CITY OF SEBASTOPOL CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM REPORT FOR MEETING OF: February 17, 2026
=========================================================================================== To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Toni Bertolero, Public Works Engineer
Erik Billing, Public Works Supervisor
Subject: Sebastopol Cultural Community Center – Short- and Long-Term Plan =========================================================================================== RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council receive the memorandum from Toni Bertolero, dated January 27, 2026 on the Sebastopol Cultural Community Center Short- and Long-Term Plan (Attachment 1) and provide direction to staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council approved a Capital improvement Program (CIP) project in fiscal year 2025-26 for the preparation of the Sebastopol Cultural Community Center (“Community Center”) master plan. The master plan, in the format of a memorandum was prepared by Toni Bertolero, Public Works Engineer, in collaboration with the ad hoc committee and is included in Attachment 1 (“Report”). The Report describes previous studies that were conducted, expenditures made for flood-related repairs and improvements, and recommendations for short term and long term improvements for the building. The recommendations are summarized below.
Long-Term Options:
1. Explore and move forward with new location, financing and timeline for a new site and building for the community center.
2. Explore and move forward with implementation for a shared civic space either with the Sebastopol Commons and/or with another non-profit organization.
3. Do nothing.
The recommended option is Long-Term Option 2. Both the City and the Community Center organization do not have the financing capacity to realistically implement this option. As for Option 3, it is not in the City’s interest to implement this option because of the significance and importance of the Community Center to the City and to the community.
Short-Term Options:
1. Finalize the design and estimate for the flood mitigation repairs that were initiated in 2024 (“Flood Mitigation Master List of Repairs”) and include the project in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan with a preliminary construction cost estimate of $456,000.
2. Only make emergency and necessary repairs as required for health and safety concerns.
The recommended option is Short-Term Option 1. Staff recommends that if the City chooses to continue to lease the building at its current location, that the short-term flood mitigations and repair work should be done for continued operations. There is available balance in the flood mitigation fund for this work. Option 2 is not recommended because the current building needs maintenance and repair and if the City continues to lease the building, flood mitigations and repairs should be made for continuing operation at the Morris Street location.
Agenda Item Number 8 Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In February 2019, Sebastopol, along with many communities in the area, experienced significant flooding including damage to the Community Center. The City was awarded $1.5 million in flood relief funds for the 2019 flood event and the monies set aside in Fund 127 for flood-related mitigation and repair projects in the City. A list of flood-related repairs can be found in the Report (Attachment 1).
Council approved a Capital improvement Program (CIP) project in fiscal year 2024-25 for the preparation of the Sebastopol Cultural Community Center master plan for $85,000.00. However, during the budget planning discussions for fiscal year 2025-26, because previous studies for the Community Center had already been conducted, the project was reduced in scope and a budget of $15,000.00 was approved. In addition, the Community Center ad hoc committee was created to review short- and long-term plans for the building discussed in the Report.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Long-term flood protection alternatives for the building were evaluated in a 2021 study prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler (see Report, Exhibit A). The improvements ranged in cost from $650k to $3.8 million. The study recommended improvements consisting of a removable perimeter barrier as the most cost-efficient option at $650k and would provide the desired 10 feet of flood protection, when needed. This recommended alternative was deemed infeasible by Public Works due to concerns about how to store the portable system and the number of crew needed to deploy the barriers during a flood event.
Because of the flooding constraints at the current site on Morris Street, and the cost to provide adequate flood protection for future flood events, consideration of other sites not in a flood zone was a viable option stated in the report.
In the short term, If the City desires to continue to lease the Community Center, flood mitigations and repairs should be made for continuing operation at the Morris Street location. A list of repairs needed was prepared by Interactive Resources, in collaboration with City staff, and can be found in the Report, Exhibit B. The preliminary construction cost estimate for recommended repairs is $456k. This estimate will need to be revisited and refined when the plans and specifications for the repair work are prepared.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS/PRIORITIES/ AND OR GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
This agenda represents the City Council goals/priorities as follows:
• Goal 1 – Community Vitality. Enhance Sebastopol as a great place to live that values community health and well being. Preserve Sebastopol’s unique character.
This agenda item represents the City Council General Plan Consistency:
• Community Services and Facilities CSF-6-16: Support improvements to expansion of, or replacement of the Sebastopol Community Cultural Center to address flood issues, and to improve services and facilities available to the community in order to enhance the quality of life for all City residentsthrough the provision of quality community services and facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with this agenda item recommendation. Council may direct staff to include the flood mitigation and repairs at a preliminary construction cost estimate of $456k for consideration in the Fiscal Year Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
2026-27 CIP, and the fiscal impact of the design and construction will be discussed and approved during the budget hearings for Fiscal Year 2026-27.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
This item has been noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date. The City has also used social media to promote and advertise the City Council Meeting Agenda Items.
As of the writing of this agenda item report, the City has not received any public comment. However, if staff receives public comment from interested parties following the publication and distribution of this agenda item report, such comments will be provided to the City Council as supplemental materials before or at the meeting.
There is a comment letter received from Kenyon Webster, Community Center Boardmember and is included in Attachment 2.
RESTATED RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council receive the memorandum from Toni Bertolero, dated January 27, 2026 on the Sebastopol Cultural Community Center Short- and Long-Term Plan and provide direction to staff.
CITY COUNCIL OPTION(S):
1. Accept the Report and direct staff to include the flood mitigation and repairs in the list prepared by Interactive Resources, in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program for future consideration of approval.
2. Accept the Report and do nothing (i.e., continue current practice of only making emergency and necessary repairs for health and safety concerns.
3. Direct staff to explore and move forward with implementation for a shared civic space either with the Sebastopol Commons and/or with another non-profit organization.
4. Combination of options 1, 2 and/or 3.
5. Other new options directed by Council (may be in combination with any of the above options).
ATTACHMENTS:
1-Memorandum from Toni Bertolero dated January 27, 2026 including Exhibits A and B Exhibit A - Schaaf & Wheeler report, 2021
Exhibit B - List of Flood Mitigation and Repairs, Interactive Resources 2-Comment Letter from Kenyon Webster dated February 3, 2026.
APPROVALS:
Department Head Responsible for Agenda Item: Approval Date: 2/3/26 CEQA Determination (Community Development/Planning): Approval Date: 2/2/26 The proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Administrative Services (Financial): Approval Date: N/A Costs authorized in City Approved Budget: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐
City Attorney Approval Approval Date: 2/2/26
City Manager Approval: Approval Date: 2/5/26
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Public Works Department
714 Johnson Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Phone (707) 823-5331
Website: www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us
Email: [email protected]
Memorandum:
Date: January 28, 2026
To: Ad Hoc Committee members: Mayor McLewis and Councilmember Zollman From: Toni Bertolero, Public Works Department
Re: Sebastopol Community Cultural Center Plan
CC : Community Center Boardmember Kenyon Webster
Mary Gourley, Interim City Manager
Erik Billing, Public Works Supervisor
1.0 Introduction
The Sebastopol Community Cultural Center is located at 390 Morris Street on City-owned land.
The Community Center is leased and operated by a small independent non-profit organization. The Community Center conducts a range of community-oriented classes and events that in many other cities are conducted by City Park and Recreation departments. As such, there are community concerns about maintaining the services provided by the Community Center.
The Community Center's Main Hall is in the 100-year Laguna de Santa Rosa floodplain.
Unfortunately, the Main Hall building is not floodproofed by elevation or other means. The finished floor elevation of the Main Hall is 72 feet, lower than the local 100-year floodplain elevation of 78.5 feet. Therefore, in a 100-year flood, 6.5 feet of floodwater is possible in the Main Hall; however lesser floods will cause significant damage and disruption. The Design Flood Elevation (DFE), the elevation to which a structure must be raised to minimize flood risk, is 80.5 feet. Because the finished floor elevation is 72 feet, the building would need to be flood proofed 8.5 feet to reach the DFE. The site is within a flood hazard area and has had historical flooding up to 4.5 feet within the building. The Main Hall has a repeated history of flooding.
Most floods in this area have followed a reasonably predictable pattern, with a strong relationship to flooding on the Russian River, which is closely monitored. Typically, there is at least one to two days of warning, if not more, which can be sufficient for evacuation, and protection (if means were available).
This document (“Plan”) is an evaluation of the Community Center facility to help the City determine the short- and long-term action plan for the Community Center. The Plan considers flood mitigation and flood proofing alternatives and order-of-magnitude costs for long range flood mitigation projects for the Community Center. The Plan also summarizes a previously compiled list of short-term flood repairs from previous flood damages to continue to keep the existing building operational.
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
2.0 Executive Summary
Due to concerns with flooding and repetitive damage and disruption, funding for preparation of a Sebastopol Community Cultural Center Master Plan was approved on July 2, 2024 and established a Community Center Ad-hoc committee consisting of Councilmember Zollman and Mayor McLewis. Community Center Board representative Kenyon Webster is the main point of contact for communication with the Board. City staff to the Ad-hoc committee includes Erik Billing and Toni Bertolero.
Subsequent to the master plan approval, City staff met with Council Ad-hoc committee members and it was determined that a comprehensive master plan was not needed due to previous studies already performed for the Community Center, and funds can be saved by reducing the scope of the study. The City Ad-hoc members met and developed a scope of work needed to determine next steps for the Community Center.
This document summarizes the work previously performed and will be presented to Council for discussion of short and long term options for consideration.
Below is a summary of the flood-related work to date on the Community Center since the 2019 Flood Event totaling approximately $718,184.
Flood repairs in 2019 were completed to repair some of the flood damage to keep the building operational.
Public Works commissioned a long-term flood-proofing study in 2021. Extensive kitchen repairs were completed in 2023.
List of short-term flood repairs and mitigations was prepared in 2023. Lighting repairs were completed in 2024.
Building-related fire improvements due to flood damage to the walls were completed in 2025.
In 2023, additional flood repairs and mitigation work were identified and preliminary plans were prepared for improvements estimating to cost $380,000. It should be noted that because this cost is greater than $200k, this triggers requirements for ADA improvements of 20 percent of the work, thereby increasing the preliminary construction cost estimate to $456,000. The additional work was not started, pending Council direction as to funding further flood mitigation and flood repair work at the Community Center. The direction to staff from the previous City Manager was to only perform work necessary for continuing operations and building safety needs. To resume the work, a) the Master List of Flood Mitigation Repairs would need to be revisited, b) prepare and finalize the plans, specifications and cost estimate for the improvements, c) Council approval of a Capital Improvement Project for the improvements once the cost estimate has been identified, and d) formally bid the project in accordance with the Public Contract Code.
If the City chooses to continue to lease the Community Center, funding and implementing the short-term repairs described above should be made in the interest of continuing operations. The list of short-term improvements should also be revisited to ensure that health and safety improvements are separated out and can be performed more quickly, if possible. Over the last two Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
years, the current practice of only performing health and safety repairs, particularly after each flood event, was the direction given to staff.
The options for long-term viability of the Community Center are limited at its current site. In 2021, Public Works acquired the services of Schaaf & Wheeler and based on the results of their analysis, it was recommended that a removable perimeter barrier be used at an estimated cost of $650k since it is the most cost-efficient option and can provide the desired 10 feet of flood protection, when needed. This alternative (Alternative 4 in the study) was reviewed by Public Works and determined to be infeasible due to the number of crew needed to deploy the removable barrier. There were also concerns about how to store and deploy the system. During flood events, Public Works crews’ main priorities are handling sewer backups and keeping the sewer lift stations up and running to prevent sewer spills and addressing plugged storm drainage systems to minimize roadway flooding.
Other options identified in the study ranged in cost from $1.2 million to $3.8 million. City Council could choose to revisit the options identified in the study or find another location that is not prone to flooding. The City does not have a list of potential sites but is open to collaborating with other interested organizations and businesses. The City recently established a Sebastopol Commons Subcommittee which is tasked with exploring the feasibility and opportunities for shared civic space intended to enhance educational, cultural, health, and community resources.
Upon review and discussion of options for the community center building by the ad hoc committee, below are the recommendations.
Long Term Options:
1. Explore and move forward with new location, financing and timeline for a new site and building for the community center.
2. Explore and move forward with implementation for a shared civic space either with the Sebastopol Commons and/or with another non-profit organization.
3. Do nothing.
The recommended option is Long-Term Option 2. Both the City and the Community Center organization do not have the financing capacity to realistically implement this option. As for Option 3, it is not in the City’s interest to implement this option because of the significance and importance of the Community Center to the City and to the community.
Short-Term Options:
1. Finalize the design and estimate for the flood mitigation repairs that were initiated in 2024 (“Flood Mitigation Master List of Repairs”) and include the project in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan with a preliminary construction cost estimate of $456,000..
2. Only make emergency and necessary repairs as required for health and safety concerns.
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
The recommended option is Short-Term Option 1. Staff recommends that if the City chooses to continue to lease the building at its current location, that the short-term flood mitigations and repair work should be done for continued operations. There is available balance in the flood mitigation fund for this work. Option 2 is not recommended because the current building is in need of maintenance and repair and if the City continues to lease the building, flood mitigation and repairs should be made for continuing operation at the Morris Street location.
3.0 Background
In February 2019, Sebastopol, along with many communities in the area, experienced significant flooding including damages to the Community Center. In July 2019, Governor Newsom approved the fiscal year 2019-20 State budget and through the help of Assemblyman Marc Levin’s Office, the City was awarded $1.5 million in flood relief funds for the 2019 flood event and is set aside in Fund 127. The audited ending fund balance for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is $1,012,495. Fund 127 is used for flood mitigation work for the city and is intended for flood repairs and to mitigate citywide future flood events.
Some repairs have been completed but there is still much work to be done in the short term as well as long-term improvements to the building and/or the site for flood resiliency. Public Works recently managed a contract to complete building-related fire improvements caused by the 2019 flood at a cost of approximately $70,000. The work was completed in June 2025.
At the July 2, 2024 meeting, Council established the Community Center Ad-hoc Committee (“Ad-hoc”) with Mayor Stephen Zollman and Vice-Mayor Jill McLewis as committee members.
Other members of the committee included the previous Public Works Superintendent Dante Del Prete, and Toni Bertolero. Due to recent retirements in the Public Works Department, staff to the Ad-hoc now consists of Erik Billing, Public Works Supervisor and Toni Bertolero, Public Works Engineer. Other City staff are invited to attend meetings or review documents, as needed. The purpose of the Ad-hoc is to provide input and feedback to this Plan and communicate with the Community Center Board, with Board member Kenyon Webster as the main point of contact.
The general scope of work for this Plan report is listed below. For purposes of this scope, the costs that will be provided are order-of-magnitude level costs.
1. Provide background and a compilation of previous reports and recommendations with updated cost estimates.
2. Provide summary of long-range plan from the Schaaf & Wheeler report including the flood wall and the removable barrier/portable wall and the logistical issues identified.
3. Consider other properties in the City that may serve as a new SCCC site not located in a flood zone; and identify potential issues such as noise. Identify square footage needed as well as parking needs.
4. Consider flood-proofing or raise the building above the flood elevation and updated costs.
5. Identify potential grants for future work or acquisitions.
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
6. Operationally, provide information regarding long-term feasibility of the SCCC operations and being self-sufficient. City staff will work with SCCC staff on identifying operational costs and revenue streams.
7. It has been stated by the Building Official that FEMA will not provide Flood loss funding again since the building has experienced multiple events. Note: this statement was verified by the City with County Department of Emergency Management who have extensive experience with FEMA. Further discussion on this is found in Section 3.5, as well as CIRA insurance information.
8. Although beyond the scope of this study as it would be a costly task at this preliminary stage, it should be noted that the City may wish to conduct a more detailed cost estimate and work with a financial advisor on various financing options. That could be the next step if directed by Council.
3.1 Flood Repairs Completed
The table below summarizes the repairs completed to date resulting from the 2019 Flood event.
The costs were either incurred directly by the City or reimbursed to the community center for work they conducted with their own contractors. In June 2024, Council approved $70,000 for replacement of flood-damaged dry walls and acoustical ceiling panels, insulation, thermal and moisture protection work. The walls and ceiling panels were damaged during the 2019 Flood event and the walls are no longer fire-rated. This project was approved and completed in January 2025 and was done to keep the building in operating condition for day-to-day use. The cost of City staff are not included in Table 1. All work listed in Table 1 has been reimbursed to the City through FEMA, insurance claims, or flood relief funds (Fund 127).
Table 1: 2019 Flood Event Repairs Completed
Year Description of Work Total
2019-2022 General Flood Damage Repairs 124,699
2019 Main Hall 86,684
2019 Reimb to SCCC for lost revenue 89,351
2020 Roof Repairs 149,012
2020 Restroom 23,140
2021 Kitchen Repair Work 169,914
2024-2025 SCCC Flood Mitigation Master Plan 2,767
2025 Fire Related Bldg Improvement 60,464
YTD 2026 Fire Related Bldg Improvement 12,153
Total 718,184
3.2 Previous Analysis: Schaaf & Wheeler Report (April 2021) After the 2019 Flood Event, Public Works acquired the services of an engineering firm to explore various flood proofing concepts to protect the Community Center from future flooding up to ten feet deep. When flooding occurs from water spilling over the banks of the Laguna de Santa Rosa during a 100 year flood event, the flow travels to the Community Center reaching the building. Because of these flood events, the Schaaf & Wheeler study developed flood-proofing Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
options that are passive and permanently installed or could be temporarily employed when flooding is predicted.
A summary of the various design options is shown in Table 2. The last column includes an escalation of 15 percent. The costs identified in Table 2 were prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler for a relative concept comparison and not an Engineer’s Estimate for construction. Further detailed design would need to be conducted in order to refine the estimate and escalated costs. It is beyond the scope of this Plan to refine the costs.
Table 2: Flood-Proofing Alternatives (Schaaf & Wheeler Study) Opt.
No.
Description Comments Cost
(2021)
Cost
(2025)
1 Floodproof entire
structure with permanent
measures
High cost of reinforcing the bottom 10 feet
of building exterior walls in Alternatives 1
and 3.
$3.30 M 3.80 M
2 10-foot flood wall with
flood doors
A perimeter reinforced concrete wall
around the building.
$0.98 M $1.20 M
3 Floodproof entire
structure with temporary
measures
This option requires emergency
installation of door and window barriers,
and other barriers around equipment.
$3.30 M 3.80 M
4 Removable perimeter
barrier
Does not include cost of deployment. A
crew of 7-9 people would be needed to
complete deployment in about 15 hours.
$0.56 M 0.65 M
The study concluded that based on the results of their alternatives analysis, it was recommended that Alternative 4 consisting of a removable perimeter barrier be used since it is the most costefficient option and can provide the desired 10 feet of flood protection, when needed.
3.3 Previous Inspection: Building and Engineering Departments (November 2021) An inspection was conducted and a list of inspection issues were identified and memorialized in an inspection report dated November 2, 2021. This was not intended as a comprehensive list but was conducted in response to concerns raised that flood repairs were not completed as a result of the 2019 flood event.
Noted issues included numerous leaks in the interior and exterior of the building, leaks in the kitchen around the exhaust hood, rotted wood that is in contact with the concrete, moisture in the interior of the building is evident throughout, and extensive corrosion to structural steel members of the building. Some flood mitigation repairs (such as water sealing and adding roof gutters), were identified but beyond the scope of the inspection. It was recommended that a professional familiar with water intrusion issues be consulted. Costs were not identified in the inspection report.
3.4 Flood Repairs and Mitigations: Interactive Resources (2023) The City acquired the services of a licensed Architect, Interactive Resources, with staff experienced with building water intrusion issues. City staff from Public Works and Building departments, along with Community Center staff met so that a list of flood repairs and mitigations can be compiled from flood repair lists developed by the various departments and Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
from the Community Center staff. In addition, the Architect also conducted a site visit and performed visual inspection of the building to add their list of flood repairs and mitigations. The flood repairs list dated April 12, 2023 (“Master List”, Attachment 2) was prepared and presented to City and Community Center staff. Detailed cost estimates for the repairs were not developed and the intent was to work with a contractor to provide repair costs.
Using the April list, staff then pared down the list to flood repairs that needed to be completed directly caused by the 2019 flood event. This list, dated May 18, 2023, was entitled “FEMA Extension List.” The list was compiled when the previous Fire Chief responded to FEMA regarding an extension for FEMA funding for repairs resulting from the 2019 flood event. It is unclear whether this extension was granted and the status of FEMA funding, however, due to the length of time since the extension request, it is presumed that FEMA funding is not available for these flood repairs.
In June 2023, the Architect was tasked with preparing plans to address the water intrusion mitigations needed based on priority flood repair and mitigation items from the Master List. The plans were prepared and the construction cost estimated to be $380,000 (2025 costs). After the list and costs were compiled, staff was directed by the City Manager at that time, to discontinue flood repair assessments on the Community Center as it was not clear that the City Council would support further monies be spent. The plans were never finalized, costs were not refined, and the specifications were not prepared.
The Building Official stated that because the work exceeds $200k, that ADA improvements would also be triggered. The regulations stipulate that ADA improvements, in the amount of 20 percent of the improvements would need to be performed. This will need to be considered in the final design and cost estimate for the flood mitigation work. Adding the 20 percent cost would mean the preliminary construction cost estimate would be $456,000.
3.5 Resiliency and Recovery
In light of the ongoing flooding risk and pending any long-term solutions, the Community Center is committed to a philosophy of resiliency and rapid recovery. The Community Center Board of Directors has stated that to the greatest extent possible, all new equipment and improvements will either be removable or flood water-resistant so that they do not have to be replaced in the event of floods. In addition, the Community Center is committed to rapid recovery: substantially resuming normal operations as soon as feasible after a flood event, generally within 30 days after a flood event.
Future Repairs and Flood Mitigation Costs
The City is a member of CIRA (California Intergovernmental Risk Authority), and obtains property coverage through PRISM Risk. CIRA has confirmed that the City has replacement cost coverage for flood events with a $100,000 deductible.
The City’s current appraised value for the Community Center building is $2.5 million and for the site property for $200k for a total valuation of $2.7 million. When incurring flood damages, costs for debris removal and repairs would be eligible in addition to damage to the building. In Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
addition, if the City were to make flood mitigation improvements, the City is eligible for a matching grant under the PRISM property program up to $25,000.
The Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management (“County DEM”) was contacted to find out about FEMA reimbursement for the Community Center should a future flood disaster be declared by the President for the area. FEMA is a source for reimbursement of costs after the City’s insurance provider pays the City’s flood repair claims. FEMA would only cover costs not covered by the City’s insurance (such as deductibles and other items not covered by CIRA).
According to County DEM, the City could request reimbursement from FEMA when a presidential declaration for a flood disaster has been made but there is no guarantee that the request for reimbursement would be approved. FEMA would be making its decision based on considerations such as whether or not the City has made improvements since the last time FEMA monies have been requested, or if the City has taken steps to minimize future flood damage to the building and the site.
4.0 Future Considerations
Funding for the Community Center will continue to be a challenge. The one-time 2019 flood relief monies received from the State of $1.5 million was intended to pay for flood mitigations and resilience measures to protect against future floods citywide. The projected Fiscal Year 2025-26 ending fund balance of the fund is approximately $843,495. Although insufficient for full flood protection at the current site, a portion of these funds could be used for flood repairs and mitigations. Upon limited research, staff was unable to identify grants for flood mitigation repair work or for future building sites, however, staff will continue to research grants that may become available to the City.
4.1 Permanent Flood Mitigation and Flood Proofing of Existing Site As discussed in the Schaaf & Wheeler study, permanent flood proofing would cost almost $4 million in today’s costs. This option was presented to Council in 2021 and it was decided at that time, that this cost was unaffordable. A concrete flood wall (Alternative 2), as identified in the study was also discussed, however, the high cost, in combination with the condition of the Main Hall, and the aesthetic and other physical impacts of the perimeter flood wall were deemed to be unacceptable.
The Schaaf & Wheeler report discussed in Section 3.2 mentioned portable removable barriers (Alternative 4) but this option was reviewed by Public Works and determined to be infeasible due to the number of crew needed to deploy. There were also concerns about how to store the system. During flood events, Public Works crews’ main priorities are handling sewer backups and keeping the sewer lift stations up and running to prevent sewer spills and addressing plugged storm drainage systems to minimize roadway flooding.
The current Council may choose to revisit this alternative as well as others discussed in the study.
4.2 Continued Operation with Minimum Flood Repairs and Building Safety Repairs The City has been operating under this current scenario by performing as-needed flood and building safety repairs that would allow short term continued operation of the Community Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Center. During flood events, the building would not be usable by Community Center and Public Works staff.
4.3 Other Potential Sites
Because of the flooding constraints at the current site on Morris Street, it has been discussed as to whether there may be other sites in the city that could be used for the Community Center that are not prone to flooding. The City does not have a list of potential sites but is open to collaborating with other interested organizations and businesses. The City recently established a Sebastopol Commons Subcommittee which is tasked with exploring the feasibility and opportunities for shared civic space intended to enhance educational, cultural, health, and community resources. The community center is part of the discussion with the subcommittee.
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Schaaf & Wheeler Study, 2021
Exhibit B - List of Flood Mitigations and Repairs (Interactive Resources) Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
To: Joe Gaffney April 30, 2021
Schaaf & Wheeler 1
870 Market Street, Suite 1278
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 433-4848
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 30, 2021
TO: Joe Gaffney, City of Sebastopol
FROM: Caitlin Gilmore, PE
SUBJECT: Sebastopol Community Cultural Center Floodproofing Concepts Introduction
The Sebastopol Community Cultural Center was founded in 1982 for recreational services. The project is in an effective FEMA Zone AE within the Special Flood Hazard Area1. The site is west of the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which is part of the Russian River Watershed, leading to historical flooding up to 4.5 feet high within the building.
The City of Sebastopol (City) is interested in floodproofing concepts to protect the Community Center from future flooding up to ten feet deep. FEMA Technical Bulletin 3, Requirements for the Design and Certification of Dry Floodproofed Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings and FEMA P-936, Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings were used to formulate the four concepts presented herein.
Per the FEMA effective maps, the base flood elevation (BFE) is 78.5 feet NAVD88. The City of Sebastopol Municipal Code Title 15 Chapter 15.16 requires that in Zone AE, improvements of structures must be elevated two feet above the BFE. The design flood elevation (DFE) is 80.5 feet NAVD88.
Community Cultural Center Structure
The Cultural Center is a two-story structure that contains a kitchen, bathroom, and auditorium on the first floor and offices on the second floor. The structure is made of corrugated metal walls with a steel frame on a cement slab level with grade. The main entrance, which leads into the main hall, is on the south side of the building and is a flush hollow steel door. There is also a flush hollow steel door to the east of the main entrance that provides access to a side room and reception office. There are three flush hollow steel doors on the east side of the building. The first-floor exterior perimeter has horizontal sliding windows on all sides. There is one of two of the accesses to the second-floor to the west of the main entrance via a metal and concrete staircase with a flush hollow steel door. The second access is at the northwest side of the building via a wooden staircase. There are second-floor horizontal sliding windows only on the west side. All exterior doors swing outwards.
1 FEMA FIRM 06097C0715E dated February 2021
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
To: Joe Gaffney April 30, 2021
Schaaf & Wheeler 2
The main hall on the first floor takes up the center. On the east side of the main hall is a stage.
On the south side are two small rooms and the reception office. The door of the reception office swings inwards, as does the door connecting the two rooms. The entrances to the rooms swing both ways. On the west side are three storage rooms on the southern end. The doors swing outwards for the 2nd storage room and inwards for the first storage room. The bathroom is to the north of the storage rooms. The men’s door swings outwards, but the women’s door swings inwards. To the north is a staircase to the second floor, and the door swings outwards. There is a door here connected to the kitchen that swings inwards, as does the entrance to the kitchen from the main hall.
The building’s utility services, including the water heater and electrical panel, are located under the second-floor entrance on the northwestern end. The air conditioning unit is south of the panel, on an elevated platform with a seven-foot wooden fence.
The building’s finished floor elevation (FFE) is 72 NAVD88. Therefore, the building would need to be floodproofed 8.5 feet to reach the DFE.
Table 1: Elevations
Elevation Type Elevation (NAVD88)
Base Flood Elevation (BFE) 78.5
Design Flood Elevation (DFE) 80.5
Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) 72
Design depth at structure (feet) 8.5
Design Considerations
Dry Floodproofing versus Wet
Dry floodproofing happens in a building that is watertight and allows no floodwaters to enter the building envelope. Wet floodproofing allows for the passage of floodwaters through all or part of the structure without causing significant damage by using flood damage-resistant materials and adequate structural venting. The City has decided to focus on dry floodproofing measures for this analysis to prevent floodwaters from inundating the structure and subsequent post-flood clean-up and repairs.
Flood Warning at the Site
Flooding occurs from the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which is approximately 465 feet east of the Community Center when the water spills over its banks during the 100-year flood event due to backwater effects from the Russian River. Flow travels about 1.5 feet per second, reaching the building in around five minutes after overtopping begins. Therefore, it is necessary for emergency operations to either be passive and permanently installed or for active measures warning to occur during creek rising before overtopping.
Based on FEMA TB-3 and FEMA P-936, dry floodproofing is not recommended for flood depths greater than 3 feet. In order to obtain a floodproofing certificate, which is required for flood insurance, it is necessary to follow FEMA regulations. Flood insurance is federally regulated and required in high-risk flood areas with government-backed mortgages. Since the city owns the Community Center and is self-insured, this project is not required to secure a floodproofing certificate. The project will follow the FEMA guidelines to the greatest extent practicable. This memorandum will identify which FEMA criteria cannot be adhered to.
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
To: Joe Gaffney April 30, 2021
Schaaf & Wheeler 3
Flood Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA2requires a Flood Emergency Operations Plan for all floodproofed structures. An adequate operations plan includes the following elements:
1. Established chain of command and responsible party
2. Flood warning and notification
3. List of duties and tasks and materials locations
4. Evacuation plan for all personnel
5. Annual training and exercise program
Flood Inspection and Maintenance Plan
FEMA requires a Flood Inspection and Maintenance Plan for all floodproofed structures. An adequate plan includes inspecting the following elements annually:
1. Mechanical Equipment (pumps and generators, etc.)
2. Flood shields and closures; gaskets; storage areas
3. Walls and wall penetrations
4. Levees and berms
Assurance of compliance with the Emergency Operations Plan and Inspection and Maintenance Plan should be memorialized through an executed agreement with the property owner, lease agreement, and appropriate deed restrictions.
Design Alternatives
Design Option 1: Dry Floodproof Entire Structure with Permanent Measures All permanent measures suggested are passive and do not require active operations or installation by trained staff. Passive measures can be more costly but decrease the risk associated with user error or insufficient flood warning. In this case, the passive and active measures would cost the same amount due to wall reinforcement.
Permanent measures will include the reinforcement of the corrugated metal walls with waterproof membrane wrapping. The level one standard door will be replaced with floodresistant doors. Level one windows would be replaced with flood glass below the DFE. The walls supporting the windows will likely need to be structurally reinforced, as assumed herein.
All utility penetrations into the structure below the DFE would be sealed using foam or polymer sealant. All vents into the structure on the first level would need to be sealed or replaced with automatically closing flood vents. Backflow prevention would be installed on all gravity utilities, specifically the sewer line upstream of the newly installed sand-oil interceptors. The electrical panel (with tankless water heater and generator equipment) will need to be elevated above the floodplain, so an electrician would need to be consulted.
See Attachment 1 for Design 1 floodproofing element locations. 2 Technical Bulletin 3-93 Non-Residential Floodproofing – Requirements and Certification for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
To: Joe Gaffney April 30, 2021
Schaaf & Wheeler 4
Table 2: Design 1 – Floodproofing Elements Summary
Floodproofing Element Location(s) Quantity*
Reinforce Walls Bottom 10’ of building exterior walls 2,800 SF Flood Doors Standard Pedestrian Doors 6 EA
Flood Windows – Marine Glass Standard Horizontal Sliding Doors 8 EA Sewer Backflow Prevention Sanitary Sewer laterals 1 EA
Elevate Electrical, Generator and
Tankless Water Heater
Northwest corner of property 3 EA
Seal Wall & Ground Penetrations Air conditioning units, water service, gas service, electrical services
10 EA
*Quantities are approximate based on review of as-builts and site visits and should be refined during design.
Flood Doors Sewer Backflow
Prevention
Flood Windows
Wall Reinforcement
Figure 1: Permanent Dry Floodproofing Elements
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
To: Joe Gaffney April 30, 2021
Schaaf & Wheeler 5
Design Option 2: Ten Foot Flood Wall with Flood Doors
The second option is to install a ten-foot reinforced concrete wall with flood doors and no additional floodproofing measures directly applied to the structure. The concrete wall will be installed around the perimeter of the Community Center as close as possible to reduce the concrete wall footprint and not obstruct the parking lot. Three flood doors will be installed for pedestrian access into the site. Backflow prevention on the sewer lateral is also recommended.
See Attachment 2 for Design 2 floodproofing element locations.
Table 3: Design 2 – Floodproofing Elements Summary
Floodproofing Element Location(s) Quantity*
Concrete Wall Perimeter of building 280 CY
Flood Doors Standard Pedestrian Doors 3 EA
Sewer Backflow Prevention Sanitary Sewer laterals 1 EA
*Quantities are approximate based on review of as-builts and site visits and should be refined during design.
Design Option 3: Floodproof Structure with Active Measures Temporary measures are all active measures, meaning emergency measures that require human installation and are only effective if there is enough time and labor to mobilize the equipment properly and enough time to evacuate. Personnel skill and deployment time are essential in choosing products. In this case, there will be door barriers for the external standard pedestrian doors and window barriers. The door barriers are made of aluminum end posts where aluminum beams can be stacked on top of another. The beams are 3.5 feet wide and will be stacked to a 10-foot depth due to our design flood elevation. Permanent end posts, either surface mounted, or recess mounted, will need to be installed. When the door barrier needs to be deployed, the beams slide into the end posts. The beams are 5.5 pounds and can be carried by a single person. Since these beams are stackable, only 4’x1’ and 2 feet high will be needed for storage. The window barriers follow a similar concept. The barrier is made up of aluminum logs that lock into vertical brackets. These vertical brackets will also need to be mounted to the side of the windows, similar to the door barriers. The logs are locked into place with turn knobs attached to the end posts. This barrier will span 10 feet as well and cover the windows until the 10-foot high mark. Minimal storage will be needed for this system as the logs are also stackable; only 10’x1’ and a height of 2 feet will also be needed. Backflow prevention on the sewer lateral is also recommended.
See Attachment 3 for Design 3 floodproofing element locations.
Table 4: Design 3 – Floodproofing Elements Summary
Floodproofing Element Location(s) Quantity*
Reinforce Walls Bottom 10’ of building exterior walls 2,800 Square Feet (SF)
Active Door Barrier Barrier for standard pedestrian doors 6 Each (EA) Active Window Barrier Barrier for horizontal sliding windows 8 EA Active Barrier around electrical equipment Northwest corner of property 35 Linear Feet (LF)
Sewer Backflow Prevention Sanitary Sewer laterals 1 EA
Seal Wall & Ground Penetrations Air conditioning units, water service, gas service, and electrical services
10 EA
*Quantities are approximate based on review of as-builts and site visits and should be refined during design Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
To: Joe Gaffney April 30, 2021
Schaaf & Wheeler 6
Door Barrier Window Barrier
Figure 2: Temporary Dry Floodproofing Elements
.
Design Option 4: Exterior Deployable Barrier
Another temporary active measure that can be used is exterior deployable barriers. Tiger Dam and Flood Control International both make deployable barriers. Flood Control International offers INERO Temporary Flood Barriers easier to install than the Tiger Dam temporary barriers, but the INERO barriers can only protect for floods up to 5.6 feet. Therefore, the 42” Super Tiger Dam system’s 4-2-1 Configuration was chosen since it would be 13’ 4” high and 25’-10” wide.
The Tiger Dam consists of 6 tubes that are filled with water, stacked together, and anchored.
Each dam holds about 7,200 gallons of water. The rolled-up dimension is 138’ x 230’ for all 60 dams needed. Usually, a fire hydrant is recommended, but there are no fire hydrants nearby our site. Instead, a trash pump with a strainer basket will be used to fill the dams with the nearby river water. The time to deploy this system will depend on the size of the pumps used and if multiple pumps and splitters are used. Assuming 4 (four) 3” pumps, it would take 7-9 people to complete the task in about 15 hours. There is an installation crew in Northern California that can be hired through Tiger Dams, which would help speed up the process since they are trained to set up the system. After use, the system can be drained to the nearby river or storm drain system with a sump pump and hosing (pending City acceptance under NPDES permitting). The system can be cleaned by flushing the dam out with water and a small amount of cleaning solution.
See Attachment 4 for Design 4 floodproofing element locations.
Table 5: Design 4 – Floodproofing Elements Summary
Floodproofing Element Location(s) Quantity*
Door Barrier Barrier for standard pedestrian doors 6 EA Sewer Backflow Prevention Sanitary Sewer laterals 1 EA
Removable Perimeter Barrier Perimeter of parking lot 700 LF *Quantities are approximate based on review of as-builts and site visits and should be refined during design Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
To: Joe Gaffney April 30, 2021
Schaaf & Wheeler 7
Removable Perimeter Barrier
Figure 4: Removable Perimeter Barrier
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
To: Joe Gaffney April 30, 2021
Schaaf & Wheeler 8
Estimated Project Costs
An engineer’s estimate of construction costs is included below. These costs are based on correspondence with proprietary floodproofing device manufacturers. They are intended for relative for the three options presented herein and should be refined for construction budgeting.
Costs include 15% design contingency and 15% construction contingency. Costs are intended for a relative concept comparison and should be refined during detailed design.
Detailed costs are included as Attachment 5 to this memo.
Table 6: Cost Estimate Comparison
Design Construction Cost Estimate
Design 1: Floodproof Entire Structure with Permanent
Measures
$3,300,000
Design 2: Ten Foot Flood Wall with Flood Doors $980,000 Design 3: Floodproof Entire Structure with Temporary
Measures
$3,300,000
Design 4: Removable Perimeter Barrier $560,000*
*Does not include cost of deployment
Conclusion
Based on this analysis, the design depth for the Sebastopol Community Center is 8.5 feet at the structure. The site needs to be floodproofed 10-feet up from the adjacent parking lot ground surface. While passive structural floodproofing measures are usually the most expensive alternative, in this case the active structural floodproofing measures come out to approximately the same price due to the high cost to reinforce the structure walls in both cases. The flood wall option, although more reasonably priced than floodproofing the structure itself, is not recommended as it may have considerable negative visual impacts and may impede the functionality of the building and the drive area.
Based on the results, we recommend that a removable perimeter barrier be used since it is the most cost-efficient option and can provide the desired 10-feet of flood protection, when needed.
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Item No. Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Mobilization & Demobilization (10% total) 1 LS $232,000 $232,000.00 2 Reinforce Walls 2,800 SF $750.00 $2,100,000.00
3 Galvanized Steel Doors and Frames for Water up to 10.5' 1 LS $93,000 $93,000.00 4 Fixed Flood Glass with Water up to 10.5' 1 LS $86,500 $86,500.00 5 Sewer Backflow Preventer 1 EA $1,400 $1,400.00
6 Elevate Electrical Panel 3 LS $10,000 $30,000.00
7 Seal Wall Penetrations & Electrical Conduit 10 EA $100 $1,000.00 $2,544,000.00
$763,000.00
$3,307,000.00
This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide, and is based upon incomplete information. The estimate is subject to change. Schaaf & Wheeler makes no warranty, whether expressed or implied, that the actual costs will not vary from these estimated costs, and assumes no liability for such variances.
Design 1
Dry Floodproof with Permanent Measures
Floodproofing Conceptual Engineer's Cost Estimate
SUBTOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY (15% construction, 15% design)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Sebastopol Floodproofing Concepts
Attachment 5
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Item No. Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Mobilization & Demobilization (10% total) 1 LS $69,000 $69,000.00 2 Concrete Wall 280 CY $2,400.00 $672,000.00
3 Galvanized Steel Doors and Frames for Water up to 10.5' 3 EA $15,000 $15,000.00 4 Sewer Backflow Preventer 1 EA $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
$756,000.00
$227,000.00
$983,000.00
This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide, and is based upon incomplete information. The estimate is subject to change. Schaaf & Wheeler makes no warranty, whether expressed or implied, that the actual costs will not vary from these estimated costs, and assumes no liability for such variances.
Design 2
Ten Foot Flood Wall with Flood Doors
Floodproofing Conceptual Engineer's Cost Estimate
SUBTOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY (15% construction, 15% design)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Sebastopol Floodproofing Concepts
Attachment 5
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Item No. Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Mobilization & Demobilization (10% total) 1 LS $231,000 $231,000.00 2 Door Barrier 6 EA $5,780.00 $34,680.00
3 Active Flood Barriers for windows 8 EA $5,710.00 $45,680.00 4 Active Removable Barrier for Electrical 35 LF $2,855.00 $99,925.00 5 Window Flood Barrrier support walls 16 EA $1,160 $18,560.00 6 Reinforce Walls 2,800 SF $750.00 $2,100,000.00
7 Sewer Backflow Preventer 1 EA $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
8 Seal Wall Penetrations & Electrical Conduit 10 EA $100 $1,000.00 $2,531,000.00
$759,000.00
$3,290,000.00
This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide, and is based upon incomplete information. The estimate is subject to change. Schaaf & Wheeler makes no warranty, whether expressed or implied, that the actual costs will not vary from these estimated costs, and assumes no liability for such variances.
Design 3
Active Flood Measures
Floodproofing Conceptual Engineer's Cost Estimate
SUBTOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY (15% construction, 15% design)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Sebastopol Floodproofing Concepts
Attachment 5
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Item No. Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Mobilization & Demobilization (10% total) 1 LS $40,000 $40,000.00 4 Sewer Backflow Preventer 1 EA $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
5 Removable Perimeter 700 LF $560 $392,000.00
$433,000.00
$130,000.00
$563,000.00
This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide, and is based upon incomplete information. The estimate is subject to change. Schaaf & Wheeler makes no warranty, whether expressed or implied, that the actual costs will not vary from these estimated costs, and assumes no liability for such variances.
Design 4
Exterior Deployable Barrier
Floodproofing Conceptual Engineer's Cost Estimate
SUBTOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY (15% construction, 15% design)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Sebastopol Floodproofing Concepts
Attachment 5
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
City of Sebastopol
Sebastopol Community Cultural Center (SCCC) Flood Mitigation Master Project List
Item # Flood Deficiency Solution Identified By Date Identified 1 Y? Pin Holes in exterior metal skin. Leaks in the exterior skin of the building need to be sealed and the entire exterior of the building sealed and painted. Public Works 11/2/2021 2 N Door Thresholds missing Replace all exterior thresholds Public Works 11/2/2021 3Y Leak in Kitchen around hood (may have been repaired
previously but is still leaking)
Roof area around the exhaust hood needs to be inspected by a licensed roofer and any necessary repairs performed to stop all water leaks Public Works 11/2/2021 4Y? Leaking where low roof ties to side wall of main building. (Blue/Yellow Room)
It appears the area where the roof from the yellow room comes into the wall of the large room is leaking severely as the area at the base of that wall was still very wet several days after the most recent rain. My understanding is that this roof section was replaced recently, and the roofing company should be contacted to perform repairs. This area may need some added flashing to prevent water intrusion.
Public Works 11/2/2021
5 Y? Leak at exterior wall of larger building.
The building design was done poorly when constructed as the slab the building sits on is slightly larger than the building which causes rainwater to hit the slab and bounce up into the building interior. Recommend sealing with an elastomeric product and include some type of counter flashing at the base of the exterior walls that would eliminate the water bouncing up from the concrete slab and ending up inside the building.
Public Works 11/2/2021
6 Y Wood in contact with concrete (un-treated) rotted or gone Remove wood used in contact with concrete and replace with treated wood or metal base to support walls. Public Works 11/2/2021
7 N Gutters and downs spouts non-existent.
Building appears to only have one section of gutter over the door on the north side of the building, and it is just open on both ends with now downspouts to funnel water away from building. This makes issues worse as it funnels and concentrates water right to the base of the building, which then bounces up into the interior of the Public Works 11/2/2021
8 Y? Exterior walls of large room not sealed at bottom of wall.
Exterior of building is corrugated metal, with no accommodations made for the offsets at the bottom of the walls. This means that the metal can be attached at the points where is contacts the metal studs, but there is a one-inch air gap where the metal does not touch allowing free access to the inside of the building for rain, bugs, mice and rats. Normally this is dealt with during construction by using a contoured metal or wood filler installed on the bottom plate of the wall. That does not exist here, so some form of filler or sealant needs to be installed from the inside, and now is the time to do this work as the inside walls has been removed.
Public Works 11/2/2021
9 Same as
1 (Y?)
Daylight clearly visible through exterior walls in numerous places.
Seal areas where daylight is clearly visible from the interior of the building. This might be as easy as using spray foam or a similar product to seal any opening to the exterior, but there are many to seal.
Public Works 11/2/2021
10 Y?
Moisture in interior of building evident throughout. (Could be related to the open fan above the stage - check to see if this is a building requirement. If it is not, consider closing.) The excessive moisture in the building needs to be addressed and somehow removed or seriously diminished. Public Works 11/2/2021 11 Y? Extensive corrosion to structural steel members of building Large sections of the steel framing have corroded to a point where they need to be replaced. Recommend having a structural steel company look at the building to recommend repairs. At a minimum, the area in the yellow room needs to have sections of metal studs and bottom plate removed and replaced.
Public Works 11/2/2021
12 Y Inside walls still missing some type of facing. (See note below and see item 16)
None provided Erik Billing 1/25/2023
Need to prioritize the sheet rock replacements within the building by usefulness of room. Priorities would be the storage room and the stairwell. This is related to tasks 12 and 16 but not captured by those tasks.
13 Y?
Doors are not real sturdy due to no facing on the walls to give the doors some support. (Product of the corrosion from item 11)
None provided
Erik Billing 1/25/2023
14 Y?
Water gets in the building in multiple locations. Some from the bottom of the siding around the perimeter. Also, there are holes in the upper wall above the lower roof. (Similar to item 8 above)
None provided
Erik Billing 1/25/2023
15 Y? Due to the holes along the bottom of the siding the have a pretty bad rodent problem. (Same as items 8 and 14).
None provided Erik Billing 1/25/2023
16 Y
Stairs up to the offices still have no covering and the walls are not done. (Lower section of flood damaged sheet rock that was removed to dry it out.) See task 12 and note above about sheet rock prioritization.
None provided
Erik Billing 1/25/2023
Y?
Damage from flooding is typically not confined to the area that was touched by floodwater, but includes areas that were wet by water wicking - creeping up the sheetrock and other porous building materials. This damage can be reduced by creating gaps in the sheetrock and other materials so wicking stops at the gap and you would need to replace only the wallboard or insulation below the gap. The wallboard gap can be disguised by decorative trim such as a chair rail. The gap can be filled with waterproof caulk or a gasket material. Similarly, use a non-wicking waterproof material to separate insulation in the upper wall from that in the lower wall creating the smallest possible gap in the insulation. This anti-wicking technique confines flood damage to the lower part of the wall, even if you use conventional building materials. We suggest an attachment method such as stainless steel screws that can be re-used and allow for quick and easy removal of the lower panels to be stored prior to the inundation event (or immediately after). There are also materials such as non-paper faced gypsum wallboard, cementitious panels, and FRP/composite panels that are unaffected by water and can be inundated/saturated with little to no negative affects.
Y? Raise the electrical wiring, switches and outlets, ideally moving them to a location above the wicking gaps.
Y? Move all equipment, water-heaters, panel boards, etc. to areas well above maximum flood level wherever possible.
Y?
Consider replacing wood framing with pressure treated wood and stainless steel fasteners, or metal framing (studs). This occurs at the wall where the high and low roof buildings meet, and possibly at other locations as well.
Y?
A flood-hardy wall is one that can stay in place during the flood and require only cosmetic restoration - cleaning and painting, not replacement of materials. A floodhardy wall (or flood-hardy lower wall section) consists of materials that are flooddamage resistant. It is designed so flood water enters and drains freely from the wall. Gaps at the top and bottom of the floodable section of the wall must be wide enough to allow flushing (to remove silt and contaminants) and air circulation (to dry the materials before harmful fungi and bacteria take hold). The Journal of Light Construction has a good reference article abut this: https://www.jlconline.com/howto/framing/flood-hardy-wall-construction_o (downloadable PDF here file:///C:/Users/andrew.butt/Downloads/JLC%20Online%20Article%20PDF%201117 c_JLC_FEAT_Cushman_Flood.pdf.pdf)
Y? Use paperless drywall (fiberglass mat gypsum) or create wainscoting with plywood or fiber-cement panels.
Y? Place the material 4-5 inches above the finished floor, and cover the bottom gap with a wide, removable baseboard.
Y? Leave a small gap between the lower and upper wall-finish material, and cover that gap with chair-rail molding.
Y? Use only latex paint to finish the wall.
Y?
FEMA has published a technical bulletin on Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements that is a useful resource and reference. It can be found here https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_tb_2_flood_damageresistant_materials_requirements.pdf 17 Limit Damage - Prevent Wicking (Flood proofing - tasks that should be completed to reduce the damage of future
flooding) (Architect will be suggesting solution for cost estimate - instead of reaching out to a separate contractor) Andrew Butt 1/25/2023
18 Create Flood-hardy Walls (Architect will be suggesting solution for cost estimate - instead of reaching out to a separate contractor)
Andrew Butt 1/25/2023
EXHIBIT B
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Y?
Flood damage-resistant insulation. The most flood damage-resistant thermal insulation is high density (closed-cell) foam. Two inches of closed-cell foam provides about the same insulating R-value as 3.5 inches of fibrous insulation.
When it is spayed on, it also prevents air movement through the wall, which enhances its insulating properties. THE PROBLEM with using sprayed-on, closed cell foam in a wall that is expected to absorb flood-water flood is that the foam will significantly RETARD drying of the sheathing. Sheathing is on the outside of the studs and behind the brick or siding). Even if that sheathing is water-resistant, it is likely to stay wet long enough for mold and wood fungus to become a serious problem. The preferred application would be to use two-inches of rigid foam board, cut to fit tightly between the studs and placed against the sheathing. After the flood, the foam boards should be removed, cleaned and put back in place.
Y?
Insulation that is not flood damage-resistant. Fiber-glass batts and other fibrous insulation can be used, but should be a type that can eaisily be removed before (or immediately after) the flood. It will have to be discarded if it gets wet. If you have advance warning of a pending flood, you may be able to remove (or fold up) the insulation so it can be put back after the lower wall cavity has been cleaned.
Y?
Doors (and windows) that are likely to be subjected to flooding inundation should be replaced with materials that will not be easily damaged by or subjected to corrosion. Ideally these would be aluminum, fiberglass (FRP), or stainless steel.
Galvanized steel would be an option, but would not be completely resistant to corrosion in sustained flooding over many years.
Y?
We understand that there was a relatively recent roofing replacement that entailed a new spray foam roof on both the high and low portions of the building, and that a large solar array was added to both the high and low metal roof at this time as well.
It might be worth considering a new restorative roof coating over the existing spray foam roof. This would allow the opportunity to ensure all penetrations are properly flashed and sealed.
Y? When the solar panels are removed or replaced, we recommend considering a new roof, or at a minimum a restorative coating.
Y?
There are a number of holes in the siding and areas where the siding laps other siding panels, or where the roof panels intersect with siding that should be thoroughly and adequately sealed. We recommend using SikaLastomer-511 Butyl Sealant for Metal Roofing Seams or similar product.
Y? Provide/install continuous gutter and downspouts at all roof edges that drain to splash blocks and drainage sump.
Y? Replace refrigerant line insulation on piping on roof with durable and weather-proof material that can hold up to UV exposure.
Y? Install durable walk pad material at areas of access to roof equipment and where ladders will be placed.
Y? Consider installation of permanent fixed ladder for access from lower to upper roof.
Y? Consider installation of new exterior door threshold and weather gaskets.
Y? Install hood and/or weather damper at large exterior wall fan (or remove it and replace with alternate ventilation system).
Y? Install PMMA flashing system at low roof to wall of high roof building.
Y? Install sheet metal flashing at base of metal wall to asphalt shingle roof. 21 Y Replace flooring that was damaged/removed as a result of flood
Apoxy type flooring system that could be submerged and unaffective (could polish and stain the concrete)
22 Y? Water tight storage container to replace existing container at public works site
For storage of equipment during flood events
19 Use Flood Resistant Materials (Architect will be suggesting solution for cost estimate - instead of reaching out to a separate contractor)
Andrew Butt 1/25/2023
20 Water-Intrustion Mitigation (Architect will be suggesting solution for cost estimate - instead of reaching out to a separate contractor)
Andrew Butt 1/25/2023
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026
Agenda Item Number 8
Agenda Item Number 8
City Council Meeting Packet for February 17, 2026