 U.S. Census. Nonresidential density figures are based an Employment Density Study prepared by The Natelson Company, Inc. for Southern California Association of Governments expressed in terms of the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of building area. 3 Average housing unit size per square foot are based on July 2014 assessor's roll from the Santa Barbara County Assessor's Office. Nonresidential density is based on a "per 1,000 square feet of building area" basis.

PAGE 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

EXISTING FIRE FACILITIES DEMAND EDUS
Figure 4 below calculates the Department’s existing demand EDUs based on the total number of housing units and estimated nonresidential building area within the Department.

As shown, total demand EDUs for the Department is 68,579. Existing demand EDUs represents the level of existing development served by the Department’s existing facilities.

FIGURE 4 – EXISTING DEMAND EDUS
Land Use Categories
Housing Units
and 1,000 Sq.

Ft. of Building
Area 1
Fire Facilities
Demand
Factor 2
Existing
Demand EDUs
Calc a b c = a * b
Single Family Residential 40,570 1.00 40,570
Other Residential 16,528 0.68 11,239
Nonresidential 1 24,661 0.68 16,769
Total 81,759 68,579
Notes:
2 See Figure 3.
1 Total housing units are from Figure 11. Nonresidential development assumes 2.36 employees per 1,000 square feet and 58,200 employees or 24,661 nonresidential development units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: California Employment Development Department; and SCI Consulting Group
PAGE 10

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

DETERMINATION OF EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES
The next step in determining the Department’s existing fire facilities standard is to calculate the replacement value of the Department’s fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment. Figure 5 below presents a summary of replacement cost (in 2014 dollars) for the Department’s existing fire facilities (land and fire stations), apparatus (engines and special vehicles) and equipment. The detailed inventory and estimated replacement cost for each is provided in Appendix D.

The estimated value of the Department’s inventory is based on unit cost assumptions provided by the Department. Estimated land value was based on market research conducted by SCI Consulting Group on comparable properties on the market at the time of the Nexus Study. Fire station replacement costs are based on construction cost estimates from the Engineering News and Record Square Foot Costbook, 2013 Edition for fire station construction in the greater Los Angeles area.

As shown below, the estimated value of the Department’s existing fire protection facilities is approximately $74.5 million.

FIGURE 5 – ESTIMATED COST OF EXISTING FIRE SYSTEM FACILITIES Fee Components
Total
Replacement
Costs 1
Land $10,649,210
Buildings $38,561,030
Apparatus / Equipment $25,289,701
Total Fire System Facilities $74,499,941
1 See Appendix D for more detail.

Notes:

Source: Santa Barbara County Fire Department
PAGE 11

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

DETERMINATION OF THE FIRE IMPACT FEE
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that development impact fees be determined in a way that ensures a reasonable relationship between the need for fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. In this section, the Department’s existing fire facilities standard is determined and then applied to four land uses categories in proportion to the demand they create as measured by their fire facilities demand factor.

FIRE FACILITIES STANDARD
The Department’s ratio of existing fire facilities to existing development establishes the standard for determining new development’s fair share of the cost to expand the Department’s fire facilities as growth occurs. As shown in figure 6 below, this standard is represented by the existing fire system facility cost of $1,086.35 per demand EDU.

FIGURE 6 – FIRE FACILITIES STANDARD
Existing Fire System Facilities 1 $74,499,941
Existing Demand EDUs 2 68,579
Fire Facilities Standard $1,086.35
Notes:
1 See Figure 5.
2 See Figure 4.

PAGE 12

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

RESIDENTIAL FIRE IMPACT FEES
Since residential land uses have varying dwelling unit occupancies and living area, the residential fire impact fees are expressed on a “per dwelling unit” basis. For the purposes of this fire impact fee program, a "unit" means one or more rooms in a building or structure or portion thereof designed exclusively for residential occupancy by one or more persons for living or sleeping purposes and having kitchen and bath facilities, including mobile homes. More specifically, the two residential land use categories are defined as follows:
 "Single Family Residential" means detached and attached one-family dwelling units;
 “Other Residential” includes multi-family residential, mobile homes and other housing that is not Single Family Residential.

Figure 7 below presents the calculation of the proposed residential fire impact fees. As shown, the residential fees are determined by multiplying the fire facility standard by their respective fire facilities demand factor.

FIGURE 7 – PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FIRE IMPACT FEES
Land Use Category
Fire Facilities
Standard 1
Fire Facilities
Demand
Factor 2
Cost per
Demand EDU
Proposed
Res. Fees
(per unit) 3
Calc a b c = a * b d = c (rounded)
Single Family Residential $1,086.35 1.00 $1,086.35 $1,086 Other Residential $1,086.35 0.68 $738.71 $738
2 See Figure 3.

Notes:
3 Proposed residential fire impact fees are rounded down to the nearest dollar. 1 See Figure 6.

PAGE 13

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

NONRESIDENTIAL FIRE IMPACT FEES
As stated earlier, the Mitigation Fee Act requires that development impact fees be determined in a way that ensures a reasonable relationship between the fee and the type of development on which the fee is imposed. Since different nonresidential land uses have varying employment densities, the nonresidential fire impact fee is expressed per 1,000 square foot of building area for two nonresidential land use categories based on their respective fire facilities demand factor.

The two nonresidential land use categories are defined as follows:
 "Retail Commercial" means all store, shopping center and service business construction.
 “Non-Retail Commercial / Industrial” means all commercial, general, professional and medical office construction; all manufacturing construction and other nonresidential construction that is not Retail Commercial construction.

Figure 8 below presents the calculation of the nonresidential fire impact fees. As shown, the fees for the two nonresidential land uses are determined by multiplying the fire facility standard by their respective fire facilities demand factor.

FIGURE 8 – PROPOSED NONRESIDENTIAL FIRE IMPACT FEES
Land Use Category
Fire
Facilities
Standard 1
Fire
Facilities
Demand
Factor 2
Cost per
Demand EDU
Proposed
Nonres. Fees
(per 1,000 sq.
ft.) 3
Calc a b c = a * b d = c (rounded)
Retail Commercial $1,086.35 0.71 $771.31 $771
Non-Retail Commercial /
Industrial $1,086.35 0.67 $727.85 $727
2 See Figure 3.

Notes:
3 Proposed nonresidential fire impact fees are rounded down to the nearest dollar. 1 See Figure 6.

PAGE 14

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

PROJECTED FIRE IMPACT FEE REVENUE
Figure 9 projects fire impact fee revenue through 2040 based on household and employment projections for the Department provided by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (“SBCAG”). Demand EDU growth was first determined by applying an annual growth rate of 0.6% for residential and 0.82% for nonresidential to the existing EDUs for the twenty-six year period from 2014 to 2040. Total fire impact fee revenue (in 2014 dollars) is then calculated by multiplying the fire facilities demand standard by demand EDU growth for the period.

FIGURE 9 – PROJECTED FIRE IMPACT FEE REVENUE
Land Use Category
Current Demand
EDUs (2014) 1
Demand EDU
Growth (2040) 2
Fire Facilty
Demand
Standard 3
Projected Fire
Impact Fee
Revenue (2014$)
Calc a b c d = b * c
Residential 51,809 8,719 $1,086.35 $9,471,303
Nonresidential 16,769 3,967 $1,086.35 $4,309,457
Total 68,579 12,685 $1,086.35 $13,780,761
Source: Santa Barbara County Association of Governments; SCI Consulting Group Notes:
2 Based on projected annual growth rates of 0.6% for residential and 0.82% for nonresidentail from 2014 to 2040 for the District's service area provided by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. 1 See Figure 4.
3 See Figure 6.

PAGE 15

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

NEXUS FINDINGS
This section frames the Nexus Study findings in terms of the legislated requirements to demonstrate the legal justification of the fire impact fees. The justification of the fire impact fees on new development must provide information as set forth in Government Code § 66000. These requirements are discussed below.

PURPOSE OF FEE
This Nexus Study must identify the purpose of the fee.

The purpose of the fire impact fee is to fund the cost of fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus, and equipment attributable to new residential and nonresidential development in the Department. The fire impact fees will ensure that new development will not burden existing development with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth as it occurs within the Department.

USE OF FEE REVENUE
This Nexus Study must identify the use to which the fee is to be put.

Fee revenue will be used to fund the cost of expanded fire facilities, apparatus and equipment to serve new development. Fee revenue may not be used to fund operational, maintenance or repair costs.

BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP
This Nexus Study must determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

The fee will be collected as development occurs. To maintain its existing level of fire protection and emergency response services, fee revenue will be used to expand the Department’s facilities, apparatus and equipment to meet the additional demand generated by the new residents and employees and new structural area created by new development projects.

PAGE 16

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

IMPACT RELATIONSHIP
This Nexus Study must determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

New development projects will create additional need for the Department’s fire protection and emergency response services and a corresponding need for expanded facilities, apparatus and equipment. The fee will be imposed on different types of development projects in proportion to the additional service population generated and structural area created by new development projects.

PROPORTIONALITY
This Nexus Study must determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

The cost of fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment attributable to a development project is based upon the level of existing development served by the Department’s existing fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment. The use of an existing facilities standard methodology to determine the fire impact fee achieves proportionality between existing development and new development. Moreover, these equivalent costs are applied to four land use categories in proportion to the need they create for expanded facilities.

The use of a fire facilities demand factor to determine the fire impact fee schedule achieves proportionality across the types of development on which the fee is imposed.

PAGE 17

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
This section contains general recommendations for the adoption and administration of the fire impact fee program based on the findings of this Nexus Study and for the interpretation and application of the fire impact fees recommended herein. The specific statutory requirements for the adoption and implementation may be found in the Mitigation Fee Act (California Govt. Code § 66000 et seq.).

ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS
The following are the general requirements for approval and adoption of the Fire Impact Fee Nexus Study and proposed fire impact fees.

1. The local agency shall conduct at least “one open and public meeting” as part of a regularly scheduled meeting on the proposed fees.

2. At least 14 days before the meeting, the local agency shall mail out a notice of the meeting to any interested party who filed a written request for notice of the adoption of new or increased fees.

3. At least 10 days before the meeting, the local agency is to make available to the public the Nexus Study for review.

4. At least 10 days before the public hearing, a notice of the time and place of the meeting, shall be published twice in a newspaper of general circulation.

5. The fire impact fees take effect 60 days after adoption of the resolution or ordinance.

ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS
Proceeds from the fire impact fee should be deposited into a separate fund or account so that there will be no commingling of fees with other revenue. The fire impact fees should be expended solely for the purpose for which they were collected. Any interest earned by such account should be deposited in that account and expended solely for the purpose for which originally collected.

ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The following information must be made available to the public within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year:
 a brief description of the type of fee in the account;  the amount of the fee;
PAGE 18

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
 the beginning and ending balance of the account;
 the fees collected that year and the interest earned;  an identification of each public improvement for which the fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures for each improvement;  an identification of an approximate date by which construction of the improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;  a description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, the date on which any loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest to be returned to the account; and
 the amount of money refunded under section Govt. Code § 66001.

FIVE-YEAR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
For the fifth fiscal year following the first receipt of any fire impact fee proceeds, and every five years thereafter, the Department shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
 Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put;
 Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
 Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and
 Designate the approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

FIRE IMPACT FEE CREDIT
If a developer, as a condition of project approval, is required to dedicate land, construct facilities and / or provide apparatus/equipment for the Department, the fire impact fees imposed on that development project should be adjusted to reflect a credit for the cost of the dedicated land, facilities constructed and / or apparatus/equipment provided.

PAGE 19

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Maps of Santa Barbara County Fire Department Appendix B – Estimate of Current Employment
Appendix C – Dwelling Unit Occupancy Factors
Appendix D – Fire System Inventory and Replacement Cost Estimates

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 20
APPENDIX A – MAPS OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 21

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 22
APPENDIX B – ESTIMATE OF CURRENT EMPLOYEE SERVICE POPULATION The Department’s current employee service population is estimated based on May 2014 employment figures provided by the California Employment Development Department (“EDD”). The Cities and census-designated places (“CDP”) shown below were used to approximate the total service area of the Department.

FIGURE 10 – ESTIMATE OF CURRENT EMPLOYEE SERVICE POPULATION Place 1
Employee
Service
Population
Buellton city 2,300
Goleta city 17,600
Isla Vista CDP 9,300
Los Alamos CDP 800
Mission Canyon CDP 1,600
Mission Hills CDP 1,700
Orcutt CDP 14,800
Santa Ynez CDP 2,800
Solvang city 3,200
Toro Canyon CDP 1,100
Vandenberg Village CDP 3,000
Total Department 58,200
Notes:

Source: California Employment Development
Department, May 2014
1 CDP is "Census Designated Place" - a recognized
community designated for the 2000 U.S. Census.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 23
APPENDIX C – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTORS
FIGURE 11 – DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY FACTORS
Land Use Categories
Occupied
Dwelling Units
(2014) 1
Vacant Dwelling
Units (2014) 2
Household
Population
(2014) 1
Dwelling Unit
Occupancy
Factor
Calc a b c d= c / a
Single Family Residential 38,184 2,386 111,430 2.91
Other Residential 15,187 1,341 36,778 2.42
Total Residential 53,371 3,727 148,208 2.77
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and California Department of Finance Notes:
1 Based on figures from the 2010 U.S. Census for the Department's service area and adjusted for growth based on the California Department of Finance E5 Report.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 24
APPENDIX D – FIRE SYSTEM INVENTORY AND REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES FIGURE 12 – EXISTING LAND INVENTORY
Station # Location
Land Area
(acres)
Unit Cost
(per acre)
Land Value
(2014$)
Station 11 6901 Frey Way, Goleta CA 93117 2.00 $760,000 $1,520,000 Station 12 5330 Calle Real, Goleta CA 93117 1.60 $760,000 $1,216,000 Station 13 1 4570 Hollister, Santa Barbara CA 93110 0.57 $740,000 $421,800 Station 14 320 Los Carneros, Goleta CA 93117 0.79 $760,000 $601,160 Station 15 2491 Foothill Rd, Santa Barbara CA 93105 1.50 $740,000 $1,110,000 Station 17 5 Mesa Road, Bldg 547 Santa Barbara, CA 93106 0.00 $0 $0 Station 18 17200 Mariposa Reina, Gaviota CA 93117 3.40 $350,000 $1,190,350 Station 21 335 Union Ave., Orcutt CA 93455 0.17 $250,000 $42,500 Station 22 1596 Tiffany Park Ct, Santa Maria CA 93455 0.47 $320,000 $150,400 Station 23 5003 Depot Ave, Santa Maria CA 93454 1.30 $320,000 $416,000 Station 24 3 99 Centennial, Los Alamos CA 93440 1.59 $350,000 $556,500 Station 30 4 1644 Oak St., Solvang CA 93464 0.57 $0 $0
Station 31 2 168 W HWY 246, Buellton CA 93427 2.10 $350,000 $735,000 Station 32 906 Airport Rd, Santa Ynez CA 93254 1.50 $625,000 $937,500 Station 41 41 Newsome St., New Cuyama CA 93254 0.43 $100,000 $43,000 Station 51 3510 Harris Grade Road, Lompoc CA 93436 1.50 $350,000 $525,000 Headquarters 4410 Cathedral Oaks Rd, SB CA 93110 1.60 $740,000 $1,184,000 Buellton Ops 2 166 W. HWY 246, Buellton CA 93427 2.10 $0 $0 South BC 1 4570 Hollister, Santa Barbara CA 93110 0.57 $0 $0 North BC 99 Centennial, Los Alamos CA 93440 1.59 $0 $0
Total Land Value $10,649,210
Notes:

Source: Santa Barbara County Fire Department; SCI Consulting Group 3 Station 24, Construction and North BC share the same APN 4 Owned by City of Solvang; Shared w/City Hall
5 Owned by UC Santa Barbara.
2 Station 31 and Buellton Ops share the same APN, addresses are not recorded and are listed under 164 W HWY 246 1 Station 13 and South BC share the same parcel

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 25
FIGURE 13 – EXISTING FIRE STATION INVENTORY
Station # Location
Building Area
(sq. ft.)
Unit Cost (sq.
ft.) 1
Replacement
Cost (2014$ )
Station 11 6901 Frey Way, Goleta CA 93117 6,880 $445 $3,061,600 Station 12 5330 Calle Real, Goleta CA 93117 5,560 $445 $2,474,200 Station 13 4570 Hollister, Santa Barbara CA 93110 5,560 $445 $2,474,200 Station 14 320 Los Carneros, Goleta CA 93117 3,000 $445 $1,335,000 Station 15 2491 Foothill Rd, Santa Barbara CA 93105 2,040 $445 $907,800 Station 17 2 Mesa Road, Bldg 547, SB, CA 93106 0 $445 $0 Station 18 17200 Mariposa Reina, Gaviota CA 93117 5,646 $445 $2,512,470 Station 21 335 Union Ave., Orcutt CA 93455 3,825 $445 $1,702,125 Station 22 1596 Tiffany Park Ct, Santa Maria CA 93455 4,544 $445 $2,022,080 Station 23 5003 Depot Ave, Santa Maria CA 93454 3,880 $445 $1,726,600 Station 24 99 Centennial, Los Alamos CA 93440 6,260 $445 $2,785,700 Station 30 3 1644 Oak St., Solvang CA 93464 0 $445 $0
Station 31 168 W HWY 246, Buellton CA 93427 4,656 $445 $2,071,920 Station 32 906 Airport Rd, Santa Ynez CA 93254 5,646 $445 $2,512,470 Station 41 41 Newsome St., New Cuyama CA 93254 4,255 $445 $1,893,475 Station 51 3510 Harris Grade Road, Lompoc CA 93436 7,961 $445 $3,542,645 Headquarters 4410 Cathedral Oaks Rd, SB CA 93110 12,432 $445 $5,532,240 Buellton Ops 166 W. HWY 246, Buellton CA 93427 2,000 $445 $890,000 South BC 4570 Hollister, Santa Barbara CA 93110 2,509 $445 $1,116,505 86,654 $38,561,030
Notes:

Total Fire Station Replacement Costs
Source: Santa Barbara County Fire Department; Engineering News and Record 3 Owned by City of Solvang; Shared w/City Hall.
2 Owned by UC Santa Barbara.
1 Based on contruction costs from the 2013 Edition of the ENR Square Foot Costbook for the greater Los Angeles area and adjusted 4.2% for inflation. Unit cost also included 15% for site development and 5% for design.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 26
FIGURE 14 – APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Type Units Cost per Unit
Equipment
Cost per Unit
Replacement
Cost (2014$)
Calc a b c d = a * (b + c)
Type 1 Engines 24 $530,000 $136,089 $12,856,089
Type 2/3 Engines 3 $350,000 $71,467 $1,121,467
Type 3 Engines 13 $350,000 $71,467 $4,621,467
Water Tenders 4 $370,000 $35,000 $1,515,000
Breathing/Supt 1 $400,000 $136,089 $536,089
Ladder Truck 1 $1,000,000 $136,089 $1,136,089
Command Vehicles 25 $60,000 $4,000 $1,504,000
Sedans 22 $30,000 $1,500 $661,500
Vans 5 $45,000 $1,500 $226,500
Pickup Trucks 37 $30,000 $1,500 $1,111,500
Total $25,289,701
Source: Santa Barbara County Fire Department

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 27
Proposed
Land Use Category
Departmentwide
Departmentwide 1
Goleta
Fee
Total
Goleta
Fees
%
Change
Orcutt
Fee
Total
Ocutt
Fees
%
Change
Residential
Single Family Residenital $1,086 $184 $851 $1,035 4.9% $843 $1,027 5.7% Other Residential $738 $98 $632 $730 1.1% $572 $670 10.1% Nonresidential
Retail Commercial $771 $100 $597 $697 10.6% $581 $681 13.2% Non-Retail Commerical /
Industrial $727 $100 $841 $941 -22.7% $817 $917 -20.7%
Notes:

Comparison of Proposed and Current Fire Impact Fees
Current
Per Unit
Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
1 For comparison purposes, the department-wide fee is based on $0.10 per square foot of sprinklered area. The average living area for a single family residential unit and other residential unit is 1,841 square feet and 978 square feet respectively.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 28
Jurisdiction
Average SingleFamily
Residential (per
Unit)
Nonresidental
(per 1,000 square
foot)
Proposed Fees - Santa Barbara County Fire Department $1,086 $727 to $771 Currrent Fees - Santa Barbara County Fire Department 1
Other Unincorporated Area $184 $100
City of Buellton $184 $100
City of Solvang $184 $100
Goleta Planning Area $1,035 $697 to $941
Orcutt Planning Area $1,027 $681 to $917
Current Fees - Other Countywide Fire Agencies
San Luis Obispo County Fire Department $1,994 $902
Ventura County Fire Department $979 $490
The Monterey County Regional Fire District (est.) $828 $900 to $1,350 Orange County Fire Authority $893 $450
Notes:
1 For comparison purposes, fees include and assume a sprinklered structure.

Survey of Fire Impact Fees of Other Countywide Fire Agencies

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
FIRE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PAGE 29
(This page intentionally left blank)
ATTACHMENT 2

Agenda Item No. 15

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022
__________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Amelia M. Villegas, Interim HR Manager Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Re-Classification for the Human Resources Manager position RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-83 approving the re-classification of the job description for the Human Resources Manager position.

BACKGROUND:

Prior to summer of 2006, the City of Guadalupe did not have a dedicated human resources function. Pieces of personnel-related paperwork were handled by various staff. In June 2006, a temporary part-time human resources position, mostly project-based, was created which eventually turned into a regular, part-time position. A job description and salary range were developed with both approved by the City Council in the first quarter of 2007.

In an effort to reduce costs city-wide in the fall of 2012, an Interim City Administrator made significant cuts in a variety of areas, one of which was in the human resources position. The salary range was lowered by approximately 30% and has not been reviewed and/or adjusted in the last ten years.

DISCUSSION:

Recruitment efforts to fill this vacant Human Resources Manager position have been ongoing since March this year, with an increased focus in mid-May. Resumes and applications have been received and a variety of candidates were phone-screened.

Under the “Human Resources umbrella”, there are a number of disciplines. This singleincumbent position/function requires an individual who has had, not only exposure to a variety of these disciplines, but has developed depth in more than one or two of them. The ideal candidate should be a human resources generalist. The City Administrator has worked here for almost three (3) years and has recognized the importance of a strong management team, especially in the Human Resources Manager role as being equal to any of the key executive team.

Amelia M. Villegas
There are a variety of legal implications that could cost the City significant dollars in lawsuits, if not for a qualified Human Resources Manager.

The market for a human resources generalist is beyond what our current salary range offers.

Attached is a survey of the surrounding cities on the Central Coast which we consider our labor market. It is difficult to try and match this position “apples-to-apples” with others. However, we did look at comparable functions in six (6) cities. Guadalupe is the second lowest in this survey.

One important factor to consider is that most of these other human resources positions report to another human resources staff member.

It is recommended that the reclassification for this position be approved for a six percent (6%) increase, with a new minimum of $69,745 annually ($33.531 hourly) to a maximum of $93,465 annually ($44.935 hourly). This reclassification will allow for the City to be in a better position to hire a qualified candidate to manage the human resources’ function.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The current budget for this position is $115,864. This had assumed hiring at the predecessor’s hourly rate of $38.451 hourly ($79,978 annually) plus approximately 45% on top (related to costs of benefits) for the $115,864 total compensation figure. Currently, the position is being filled by a part-time interim employee with a cost of approximately $3,500 per month, (depending on the actual number of hours worked, which varies).

Projecting a hire on October 1, 2022, and assuming a consistent monthly average cost of $3,500 for the interim employee’s salary through October, the cost for this salary range increase from October 1st through the end of this fiscal year would be as follows:

Hire at $7,065 mo. X 9 mos. = $63,585
+45% benefit costs, etc. = $28,613
+ Interim costs (3 mos.) = $14,000
Total thru FY 22/23 = $106,198
There would be a potential savings of approximately $9,666 for the current fiscal year.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2022-83

2. Salary Comparison – Central Coast Cities

3. Unrepresented Positions
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-83

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA

ADOPTING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER POSITION WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager position began as a temporary, part-time, project-based position; and
WHEREAS, in the fall of 2007, the City Council approved a regular, part-time human resources job description and salary range; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager position was downgraded 30% in a cost-cutting measure by an interim City Administrator in the fall of 2012; and WHEREAS, the salary level has not undergone a thorough review in the past twelve years; and WHEREAS, in a review of comparable positions in other cities in the Central Coast, which is Guadalupe’s labor market, the Human Resources Manager position is on the lower end of the salary ranges; and WHEREAS, positions of comparable responsibilities report to senior human resources staff which differs from the reporting relationship in the City of Guadalupe; and WHEREAS, the responsibilities of this position requires a human resources generalist with a solid, wellrounded experience base that the current salary range does not support.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1: The reclassification and salary range of the Human Resources Manager be increased by six percent (6%), effective upon the adoption of this resolution by the City Council.

SECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 13th day of September 2022 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTACHMENT 1
I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-83, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held September 13, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
_________________________________ ______________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
SALARY COMPARISONS – CENTRAL COAST CITIES

HOURLY & ANNUAL SALARIES
CITY Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step L1 Step L2 Atascadero $32.283 $33.897 $35.592 $37.372 $39.240 n/a n/a Personnel Specialist $67,149 $70,506 $74,031 $77,733 $81,620 n/a n/a Grover Beach $30.952 $32.504 $34.125 $$35.833 $37.627 $39.508 n/a Mgt. Analyst/HR $64,380 $67,608 $70,980 $74,532 $78,264 $82,176 n/a Lompoc $34.990 $36.659 $38.413 $40.253 $42.185 n/a n/a
Sr. HR Analyst $72,779 $76,251 $79,899 $83,726 $87,745 n/a n/a Morro Bay $35.190 $36.850 $38.798 $40.738 $42.774 n/a n/a HR Analyst II $73,196 $76,856 $80,699 $84,734 $88,970 n/a n/a Paso Robles $36.290 $38.510 $40.890 $43.407 $46.083 n/a n/a Professional Mgr. $75,489 $80,100 $85,051 $90,286 $95,853 n/a n/a Solvang $41.10 $42.95 $44.882 $46.902 $49.013 $51.218 n/a HR Mgr. (P/T) $85,488* $89,336* $93,355* $97,556* $101,947* $106,533* n/a *Full-Time Salary
Guadalupe $31.635 $33.217 $34.878 $36.622 $38.453 $40.376 $42.395 HR Mgr. $65,801 $69,091 $72,546 $76,174 $79,982 $83,982 $88,182 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ These cities did not have positions comparable to Guadalupe’s Human Resources Manager.

Arroyo Grande: “HR Officer” – Salary range: $47.446 to $57.681 hourly (Annual range: $98,688 to $119,976) – 5 steps Buellton: “City Clerk/HR Director” – Salary range: $51.098 to $62.106 hourly (Annual range: $106,284 to $129.180) – 5 steps Pismo Beach: “”HR Officer” – Salary range: $49.136 to $59.725 hourly (Annual range: $102,203 to $124,228) – 5 steps Santa Maria: “HR Manager” – Salary range: $51.995 to $73.139 hourly (Annual range: $108,149 to $131.330) – 5 steps 08/29/2022
ATTACHMENT 2

UNREPRESENTED POSITIONS
(as of 08/30/2022)
POSITION Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step L1 Step L2 Police Lieutenant $53.706 $56.391 $59.211 $62.172 $65.281 $68.545 $71.972 $111,708 $117,293 $123,158 $129,318 $135,784 $142,574 $149,702 PW Director/ $51.583 $54.162 $56.870 $59.714 $62.700 $65.835 $69.127 City Engineer $107,292 $112,657 $118,290 $124,205 $130,416 $136,937 $143,784 Finance Director $45.578 $47.857 $50.250 $52.763 $55.401 $58.171 $61.080 $94,802 $99,543 $104,520 $109,760 $115,234 $120,996 $127,046 Recreation Services $32.884 $34.528 $36.254 $38.067 $39.970 $41.969 $44.067 Manager $68,399 $71,818 $75,408 $79,179 $83,138 $87,296 $91,659 Human Resources $31.635 $33.217 $34.878 $36.622 $38.453 $40.376 $42.395 Manager $65,801 $69,091 $72,546 $76,174 $79,982 $83,982 $88,182 ATTACHMENT 3

Agenda Item No. 16

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of September 13, 2022
___________________________________
Prepared by:

Todd Bodem, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Denial of Unsuccessful Candidates for Commercial Cannabis Business (CCB) Permits RECOMMENDATION:
1) Receive a presentation from staff;
2) Receive public comment; and
a. Deny the applications of the three unsuccessful CCB permit candidates; and b. Authorize the establishment of an eligibility list for the unsuccessful candidates in the event one or both of the prevailing candidates are unable to meet the remaining requirements for obtaining a CCB permit.

BACKGROUND:

At the April 12, 2022, City Council meeting, the City Council took two actions concerning selection of Commercial Cannabis Business (CCB) permit applicants: (1) the Council decided to select only two applicants to move forward in the process of applying for and obtaining CCB permits; and (2) the Council selected SloCal Roots Management LLC dba Root One (SloCal Roots) as one of these two “prevailing candidates” (the term used in Guadalupe Municipal Code Chapter 9). The Council was not able to select the second prevailing candidate at this meeting, however, due to the lack of majority support for any of the four remaining CCB permit applicants. The Council was able to narrow the selection down to two (4) of the remaining four (4) CCB permit applicants: BDSF 1 Holdings LLC dba Element 7 Guadalupe (“Element 7”) and LGBA Management LLC dba The Roots Dispensary (“The Roots Dispensary”). The Council also directed that City staff request that these two CCB permit applicants make another presentation to the Council focusing on the community benefit and neighborhood plan portions of their applications.

No action was taken concerning the applications of the two remaining applicants, Guadalupe Erudite Ventures dba HerbNJoy (“HerbNJoy”) and Guadalupe Community Project LLC dba Mr. Nice Guy (“Mr Nice Guy”) at the April 12th Council meeting.

The additional presentations from The Roots Dispensary and Element 7 took place at the April 26, 2022, City Council meeting. Council member Ramirez and Council member Costa were not present at this meeting; however, because a quorum of the Council was present, it was legally permissible for the Council to move forward with the presentations and make its decision concerning which of the two CCB applicants would be selected to move forward in the process. After the presentations, the City Council

deliberated and ultimately selected Element 7 as the second of the two prevailing candidates to move forward in the process.

Due to a procedural irregularity that has been well documented and explained in prior staff reports, the City Council voted to rescind its selection of Element 7 was made to the City Council (with all five (5) members present) at the Council meeting of July 12, 2022. The Council also directed staff to invite Element 7 and The Roots Dispensary to make another presentation to the City Council (with all five (5) members in attendance).

The additional presentations from Element 7 and The Roots Dispensary took place at a special City Council meeting held on August 16, 2022. After receiving these presentations, the City Council selected Element 7 on a 4-1 vote to proceed with the process of obtaining a CCB permit.

DISCUSSION:

Now that the Council has selected the two prevailing candidates for pursuing CCB permits, it is appropriate to take action on the applications for the three unsuccessful candidates. As stated above, no action was taken at the April 12th Council meeting on the applications of HerbNJoy and Mr. Nice Guy even though these applicants were not selected to continue in the process of obtaining a CCB permit.

With the selection of Element 7, The Roots Dispensary has also not been selected to continue in the process for a CCB permit at this time.

In the staff report for the April 26th meeting concerning the second presentations by Element 7 and The Roots Dispensary, staff recommended:
…that the Council place CCP permit applications that will not be selected to move forward with the process at this time on an “eligibility list” that will remain active until both CCB permits authorized by the City Council have actually been issued. Staff recommends creation of this eligibility list because it is possible that one or both of the CCB permit applicants ultimately selected to move forward in the process may be unable to comply with all the requirements for issuance of a CCB permit, including but not limited to:
obtaining a conditional use permit; successfully entering into a community benefit agreement on terms acceptable to the City; or some other reason such as being unable to complete the purchase of a property or execution of a lease required for the cannabis business location.

The staff report for this item also stated:

Alternatively, instead of creating the eligibility list, Council can take action to formally reject the unselected CCB permit applicants at the April 26th meeting or at a future meeting, but staff does not recommend doing so since having additional candidates for a CCB permit on an eligibility list in the event one or both of the selected applicants fail to meet the requirements for issuance of a CCB permit (or timely meet these requirements) would save the City time and money by not having to start the application process over.

Guadalupe Municipal Code section 9.22.140.I. states: “The City Council shall either deny or approve the final candidates and shall select the top candidates in each category of the cannabis businesses …” The Council has taken action to approve two of the applicants (SloCal Roots and Element 7) but has not taken specific action to deny any of the final candidates. Now that the two “prevailing” candidates have been selected to continue with the process for obtaining a CCB permit, it is appropriate for the Council to take specific action to deny the applicants of the unsuccessful candidates.

Even though staff is recommending that the City Council deny the applications for HerbNJoy, Mr. Nice Guy, and The Roots Dispensary, staff is also recommending that the City Council confirm that an eligibility list be created for these three unsuccessful applicants in the event that one or both of the prevailing candidates (i.e., Element 7 and/or SloCal Roots) ultimately fail to meet the remaining requirements for issuance of a CCB permit or obtain issuance of the required conditional use permit. If Council confirms that is wants to create an eligibility list, staff will bring another item on a future Council agenda concerning this list as well as some other matters that require Council direction such as establishing a timeline for the prevailing candidates to obtain issuance of a conditional use permit and commence business operations.

Should the Council take the recommended action and deny the applications for the three unsuccessful candidates, no administrative appeal is available or required before an unsuccessful candidate would be able to seek judicial review in the superior court. Guadalupe Municipal Code section 9.22.140.J. states, in part: “The City Council’s decision concerning which applicant(s) will be issued an official cannabis business permit(s) is final and is subject to the time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 for judicial review.” There is no point in requiring the candidates who have been denied by the City Council to bring an administrative appeal to the City Council, the same body that denied their applications in the first place.