HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 - COUNCIL READING FILE_b_Capital Asset Management Plan
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVA RD, SUITE 2100
LOS ANGELES, CALIFOR NIA 90017
PHONE: 310.254.1900 FAX: 310.254.1940
WWW.WALTERPMOORE.COM
September 13, 2018
Scott Lee
Parking Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
1260 Chorro Street, Suite B
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report, Specification No. 91546
Dear Mr. Lee,
We have completed the condition assessment and Capital Asset Management Plan (CAMP) for the
three (3) Parking Structures owned and operated by the City of San Luis Obispo, California.
Our assessment report includes visual observations, select photographic documentation of
observed conditions, conclusions, conceptual repair recommendations and a 10 year CAMP.
Walter P Moore’s findings are summarized as of the date of issuance. Should new information or
additional documentation become available, we reserve the right to amend or revise our opinions
and recommendations accordingly.
We very much appreciate this opportunity to provide these services to you. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if you have any questions about our assessment.
Sincerely,
WALTER P. MOORE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Pawan R. Gupta, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., LEED AP Cesar Carrillo
Principal | Managing Director Graduate Engineer
Diagnostics Group Diagnostic Group
Condition Assessment
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessments
San Luis Obispo, California
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Division
Prepared by
Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc.
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90017
D09-18025-00
September 13, 2018
i
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................1
BACKGROUND .........................................................................................2
REPAIR PHASING .....................................................................................6
CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (CAMP).......................................7
GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................9
GO1 – 842 PALM ST
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................G01-1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................G01-2
Parking Structure Description............................................G01-2
Document Review .............................................................G01-2
OBSERVATIONS ...............................................................................G01-3
Structural Observations............................................................G01-3
Vehicle Barrier Systems.....................................................G01-3
Vertical and Overhead Surfaces.........................................G01-4
Slab Surfaces - General.....................................................G01-5
Post-tensioned (PT) System.....................................................G01-6
PT Tendons.......................................................................G01-6
Pour Strips ........................................................................G01-6
Waterproofing Observations.....................................................G01-7
Traffic Coating...................................................................G01-7
Joint Sealants....................................................................G01-7
Pipe Penetrations ..............................................................G01-8
Drains................................................................................G01-8
Facade ....................................................................................G01-9
Fire Sprinkler System .............................................................G01-10
Miscellaneous Observations...................................................G01-11
Stairwells.........................................................................G01-11
Sidewalk Handrail............................................................G01-11
Turning Ramp Guardrail...................................................G01-11
Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) Blocks..............................G01-12
Power Wash....................................................................G01-12
Stripping..........................................................................G01-12
Wheel stops ....................................................................G01-13
Enhancement Items...............................................................G01-13
Weld Intermediate Bars ...................................................G01-13
Bollards...........................................................................G01-13
Stairwells.........................................................................G01-13
Floor Mounted Delineator ................................................G01-14
Interior Painting................................................................G01-14
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Lighting..................................G01-14
CONCRETE TESTING .....................................................................G01-16
Chloride-Ion Content.......................................................G01-16
ii
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
Concrete Sounding .........................................................G01-17
Reinforcement Cover.......................................................G01-17
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................G01-19
High Priority Repair Items.......................................................G01-19
Medium Priority Repair Items .................................................G01-19
Low Priority Repair Items .......................................................G01-20
Enhancements.......................................................................G01-20
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS .......................G01-21
LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................G01-23
APPENDIX A – PHOTOS ................................................................G01-A-1
APPENDIX B – CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN.................G01-B-1
GO2 - 871 MARSH ST
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................G02-1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................G02-2
Parking Structure Description............................................G02-2
Document Review .............................................................G02-3
OBSERVATIONS ...............................................................................G02-4
Structural Observations............................................................G02-4
Vertical and Overhead Surfaces.........................................G02-4
Slab Surfaces - General.....................................................G02-5
Vehicle Barrier Systems.....................................................G02-6
Post-tensioned (PT) System.....................................................G02-7
PT Tendons.......................................................................G02-7
Pour Strips ........................................................................G02-8
Waterproofing Observations.....................................................G02-9
Traffic Coating...................................................................G02-9
Joint Sealants..................................................................G02-10
Pipe Penetrations ............................................................G02-10
Expansion Joints .............................................................G02-11
Drains..............................................................................G02-12
Roof Columns .................................................................G02-12
Facade ..................................................................................G02-12
Circulation Improvement ........................................................G02-13
Floor Mounted Delineator ................................................G02-13
Turning Ramp Guardrail...................................................G02-13
Fire System .....................................................................G02-13
Elevator/Mechanical items...............................................G02-14
Miscellaneous Observations...................................................G02-15
Stairwells.........................................................................G02-15
Corroded Shelf Angles.....................................................G02-15
Bollards...........................................................................G02-15
CMU Blocks....................................................................G02-16
Power Wash....................................................................G02-16
Striping............................................................................G02-16
Wheel stops ....................................................................G02-16
Electrical Outlet ...............................................................G02-17
iii
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
Hidden Distress...............................................................G02-17
Enhancement Items...............................................................G02-17
Stairwells.........................................................................G02-17
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Lighting..................................G02-17
CONCRETE TESTING .....................................................................G02-19
Chloride-Ion Content.......................................................G02-19
Concrete Sounding .........................................................G02-20
Reinforcement Cover.......................................................G02-20
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................G02-22
High Priority Repair Items.......................................................G02-22
Medium Priority Repair Items .................................................G02-22
Low Priority Repair Items .......................................................G02-23
Enhancements.......................................................................G02-23
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS .......................G02-25
LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................G02-27
APPENDIX A – PHOTOS ................................................................G02-A-1
APPENDIX B – CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN.................G02-B-1
GO3 – 919 PALM ST
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................G03-1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................G03-2
Parking Structure Description............................................G03-2
Document Review .............................................................G03-2
OBSERVATIONS ...............................................................................G03-3
Structural Observations............................................................G03-3
Vertical and Overhead Surfaces.........................................G03-3
Slab Surfaces - General.....................................................G03-3
Vehicle Barrier Systems.....................................................G03-4
Post-tensioned (PT) System.....................................................G03-5
PT Tendons.......................................................................G03-5
Pour Strips ........................................................................G03-5
Waterproofing Observations.....................................................G03-5
Joint Sealants....................................................................G03-5
Traffic Coating...................................................................G03-6
Pipe Penetrations ..............................................................G03-7
Drains................................................................................G03-7
Expansion Joint.................................................................G03-7
Facade ....................................................................................G03-8
Fire Sprinkler System.........................................................G03-8
Elevator.............................................................................G03-9
Miscellaneous Observations.....................................................G03-9
Stairwells...........................................................................G03-9
Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) Blocks................................G03-9
Power Wash....................................................................G03-10
Striping............................................................................G03-10
Over-Height Clearance Bar..............................................G03-10
iv
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
Enhancement Items...............................................................G03-11
Stairwells.........................................................................G03-11
Floor Delineator ...............................................................G03-11
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Lighting..................................G03-11
CONCRETE TESTING .....................................................................G03-13
Chloride-Ion Content.......................................................G03-13
Concrete Sounding .........................................................G03-14
Reinforcement Cover.......................................................G03-14
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................G03-16
High Priority Repair Items.......................................................G03-16
Medium Priority Repair Items .................................................G03-16
Low Priority Repair Items .......................................................G03-17
Enhancements.......................................................................G03-17
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS .......................G03-18
LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................G03-20
APPENDIX A – PHOTOS ................................................................G03-A-1
APPENDIX B – CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN.................G03-B-1
APPENDIX 1 – UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION TESTING ....................AP1-1
APPENDIX 2 – ALPHA FIRE CORPORATION .....................................AP2-1
APPENDIX 3 – REPUBLIC ELEVATOR ...............................................AP3-1
1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
PROGRAM EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Walter P. Moore and Associates has performed an onsite condition
assessment of the three (3) parking structures owned and operated by the
City of San Luis Obispo from May 29 to 31, 2018. Table 1 shows the general
information regarding the parking structures included in this assessment.
The age of the parking facilities owned by the City of San Luis Obispo range
between 12 years and 30 years. We have developed a 10 year Capital Asset
Management Plan (CAMP) based on our visual assessment of the structures
and the rate of deterioration.
Table 1 – Parking Structures’ General Information
In general, the parking structures assessed were in “Fair” condition with
isolated elements in “Poor” or “Failed” condition. Please see section
“Glossary of Terms” for definitions. Typical distress items identified in the
structure and discussed in this report include concrete deterioration in the
form of cracks and spalls, deteriorated or missing joint sealants, deteriorated
or missing traffic coating at pour strips, loose barrier cables at interior bays,
missing barrier cables at structure perimeter, deformed or broken handrails,
cracked or broken CMU blocks, and missing bollards at slab opening for
vehicle and pedestrian protection. Conceptual repair recommendations are
provided to address specific items of distress. An opinion of probable
construction costs for the repairs and enhancements of all three (3) parking
structures is shown in Table 2. We recommend that the City budget
$7,864,000 for the repair of the parking structures over the next 10 years.
See Appendix B of each respective structure for a detailed view of each
parking structure’s CAMP and limitations regarding their compilation.
Table 2 – Repair Cost per Year of All Parking Structures
Total Cost
842 PALM STREET 2,610,000$
871 MARSH STREET 3,703,000$
919 PALM STREET 1,551,000$
ALL STRUCTURES 7,864,000$ PARKING STRUCTURESYear Built No. of
Levels
No. of
Spaces
Approximate
Footprint (sqft) Construction Type Floor Framing
Type
842 Palm Street 1988 5 419 34,800 Cast-in-Place Concrete PT Beams and Slab
871 Marsh Street 1990 &2002 4 520 30,840 & 26,950 Cast-in-Place Concrete PT Beams and Slab
919 Palm Street 2006 4 242 24,000 Cast-in-Place Concrete PT Beams and SlabParking Structures
2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
BACKGROUND
Walter P Moore was engaged by the City of San Luis Obispo to conduct a
condition assessment survey to evaluate the overall condition of the parking
structures. The parking structures evaluated are 842 Palm Street, 871 Marsh
Street, and 919 Palm Street. The assessments were performed on May 29
to May 31, 2018.
The condition assessment of the parking structures included review of the
available documentation, visual site observations, and documentation of
distress conditions. Our observations consisted of a walk-through visual
review of the parking structures to identify structural, waterproofing,
mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire system, and other miscellaneous items
in need of repair. Our observations were made without the removal of
existing finishes. Assessment of the elevators and the elevator equipment
was conducted by Republic Elevator. The fire safety systems were assessed
by Alpha Fire Corporation.
Limited material testing was conducted, however no exploratory openings
were performed as part of this assessment. Some of the material tests
include concrete delamination sounding testing, concrete cover survey, and
chloride-ion content tests. The purpose of this report is to provide the City
with selected visual observations, select photographic documentation of
observed conditions, conclusions, conceptual repair recommendations and
a 10 year Capital Asset Management Plan (CAMP) to make informed, cost-
effective decisions to maintain the assets over the next 10 years.
3
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
Figure 1 – Overview of parking structure locations, indicated in red, within the City of San Luis
Obispo.
Figure 2 – Aerial view of parking structures’ location.
4
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
Our recommendations for maintenance repairs are prioritized according to
the need of the parking structure and are divided into the following four
categories, as defined in the Recommendations section:
High Priority Repairs
Medium Priority Repairs
Low Priority Repairs
Enhancements
High Priority Repairs include life safety and structural issues that need to be
addressed in the short term (1-2 years). We did not identify any immediate
structural item. Several high priority items were noted during our review,
these included concrete spalls, deteriorated handrail post bases, and loose
or inadequate barrier systems. We recommend that the City address the
high priority items on each of the parking facilities first.
Medium priority items include waterproofing and other items that are needed
to reduce the potential of future deterioration and extend the useful service
life of the structure. Several medium priority items such as cracking of the
slabs, missing or deteriorating waterproofing membranes, and missing
sealants from vertical and horizontal joints were identified. We recommend
that these items be addressed in the near-term in order to reduce the
potential for water intrusion, slow down the deterioration rate, and increase
the useful service life of the facilities.
Low priority items are maintenance items that address the aesthetics and
function of the structure. These items do not directly affect the durability of
the structure. Identified low priority items include regular cleaning of the
drains, painting of various elements of the structure, striping of the stalls, and
power wash of the interiors of the parking structure.
Enhancements include aesthetic and functional items. These are optional
upgrades that improve the aesthetics and potentially save costs in the future.
Enhancements identified include installing mesh at the barrier cables to
reduce spacing, welding an intermediate bar to the handrails, installing
bollards, installing canopies over stairs, traffic coating the stairs, replacing
fire extinguisher housing, installing LED lighting, and painting the interior to
make the structure appear brighter and improve the aesthetic appeal.
5
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
The valuable capital assets of the parking structure must be maintained to
provide continuing service to the patrons of the City. Regular scheduled
phasing of repair and maintenance on the parking structure will provide the
optimal return on investment for the City. The next phase would be to
develop the restoration design, drawings, details and specifications for the
repair the three parking structures.
6
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
REPAIR PHASING
The three (3) parking structures included in this structural assessment study
have varying conditions due to age, exposure conditions, original protection
measures, type of maintenance, previous repairs and similar factors.
As part of this structural assessment study, each facility was reviewed to
establish the current condition. This information was incorporated into a 10-
year CAMP to address the visible existing deficiencies, address potential
preventive maintenance items, and enhance the structure to improve
serviceability and extend the useful service life of the structures.
The high priority repairs are planned to be completed in the first year for all
structures. This approach focuses the repairs on the damage and
deterioration that poses life-safety risk or progressive deterioration to the
structures, and restores the structural integrity. After addressing the high
priority items in 2019, medium priority items should be addressed starting
with 842 Palm Street parking structure, which is the oldest parking structure,
followed by 871 Marsh Street parking structure, and finally 919 Palm Street
parking structure. Intentions are to phase the high and medium priority items
within the first 3 years. Low priority items, regular maintenance repairs of the
parking structures, and enhancements are scheduled to start after 2020. We
budgeted approximately $1,700,000 for the first year and approximately
$1,000,000 for the following 3 years to rapidly decrease the rate of
deterioration for the parking structures. If the City’s budget is altered, then
the phasing plan is subject to change accordingly.
7
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
CAPITAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN
(CAMP)
The information provided in this report is intended to help the City
understand the cost impact of work needed on each structure over the next
10 years by providing budgeting information based on professional judgment
and experience of Walter P Moore. The recommended budget does not
provide a warranty as to the accuracy of such recommendations with
regards to contractor bids or negotiated prices for restoration improvements.
For the purpose of this CAMP and report, we have assumed that the City
intends for each parking structure to continue in its present use throughout
the entire 10 year forecast. It must be understood that some deterioration
will take place over this time period with continued service and environmental
exposure of these structures. However, implementation of a restoration
program, as outlined in this CAMP and report, can significantly slow the rate
of deterioration and minimize the associated cost impact.
We recognize that one of the biggest challenges for property owners is to
fund annual capital improvement projects with limited budgets. This CAMP
will assist the City to prioritize annual capital maintenance work in order to
maximize both the dollars spent and service life expectancy of each
structure. We have organized the total cost by priority, as shown in Table 3,
and by year, as shown in Table 4.
Table 3 – Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for the Parking Structures sorted by Priority
Table 4 – Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for the Parking Structures sorted by Year
HIGH PRIORITY
ITEMS
MEDIUM
PRIORITY ITEMS
LOW PRIORITY
ITEMS ENHANCEMENTS SUB TOTAL
General
Conditions and
Contingency
TOTAL
842 PALM STREET 349,000$ 517,600$ 361,500$ 782,000$ 2,010,100$ 371,000$ 2,383,000$
871 MARSH STREET 360,500$ 1,039,350$ 188,000$ 1,108,000$ 2,695,850$ 495,000$ 3,194,000$
919 PALM STREET 46,500$ 181,700$ 306,500$ 533,500$ 1,068,200$ 201,000$ 1,272,000$
ALL STRUCTURES 756,000$ 1,738,650$ 856,000$ 2,423,500$ 5,774,150$ 1,067,000$ 6,849,000$ PARKING STRUCTURESREPAIR COST FOR 10-YEAR BY PRIORITY
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Cost
842 PALM STREET 1,274,000$ 79,000$ 314,000$ 183,000$ 204,000$ 19,000$ -$ -$ 291,000$ 19,000$ 2,383,000$
871 MARSH STREET 346,000$ 653,000$ 475,000$ 432,000$ 113,000$ 220,000$ 99,000$ -$ 443,000$ 413,000$ 3,194,000$
919 PALM STREET 98,000$ 166,000$ 148,000$ 70,000$ 51,000$ 16,000$ -$ 213,000$ 3,000$ 507,000$ 1,272,000$
ALL STRUCTURES 1,718,000$ 898,000$ 937,000$ 685,000$ 368,000$ 255,000$ 99,000$ 213,000$ 737,000$ 939,000$ 6,849,000$
REPAIR COST FOR 10- YEAR BY YEAR
PARKING STRUCTURES
8
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
Sorting by priority highlights the condition of the structures, while sorting by
year allows planning for annual budgets. Refer to the “Background” section
for a description of the repair work within each priority level. Refer to the
“Repair Phasing” section for the yearly repair strategy. The opinion of
probable construction costs in Table 3 and 4 are NOT adjusted for future
value cost. See Appendix B of each respective parking structure for a
detailed view of each parking structure’s CAMP and limitations regarding
compilation.
9
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The definitions of terms used in this report are given below. Note that when
terms are applied to an overall system, certain portions of the system may
be in a different condition.
GOOD: Component is in a “like new” condition requiring no rehabilitation and is performing
its function as intended.
FAIR:Item is in sound condition and performing its function. The component is exhibiting
some signs of normal wear and tear. Some incidental rehabilitation work may be
recommended.
POOR:Component is performing adequately at this time but the component’s rate of
deterioration has begun to accelerate.
FAILED:Component has either failed or cannot be relied upon to continue performing its
original function. Repair or replacement is required. Item exhibits deferred maintenance;
repair, replacement, or maintenance is required to prevent further deterioration.
ABRASION RESISTANCE: Ability to resist being worn away by rubbing and friction.
CONCRETE: Mixture of portland cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, and water, with
or without admixtures.
CORROSION: Disintegration or deterioration of steel or reinforcement by electrolysis or by
chemical attack.
CRAZE CRACKS: Fine, random cracks, or fissures caused by shrinkage, which may appear
in a surface of plaster, cement paste, mortar, or concrete.
DEFLECTION: A variation in position or shape of a structure or element due to effects of
loads or volume change, usually measured as a linear deviation from an established plane.
DELAMINATION: In the case of a concrete slab, a delamination is the horizontal splitting,
cracking, or separation of a slab in a plane roughly parallel to, and generally near, the upper
surface. Delaminations are typically caused by corrosion of reinforcing steel or separation
between concrete topping and underlying elements.
DETERIORATION: Disintegration or chemical decomposition of a material during service
exposure.
DIAGONAL CRACK: An inclined crack caused by shear stress, usually at about 45 degrees
to the neutral axis of a concrete member; or a crack in a slab, not parallel to the lateral or
longitudinal dimensions.
DURABILITY: The ability of concrete to resist weathering action, chemical attack, abrasion,
and other conditions of service.
EFFLORESCENCE: A deposit of mineral salts, usually white in color, formed on a concrete
or masonry surface.
EPOXY CONCRETE: A mixture of epoxy resin, catalyst, fine aggregate, and coarse
aggregate.
HAIRLINE CRACKING: Small cracks of random pattern in an exposed concrete surface.
JOINT SEALANT: Compressible material used to exclude water and solid foreign material
from joints.
MAINTENANCE: Taking periodic actions that will either prevent or delay damage or
deterioration or both.
MICROCRACKS: Microscopic cracks within concrete.
OVERLAY: A layer of concrete or mortar, seldom thinner than 1 inch, placed on and usually
bonded to the worn or cracked surface of a concrete slab to either restore or improve the
function of the previous surface.
PATTERN CRACKING: Fine openings on concrete surfaces in the form of a pattern; resulting
from a decrease in volume of the material near the surface, or increase in volume of the
material below the surface, or both.
10
SLO Parking Structure Assessments
D09.18025.00
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE: Concrete in which stresses of such magnitude and distribution
are introduced that the tensile stresses resulting from the service loads are counteracted to
the desired degree.
Pretensioned concrete is prestressed concrete in which stressing tendons are tensioned
before the concrete hardens.
Post-Tensioned concrete is prestressed concrete in which stressing tendons are tensioned
after the concrete hardens.
REINFORCEMENT: Bars, (smooth or deformed), wires, strands, tendons and other elements
that are embedded in concrete in such a manner that reinforcement and concrete act
together to resist applied forces.
Conventional reinforcement is non-prestressed smooth or deformed bar or wire
reinforcement with yield strengths in the 40,000-75,000 psi range.
Prestressed reinforcement is steel bars, wires or strands with ultimate strengths in the
250,000-270,000 psi range, strong enough to permit effective pre- or post-tensioning.
G01
Condition Assessment
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessments
842 Palm St. Structure
San Luis Obispo, California
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Division
Prepared by
Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc.
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90017
D09-18025-00
September 13, 2018
G01-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The parking structure at 842 Palm Street is currently exhibiting typical signs
of deterioration, and is considered to be in generally “Fair” condition with
isolated elements in “Poor” or “Failed” condition.
During the course of our review, we did not identify conditions in need of
immediate actions, although we identified several distress conditions and
associated action items that are recommended to be addressed as a part of
an on-going repair program. This includes repair of spalled concrete, re-
tensioning of loose barrier cables, installation of mesh at existing barrier
cables, and installation of new vehicle barrier system around the parking
structure perimeter. Typical distress items identified in the structure and
discussed in this report include concrete deterioration in the form of cracks,
deteriorated or missing joint sealants, deteriorated or missing traffic coating
at pour strips, deformed or broken handrails, cracked or broken CMU
blocks, and missing bollards at slab opening for vehicle and pedestrian
protection. Conceptual repair recommendations are provided to address
specific items of distress.
An opinion of probable construction costs for the base repairs
recommended herein was developed for each priority level. The
recommended base repairs were developed annually for the next 10 years.
Our opinion of probable construction cost for items in need of repair for the
next 10 years is estimated to be $2,610,000. The CAMP for 842 Palm Street
structure is provided in Appendix B.
G01-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
INTRODUCTION
Parking Structure Description
The subject parking structure is located at 842 Palm Street in San Luis
Obispo, California. Photo 1 through Photo 3 show an overall view of the
parking structure at different elevations. The parking structure consists of a
four level cast-in-place concrete structure with a total of 419 parking spaces.
The approximate footprint is 120 feet by 290 feet and was built circa 1988
(Figure 1). The floor framing was built using post-tensioned (PT) beams
supporting 5 inch thick PT slabs. The vehicle barrier system installed consists
of barrier cables at the interior bays and handrails along structure perimeters
except where perimeter concrete walls exist. There are three stairwells, one
near the south corner, one at the north corner, and the other at the east
corner. There was no elevator observed in the structure.
Figure 1 – 842 Palm Street parking structure aerial view
Document Review
At the time of this condition assessment, the following documents were
available for review by Walter P Moore.
Architectural drawings by Conrad Associates, dated May 13, 1987
Structural drawings by Conrad Associates, dated January 30, 1987
Photo 1 – Southeast corner isometric
view of the parking structure
Photo 3 – North end of the parking
structure
Photo 2 – Southwest corner isometric
view of the parking structure
G01-3
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
OBSERVATIONS
Structural Observations
Vehicle Barrier Systems
Perimeter Barrier Systems
Observations: Steel guardrails were observed at the perimeter of the
structure along the south end and a portion of the north end. The guardrails
appeared to be covered by façade panels from the exterior (Photo 4). The
clear spacing between the horizontal rails was measured to be
approximately 6 inches, with a total approximate height of 42 inches.
Concrete bumper walls were observed at the perimeter of the structure along
the east, west, and a portion of the north end (Photo 5).
Analysis: The guardrail around the structure perimeter did not visually appear
to be capable of resisting vehicular impact. It is recommended to verify that
the existing guardrail system can resist a vehicular impact per the current
building code. However, a new PT barrier cable system will most likely have
to be installed along the length of the guardrails. The new PT barrier cable
system should be designed per the current Building Code. The concrete
bumper walls appeared to be in “Fair” condition with minimal deterioration.
Interior Barrier Systems
Vehicle barrier cables were observed at the interior bays and not at the
structure perimeter (Photo 6). Several cables were noted to be loose when
pulled. The horizontal spacing between the strands was measured to be
approximately 6 inches, with a total approximate height of about 39 inches.
Also, at multiple locations, the end caps for cable anchorages were noted to
be missing (Photo 7).
Analysis: Vehicle barrier cables are typically pre-tensioned to a specific
design force to resist vehicle impact as well as to limit tendon draping to fulfill
the building code requirements. The current code requires a vehicle barrier
system to be designed to withstand a vehicle impact load of 6000 lbs at a
height of 18 inches and 27 inches with a maximum spacing of 4 inches to
prevent small objects from passing though the barrier.
Photo 6 – Several barrier cables
appeared to be loose
Photo 7 – Barrier cable anchors have no
end caps
Photo 4 – Steel guardrail at structure
perimeter as vehicle barrier system
Photo 5 – Concrete bumper wall along
the east, west, and a portion of the north
ends
G01-4
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
We recommend conducting tension testing of all barrier cables in the
structure to identify cables that are not properly tensioned and then re-
tension all the loose barrier cables in order to restore the cables to original
design capacity. Although the spacing requirements of the barrier cables
may be effectively grandfathered and therefore not required to update, we
recommend adding a wire mesh to the existing barrier cables to reduce the
spacing to a maximum of 4 inches. This minimizes potential hazards that
may arise and minimize potential liability.
Barrier cable anchors without end caps are subjected to weathering and
potential damage from vehicle impact. It is recommended to install end caps
to those locations that were noted to be missing.
Vertical and Overhead Surfaces
Concrete delaminations and spalls were observed at a few isolated locations
on slab soffit, columns, and walls. Photo 8 shows a typical overhead
concrete spall, which in this case, was at the underside of a stair landing.
Photo 9 shows a typical concrete spall on vertical elements, which in this
case, on a concrete bumper wall.
Interior concrete columns were observed with signs of fine cracks and water
stain around grout pockets of the PT anchors for the PT beams (Photo 10).
Concrete walls were observed with isolated diagonal cracks that are typically
less than 1/16” wide (Photo 11). The concrete beams were observed to be
generally in “good” condition with little to no cracking or spalling of the
concrete.
Analysis: These observed spalls and delaminations at vertical and overhead
concrete surfaces were minor and may be caused by either, or a
combination of, normal use of the structure, concrete shrinkage, restrain
stresses, localized stress of elements, or corrosion of embedded
reinforcement due to water infiltration. There was no immediate structural
concern associated with these observations. We recommend all spalls and
delaminations at overhead and vertical concrete surfaces be removed and
repaired with cementitious repair material. Photo 10 – Concrete columns and grout
pockets for PT beams with signs of fine
cracks and water stains
Photo 9 –Minor concrete spall at a
concrete bumper wall
Photo 8 –Overhead concrete spall at the
underside of stair landing
G01-5
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Grout pockets on columns cover the anchor points for the PT tendons in
beams. If not properly protected, water may penetrate through the grout
pockets to reach the embedded PT anchors and cause corrosion. Columns
with grout pockets at the roof level are subject to more water and weather
exposure, we recommend high-performance coating the columns at the roof
to protect the grout pockets from water infiltration.
Isolated cracks observed in concrete walls and columns, which were
typically observed to be less than 1/16” wide, may be a result of either
restraint stress or forces being transferred to the elements. The observed
cracks were of no immediate structural concern. Cracks in structural walls
and columns larger than 1/32” wide are recommended to be epoxy injected
to restore the structural capacity of the elements.
Slab Surfaces - General
The slab surfaces were observed to be generally in “fair” condition with
localized areas of spalls, delaminations, and cracks. The spalls and
delaminations on the slab surfaces were typically less than four square feet,
and in some cases resulted in exposed reinforcement. Photo 12 shows a
typical spall with exposed reinforcement. Spalls were typically observed on
the concrete stair treads and the handrail posts were observed to be
corroded (Photo 13).
Cracks, typically less than 1/16” wide, were noted at isolated locations on
floor surfaces throughout the structure (Photo 14). Cracks were also noted
at turning ramps (Photo 15) and at the corners of the structure (Photo 16).
Analysis: These observed spalls, delaminations, and cracks were minor and
may be caused by either, or a combination of, normal use of the structure,
concrete shrinkage, restrain stresses, or corrosion of the embedded
reinforcement due to water infiltration. There was no immediate structural
concern associated with these observations. However, exposed cracks,
delaminations, and spalls allow long-term moisture penetration into the
concrete which may cause further deterioration of concrete or corrosion of
the embedded reinforcing steel. We recommend all the cracks,
delaminations, and spalls be repaired for long-term maintenance and
Photo 11 – Cracks in concrete walls
(typically less than 1/16” wide)
Photo 14 – Isolated floor cracks
Photo 12 –Minor concrete spall with
exposed reinforcement at floor surface
Photo 13 – Typical concrete stair tread
spall and corroded handrail post
G01-6
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
aesthetic purposes. Spalls and delaminations are recommended to be
repaired with cementitious repair mortar, and all floor cracks routed and
sealed with a flexible sealant.
Post-tensioned (PT) System
PT Tendons
The PT slabs were observed to be in “Fair” condition with isolated concrete
spalls and cracks. No exposed PT tendons were noted during this visual
assessment. Although, there were several previous patches on the floor
surface over PT tendon locations on levels 1, 2 and 3 (Photo 17).
Analysis: Repair documentation for the floor patches was not provided at the
time of our assessment. The purpose of patching the floor surface in such a
systematic way remains unclear. Nevertheless, the patch material appeared
to be in “Fair” with minor to no delamination noted. There were no signs of
immediate structural concern of the PT concrete slabs as observed from this
visual assessment. However, exposed cracks, delaminations, and spalls
allow long-term moisture penetration into the concrete and PT tendons.
Therefore, we recommend traffic coating the concrete patches to provide an
additional layer of protection from water intrusion.
Pour Strips
Pour strips at the roof level were observed to be covered by a strip of traffic
coating of approximately 5 feet wide. The traffic coating was noted to be
deteriorated (Photo 18). Pour strips at the lower levels were observed without
Photo 16 – Cracks at corners of
structure
Photo 15 – Cracks at turning ramps
Photo 17 – Previous patches over PT
tendons
Photo 18 – Deteriorated traffic coating
over pour strips.
Photo 19 –Pour strips at lower levels
have no traffic coating protection
G01-7
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
traffic coating (Photo 19). Water and grease stains were observed from the
underside of the pour strip joints that were not protected by traffic coating
on the level above (Photo 20). There are currently no signs of corroding
anchorages or de-tensioned PT tendons.
Analysis: Pour strips are important in PT slabs as it is the anchor location for
PT tendons. If not properly protected, water infiltrates through the joints of
pour strips and accelerates the corrosion of PT anchors and the deterioration
of the slab. As the PT anchors corrode it leads to de-tensioning of tendons
which will reduce the load carrying capacity of the slab and require more
intrusive and expensive repairs. We recommend replacement of the
deteriorated traffic coating over pour strips at the roof level and install new
traffic coating over pour strips at the lower levels to prevent water infiltration.
Waterproofing Observations
Traffic Coating
A large amount of full depth cracks were observed on the concrete slab of
the second level near the northern stairs (Photo 21). The cracks were
directly above the electrical equipment located on the first level.
Analysis: In order to protect the electrical equipment below, we
recommend routing and sealing the cracks as well as installing a traffic
coating, since the cracks are located near the parking structure’s edges
and are exposed to weathering.
Joint Sealants
In general, sealants were noted to be non-existent or were deteriorated in
floor joints, vertical joints between perimeter walls and columns, as well as
cove joints between the horizontal and vertical members such as wall to slab,
curb to slab, or column to slab joints (Photos 22-24).
Analysis: Joint sealants are an important factor in maintaining integrity of
waterproofing systems in structures. At locations with exposure to water or
moisture, joint sealant can mitigate moisture intrusion into structural
elements that accelerate deterioration of the concrete and embedded
Photo 21 – Slab with a large amount of
cracks, electrical equipment below on
level below
Photo 23 – Deteriorated sealant at
vertical joints between walls
Photo 20 – Water and grease stains at
the underside of pour strip joints
Photo 22 – No sealant at the cove joint
between wall and slab
G01-8
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
reinforcement. Maintaining sealed joints helps prevent water infiltration into
concrete through joints.
We recommend installing sealant along all horizontal and cove joints at all
levels to mitigate water infiltration to structural elements. We also
recommend installing joint sealant at the vertical joints between walls and
columns at the structure perimeter due to heavier exposure to weather and
water.
It is a common occurrence that joint sealant deteriorates due to weathering
and slab movements at the joints. Urethane sealants typically have a service
life of 5 years before requiring maintenance. This service life is dependent
on the exposure conditions and the overall conditions of the slab.
Pipe Penetrations
Many pipe penetrations were observed at all levels of the parking structure.
These penetrations, for the most part, had no sealant around the pipe as
shown in Photo 25.
Analysis: Lack of sealant in the pipe penetrations will allow water to
penetrate through the slab to the lower levels, especially from the roof level.
It may also lead to deterioration of concrete and embedded steel around
the edge of the opening. We recommend all pipe penetrations be sealed
with a flexible sealant.
Drains
In general, floor drains were observed to be uncleaned (Photos 26).
Analysis: Drains are recommended to be cleaned to allow for proper
drainage of rainfall. The drainage system should be periodically maintained
to eliminate stagnant water, which could potentially lead to structural
distress. Regular parking structure maintenance should include periodic
cleaning of drains
Photo 24 – Deteriorated sealant in floor
joints
Photo 25 – Typical unsealed pipe
penetration
Photo 26 – Drain covered with debris
G01-9
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Facade
The metal façade panels were observed to be in “Good” condition, with little
or no corrosion observed (Photo 27). The paint on the façade panels was
observed to be faded. The steel bent plates connecting the façade panels
to the parking structure curb were observed to be corroded in most cases
(Photo 28). Although no apparent section loss was observed, the coatings
on the members were deteriorated and corrosion has begun at the surface
of these members.
The exterior coating on the concrete walls at the southwest corners has
shown signs of deterioration. Some areas of the coating have started peeling
off the concrete at the cold joint locations (Photo 29).
Analysis: The corrosion of steel connections is a result of weathering and
deterioration of protective coating of the steel. The façade connections may
lose structural capacity if left unaddressed. We recommend all steel
connections for the façade panels be cleaned and coated to prevent further
corrosion. We also recommended repainting the façade panels to protect
the metal and improve the aesthetics of the parking structure, although this
should be considered as an enhancement item.
Some areas of the coating have started peeling off the concrete due to water
infiltration between the cold joints of concrete-slab to concrete-curb and
concrete-curb to concrete-wall. Several diagonal cracks were observed from
the interior side of these walls and these cracks are likely to be full-depth in
the walls. Without a proper waterproofing coating system at the exterior side
of walls, water can penetrate through the cracks and lead to deterioration of
concrete and embedded steel. Providing and properly maintaining coatings
at the exterior side of the walls will improve the aesthetics of the structure
and the anticipated service life of the structure by preventing water from
penetrating into the concrete. It is recommended to replace the exterior
coating with a new elastomeric paint. Elastomeric paints are flexible,
providing a watertight seal and allowing for thermal movement of the
concrete without causing the paint to chip, peel or crack.
Photo 28 – Corroded façade panel
connections
Photo 27 – Metal façade panels
Photo 29 – Cracked and peeled exterior
coating on concrete walls
G01-10
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Fire Sprinkler System
Alpha Fire noted that there are approximately 900 fire sprinkler heads in the
facility. The fire system, including the sprinkler heads and pump, are
approximately 20 to 25 years old (Photo 30 and 33). The sprinkler heads
along with the piping, bracing, and fire extinguisher housing are showing
signs of corrosion (Photo 30 to 32). Additionally, the existing seismic bracing
does not appear to meet current code requirements (Photo 31).
Analysis: The corroded fire sprinkler heads, fire extinguisher housings, and
seismic braces should be replaced. The corroded pipes should be cleaned
and coated. Continue performing annual fire sprinkler, fire pump, and alarm
inspections, as well as a five-year wet standpipe test and inspection.
Fire pumps typically have a 30 year life span before becoming a significant
burden to the annual maintenance budget as well as becoming less reliable.
Therefore, it is also recommended to budget for a pump replacement by the
year 2023. Due to the nature of this upgrade the cost cannot be spread
over a 10 year period and should be budgeted for a lump sum upgrade price.
Photo 33 – Existing 20-25 year old pump
Photo 31 – Typical existing seismic
bracing and corroded fire sprinkler pipes
Photo 32 – Corroded fire extinguisher
housing
Photo 30 – Corroded fire sprinkler head
G01-11
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Miscellaneous Observations
Stairwells
At the bottom of the handrail posts, the post pockets on concrete treads
were observed to be unsealed (Photo 34). Corrosions was observed at the
bottom of posts in the post pockets.
Analysis: The handrail post pockets can collect water and result in corrosion
at the post base. This can lead to spalls at the edge of the concrete treads,
which could ultimately result in the handrails coming loose or overhead
hazard. We recommend the post pockets be sealed by grout and cove
sealant to prevent further water infiltration to post base.
Sidewalk Handrail
The sidewalk handrail along Palm Street was observed to be loose . The
handrail post were corroded on the base and the concrete pedestal was
spalled with exposed reinforcement (Photo 35-36).
Additionally, a gap of approximately 3 inches was observed between the
concrete sidewalk and the handrail (Photo 35-36).
Analysis: The handrail posts are embedded within the concrete pedestals.
The pedestals appeared to transfer the resisted handrail loads into the
concrete sidewalk via dowelled rebar. Most of the concrete pedestals were
observed to be spalled with exposed rebar. We recommend repairing the
concrete pedestals to restore the handrail stability.
The gap measuring approximately 3 inches between the concrete sidewalk
and the handrail has introduced a possible falling hazard for patrons with and
without disabilities. We recommend installing a kick plate at the edge of the
sidewalk to assist in preventing the possibility of patrons falling.
Turning Ramp Guardrail
Most of the guardrail at turning ramps were observed to be broken or
damaged (Photo 37).
Photo 34 – Unsealed handrail post
pockets and handrail post base
corrosion
Photo 37 – Typical damaged guardrail at
turning ramps
Photo 36 – Spalled concrete pedestal
with exposed reinforcement supporting
handrail post
Photo 35 – Spalled concrete pedestal
supporting the handrail post
G01-12
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Analysis: It appears that the guardrail had been impacted by vehicular traffic
when turning onto the ramp. Therefore, we recommend to shorten the
guardrail by removing the furthest post, which was noted to be impacted by
vehicular traffic, and add a flexible delineator at the furthest post location to
avoid vehicle collision into guardrail and reduce the maintenance efforts.
Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) Blocks
Isolated CMU blocks were observed to be cracked or broken on the ground
level towards the east end of the structure (Photo 38).
Analysis: There is no immediate structural concern, but cracked or broken
CMU block may become loose and turn into a falling hazard. It is
recommended to repair or replace the broken CMU blocks if they are not
fully grouted. The CMU blocks should be epoxy injected if they are fully
grouted and have cracks larger than 1/32” wide.
Power Wash
The interior of the parking structure was stained from grease and oil
drippings from vehicles (Photo 39).
Analysis: The build-up of oil and grease stains is a potential safety hazard to
pedestrians. This build up and deposits within the parking structure should
be cleaned with industrial detergent and pressurized water. For areas with
waterproofing coating, the manufacturers should be contacted in regards to
appropriate cleaning materials.
Stripping
Parking and directional striping on all levels was observed to be faded (Photo
39).
Analysis: Faded striping may result in problem with alignment of vehicles in
the parking spaces and uncertainty of users regarding traffic markings. A re-
striping of the entire parking structure is recommended.
Photo 38 – Cracks in CMU blocks
Photo 39 – Faded striping and oil stained
parking spaces
G01-13
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Wheel stops
Several wheel stops were observed to be broken or dislodged from their
original position (Photo 40). It is recommended to replace the broken or
dislodged wheel stops.
Enhancement Items
Weld Intermediate Bars
It was observed that clear spacing between the guardrails was larger than 4
inches (Photo 41).
Analysis: The current building code for new construction requires that the
clear spacing between the guardrails be a max of 4 inches. However, the
current guardrail spacing may be grandfathered and therefore allowable. We
recommend adding intermediate bars to the guardrails to reduce the clear
spacing and therefore the potential liability.
Bollards
Bollards were not observed around stair openings throughout the structure
(Photo 42).
Analysis: Bollards help prevent interaction of patrons with vehicles and
provide edge protection for vehicles at stair openings. The existing
conditions may be grandfathered in from previous building code, but it is
recommended to install bollards around the stairs to minimize any potential
hazards that may arise and the potential liability to the owner.
Stairwells
The concrete stairs were noted without any traffic coating or slip resistant
measures on treads and landings (Photo 43). The northeast stairwell was
also noted to be open without a canopy on the roof level (Photo 44).
Analysis: It is recommended to add a traffic coating over stair treads and
landings to provide waterproofing for the concrete and embedded steel as Photo 44 – Northeast stairwell has no
canopy on the Roof
Photo 42 – No bollards were observed
around stair openings
Photo 40 – Dislodged concrete wheel
stop
Photo 41 – Clear spacing larger than 4
inches between rail and bumper wall
Photo 43 – Stairs treads and landings
have no traffic coating system
G01-14
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
well as to provide proper friction for pedestrian. The open stairwell allows
water to travel through to the lower levels, which could increase water
intrusion and concrete deterioration. We recommend adding a canopy over
the northeast stair on the roof level.
Floor Mounted Delineator
Floor mounted delineators were noted to be damaged and broken which
(Photo 45). It is recommended to replace the damaged and broken
delineators assist with traffic regulation.
Interior Painting
The interior of the structure was observed to be unpainted (Photo 46). The
interior of the structure may be painted to improve the perceived aesthetics
and potentially improve lighting levels.
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Lighting
It was observed that parking structure has not been updated to LED lighting
(Photo 46). The lighting levels were recorded in foot-candle (f.c.) as if all the
lights were turned-on, however during the assessment some lights of the
parking structure were either turned-off or the bulbs had burnt-out. The light
measurements were recorded assuming all lights are functioning properly
and the recordings are summarized in Table 1. Figure 2 is a plan view of the
parking structure illustrating the light measurement locations.
Table 1. Summary of Light Measurements
Location Standard
(f.c.)
Structure
(f.c.)
Interior Driving Aisles 10.0 30.0
Interior Parking Areas at Vehicle Door 5.0 6.0
Interior Parking Areas at Barrier Railing 1.0 1.0
Roof Parking Area 1.0 1.0
Stairways 20.0 17.0
Photo 45 – Missing and damaged floor
mounted delineators
Photo 46 – Unpainted interior structure
and typical lighting levels
G01-15
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Figure 2. Plan view of light measurement locations
In general, the lighting was observed to be at or above suggested industry
standard, except for in the stairways.
We recommend replacing the existing, functioning and nonfunctioning, light
fixtures in the expansion parking structure with LED lighting that will reduce
energy consumption, provide longer bulb lifespans and will save overall
lifecycle utility costs of the parking structure.
G01-16
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
CONCRETE TESTING
Chloride-Ion Content
Chlorides are typically present in concrete, whether they get introduced
during the mixing, or they migrate into the material due to local environmental
conditions. Close proximity to the ocean may lead to higher exposure to
airborne salts, which can accumulate and increase the chloride
concentration over time. When chloride content reaches or exceeds a critical
value, the protection of the steel reinforcement is lost. Once the passive
protective layer around the steel is completely eroded, corrosion of
reinforcement will begin with the presence of oxygen and moisture at the
steel-concrete interface. Therefore, by measuring chloride content levels in
concrete at strategic locations around the structure, it is possible to predict
the initiation of corrosion in concrete.
Two concrete powder samples (CL3 and CL4) were extracted at the roof
level from areas next to floor drains and with signs of water stains to check
in-situ concrete chloride content. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) was used
to locate existing embedded reinforcement and avoid damaging it during the
extraction of concrete samples. The extracted samples were then sent to an
independent laboratory, Universal Construction Testing (UCT), for testing.
Chloride content analysis was conducted in general accordance with
provisions of ASTM C1218, “Standard Test Method for Water-Soluble
Chloride in Mortar and Concrete.” Chloride content in concrete was tested
at three depths from the surface of the elements, from 0 to 1 inch, 1 to 2
inch, and 2 to 3 inch.
Typically, the corrosion of steel will begin causing steel section loss, concrete
cracks, delamination, and spalling. Research has shown that this threshold
is typically around 280 to 410 parts per million (PPM) of water-soluble
chloride ion by weight of concrete. The results from testing are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Chloride Ion Content Testing Results
Chloride Ion Content (PPM)
Sample ID Sample Description
0-1 Inch 1-2 Inch 2-3 Inch
CL3 Exposed Roof Level 20 20 20
CL4 Exposed Roof Level 50 20 20
G01-17
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
The largest chloride level for any location is 50 PPM. The recommended
lower bound limit for chloride concentration (280 PPM) was not exceeded
for any sample in the 0-1 inch depth range. The chloride content is well below
the suggested limits for all of the chloride samples at depths greater than 1
inch from the top of the slab. This test suggests that the chloride content in
the concrete has not progressed to a point that it will contribute to
embedded reinforcement corrosion at our test locations.
Concrete Sounding
Walter P Moore performed two different concrete sounding techniques,
hammer sounding on the overhead and vertical surfaces, and chain drag on
the slabs, to detect spalling and delamination within the concrete. At spalled
or delaminated concrete locations the sounding techniques will result in a
hollow sounding impact reverberation. Conversely, the sounding of
undamaged concrete will result in a solid impact reverberation. Concrete
sounding assists in determining the repair limits of the identified distress
locations. Limited delaminated locations were identified using the sounding
techniques which will require additional concrete repairs.
Reinforcement Cover
Ground Penetrating Radar is a non-destructive technique that emits a short
pulse of electromagnetic energy, which is radiated into the subsurface. When
this pulse strikes an interface between layers of materials with different
electrical properties, part of the wave reflects back, and the remaining energy
continues to the next interface. Concrete material is a low conductivity, non-
metallic medium that is ideal for GPR signal propagation. However, concrete
typically has steel reinforcement, which is a metallic and therefore completely
reflects the GPR signal and shadows anything directly below the metal. This
non-destructive test method is subject to some error which can be
minimized by performing exploratory measurements with direct
measurements of depth to reinforcement and concrete thickness. However
no exploratory openings (destructive) were made to verify the depth of the
reinforcement as a part of this condition assessment. Therefore, the GPR
testing utilized to determine the reinforcement cover should consider having
an error of up to ±25%.
Photo 47 – Scanning the concrete slab
with a GPR
G01-18
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Specific locations were identified for non-destructive concrete cover testing,
which include slab locations on the Roof level over the concrete beams since
the concrete is directly exposed to weathering and the reinforcement
typically has the lowest cover at these locations. After analyzing the data
collected from the GPR, it was determined that on average data results
determine sufficient concrete cover over the reinforcement for the roof level
slab. The minimum concrete cover recommended for durability by the
modern version of the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-14) is 1 inch for prestressed concrete slabs exposed to weathering.
The average concrete cover on the roof level slab, determined from the GPR,
is approximately 1 inch, which meets current Building Code requirements.
G01-19
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations for maintenance repairs are prioritized according to
the need of the structure and are divided into the following five categories:
High Priority Repairs must be addressed in the very near future (within 1-2
years) to maintain serviceability of the associated item and/or maintain the
safety and long-term durability of the structure.
Medium Priority Repairs must be addressed in 2-3 years to mitigate further
deterioration.
Low Priority Repairs must be addressed beyond 3 years to sustain the overall
serviceability of the structure for the long-term.
Enhancements are items recommended to improve the serviceability and
environmental performance of the structure.
High Priority Repair Items
Install barrier cables at perimeter of all elevated levels
Tighten all loose existing barrier cables
Repair concrete spalls and delaminations at floor slab, slab soffit,
curbs, columns, walls, and stair treads
Install end caps at barrier cable anchorages
Medium Priority Repair Items
Rout and seal slab cracks on all levels
Replace traffic coating at the pour strips at the Roof level
Install new traffic coating at the pour strips, previous patches over
PT tendons at lower elevated levels, and area above the electrical
equipment
Grout and install sealant around handrail post pockets
Elastomeric coat all the Roof columns, and elastomeric coat the
exterior of the walls along the north and west ends of the parking
structure
Clean and coat façade panel and connections
Install/replace sealant at floor joints
Install sealant at vertical joints between walls and columns
G01-20
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Install cove sealant around base of columns and perimeter walls
at all elevated levels
Epoxy injection cracks in concrete beams, columns, and walls
Install kick plate at edge of sidewalk
Seal pipe penetration
Replace fire sprinkler heads
Upgrade seismic bracing
Upgrade fire pump
Low Priority Repair Items
Replace broken CMU blocks
Replace handrails at the ramps
Clean all floor drains
Power wash structure
Clean and repaint sprinkler systems on all levels
Re-stripe all levels
Replace broken wheel stops
Enhancements
Install mesh on barrier cables at all interior elevated levels to
achieve the maximum 4 inch spacing
Weld intermediate bar to existing handrails to maintain spacing
less than 4 inch
Install bollards around stairs for patron protection
Install canopy over the northeast stair at the roof level
Install new traffic coating on stair landings and treads
Replace all corroded fire extinguisher housing
Replace existing lighting with LED lighting
Clean and paint façade panels
Paint the interior of the structure
Paint the exterior of the structure
These projections and phasing plans are reflected in the 10-year CAMP for
the Structure. See Appendix B.
G01-21
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
OPINION OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Based on our site observations, we have established recommended repair
quantities and prepared an opinion of probable construction costs for the
structure. The following table shows the opinion of probable construction
costs in 2018 dollars.
Table 3 – Capital Asset Management Plan – Summary
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION 2019 Costs Future
Costs Total Cost
1 Install Barrier Cables 176,000.00$ -$ 176,000.00$
2 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables 14,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 44,500.00$
3 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair 51,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 67,000.00$
4 Concrete Curb Repair -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
5 Overhead Slab Repair 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$
6 Concrete Wall Repair 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$
7 Concrete Column Repair 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 4,000.00$
8 Barrier Cables Missing End Caps 1,000.00$ -$ 1,000.00$
9 Stair Treads Spall Repair 27,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 42,000.00$
High Priority Repair Total 274,000$ 75,000$ 349,000$
10 Rout and Seal Cracks 6,500.00$ 14,000.00$ 20,500.00$
11 Traffic Coating New System - Over Pour Strips 18,000.00$ -$ 18,000.00$
12 Traffic Coating Replacement - Over Pour Strips 6,500.00$ 60,000.00$ 66,500.00$
13 Install Sealant at Handrail Post 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 32,000.00$
14 Elastomeric Coating on Roof Columns 11,500.00$ 11,500.00$ 23,000.00$
15 Elastomeric Coating on Exterior Northwest and Southwest Walls 20,500.00$ 20,500.00$ 41,000.00$
16 Clean and Coat Façade Panel Connections 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 58,000.00$
17 Joint Sealant Installation 1,500.00$ -$ 1,500.00$
18 Joint Sealant Replacement 1,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 7,000.00$
19 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 4,500.00$
20 Cove Sealant Installation 39,500.00$ 53,500.00$ 93,000.00$
21 Epoxy Injection 10,500.00$ 8,000.00$ 18,500.00$
22 Install Kick Plate at Sidewalk 8,500.00$ 4,000.00$ 12,500.00$
23 Seal Pipe Penetration 3,000.00$ -$ 3,000.00$
24 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement 58,500.00$ -$ 58,500.00$
25 Seismic Bracing Upgrade 12,600.00$ -$ 12,600.00$
26 Fire Pump Upgrade -$ 47,500.00$ 47,500.00$
Medium Priority Repair Total 244,600$ 273,000$ 517,600$
27 CMU Replacement -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
28 Replace Handrail -$ 17,000.00$ 17,000.00$
29 Clean Drains -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
30 Power Wash -$ 52,500.00$ 52,500.00$
31 Clean and Paint Sprinklers 227,000.00$ -$ 227,000.00$
32 Re-Striping All Levels -$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$
33 Replace Wheel Stops -$ 6,500.00$ 6,500.00$
Low Priority Repair Total 227,000$ 134,500$ 361,500$
34 Install Mesh at Barrier Cables -$ 89,000.00$ 89,000.00$
35 Weld Intermediate Bar -$ 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$
36 Install Bollards -$ 19,000.00$ 19,000.00$
37 Install Canopy -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
38 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs -$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
39 Replace Fire Extinguisher Housing -$ 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$
40 Replace Floor Mounted Delineater 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 2,000.00$
41 Install LED Lighting -$ 101,000.00$ 101,000.00$
42 Paint Façade Panels -$ 138,000.00$ 138,000.00$
43 Paint Interior 332,000.00$ -$ 332,000.00$
44 Paint Exterior on Northeast and Southeast Concrete -$ 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$
Enhancement Total 332,500$ 449,500$ 782,000$
1,078,100$ 932,000$ 2,010,100$
108,000$ 97,000$ 205,000$
87,000$ 79,000$ 166,000$
1,274,000$ 1,108,000$ 2,382,000$
1,312,000$ 1,298,000$ 2,610,000$
Contigency (10%)
General Conditions (8%)
Total (2018 Dollars)
Total (Adjusted Future Value)
842 PALM STREET PARKING STRUCTURE
High Priority Repair Items
Medium Priority Repair Items
Low Priority Repair Items
Enhancement Items
Sub Total
G01-22
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Notes:
1. Opinion of probably construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of probable construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probably construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not
included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a
factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
These opinions of probable construction costs are for budgeting purposes only and not for actual
construction. Since this is an opinion of cost, Walter P. Moore does not have control over the cost or
availability of labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the contractor’s method of pricing.
In addition, the engineer’s opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the engineer’s
professional judgment and experience.
Furthermore, the engineer makes no warranty, expressed or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of
the work will not vary from the engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost.
G01-23
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented represent current technology for parking
structure renovation and maintenance. We have assumed the facilities will
continue in its present use and will require appropriate repairs and periodic
maintenance for this use. Parking structures undergo harsh exposure to
various environmental elements and further deterioration will take place with
continued service related exposure. Proper design and installation of
effective repairs and maintenance can significantly reduce further
deterioration and the associated repair costs.
This report is not a warranty or guarantee of the items noted. The extent of
our evaluation was limited and cannot guarantee that the condition
assessment discovered or disclosed all possible latent conditions. The
evaluation required that certain assumptions be made regarding existing
conditions and some of these conditions cannot be verified without
expending additional sums of money, or destroying otherwise adequate or
serviceable portions of the facility. In this study, we did not include review of
the design, inspection of concealed conditions, or detailed analysis, to verify
adequacy of the structure to carry the imposed loads and to check
conformance to the applicable codes. The assessment also does not
provide specific repair details, construction contract documents, material
specifications, details to develop construction cost or information on means
and methods of construction.
Any comment regarding concealed construction or subsurface conditions
are our professional opinion, based on engineering experience and
judgment, and derived in accordance with standard of care and professional
practice.
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of The
City of San Luis Obispo. This report and the findings contained herein shall
not, in whole or in part, be disseminated or conveyed to any other party or
used or relied upon by any other party, in whole or in part, without prior
written consent.
G01-A-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo 1 – Southeast corner isometric view of the parking structure
Photo 2 – Southwest corner isometric view of the parking structure
G01-A-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 3 – North end of the parking structure
Photo 4 – Steel guardrail at structure perimeter as vehicle barrier system
G01-A-3
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 5 – Concrete bumper wall along the east, west, and a portion of the north ends
Photo 6 – Several barrier cables were loose
G01-A-4
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 7 – Barrier cable anchors have no end caps
Photo 8 –Overhead concrete spall at the underside of stair landing
G01-A-5
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 9 –Minor concrete spall at a concrete bumper wall
Photo 10 – Concrete columns and grout pockets for PT beams with signs of fine cracks and water stains
G01-A-6
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 11 – Cracks in concrete walls (typically less than 1/16” wide)
Photo 12 –Minor concrete spall with exposed reinforcement at floor surface
G01-A-7
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 13 – Typical concrete stair tread spall and corroded handrail post
Photo 12 – Isolated floor cracks
G01-A-8
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 15 – Cracks at turning ramps
Photo 16 – Cracks at corners of structure
G01-A-9
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 17 – Previous patches over post-tensioned tendons
Photo 18 – Deteriorated traffic coating over pour strips.
G01-A-10
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 19 –Pour strips at lower levels have no traffic coating protection
Photo 20 – Water and grease stains at the underside of pour strip joints
G01-A-11
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 21 – Slab with a large amount of cracks, electrical equipment below on level below
Photo 3 – No sealant at the cove joint between wall and slab
G01-A-12
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 4 – Deteriorated sealant at vertical joints between walls
Photo 24 – Deteriorated sealant in floor joints
G01-A-13
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 25 – Typical unsealed pipe penetration
Photo 26 – Drain covered with debris
G01-A-14
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 27 – Metal façade panels
Photo 28 – Corroded façade panel connections
G01-A-15
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 29 – Cracked and peeled exterior coating on concrete walls between cold joints
Photo 30 – Corroded fire sprinkler head
G01-A-16
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 31 – Typical existing seismic bracing and corroded fire sprinkler pipes
Photo 32 – Corroded fire extinguisher housing
G01-A-17
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 33 – Existing 20-25 year old pump
Photo 34 – Unsealed handrail post pockets and handrail post base corrosion
G01-A-18
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 35 – Spalled concrete pedestals supporting the handrail post
Photo 36 – Spalled concrete pedestal with exposed reinforcement supporting handrail post
G01-A-19
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 37 – Typical damaged guardrail at turning ramps
Photo 38 – Cracks in CMU blocks
G01-A-20
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 39 – Faded striping and oil stained parking spaces
Photo 40 – Dislodged concrete wheel stop
G01-A-21
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 41 – Clear spacing larger than 4 inches between rail and bumper wall
Photo 42 – No bollards were observed around stair openings
G01-A-22
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 43 – Stairs treads and landings have no traffic coating system
Photo 44 – Northeast stairwell has no canopy on the Roof
G01-A-23
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 45 – Missing and damaged floor mounted delineators
Photo 46 – Unpainted interior structure and typical lighting levels
G01-A-24
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 47 – Scanning the concrete slab with a GPR
G01-B-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX B – CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
842 PALM STREET
San Luis Obispo, CA
TASK
ITEM NO.TASK ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
High Priority Repair Items
1 Install Barrier Cables
176,000$ 176,000$
2 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables
44,500$ 14,500$ 15,000$ 15,000$
3 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair
67,000$ 51,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$
4 Concrete Curb Repair
4,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$
5 Overhead Slab Repair
7,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$
6 Concrete Wall Repair
3,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$
7 Concrete Column Repair
4,000$ 1,000$ 1,500$ 1,500$
8 Barrier Cables Missing End Caps
1,000$ 1,000$
9 Stair Treads Spall Repair
42,000$ 27,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$
High Priority Repair Total 349,000$ 274,000$ -$ -$ -$ 37,500$ -$ -$ -$ 37,500$ -$
Medium Priority Repair Items
10 Rout and Seal Cracks
20,500$ 6,500$ 7,000$ 7,000$
11 Traffic Coating New System - Over Pour Strips
18,000$ 18,000$
12 Traffic Coating Replacement - Over Pour Strips
66,500$ 6,500$ 30,000$ 30,000$
13 Install Sealant at Handrail Post
32,000$ 16,000$ 16,000$
14 Elastomeric Coating on Roof Columns
23,000$ 11,500$ 11,500$
15 Elastomeric Coating on Exterior Northwest and Southwest Walls 41,000$ 20,500$ 20,500$
16 Clean and Coat Façade Panel Connections
58,000$ 29,000$ 29,000$
17 Joint Sealant Installation
1,500$ 1,500$
18 Joint Sealant Replacement
7,000$ 1,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$
19 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement
4,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
20 Cove Sealant Installation
93,000$ 39,500$ 14,000$ 39,500$
21 Epoxy Injection
18,500$ 10,500$ 4,000$ 4,000$
22 Install Kick Plate at Sidewalk
12,500$ 8,500$ 4,000$
23 Seal Pipe Penetration
3,000$ 3,000$
24 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement
58,500$ 58,500$
25 Seismic Bracing Upgrade
12,600$ 12,600$
26 Fire Pump Upgrade
47,500$ 47,500$
Medium Priority Repair Total 517,600$ 244,600$ -$ -$ -$ 107,000$ -$ -$ -$ 166,000$ -$
Low Priority Repair Items
27 CMU Replacement 1,500$ 1,000$ 500$
28 Replace Handrail
17,000$ 17,000$
29 Clean Drains 12,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$
30 Power Wash
52,500$ 17,500$ 17,500$ 17,500$
31 Clean and Paint Sprinklers 227,000$ 227,000$
32 Re-Striping All Levels
45,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
33 Replace Wheel Stops 6,500$ 2,500$ 2,000$ 2,000$
Low Priority Repair Total 361,500$ 227,000$ 57,000$ -$ -$ 23,500$ 15,000$ -$ -$ 24,000$ 15,000$
Enhancement Items
34 Install Mesh at Barrier Cables
89,000$ 89,000$
35 Weld Intermediate Bar
29,000$ 29,000$
36 Install Bollards
19,000$ 18,000$ 1,000$
37 Install Canopy
12,000$ 12,000$
38 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs
30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$
39 Replace Fire Extinguisher Housing
14,000$ 9,000$ 2,500$ 2,500$
40 Replace Floor Mounted Delineater
2,000$ 500$ 500$ 500$ 500$
41 Install LED Lighting
101,000$ 101,000$
42 Paint Façade Panels
138,000$ 138,000$
43 Paint Interior
332,000$ 332,000$
44 Paint Exterior on Northeast and Southeast Concrete 16,000$ 16,000$
Enhancement Total 782,000$ $332,500 $9,000 $264,500 $154,000 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $18,000 $0
Sub Total Current Program 2,010,100$ 1,078,100$ 66,000$ 264,500$ 154,000$ 172,000$ 15,000$ -$ -$ 245,500$ 15,000$
Contigency (10%)205,000$ 108,000$ 7,000$ 27,000$ 16,000$ 18,000$ 2,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ 2,000$
General Conditions (8%)166,000$ 87,000$ 6,000$ 22,000$ 13,000$ 14,000$ 2,000$ -$ -$ 20,000$ 2,000$
Opinion of Annual Budget (2018 Dollars)2,383,000$ 1,274,000$ 79,000$ 314,000$ 183,000$ 204,000$ 19,000$ -$ -$ 291,000$ 19,000$
Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted Future Value)2,610,000$ 1,312,000$ 84,000$ 343,000$ 206,000$ 236,000$ 23,000$ -$ -$ 380,000$ 26,000$
Notes:
1. Opinion of probable construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work.
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probable construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
G01-B-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 842 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION 2019 Costs Future
Costs Total Cost
1 Install Barrier Cables 176,000.00$ -$ 176,000.00$
2 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables 14,500.00$ 30,000.00$ 44,500.00$
3 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair 51,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 67,000.00$
4 Concrete Curb Repair -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
5 Overhead Slab Repair 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$
6 Concrete Wall Repair 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$
7 Concrete Column Repair 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 4,000.00$
8 Barrier Cables Missing End Caps 1,000.00$ -$ 1,000.00$
9 Stair Treads Spall Repair 27,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 42,000.00$
High Priority Repair Total 274,000$ 75,000$ 349,000$
10 Rout and Seal Cracks 6,500.00$ 14,000.00$ 20,500.00$
11 Traffic Coating New System - Over Pour Strips 18,000.00$ -$ 18,000.00$
12 Traffic Coating Replacement - Over Pour Strips 6,500.00$ 60,000.00$ 66,500.00$
13 Install Sealant at Handrail Post 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 32,000.00$
14 Elastomeric Coating on Roof Columns 11,500.00$ 11,500.00$ 23,000.00$
15 Elastomeric Coating on Exterior Northwest and Southwest Walls 20,500.00$ 20,500.00$ 41,000.00$
16 Clean and Coat Façade Panel Connections 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$ 58,000.00$
17 Joint Sealant Installation 1,500.00$ -$ 1,500.00$
18 Joint Sealant Replacement 1,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 7,000.00$
19 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 4,500.00$
20 Cove Sealant Installation 39,500.00$ 53,500.00$ 93,000.00$
21 Epoxy Injection 10,500.00$ 8,000.00$ 18,500.00$
22 Install Kick Plate at Sidewalk 8,500.00$ 4,000.00$ 12,500.00$
23 Seal Pipe Penetration 3,000.00$ -$ 3,000.00$
24 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement 58,500.00$ -$ 58,500.00$
25 Seismic Bracing Upgrade 12,600.00$ -$ 12,600.00$
26 Fire Pump Upgrade -$ 47,500.00$ 47,500.00$
Medium Priority Repair Total 244,600$ 273,000$ 517,600$
27 CMU Replacement -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
28 Replace Handrail -$ 17,000.00$ 17,000.00$
29 Clean Drains -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
30 Power Wash -$ 52,500.00$ 52,500.00$
31 Clean and Paint Sprinklers 227,000.00$ -$ 227,000.00$
32 Re-Striping All Levels -$ 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$
33 Replace Wheel Stops -$ 6,500.00$ 6,500.00$
Low Priority Repair Total 227,000$ 134,500$ 361,500$
34 Install Mesh at Barrier Cables -$ 89,000.00$ 89,000.00$
35 Weld Intermediate Bar -$ 29,000.00$ 29,000.00$
36 Install Bollards -$ 19,000.00$ 19,000.00$
37 Install Canopy -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
38 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs -$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
39 Replace Fire Extinguisher Housing -$ 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$
40 Replace Floor Mounted Delineater 500.00$ 1,500.00$ 2,000.00$
41 Install LED Lighting -$ 101,000.00$ 101,000.00$
42 Paint Façade Panels -$ 138,000.00$ 138,000.00$
43 Paint Interior 332,000.00$ -$ 332,000.00$
44 Paint Exterior on Northeast and Southeast Concrete -$ 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$
Enhancement Total 332,500$ 449,500$ 782,000$
1,078,100$ 932,000$ 2,010,100$
108,000$ 97,000$ 205,000$
87,000$ 79,000$ 166,000$
1,274,000$ 1,108,000$ 2,382,000$
1,312,000$ 1,298,000$ 2,610,000$
Notes:
1. Opinion of probable construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work.
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probable construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
Contigency (10%)
General Conditions (8%)
Total (2018 Dollars)
Total (Adjusted Future Value)
842 PALM STREET PARKING STRUCTURE
High Priority Repair Items
Medium Priority Repair Items
Low Priority Repair Items
Enhancement Items
Sub Total
G02
Condition Assessment
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessments
871 Marsh St. Structure
San Luis Obispo, California
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Division
Prepared by
Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc.
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90017
D09-18025-00
September 13, 2018
G02-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The parking structure at 871 Marsh Street is currently exhibiting typical signs
of deterioration, and is considered to be in generally “Fair” condition with
isolated elements in “Poor” or “Failed” condition.
During the course of our review, we did not identify conditions in need of
immediate actions, although we identified several distress conditions and
associated action items that should be addressed as a part of an on-going
repair program. This will include repair of spalled concrete, re-tensioning of
loose barrier cables, and installation of mesh at existing barrier cables.
Typical distress items identified in the structure and discussed in this report
include concrete deterioration in the form of cracks, deteriorated or missing
joint sealants, deteriorated or missing traffic coating at pour strips, deformed
or broken handrails, cracked or broken CMU blocks, and severely corroded
drain sumps. Conceptual repair recommendations are provided to address
specific items of distress.
An opinion of probable construction costs for the base repairs
recommended herein was developed for each priority level. The
recommended base repairs were developed annually for the next 10 years.
Our opinion of probable construction cost for items in need of repair for the
next 10 years is estimated to be $3,703,000. The CAMP for 871 Marsh
Street parking structure is provided in Appendix B.
G02-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
INTRODUCTION
Parking Structure Description
The subject parking structure is located at 871 Marsh Street in San Luis
Obispo, California. Photo 1 through Photo 4 show an overall view of the
parking structure at different elevations. The parking structure consists of a
four level cast-in-place concrete structure with a total of 520 parking spaces.
The ground floor of the parking structure is occupied office and retail space.
The parking structure consists of two separate designed structures
separated by an expansion joint. In Figure 1, the parking structure that is
hatched red was built circa 1989, while the structure that is hatched green
was an expansion and was built circa 2002. The original structure has an
approximate footprint of 120 feet by 257 feet. The expansion structure has
an approximate footprint of 110 feet by 245 feet. The floor framing for both
structures was built using post-tensioned (PT) beams supporting 5 inch thick
PT slabs.
The vehicle barrier system installed for the original parking structure consists
of barrier cables at the interior, and a combination of barrier cables and
concrete bumper walls along the perimeter. The vehicle barrier system
installed for the expansion structure consists of concrete bumper walls for a
portion of the interior, and a combination of concrete bumper walls and
concrete-filled steel pipes along the perimeter.
There are three stairwells, one at the northwest corner of the original
structure, one at the southeast corner of the original structure, and one at
the northeast corner of the expansion structure. There are two elevators in
the overall parking structure. One elevator services the original structure
located on the northwest corner, and the other elevator services the
expansion structure located on the northeast corner.
Photo 1 – Overall view of parking
structure looking north at Chorro and
Pacific street intersection
Photo 2 – Overall view of parking
structure looking west at Morro and
Pacific street intersection
Photo 3 – Overall view of parking
structure looking southwest from Morro
street
Photo 4 – Overall view of parking
structure looking east from Chorro and
Marsh street intersection
G02-3
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Figure 1. 871 Marsh Street parking structure. In red is the original structure built circa 1989 and
in green is the additional structure built circa 2002
Document Review
At the time of this condition assessment, the following documents were
available for review by Walter P Moore:
Original Structure
Architectural drawings by Conrad Associates, dated June 7,
1988
Structural drawings by Conrad Associates, dated June 7, 1987
Circulation Improvement by City of San Luis Obispo, dated
January 2018
Expansion Structure
Architectural drawings by Phillips Metsch Sweeney Moore, dated
November 14, 2003
Structural drawings by Walker Parking Consultants, dated
November 14, 2003
Circulation Improvement by City of San Luis Obispo, dated
January 2018
G02-4
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
OBSERVATIONS
Structural Observations
Vertical and Overhead Surfaces
Observations: Concrete delaminations and spalls were observed on slab
soffits, columns, and walls. Photo 5 shows the isolated locations of overhead
concrete spall and delamination beneath the pour strip of the concrete slab.
The PT grout pockets on the Roof level columns appear to have been
previously coated (Photo 6). Concrete walls were observed to be generally
in “Fair” condition with isolated diagonal cracks that are typically less than
1/64” wide (Photo 7-8). The concrete beams were observed to be generally
in “Good” condition with little to no cracking or spalling of the concrete.
Analysis: The observed overhead spalls and delaminations beneath the pour
strips of the concrete slab was to be minor. There were no signs of corrosion
staining beneath the pour strips although there was water staining, which
indicates past water infiltration. It appears as if the overhead pour strip joint
was patched to prevent water infiltration. No corroded reinforcement was
observed beneath the pour strips of the concrete slab, therefore the spall
was not likely related to reinforcement corrosion. The spall occurred due to
debonding at the surface. To properly seal the joint and mitigate water
infiltration, the pour strip should be sealed from above with a flexible sealant.
The loose patch of the overhead pour strip joints should be removed. The
overhead pour strip joints do not have to be patched with overhead repair
mortar at this time.
Grout pockets on columns cover the anchorage locations for the PT tendons
in the beams. Columns with grout pockets at the Roof level are subject to
more water and weather exposure than interior locations. If not properly
protected, water may penetrate through the grout pockets to reach the
embedded PT anchors and cause corrosion. The Roof level columns and
grout pockets were coated, and the coating is considered in “Fair” condition.
We recommend a high-performance coating be applied every 10 years to
the columns at the Roof level to maintain protection of the grout pockets
from water infiltration.
Photo 5 –Overhead concrete spall and
delamination below the pour strip joints
Photo 7 – Diagonal cracks on concrete
walls which are 1/64” wide or less
Photo 6 – Coated PT grout pockets on
Roof level columns
Photo 8 – Close up of crack measuring
1/64”
G02-5
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Isolated cracks observed in concrete walls and columns (typically less than
1/64”) may be a result of either restraint stress or forces being transferred to
the elements. The observed cracks were of no immediate structural concern
however wider cracks were observed with water stains from water infiltration.
Therefore, cracks wider than 1/32 inches in structural walls and columns are
recommend to be epoxy injected to restore the structural capacity of the
elements.
There were no immediate structural concern associated with these
observations. We recommend all spalls and delaminations at overhead and
vertical concrete surfaces be removed and repaired with cementitious repair
material.
Slab Surfaces - General
Observations: The slab surfaces were observed to be in “Fair” condition with
localized areas of spalls, delaminations, and cracks. The area of spalls and
delaminations on the slab surfaces were typically less than four square feet,
and in some cases resulted in exposed reinforcement. Photo 9 shows a
typical spall with exposed reinforcement. There were built-up overlays which
have delaminated and started spalling (Photo 10). The curb along the ramps
were typically observed to be spalled (Photo 11). Delaminations and
corroding handrail post were observed in the stairs (Photo 12).
Cracks (typically less than 1/16” wide) were noted at isolated locations on
floor surfaces throughout the original structure. The expansion structure was
observed to have a greater amount of cracks. The cracks in the expansion
structure were along the interior column line and were parallel to the slab’s
PT tendons. The cracks in both the original and expansion structure
appeared to be previously routed and sealed although the sealant has since
deteriorated (Photo 13).
Analysis: These observed spalls, delaminations, and cracks were minor and
caused by low concrete cover at isolated locations, thin overlay installations
with improper overall surface preparation, vehicular impact, corrosion of
embedded reinforcement, concrete shrinkage, or restrain stresses. There is
no immediate structural concern associated with these observations.
Photo 11 – Typical concrete curb spalls
at ramps
Photo 10 – Typical delamination of built-
up overlays
Photo 9 – Typical floor spalls with
exposed reinforcement
Photo 12 – Delamination at stairs and
corroding handrail posts
G02-6
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
However, exposed cracks, delaminations, and spalls may allow long-term
moisture penetration into the concrete which may cause further deterioration
of concrete or corrosion of embedded reinforcement. We recommend all the
cracks, delaminations, and spalls be repaired for long-term maintenance and
aesthetic purposes. Spalls and delaminations may be repaired with
cementitious repair mortar, and all floor cracks may be routed and sealed
with a flexible sealant.
Vehicle Barrier Systems
Interior Barrier Systems
Observations: Vehicle barrier cables were observed at the interior bays of the
original parking structure (Photo 14). Several cables were noted to be loose
when pulled. The clear spacing between the cables was measured to be
greater than 4 inches (Photo 15), with a total height over 42 inches. The built-
up plates protecting the barrier cables’ anchorages along the driving ramps
were typically damaged from vehicular impact, however the anchorages
themselves were undamaged (Photo 16).
The vehicle barrier system installed for the expansion structure consists of
concrete bumper walls for a portion of the interior (Photo 17). No damage
was noted for these elements.
Analysis: Vehicle barrier cables are typically pre-tensioned to a specific
design force to resist vehicle impact as well as to limit tendon draping to fulfill
the building code requirements. The current code requires a vehicle barrier
system to be designed to withstand a vehicle impact load of 6000 lbs, and
a maximum spacing of 4 inches to prevent small objects from passing
though the barrier.
Loose cables have less capacity than intended, and may not have adequate
capacity to resist vehicle impacts. We recommend conducting tension
testing of all barrier cables in the structure to identify cables that are not
properly tensioned and then re-tension all the loose barrier cables in order
to restore their original design capacity. Although the spacing requirements
of the barrier cables may be grandfathered and therefore not required to
update, we recommend adding a wire mesh to the existing barrier cables to
Photo 13 – Deteriorated sealant in
previously routed and sealed cracks
Photo 14 – Barrier cables at interior bay
of original parking structure
Photo 15 – Clear spacing between
barrier cables is greater than 4 inches
Photo 16 – Undamaged and damaged
built-up plate protecting barrier cable’s
anchorages along driving ramps
G02-7
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
reduce the spacing to a maximum of 4 in, which would minimize any
potential hazards that may arise and minimize the potential liability.
It appears that the built-up plates protecting the barrier cables’ anchorages
along the narrow drive ramps were impacted by vehicles. The plates need
to be replaced.
Perimeter Barrier Systems
Observations: A combination of barrier cables and concrete bumper walls
were observed at the original parking structure’s perimeter (Photo 18).
Several cables were noted to be loose when pulled. The clear spacing
between the cables was also measured to be greater than 4 inches, with a
total approximate height of about 42 inches.
A combination of concrete bumper walls and concrete-filled steel pipes were
observed along the perimeter of the expansion structure (Photo 19-20).
Analysis: As previously mentioned in the analysis section of Interior Barrier
Systems, loose cables may not have adequate capacity to resist vehicle
impacts. We recommend conducting tension testing of all barrier cables in
the structure to identify cables that are not properly tensioned and then re-
tension all the loose barrier cables in order to restore their originally designed
capacity. Although the spacing requirements of the barrier cables may be
grandfathered and therefore not required to update, it is recommended to
add a wire mesh on the existing barrier cables to reduce the spacing to a
maximum of 4 inches. This will minimize potential hazards that may arise
and minimize the potential liability.
Post-tensioned (PT) System
PT Tendons
Observations: The PT slabs were observed to be in general “Fair” condition
with isolated concrete spalls and cracks. No exposed PT tendons were
noted during the visual assessment.
Analysis: There were no signs of immediate structural concern of the PT
slabs as observed from this visual assessment. However, exposed cracks,
Photo 18 – Barrier cables and concrete
bumper wall at the original parking
structure’s perimeter
Photo 17 – Concrete bumper wall as
interior vehicle barrier for a portion of the
expansion structure
Photo 19 – Concrete filled steel pipes as
vehicle barriers of the expansion
structure along the alley
Photo 20 – Concrete bumper walls as
vehicle barriers of the expansion
structure along Morro and Pacific street
G02-8
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
delaminations, and spalls may allow long-term moisture penetration into the
concrete and PT tendons and need to be repaired.
Pour Strips
Observations: Pour strips at the Roof level of the original structure were
observed to be covered by a strip of traffic coating of approximately 5 feet
wide. The traffic coating was observed to be deteriorated (Photo 21). Pour
strips at the lower levels of the original structure were observed without traffic
coating (Photo 22). Water stains were observed from the underside of these
levels along the entire length of the pour strip joints.
Pour strips at the Roof level of the expansion structure were observed to be
covered by a strip of traffic coating of about 5 ft wide. The traffic coating was
observed to be in “Fair” condition (Photo 23). Pour strips at the lower levels
of the expansion structure were observed without traffic coating (Photo 24).
Water staining was not observed from the underside of these levels along
the pour strip joints.
There were no observed signs of corroding anchorages or de-tensioned PT
tendons at the time of this assessment.
Analysis: Pour strips are important in PT slabs as it is the anchor location for
PT tendons. If not properly protected, water can infiltrate through the joints
of pour strips and accelerate the corrosion of PT anchors. As the PT anchors
corrode it could potentially lead to de-tensioning of tendons which will
reduce the load carrying capacity of the slab and require more intrusive
repairs. We recommend replacing the deteriorated traffic coating over pour
strips at the Roof level of the original structure, recoating the pour strips at
the Roof level of the expansion structure, and installing new traffic coating
over pour strips at the lower levels of both structures to mitigate water
infiltration.
Photo 21 – Deteriorated traffic coating
over pour strips on the roof level of the
original structure
Photo 22 –Pour strips at lower levels of
the original structure have no traffic
coating protection
Photo 23 – Deteriorated traffic coating
over pour strips on the Roof level of the
expansion structure
Photo 24 – Pour strips at lower levels of
the expansion structure have no traffic
coating protection
G02-9
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Waterproofing Observations
Traffic Coating
Observations: In addition to the traffic coating installed at the pour strips,
there was traffic coating installed above occupied office and retail space. The
traffic coating on level 2 of the original structure was observed to be
deteriorated (Photo 25). The majority of the deterioration was concentrated
on the turning lanes, ramps, curbs, and some portion of the drive aisles. The
traffic coating on level 2 of the expansion structure near the Morro and Pacific
Street intersection appeared to be in “Fair” condition (Photo 26). The traffic
coating at this location does not typically undergo vehicular traffic due to the
structure layout and installed bollards.
The slab cracks were traffic coated on the Roof level along the interior
column line of the expansion structure. The traffic coating appeared to be in
“Fair” condition (Photo 27). The cracks were observed on all levels of the
expansion structure and were parallel to the slab’s PT tendons.
Analysis: It appears that the traffic coatings have been installed in areas of
the parking structure where there is occupied office/retail space on the level
below. The purpose was to prevent water from intruding into the occupied
space via cracks, joints, or the concrete itself. The traffic coating on the
second level of the original structure has significantly deteriorated. It is
recommended to fully replace the traffic coating, which will require traffic flow
planning during the installation. The traffic coating on the second level of the
expansion structure does not require significant repair, although it is still
recommended to recoat the area in order to maintain a waterproof system
for the occupied office and retail space below.
The cracks along the interior column line do not appear to have immediate
structural concern. The cracks on the Roof level were traffic coated hence
there was no long-term concern with water infiltration and corrosion as long
as the coating and crack sealant will be maintained. We recommend routing
and sealing floor cracks which are larger than 1/16” wide with flexible sealant.
Photo 25 – Deteriorated traffic coating
on level 2 of the original structure.
Photo 27 – Traffic coating over cracks
along the interior column line of the
expansion structure and displaced wheel
stops
Photo 26 – Traffic coating in “fair”
condition on level 2 of the expansion
structure
Photo 28 – No cove sealant between
wall-to-slab and curb-to-slab joints
G02-10
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Joint Sealants
Observations: In general, sealants were noted to be non-existent or were
deteriorated in floor joints, vertical joints between perimeter walls and
columns, as well as cove joints between the horizontal and vertical members
such as wall to slab, curb to slab, or column to slab joints (Photos 28-31).
Analysis: Joint sealants are an important factor in maintaining integrity of
waterproofing systems in structures. At locations with exposure to water or
moisture, joint sealant mitigates moisture intrusion into structural elements
that can accelerate deterioration of the concrete and embedded
reinforcement. Maintaining sealed joints helps prevent water infiltration into
concrete through joints.
We recommend installing sealant along all horizontal and cove joints at all
levels to mitigate water infiltration to structural elements. We also
recommend installing joint sealant at the vertical joints between bumper walls
and columns at the structure perimeter due to heavier exposure to weather
and water.
It is a common occurrence that joint sealant deteriorates due to weathering
and slab movements at the joints. Urethane sealants typically have a useful
service life of 5 years before requiring maintenance, depending on the
exposure conditions and the conditions of the slab.
Pipe Penetrations
Observations: Many pipe penetrations were observed at all levels of the
structure. These penetrations, for the most part, had no sealant around the
pipe as shown in Photo 31.
Analysis: Lack of sealant in the pipe penetrations will allow water to flow
thorough the penetrations and onto the lower levels, especially from the Roof
level. It may also lead to deterioration of concrete and embedded steel
around the edge of the opening. We recommend all pipe penetrations be
sealed with a flexible sealant.
Photo 31 – Typically unsealed pipe
penetration and deteriorated joint sealant
Photo 29 – Typically missing vertical
sealant between concrete bumper wall
and facade
Photo 30 – Close up of missing vertical
sealant
G02-11
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Expansion Joints
Observations: Elastomeric concrete edge winged expansion joints were
observed between the original and expansion structure. The nosing
appeared to be deteriorating and the gland appeared to have significant
wear (Photo 32-34). There was also a concrete build-up from the original to
the expansion structure, which was observed at a higher elevation than the
expansion structure.
A galvanized steel sheet flashing was used along the expansion joint where
there is no intended vehicular or pedestrian traffic. There was no sealant
between at the top of the flashing and the concrete wall (Photo 35). The
flashing has failed at some locations and was loose at many more locations
(Photo 36).
Analysis: Expansion joints and flashings are intended to mitigate water
infiltration into the structure while allowing for vertical and horizontal
differential movement between the structures. The expansion joint consists
of elastomeric concrete edge winged joint system. The winged expansion
joint was approaching the end of its useful service life at several locations.
The nosing is exhibiting signs of noising failure, as well as gland wear. Ideally
there would be no wear on the gland, although the concrete build-up was
contributing to the significant wear of the gland. The joint was not level due
to the difference in the elevation of the slabs between the original and
expansion structure. The difference in elevation therefore exposes the gland
to direct wear from vehicular traffic and introduces stresses on the nosing,
which leads to nosing spalls. The expansion joint needs to be replaced on
all levels as part of the ongoing maintenance of the parking structure. In the
replacement process, the elevation of both structures needs to be level
across in order to prevent future wear of the gland and improve the overall
performance of the winged expansion joint.
The failed galvanized steel sheet flashing needs to be replaced and installed
with sealant to fill the gaps between the flashing and the architectural
impress in the concrete walls. The fasteners used in the flashing installation
needs to be stainless steel or coated with some other corrosion inhibitor.
Photo 32 – Overview of the unlevel
expansion joint between original
structure (left of joint) and expansion
structure (right of joint)
Photo 33 – Close up of deteriorating
nosing and unlevel driving surface on Roof
Photo 34 – Close up of deteriorating
nosing and significant wear on the gland
Photo 35 – Typical flashing with no
sealant between top of flashing and
concrete wall
Photo 36 – Typical failed flashing at
expansion joint
G02-12
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Drains
Observations: In general, floor drains were observed to be uncleaned and
drain sumps were observed to be severely corroded (Photos 37-39).
Analysis: Drains should be cleaned and drain sumps need to be repaired to
allow for proper drainage of rainfall. The drainage system are recommended
to be periodically maintained to eliminate stagnant water, which could
potentially lead to structural distress. Regular parking structure maintenance
should include periodic cleaning of drains.
Roof Columns
Observations: The Roof columns were observed to be coated although fine
cracks were also observed on the column (Photo 40).
Analysis: The Roof columns need to be coated with elastomeric coating.
Coating the columns will provide an impermeable layer, which will mitigate
water from infiltrating the concrete and corroding the embedded
reinforcement.
Facade
Observations: The concrete façade panels were observed to be in “Fair”
condition, with little or no spalling observed (Photo 41). The paint on the
Photo 41 – Façade has faded paint and
cracked stucco
Photo 37 – Clogged drain
Photo 38 – Close up of clogged drains
Photo 39 – Typical severely corroded
drain sump
Photo 40 – Coated Roof columns with
fine cracks
G02-13
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
façade panels was observed to be faded. Cracks were observed on the
façade panels and architectural features (Photo 42).
Analysis: The concrete façade panels needs to be coated with an
elastomeric coating to bridge the cracks and prevent water infiltration. Water
infiltration can cause further structural distress in the form of corrosion of
embedded reinforcement and spalling of concrete.
Circulation Improvement
It is our understanding that there is a current plan to restripe portions of the
parking structure, add wayfinding signs, add floor mounted delineators, and
remove and replace ramp curbs and handrails. Therefore, we have
incorporated the plan to our 10 year CAMP.
Floor Mounted Delineator
Floor mounted delineators were noted to be damaged and broken which
had been replaced with traffic cones (Photo 43). It is recommended to
replace the damaged and broken delineators assist with traffic regulation.
Turning Ramp Guardrail
Observations: Most of the guardrail at turning ramps were observed to be
damaged or broken (Photo 44).
Analysis: It appears that the guardrail had been impacted by vehicular traffic
when turning onto the ramp. Therefore, it is recommended to shorten the
guardrail by removing the furthest post, which was noted to be impacted by
vehicular traffic, and add a flexible delineator at the furthest post location to
avoid vehicle collision into guardrail and reduce the maintenance efforts.
Fire System
Observations: Alpha Fire noted that there were approximately 1,300 fire
sprinkler heads in the parking structure. The fire sprinkler heads, are
Photo 42 – Close up of cracks on
stucco
Photo 44 – Typical impacted turning-
ramp guardrail
Photo 43 – Damaged delineators
replaced by traffic cones
G02-14
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
approximately 10 to 15 years old and are showing signs of corrosion (Photo
45). The fire extinguisher housings were also showing signs of corrosion
(Photo 46).
Analysis: The corroded sprinkler heads and fire extinguisher housings need
to be replaced. Continue performing annual fire sprinkler and alarm
inspections, as well as a five-year wet standpipe test and inspection.
Elevator/Mechanical items
Observations: There were two elevators observed in the parking structure,
which are the northwest elevator on the corner of Marsh Street and Chorro
Street (Photo 47) and the northeast elevator on Morro Street (Photo 48).
Both elevators were operational during the assessment. The northwest
elevator door frame was observed to be corroded (Photo 47).
Analysis: Republic Elevator recommends that the northwest elevator on the
corner of Marsh Street and Chorro Street be fully modernized and the
northeast elevator of off Morro Street receive new door package. Full
modernization would include a new controller, hydraulic pump unit, car, hall
buttons and signals, door operator, and door hardware. The new door
package includes a new GAL MOVFR solid state closed loop door operator
and all new door hardware such as door rollers, tracks, chains, cables, etc.
Continue routine maintenance on the elevators.
Photo 45 – Corroded fire extinguisher
housing units
Photo 46 – Corroded fire extinguisher
housing units
Photo 47 – Northwest elevator on the
corner of Marsh street and Chorro street
with corroded frame
Photo 48 – Northeast elevator on Morro
street
G02-15
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Miscellaneous Observations
Stairwells
Observations: At the bottom of the handrail posts, the post pockets on
concrete treads were observed to be unsealed. Corrosion was observed at
the bottom of the posts in the post pockets (Photo 49). The paint on the stair
handrails were observed to be deteriorating (Photo 50), and some of the
grab bars were observed to be loose, in particular the southeast stairwell.
Door and door frames accessing the stairwells were typically observed to be
severely corroded (Photo 51).
Analysis: The handrail post pockets can collect water and result in corrosion
at the post base. This can lead to spalls at the edge of the concrete treads,
which could ultimately result in the handrails coming loose or causing
overhead spalls. We recommend the post pockets be sealed by grout and
cove sealant to prevent further water infiltration to post base, repaint the
handrails, and retighten any loose handrails and grab bars.
The door and door frames need to be replaced. The door and door frames
between the elevator and the original structure at the northeast end may be
eliminated, however this option will require further coordination with the local
Fire Marshall.
Corroded Shelf Angles
Observations: The steel shelf angles at the stair wells of the original structure
did have a deteriorating corrosion inhibitor coating and corrosion was
initiating on the steel angles (Photo 52).
Analysis: The shelf angles provide support for the attached CMU wall, and
need to be cleaned and coated to prevent further deterioration.
Bollards
Observations: Bollards were observed impacted by vehicular traffic on the
Roof level of the original structure (Photo 53).
Photo 49 – Typical corroding and
unsealed at stair post pockets
Photo 53 – Bollards impacted by
vehicular traffic on Roof level of original
structure
Photo 50 – Deteriorating paint on
handrails
Photo 51 – Typical severely corroded
door and door frame accessing stairwells
Photo 52 – Corroded steel angle at stair
cases
G02-16
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Analysis: The bollards served to protect mechanical equipment in the area
from vehicle traffic. The bollards need to be repaired for continued protection
of the Roof level mechanical units.
CMU Blocks
Observations: Isolated CMU blocks were observed cracked or broken
around the stairwells.
Analysis: There was no immediate structural concern, but cracked or broken
CMU block may become loose and turn into a falling hazard. It is
recommended to repair or replace the broken CMU blocks.
Power Wash
Observations: The interior of the parking structure was stained from grease
and oil drippings from vehicles (Photo 54).
Analysis: The build-up of oil and grease stains is a potential safety hazard to
pedestrians. This build up and deposits within the parking structure needs
to be cleaned with industrial detergent and pressurized water. For areas with
waterproofing coating, the manufacturers should be contacted in regards to
appropriate cleaning materials.
Striping
Observations: Parking and directional striping on all levels of both structures
was observed to be faded (Photo 54).
Analysis: Faded striping may result in problem with alignment of vehicles in
the parking spaces and uncertainty of users regarding traffic markings. A
restriping of the entire structure is recommended.
Wheel stops
Several wheel stops were observed to be broken or dislodged from their
original position (Photo 55). It is recommended to replace the broken or
dislodged wheel stops.
Photo 54 – Structure is stained and
striping is faded
Photo 55 – Wheel stops on the Roof level
were observed to be in poor condition
G02-17
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Electrical Outlet
The electrical outlet on the Roof level of the expansion structure appeared to
be damaged. In addition, the electrical outlets were not observed to have a
drain cover (Photo 56). An outlet cover needs to be added to all the weather
exposed electrical outlets.
Hidden Distress
There was distress on an architectural feature on the Roof level of the original
structure (Photo 57). The distress was sealed with flexible sealant therefore
the extent of damage could not be assessed. We recommend further
exploration of this area to determine whether there is potential for overhead
hazard to patrons below.
Enhancement Items
Stairwells
Observations: The clear spacing between the handrails was observed to be
larger than 4 inches (Photo 58). Additionally, the slip resistant strip at the
stairs was observed to be deteriorating (Photo 59).
Analysis: It was observed that spacing in the rails was larger than the 4
inches (Photo 58) that is required for new construction according to the
current building code. Although the current hand rails may be grandfathered,
we recommend that intermediate bars be added to the handrails to reduce
the clear spacing and therefore reduce the potential for liability
An option for repair would be to coat the stairs with epoxy and broadcast
sand to refusal.
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Lighting
It was observed that the original structure had updated the lighting to LEDs
(Photo 60), although the expansion structure has not been updated to LED
lighting (Photo 61). Light measurements were recorded for both the original
and expansion structure. The lighting levels were recorded in foot-candle
Photo 56 – Damaged electrical outlet on
Roof level of expansion structure, also
noted to be without a cover
Photo 57 – Hidden distress observed on
the architectural feature at the Roof level
of the original structure
Photo 59 – Deteriorating slip resistant
strip on stairs
Photo 60 – Typical lighting levels of
original structure
Photo 58 – Clear spacing between rails
are greater than 4 inches
G02-18
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
(f.c.) as if all the lights were turned-on, however during the assessment, many
lights of the expansion structure and some of the original structure were
either turned-off or the bulbs had burnt-out, particularly the lights on the
ground and second level of the expansion structure. The light measurements
were recorded assuming all lights are functioning properly and the
recordings are summarized in Table 1. Figure 2 is a plan view of the structure
illustrating the light measurement locations.
Table 1. Summary of Light Measurements
Location Standard
(f.c.)
Original
Structure
(f.c.)
Expansion
Structure
(f.c.)
Interior Driving Aisles 10.0 27.0 12.0
Interior Parking Areas at Vehicle Door 5.0 10.0 6.0
Interior Parking Areas at Barrier Railing 1.0 2.0 1.0
Roof Parking Area 1.0 1.5 0.2
Stairways 20.0 12.0 14.0
Figure 2. Plan view of light measurement locaitons
In general the lighting was observed to be at or above suggested industry
standard, except for in the stairways of both structures and at the Roof level
of the expansion structure.
We recommend replacing the existing, functioning and nonfunctioning, light
fixtures in the expansion structure with LED lighting will reduce energy
consumption, provide longer bulb lifespans and will save overall utility
lifecycle costs of the structure.
Photo 61 – Typical lighting levels of
expansion structure
G02-19
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
CONCRETE TESTING
Chloride-Ion Content
Chlorides are typically present in concrete, whether they get introduced
during the mixing, or they migrate into the material due to local environmental
conditions. Close proximity to the ocean may lead to higher exposure to
airborne salts, which can accumulate and increase the chloride
concentration over time. When chloride content reaches or exceeds a critical
value, the protection of the steel reinforcement is lost. Once the passive
protective layer around the steel is completely eroded, corrosion of
reinforcement will begin with the presence of oxygen and moisture at the
steel-concrete interface. Therefore, by measuring chloride content levels in
concrete at strategic locations around the structure, it is possible to predict
the initiation of corrosion in concrete.
Four concrete powder samples (CL5, CL6, CL7, and CL8), two samples in
the original structure and two samples in the expansion structure, were
extracted at the Roof level from areas next to floor drains and with signs of
water stains to check in-situ concrete chloride content. Ground penetrating
radar (GPR) was used to locate existing embedded reinforcement and avoid
damaging it during the extraction of concrete samples. The extracted
samples were then sent to an independent laboratory, Universal
Construction Testing (UCT), for testing. Chloride content analysis was
conducted in general accordance with provisions of ASTM C1218,
“Standard Test Method for Water-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete.”
Chloride content in concrete was tested at three depths from the surface of
the elements, from 0 to 1 inch, 1 to 2 inch, and 2 to 3 inch.
Typically, the corrosion of steel will begin causing steel section loss, concrete
cracks, delamination, and spalling. Research has shown that this threshold
is typically around 280 to 410 parts per million (PPM) of water-soluble
chloride ion by weight of concrete. The results from testing are shown in
Table 2
G02-20
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Table 2. Summary of Chloride Ion Content Testing Results
Chloride Ion Content (PPM)
Sample ID Sample Description
0-1 Inch 1-2 Inch 2-3 Inch
CL5 Exposed Roof Level of Original Structure 30 20 20
CL6 Exposed Roof Level of Original Structure 30 20 20
CL7 Exposed Roof Level of Expansion Structure 30 20 20
CL8 Exposed Roof Level of Expansion Structure 30 20 20
The largest chloride level for any location is 30 PPM. The recommended
lower bound limit for chloride concentration (280 PPM) was not exceeded
for any sample in the 0-1 inch depth range. The chloride content is well below
the suggested limits for all of the chloride samples at depths greater than 1
inch from the top of the slab. This test suggests that the chloride content in
the concrete has not progressed to a point that it will contribute to
embedded reinforcement corrosion at our test locations.
Concrete Sounding
Walter P Moore performed two different concrete sounding techniques,
hammer sounding on the overhead and vertical surfaces, and chain drag on
the slabs, to detect spalling and delamination within the concrete. At spalled
or delaminated concrete locations the sounding techniques will result in a
hollow sounding impact reverberation. Conversely, the sounding of
undamaged concrete will result in a solid impact reverberation. Concrete
sounding assists in determining the repair limits of the identified distress
locations. Limited delaminated locations were identified using the sounding
techniques which will require additional concrete repairs.
Reinforcement Cover
Ground Penetrating Radar is a non-destructive technique that emits a short
pulse of electromagnetic energy, which is radiated into the subsurface. When
this pulse strikes an interface between layers of materials with different
electrical properties, part of the wave reflects back, and the remaining energy
continues to the next interface. Concrete material is a low conductivity, non-
metallic medium that is ideal for GPR signal propagation. However, concrete
typically has steel reinforcement, which is a metallic and therefore completely
reflects the GPR signal and shadows anything directly below the metal. This
non-destructive test method is subject to some error which can be
G02-21
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
minimized by performing exploratory measurements with direct
measurements of depth to reinforcement and concrete thickness. However
no exploratory openings (destructive) were made to verify the depth of the
reinforcement as a part of this condition assessment. Therefore, the GPR
testing utilized to determine the reinforcement cover should consider having
an error of up to ±25%.
Specific locations were identified for non-destructive concrete cover testing,
which include slab locations on the Roof level over the concrete beams since
the concrete is directly exposed to weathering and the reinforcement
typically has the lowest cover at these locations. After analyzing the data
collected from the GPR, it was determined that on average there appears to
be insufficient concrete cover over the reinforcement for the Roof level slab.
The minimum concrete cover recommended for durability by the modern
version of the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
14) is 1 inch for prestressed concrete slabs exposed to weathering. The
average concrete cover on the Roof level slab, determined from the GPR, is
approximately ¾ inches. Although the concrete cover is lower than the
modern recommendation for durability, there was no significant amount of
concrete spalling as noted from our assessment. Therefore the existing
concrete cover does not appear to be significantly affecting the durability of
the structure.
G02-22
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations for maintenance repairs are prioritized according to
the need of the structure and are divided into the following five categories:
High Priority Repairs must be addressed in the very near future (within 1-2
years) to maintain serviceability of the associated item and/or maintain the
safety and long-term durability of the structure.
Medium Priority Repairs must be addressed in 2-3 years to mitigate further
deterioration.
Low Priority Repairs must be addressed beyond 3 years to sustain the overall
serviceability of the structure for the long-term.
Enhancements are items recommended to improve the serviceability and
environmental performance of the structure.
High Priority Repair Items
Repair concrete spalls and delaminations at floor slab, slab soffit,
curbs, columns, walls, and stair treads
Tighten loose barrier cables
Medium Priority Repair Items
Repair damaged bollards
Replace traffic coating at the pour strips at the Roof level
Install new traffic coating at the pour strips
Elastomeric coating on all Roof columns and exterior wall near
Chorro and Pacific Street intersection
Clean and coat corroded shelf angles at the northwest and
southeast stairs of the original structure
Replace the elastomeric concrete edged expansion joint on all
levels
Grout and install sealant around handrail post pockets
Rout and seal slab cracks on all levels
Install/replace sealant at floor joints
Install sealant at vertical joints between walls and columns
Install cove sealant around base of columns and perimeter walls
at all elevated levels
G02-23
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Epoxy inject cracks wider than 1/32 inches in concrete columns
and walls
Tighten grab bar in southeast stairwell of the original structure
Install new wayfinding signage for circulation modification
Remove portion of the concrete curb at the ramps per the
circulation modification
Replace the handrails at the ramps per the circulation
modification
Replace fire sprinkler heads
Modernize the northwest elevator on the corner of Marsh Street
and Chorro Street. The modernization would include a new
controller, hydraulic pump unit, car, hall buttons and signals, door
operator, and door hardware
The northeast elevator on Morro Street should receive a new door
package, which includes a new GAL MOVFR solid state closed
loop door operator and all new door hardware such as door
rollers, tracks, chains, cables, etc.
Low Priority Repair Items
Repaint handrails in stairwell
Seal pipe penetrations
Repair corroded drain sumps
Replace cracked CMU blocks
Repair cracked mortar joint
Repair cracked stucco on the parking structure façade
Repair the flashing over the expansion joints
Clean all floor drains
Power wash structure
Re-stripe all levels
Replace broken wheel stops
Replace corroded doors and door frames accessing stairwells
Remove door and door frame between the structure and the
elevator off Marsh Street and reframe the opening
Enhancements
Install mesh on barrier cables at all interior elevated levels to
achieve the maximum 4 inch spacing
G02-24
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Weld intermediate bar to existing handrails to maintain spacing
less than 4 inch
Install new traffic coating on stair landings and treads
Replace all corroded fire extinguisher housing
Replace damaged floor mounted delineators
Replace the existing lighting in the expansion structure with LED
lighting
Paint the interior of the Original structure
Clean and coat the sprinklers of the Original structure
Paint the interior of the Expansion structure
Clean and coat the sprinkler of the Expansion structure
Paint the exterior of both structures
These projections and phasing plans are reflected in the 10-year CAMP for
the structure. See Appendix B.
G02-25
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
OPINION OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Based on our site observations, we have established recommended repair
quantities and prepared an opinion of probable construction costs for the
structure. The following table shows the opinion of probable construction
costs in 2018 dollars.
Table 3 – Capital Asset Management Plan – Summary
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION 2019 Costs Future
Costs Total Cost
1 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair 93,000.00$ 64,000.00$ 157,000.00$
2 Concrete Curb Repair 22,500.00$ 18,000.00$ 40,500.00$
3 Overhead Slab Repair 20,500.00$ 22,000.00$ 42,500.00$
4 Concrete Wall Repair -$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
5 Concrete Column Repair -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
6 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables 36,000.00$ 72,000.00$ 108,000.00$
7 Stair Treads Spall Repair 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$
High Priority Repair Total 174,500$ 186,000$ 360,500$
8 Bollard Repair -$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$
9 Traffic Coating Replacement -$ 204,000.00$ 204,000.00$
10 Traffic Coating New System - Over Pour Strips -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
11 Traffic Coating Recoat -$ 172,500.00$ 172,500.00$
12 Elastomeric Coating on Roof Columns -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
13 Elastomeric Coating on Exterior Wall -$ 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$
14 Clean and Coat Corroded Shelf Angles -$ 32,000.00$ 32,000.00$
15 Expansion Joint Replacement - Elastomeric Concrete Edged -$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$
16 Rout and Seal Cracks -$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00$
17 Install Sealant at Handrail Post -$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$
18 Joint Sealant Installation -$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
19 Joint Sealant Replacement -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
20 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement -$ 16,500.00$ 16,500.00$
21 Cove Sealant Installation -$ 125,500.00$ 125,500.00$
22 Epoxy Injection -$ 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$
23 Tighten Handrails in Stairwell -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
24 Wayfinding for Circulation Modification -$ 32,500.00$ 32,500.00$
25 Striping for Circulation Modification -$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
26 Curb Removal for Circulation Modification -$ 24,000.00$ 24,000.00$
27 Replace Handrail for Circulation Modificaiton -$ 43,500.00$ 43,500.00$
28 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement (Orignial Structure)-$ 52,000.00$ 52,000.00$
29 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement (Expansion Structure)-$ 32,500.00$ 32,500.00$
30 Elevator Replacement and Upgrade 116,850.00$ -$ 116,850.00$
Medium Priority Repair Total 116,850$ 922,500$ 1,039,350$
31 Repaint Handrails in Stairwell -$ 17,500.00$ 17,500.00$
32 Seal Pipe Penetration -$ 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
33 Repair Drains -$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
34 CMU / Brick Tuckpointing -$ 500.00$ 500.00$
35 CMU Replacement -$ 500.00$ 500.00$
36 Stucco Façade Repair -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
37 Repair Flashing -$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
38 Clean Drains -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
39 Power Wash -$ 37,500.00$ 37,500.00$
40 Re-Striping All Levels -$ 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$
41 Replace Wheel Stops -$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$
42 Replace Door and Door Frame -$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
43 Remove Door and Door Frame Between Structure and Elevator Off Marsh Street -$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
Low Priority Repair Total -$ 196,000$ 196,000$
44 Install Mesh at Barrier Cables -$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00$
45 Weld Intermediate Bar -$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
46 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs -$ 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$
47 Replace Fire Extinguisher Housing -$ 10,500.00$ 10,500.00$
48 Replace Floor Mounted Delineator -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
49 Install LED Lighting -$ 143,500.00$ 143,500.00$
50 Paint Interior of Original Structure -$ 161,000.00$ 161,000.00$
51 Clean and Paint Sprinklers of Original Structure -$ 204,000.00$ 204,000.00$
52 Paint interior of Expansion Structure -$ 220,000.00$ 220,000.00$
53 Clean and Paint Sprinklers of Expansion Structure -$ 154,500.00$ 154,500.00$
54 Paint Exterior of Both Structures -$ 95,000.00$ 95,000.00$
Enhancement Total -$ 1,108,000$ 1,108,000$
291,350$ 2,412,500$ 2,703,850$
30,000$ 245,000$ 275,000$
24,000$ 196,000$ 220,000$
346,000$ 2,854,000$ 3,199,000$
356,000$ 3,347,000$ 3,703,000$
Contigency (10%)
General Conditions (8%)
Total (2018 Dollars)
Total (Adjusted Future Value)
871 MARSH STREET PARKING STRUCTURE
High Priority Repair Items
Medium Priority Repair Items
Low Priority Repair Items
Enhancement Items
Sub Total
G02-26
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Notes:
1. Opinion of probably construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of probable construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probably construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not
included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a
factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
These opinions of probable construction costs are for budgeting purposes only and not for actual
construction. Since this is an opinion of cost, Walter P. Moore does not have control over the cost or
availability of labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the contractor’s method of pricing.
In addition, the engineer’s opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the engineer’s
professional judgment and experience.
Furthermore, the engineer makes no warranty, expressed or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of
the work will not vary from the engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost.
G02-27
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented represent current technology for parking
structure renovation and maintenance. We have assumed the facilities will
continue in its present use and will require appropriate repairs and periodic
maintenance for this use. Parking structures undergo harsh exposure to
various environmental elements and further deterioration will take place with
continued service related exposure. Proper design and installation of
effective repairs and maintenance can significantly reduce further
deterioration and the associated repair costs.
This report is not a warranty or guarantee of the items noted. The extent of
our evaluation was limited and cannot guarantee that the condition
assessment discovered or disclosed all possible latent conditions. The
evaluation required that certain assumptions be made regarding existing
conditions and some of these conditions cannot be verified without
expending additional sums of money, or destroying otherwise adequate or
serviceable portions of the facility. In this study, we did not include review of
the design, inspection of concealed conditions, or detailed analysis, to verify
adequacy of the structure to carry the imposed loads and to check
conformance to the applicable codes. The assessment also does not
provide specific repair details, construction contract documents, material
specifications, details to develop construction cost or information on means
and methods of construction.
Any comment regarding concealed construction or subsurface conditions
are our professional opinion, based on engineering experience and
judgment, and derived in accordance with standard of care and professional
practice.
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of The
City of San Luis Obispo. This report and the findings contained herein shall
not, in whole or in part, be disseminated or conveyed to any other party or
used or relied upon by any other party, in whole or in part, without prior
written consent.
G02-A-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo 1 – Overall view of parking structure looking north at Chorro and Pacific street intersection
Photo 2 – Overall view of parking structure looking west at Morro and Pacific street intersection
G02-A-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 3 – Overall view of parking structure looking southwest from Morro street
Photo 4 – Overall view of parking structure looking east from Chorro and Marsh street intersection
G02-A-3
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 5 – Spalls and delaminations below pour strip joints
Photo 6 – Coated PT grout pockets on Roof level columns
G02-A-4
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 7 – Diagonal cracks on concrete walls which are 1/64” wide or less
Photo 8 – Close up of crack measuring 1/64”
G02-A-5
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 9 – Typical floor spalls with exposed reinforcement
Photo 10 – Typical delamination of built-up overlays
G02-A-6
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 11 – Typical concrete curb spalls at ramps
Photo 12 – Delamination at stairs and corroding handrail posts
G02-A-7
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 13 – Deteriorated sealant in previously routed and sealed cracks
Photo 14 – Barrier cables at interior bay of original parking structure
G02-A-8
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 15 – Clear spacing between barrier cables is greater than 4-½ inches
Photo 16 – Undamaged and damaged built-up plate protecting barrier cable’s anchorages along driving ramps
G02-A-9
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 17 – Concrete bumper wall as interior vehicle barrier for a portion of the expansion structure
Photo 18 – Barrier cables and concrete bumper wall at the original parking structure’s perimeter
G02-A-10
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 19 – Concrete filled steel pipes as vehicle barriers of the expansion structure along the alley
Photo 20 – Concrete bumper walls as vehicle barriers of the expansion structure along Morro and Pacific street
G02-A-11
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 21 – Deteriorated traffic coating over pour strips on the Roof level of the original structure
Photo 22 - Pour strips at lower levels of the original structure have no traffic coating protection
G02-A-12
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 23 - Deteriorated traffic coating over pour strips on the Roof level of the expansion structure
Photo 24 - Pour strips at lower levels of the expansion structure have no traffic coating protection
G02-A-13
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 25 – Deteriorated traffic coating on level 2 of the original structure.
Photo 26 – Traffic coating in “fair” condition on level 2 of the expansion structure
G02-A-14
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 27 – Traffic coating over cracks along the interior column line of the expansion structure and displaced wheel stops
Photo 28 – No cove sealant between wall-to-slab and curb-to-slab joints
G02-A-15
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 29 – Typically missing vertical sealant between concrete bumper wall and facade
Photo 30 – Close up of missing vertical sealant
G02-A-16
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 31 – Typically unsealed pipe penetration and deteriorated joint sealant
Photo 32 – Overview of the unlevel expansion joint between original structure (left of joint) and expansion structure (right of joint).
G02-A-17
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 33 – Close up of deteriorating nosing and unlevel driving surface on Roof
Photo 34 – Close up of deteriorating nosing and significant wear on the gland
G02-A-18
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 35 – Typical flashing with no sealant between top of flashing and concrete wall
Photo 36 – Typical failed flashing at expansion joint
G02-A-19
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 37 – Clogged drain
Photo 38 – Close up of clogged drains
G02-A-20
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 39 – Typical severely corroded drain sump
Photo 40 – Coated Roof columns with fine cracks
G02-A-21
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 41 – Façade has faded paint and cracked stucco
Photo 42 – Close up of cracks on stucco
G02-A-22
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 43 – Damaged delineators replaced by traffic cones
Photo 44 - Typical impacted turning-ramp guardrail
G02-A-23
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 45 – Corroded fire extinguisher housing units
Photo 46 – Corroded fire extinguisher housing units
G02-A-24
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 47 – Northwest elevator on the corner of Marsh street and Chorro street with corroded frame
Photo 48 – Northeast elevator on Morro street
G02-A-25
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 49 – Typical corroding and unsealed at stair post pockets
Photo 50 – Deteriorating paint on handrails
G02-A-26
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 51 – Typical severely corroded door and door frame accessing stairwells
Photo 52 – Corroded steel angle at stair cases
G02-A-27
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 53 – Bollards impacted by vehicular traffic on Roof level of original structure
Photo 54 – Structure is stained and striping is faded
G02-A-28
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 55 – Wheel stops on the Roof level were observed to be in poor condition
Photo 56 – Damaged electrical outlet on Roof level of expansion structure, also noted to be without a cover
G02-A-29
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 57 – Hidden distress observed on the architectural feature at the Roof level of the original structure
Photo 58 – Clear spacing between rails are greater than 4 inches
G02-A-30
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 59 – Deteriorating slip resistant strip on stairs
Photo 60 – Typical lighting levels of original structure
G02-A-31
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 61 – Typical lighting levels of expansion structure
G02-B-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX B – CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
871 MARSH STREET
San Luis Obispo, CA
TASK
ITEM NO.TASK ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
High Priority Repair Items
1 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair 157,000$ 93,000$ 32,000$ 32,000$
2 Concrete Curb Repair
40,500$ 22,500$ 9,000$ 9,000$
3 Overhead Slab Repair 42,500$ 20,500$ 11,000$ 11,000$
4 Concrete Wall Repair
2,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$
5 Concrete Column Repair 3,000$ 1,500$ 1,500$
6 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables
108,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$
7 Stair Treads Spall Repair 7,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$
High Priority Repair Total 360,500$ 174,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 93,000$ -$ -$ -$ 93,000$
Medium Priority Repair Items
8 Bollard Repair
7,000$ 3,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$
9 Traffic Coating Replacement
204,000$ 204,000$
10 Traffic Coating New System - Over Pour Strips
12,000$ 12,000$
11 Traffic Coating Recoat
172,500$ 7,500$ 82,500$ 82,500$
12 Elastomeric Coating on Roof Columns
5,000$ 2,500$ 2,500$
13 Elastomeric Coating on Exterior Wall
14,000$ 7,000$ 7,000$
14 Clean and Coat Corroded Shelf Angles 32,000$ 16,000$ 16,000$
15 Expansion Joint Replacement - Elastomeric Concrete Edged 40,000$ 40,000$
16 Rout and Seal Cracks 70,000$ 28,000$ 14,000$ 28,000$
17 Install Sealant at Handrail Post
7,500$ 7,500$
18 Joint Sealant Installation 1,000$ 1,000$
19 Joint Sealant Replacement
4,000$ 1,000$ 1,500$ 1,500$
20 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement 16,500$ 5,500$ 5,500$ 5,500$
21 Cove Sealant Installation
125,500$ 55,500$ 14,000$ 56,000$
22 Epoxy Injection 5,500$ 1,500$ 2,000$ 2,000$
23 Tighten Grabbar Handrails in Stairwell
1,500$ 500$ 500$ 500$
24 Wayfinding for Circulation Modification 32,500$ 32,500$
25 Striping for Circulation Modification
20,000$ 20,000$
26 Curb Removal for Circulation Modification 24,000$ 24,000$
27 Replace Handrail for Circulation Modificaiton
43,500$ 43,500$
28 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement (Orignial Structure)52,000$ 52,000$
29 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement (Expansion Structure)32,500$ 32,500$
30 Elevator Replacement and Upgrade 116,850$ 116,850$
Medium Priority Repair Total 1,039,350$ 116,850$ 444,500$ 152,500$ -$ -$ 39,500$ 82,500$ -$ -$ 203,500$
Low Priority Repair Items
31 Repaint Handrails in Stairwell
17,500$ 17,500$
32 Seal Pipe Penetration 3,500$ 2,500$ 500$ 500$
33 Repair Drains
2,500$ 2,500$
34 CMU / Brick Tuckpointing 500$ 500$
35 CMU Replacement
500$ 500$
36 Stucco Façade Repair 4,000$ 4,000$
37 Repair Flashing
1,000$ 1,000$
38 Clean Drains 12,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$
39 Power Wash
37,500$ 12,500$ 12,500$ 12,500$
40 Re-Striping All Levels 90,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
41 Replace Wheel Stops
9,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$
42 Replace Door and Door Frame 10,000$ 10,000$
43 Remove Door and Door Frame Between Structure and Elevator Off Marsh Street 8,000$ 8,000$
Low Priority Repair Total 188,000$ -$ 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$
Enhancement Items
44 Install Mesh at Barrier Cables 70,000$ 70,000$
45 Weld Intermediate Bar
35,000$ 35,000$
46 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs 13,000$ 13,000$
47 Replace Fire Extinguisher Housing
10,500$ 5,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$
48 Replace Floor Mounted Delineator 1,500$ 500$ 500$ 500$
49 Install LED Lighting
143,500$ 143,500$
50 Paint Interior of Original Structure 161,000$ 161,000$
51 Clean and Paint Sprinklers of Original Structure
204,000$ 204,000$
52 Paint interior of Expansion Structure
220,000$ 220,000$
53 Clean and Paint Sprinklers of Expansion Structure
154,500$ 154,500$
54 Paint Exterior of Both Structures
95,000$ 95,000$
Enhancement Total 1,108,000$ -$ 19,000$ 248,500$ 365,000$ 95,000$ 3,000$ -$ -$ 374,500$ 3,000$
Sub Total Current Program 2,695,850$ 291,350$ 551,500$ 401,000$ 365,000$ 95,000$ 185,500$ 82,500$ -$ 374,500$ 349,500$
Contigency (10%)275,000$ 30,000$ 56,000$ 41,000$ 37,000$ 10,000$ 19,000$ 9,000$ -$ 38,000$ 35,000$
General Conditions (8%)220,000$ 24,000$ 45,000$ 33,000$ 30,000$ 8,000$ 15,000$ 7,000$ -$ 30,000$ 28,000$
Opinion of Annual Budget (2018 Dollars)3,194,000$ 346,000$ 653,000$ 475,000$ 432,000$ 113,000$ 220,000$ 99,000$ -$ 443,000$ 413,000$
Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted Future Value)3,703,000$ 356,000$ 693,000$ 519,000$ 486,000$ 131,000$ 263,000$ 122,000$ -$ 578,000$ 555,000$
Notes:
1. Opinion of probable construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of probable construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work.
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probable construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
G02-B-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 871 Marsh St.
D09.18025.00
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION 2019 Costs Future
Costs Total Cost
1 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair 93,000.00$ 64,000.00$ 157,000.00$
2 Concrete Curb Repair 22,500.00$ 18,000.00$ 40,500.00$
3 Overhead Slab Repair 20,500.00$ 22,000.00$ 42,500.00$
4 Concrete Wall Repair -$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
5 Concrete Column Repair -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
6 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables 36,000.00$ 72,000.00$ 108,000.00$
7 Stair Treads Spall Repair 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$
High Priority Repair Total 174,500$ 186,000$ 360,500$
8 Bollard Repair -$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$
9 Traffic Coating Replacement -$ 204,000.00$ 204,000.00$
10 Traffic Coating New System - Over Pour Strips -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
11 Traffic Coating Recoat -$ 172,500.00$ 172,500.00$
12 Elastomeric Coating on Roof Columns -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
13 Elastomeric Coating on Exterior Wall -$ 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$
14 Clean and Coat Corroded Shelf Angles -$ 32,000.00$ 32,000.00$
15 Expansion Joint Replacement - Elastomeric Concrete Edged -$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$
16 Rout and Seal Cracks -$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00$
17 Install Sealant at Handrail Post -$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$
18 Joint Sealant Installation -$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
19 Joint Sealant Replacement -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
20 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement -$ 16,500.00$ 16,500.00$
21 Cove Sealant Installation -$ 125,500.00$ 125,500.00$
22 Epoxy Injection -$ 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$
23 Tighten Handrails in Stairwell -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
24 Wayfinding for Circulation Modification -$ 32,500.00$ 32,500.00$
25 Striping for Circulation Modification -$ 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$
26 Curb Removal for Circulation Modification -$ 24,000.00$ 24,000.00$
27 Replace Handrail for Circulation Modificaiton -$ 43,500.00$ 43,500.00$
28 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement (Orignial Structure)-$ 52,000.00$ 52,000.00$
29 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement (Expansion Structure)-$ 32,500.00$ 32,500.00$
30 Elevator Replacement and Upgrade 116,850.00$ -$ 116,850.00$
Medium Priority Repair Total 116,850$ 922,500$ 1,039,350$
31 Repaint Handrails in Stairwell -$ 17,500.00$ 17,500.00$
32 Seal Pipe Penetration -$ 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
33 Repair Drains -$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
34 CMU / Brick Tuckpointing -$ 500.00$ 500.00$
35 CMU Replacement -$ 500.00$ 500.00$
36 Stucco Façade Repair -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
37 Repair Flashing -$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
38 Clean Drains -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
39 Power Wash -$ 37,500.00$ 37,500.00$
40 Re-Striping All Levels -$ 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$
41 Replace Wheel Stops -$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$
42 Replace Door and Door Frame -$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
43 Remove Door and Door Frame Between Structure and Elevator Off Marsh Street -$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
Low Priority Repair Total -$ 196,000$ 196,000$
44 Install Mesh at Barrier Cables -$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00$
45 Weld Intermediate Bar -$ 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$
46 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs -$ 13,000.00$ 13,000.00$
47 Replace Fire Extinguisher Housing -$ 10,500.00$ 10,500.00$
48 Replace Floor Mounted Delineator -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
49 Install LED Lighting -$ 143,500.00$ 143,500.00$
50 Paint Interior of Original Structure -$ 161,000.00$ 161,000.00$
51 Clean and Paint Sprinklers of Original Structure -$ 204,000.00$ 204,000.00$
52 Paint interior of Expansion Structure -$ 220,000.00$ 220,000.00$
53 Clean and Paint Sprinklers of Expansion Structure -$ 154,500.00$ 154,500.00$
54 Paint Exterior of Both Structures -$ 95,000.00$ 95,000.00$
Enhancement Total -$ 1,108,000$ 1,108,000$
291,350$ 2,412,500$ 2,703,850$
30,000$ 245,000$ 275,000$
24,000$ 196,000$ 220,000$
346,000$ 2,854,000$ 3,199,000$
356,000$ 3,347,000$ 3,703,000$
Notes:
1. Opinion of probable construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work.
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probable construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
Contigency (10%)
General Conditions (8%)
Total (2018 Dollars)
Total (Adjusted Future Value)
871 MARSH STREET PARKING STRUCTURE
High Priority Repair Items
Medium Priority Repair Items
Low Priority Repair Items
Enhancement Items
Sub Total
G03
Condition Assessment
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessments
919 Palm St. Structure
San Luis Obispo, California
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Division
Prepared by
Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc.
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90017
D09-18025-00
September 13, 2018
G03-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The parking structure at 919 Palm Street is currently exhibiting typical signs
of deterioration, and is considered to be in generally “Fair” condition with
isolated elements in “Poor” or “Failed” condition.
During the course of our review, we did not identify conditions in need of
immediate actions, although we identified some distress conditions and
associated action items that should be addressed as a part of an on-going
repair program, which include repair of spalled concrete and re-tensioning
of loose barrier cables. Typical distress items identified in the structure and
discussed in this report include concrete deterioration in the form of cracks,
deteriorated or missing joint sealants, deteriorated traffic coating on the
second level, cracked or broken CMU blocks, and missing sealant at the sill
of window openings. Conceptual repair recommendations are provided to
address specific items of distress.
An opinion of probable construction costs for the base repairs
recommended herein was developed for each priority level. The
recommended base repairs were developed annually for the next 10 years.
Our opinion of probable construction cost for items in need of repair for the
next 10 years is estimated to be $1,551,000. The CAMP for 919 Palm Street
parking structure is provided in Appendix B.
G03-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
INTRODUCTION
Parking Structure Description
The subject parking structure is located at 919 Palm Street in San Luis
Obispo, California. Photo 1 and 2 show an overall view of the parking
structure at different elevations. The parking structure consists of a six level
cast-in-place concrete structure with a total of 242 parking spaces. There
are five levels above ground and one basement level. The first elevated floor
is occupied office space. The approximate footprint is 120 feet by 200 feet
and was built circa 2005 (Figure 1). The floor framing was built using post-
tensioned (PT) beams supporting 7 inch thick PT slabs. There are two
stairwells and elevators. One set at the northwest and the other at the
southwest corners. The existing vehicle barrier system consists of barrier
cables at the interior bays, and a combination of barrier cables and bumper
walls at the perimeter.
Figure 1. 919 Palm Street parking structure aerial view
Document Review
At the time of this condition assessment, the following documents were
available for review by Walter P Moore.
Architectural drawings by Watry Design, Inc., dated June 1, 2003
Structural drawings by Watry Design, Inc., dated June 1, 2003
Photo 1 – Northwest isometric view of
the parking structure
Photo 2 – Southeast isometric view of
the parking structure
G03-3
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
OBSERVATIONS
Structural Observations
Vertical and Overhead Surfaces
Observations: The vertical and overhead concrete surfaces, which includes
the slab soffit, columns, beams, and walls were observed to be generally in
“Good” condition with no cracks, spalls, or delaminations (Photo 3).
Analysis: There are no immediate repairs needed for concrete vertical or
overhead surfaces. The parking structure is approximately 13 years old and
the minimal concrete distress is expected. However, cracks, spalls, and
delaminations will develop with the use and wear of the structure, so we
recommend to budget for repairs within the 10 years maintenance program.
Spalls and delaminations at overhead and vertical concrete surfaces need to
be removed and repaired with cementitious repair material in the future.
Slab Surfaces - General
Observations: The slab surfaces were observed to be generally in “Fair”
condition (Photo 4) with a few localized areas of spalls, delaminations, and
cracks. The spalls and delaminations on the concrete floor and curb were
typically less than four square feet. An isolated spall location has resulted in
exposed reinforcement on the Roof level (Photo 5). The few cracks that were
observed at isolated locations on the floor surfaces typically measured less
than 1/16” wide.
Analysis: These observed spalls, delaminations, and cracks were minor and
of no immediate structural concern. However, exposed cracks,
delaminations, and spalls may allow long-term moisture penetration into the
concrete and are recommended to be repaired for long-term maintenance
and aesthetic purposes. Spalls and delaminations need to be repaired with
cementitious repair mortar, and all floor cracks need to be routed and sealed
with a flexible sealant.
Photo 4 – General view of the concrete
floor surface at the Roof level
Photo 5 – Isolated spall located on the
Roof with exposed reinforcement
Photo 3 – A typical view of concrete
vertical and overhead surfaces at slab
soffit, beam, and column
G03-4
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Vehicle Barrier Systems
Interior Barrier Systems
Vehicle barrier cables were observed at the interior bays of the parking
structure between each level and the ramp (Photo 6). Several cables were
observed loose when pulled. The clear spacing between the cables was
measured to be less than 4 inches, with a total height over 42 inches.
Analysis: Vehicle barrier cables are typically pre-tensioned to a specific
design force to resist vehicle impact as well as to limit tendon draping to fulfill
the building code requirements. The current code requires a vehicle barrier
system to be designed to withstand a vehicle impact load of 6000 lbs, and
a maximum clear spacing of 4 inches to prevent small objects from passing
though the barrier.
The loose cables have less capacity than designed, and do not have
adequate capacity to resist vehicle impacts. We recommend conducting
tension testing of all barrier cables in the structure to identify cables that are
not properly tensioned and then re-tension all the loose barrier cables in
order to restore their original design capacity.
Perimeter Barrier Systems
A combination of barrier cables and concrete bumper walls were observed
at the original parking structure’s perimeter (Photo 7 and 8). Several cables
were noted to be loose when pulled. The clear spacing between the cables
was also measured to be less than 4 inches, with a total approximate height
of about 42 inches.
Analysis: As previously mentioned in the analysis section of Interior Barrier
Systems, loose cables do not have adequate capacity to resist vehicular
impacts or to fulfill the building code requirements. Therefore, we
recommend conducting tension testing of all barrier cables in the structure
to identify cables that are not properly tensioned and then re-tension all the
loose barrier cables in order to restore their originally designed capacity.
Photo 7 – Barrier cables at the east
perimeter of the parking structure along
the ramp
Photo 8 – Typical concrete bumper wall
at perimeter of the parking structure
Photo 6 – Barrier cables between each
level and the ramp
G03-5
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Post-tensioned (PT) System
PT Tendons
The PT slabs were observed to be in “Good” condition with isolated concrete
spalls and cracks. No exposed PT tendons were noted during this visual
assessment.
Pour Strips
There were no pour strips observed in this parking structure.
Analysis: Generally, pour strips are added for parking structure lengths
greater than 250 feet. Since the parking structure length is approximately
200 feet, no pour strips were required.
Waterproofing Observations
Joint Sealants
In general, sealants were noted to be non-existent or were deteriorated in
floor joints, vertical joints between perimeter walls and columns, as well as
cove joints between the horizontal and vertical members such as wall to slab,
curb to slab, or column to slab joints (Photos 9-13).
Analysis: Joint sealants are an important protective element in maintaining
integrity of waterproofing systems in structures. At locations with exposure
to water or moisture, joint sealant can mitigate moisture intrusion into
structural elements that can accelerate deterioration of the concrete and
embedded reinforcement. Maintaining sealed joints helps prevent water
infiltration into concrete through joints.
We recommend installing sealant along all horizontal and cove joints at all
levels to mitigate water infiltration to structural elements. We also
recommend installing joint sealant at the vertical joints between walls and
columns at the structure perimeter due to heavier exposure to weather and
water.
Photo 10 – No cove sealant at wall-to-
slab and curb-to-slab joints.
Photo 9 – Deteriorated floor joint sealant
Photo 11 – Typical deteriorated vertical
sealant
G03-6
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
It is a common occurrence that joint sealant deteriorates due to weathering
and slab movements at the joints. Urethane sealants typically have a useful
service life of 5 years before requiring maintenance, depending on the
exposure conditions and the conditions of the slab.
Traffic Coating
Traffic coating was observed on the majority of the second level over
occupied office space (Photo 14). The traffic coating was observed to be
generally in “Fair” condition. There were a few isolated locations with holes
in the waterproofing membrane (Photo 15). There were also areas of the
top coat which have been damaged, particularly on the concrete curbs at
the end of parking spaces (Photo 16).
Analysis: It appears that the traffic coating has been installed in areas of the
parking structure where there is occupied office space on the level below.
The purpose is to prevent water from intruding into the occupied space via
cracks, joints, or the concrete itself. Water infiltration into the concrete slab
may result in deterioration of concrete and corrosion of embedded
reinforcement, which could lead to highly intrusive repairs. It is
recommended to replace the damaged traffic coating at all damaged
localized areas, and recoat the top coat of the traffic coating to maintain the
proper waterproofing performance above the occupied office space. The
damaged traffic coating on the curbs at the end of parking spaces were
caused by scraping of the vehicle’s front bumper. An option to prevent
vehicular damage to the traffic coating on the concrete curbs at the ends of
parking spaces is to add wheel stops, although this option should be further
Photo 12 – Typical missing sealant
Photo 15 – Localized holes in traffic
coating
Photo 16 – Damaged traffic coating on
curbs at ends of parking spaces
Photo 13 – Typical missing sealant at sill
of window opening
Photo 14 – Traffic coating above the red
dashed line on the second level over
occupied office space
G03-7
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
studied in regards to the impact on the existing parking space dimensions
and potential damage to patron vehicles.
Pipe Penetrations
Several pipe penetrations were observed at all levels of the structure. The
pipe penetrations were sealed with fire-rated sealant, however the sealant
appeared to be deteriorated (Photo 17).
Analysis: Deteriorated sealant in the pipe penetrations will allow water to
penetrate through the slab to the lower levels, especially from the Roof
level. It may also lead to deterioration of concrete and embedded steel
around the edge of the opening. We recommend all deteriorated sealant at
pipe penetrations be replaced.
Drains
In general, floor drains throughout the structure were observed to be
uncleaned (Photo 18).
Analysis: Drains should be cleaned to allow for proper drainage of rainfall.
The drainage system need to be periodically maintained to eliminate
stagnant water. Regular parking structure maintenance should include
periodic cleaning of drains.
Expansion Joint
The precompressed expansion joint on the first level entrance at the
northeast corner off of Palm Street was observed to be in “Fair” condition
(Photo 19).
Analysis: Expansion joints are intended to mitigate water infiltration into the
structure while allowing for vertical and horizontal differential movement
between the structures. It is our understanding that there was previously
water intrusion onto the lower basement level through these joints. The joints
were then repaired to resolve the issue. The current expansion joint consists
of a precompressed joint system. The expansion joint should be budgeted
Photo 19 – Expansion joint on the first
level entrance by Palm Street
Photo 17 – Deteriorated fire-rated
sealant around pipe penetration
Photo 18 – Typical unclean drain
G03-8
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
to be replaced within the next few years as part of the ongoing maintenance
program of the parking structure.
Facade
Cracked brick veneer was observed at isolated location, particularly on the
basement level at the southwest entrance off of Morro Street (Photo 20). In
general, the mortar joint did not appear to be deteriorated, although one
vertical joint off of Palm Street was cracked and deteriorated (Photo 21).
The stucco was typically observed to be in “Fair” condition although there
were some isolated locations of stucco with cracks that will need to be
repaired in the near future.
Analysis: The brick veneer at the southwest entrance off of Morro Street was
attached to the concrete column. The observed mortar and brick cracks are
generally due to movement of support system for the brick veneer and/or
failure of masonry anchors/ties. Movement of the structural frame can result
in pinch points in rigid materials, which then cracks the masonry or mortar.
Mortar and brick was pulling away from each other since there was
approximately a ½ inch wide crack. This suggests that the masonry anchors
may have failed at this location. Further exploratory work is required to
determine the actual cause of the cracks at this location. Regardless, if the
condition is not addressed it may lead to increased water infiltration and
possible shifting of the masonry facade.
The cracked stucco appears to have occurred during the curing process.
The stucco should also be repaired to mitigate water infiltration.
Fire Sprinkler System
Alpha Fire noted that there are approximately 900 fire sprinkler heads in the
parking structure. The fire sprinkler heads, are approximately 10 to 15 years
old and are showing signs of corrosion (Photo 23).
Analysis: The corroded sprinkler heads need to be replaced. Continue
performing annual fire sprinkler and alarm inspections, as well as a five-year
wet standpipe test and inspection.
Photo 13 – 10 to 15 year old sprinkler head
Photo 21 – Cracked mortar joint off of
Palm Street
Photo 22 – Cracked stucco
Photo 24 –Northwest elevator on the
corner of Palm Street and Morro Street
G03-9
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Elevator
There are two elevators observed in the parking structure, which are the
northwest elevator on the corner of Palm Street and Morro Street (Photo 24)
and the southwest elevator on Morro Street (Photo 25). Both elevators were
operational during the assessment.
Analysis: Republic Elevator recommends that both elevators receive new
door package. Full modernization would include a new controller, hydraulic
pump unit, car, hall buttons and signals, door operator, and door hardware.
The new door package includes a new GAL MOVFR solid state closed loop
door operator and all new door hardware such as door rollers, tracks, chains,
cables, etc. Continue routine maintenance on the elevators.
Miscellaneous Observations
Stairwells
The stairs were observed to be generally in “Fair” condition, however water
stains were observed at the soffit of the steel pans (Photo 26).
The stair ceiling at the Roof level had a grill which was observed to be
corroded (Photo 27). It is recommended to replace the corroded grill.
Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) Blocks
Isolated CMU blocks were observed to be deteriorated beneath the sill of
the window openings on all levels (Photo 28).
Analysis: There is no immediate structural concern, but cracked or broken
CMU block may become loose and turn into a falling hazard. It is
recommended to repair or replace the broken CMU blocks if they are not
fully grouted. The CMU blocks should be epoxy injected if they are fully
grouted and have cracks larger than 1/32” wide.
Photo 26 –Water stains observed at the
underside of stairs
Photo 28 – Typical deteriorated CMU
blocks beneath the sill of window
openings
Photo 27 – Stair ceiling with corroded
grill
Photo 25 –Southwest elevator on Morro
Street
G03-10
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Power Wash
The interior of the parking structure was stained from grease and oil
drippings from vehicles (Photo 29).
Analysis: The build-up of oil and grease stains is a potential safety hazard to
pedestrians. This build up and deposits within the parking structure should
be cleaned with industrial detergent and pressurized water. For areas with
waterproofing coating, the manufacturers should be contacted in regards to
appropriate cleaning materials.
Striping
Parking and directional striping on all levels was observed to be in “Fair”
condition. Isolated locations of striping has faded particularly at the turning
lanes and ramps (Photo 29 and 33).
Analysis: Faded striping may result in problem with alignment of vehicles in
the parking spaces and uncertainty of users regarding traffic markings. A
restriping of the entire structure is recommended.
Over-Height Clearance Bar
The clearance bar at the entrance of the structure to the basement level
shows a maximum height of 7’-6” (Photo 30); however, the measured
distance was greater, approximately 7’-8”, at this location. If the clearance
inside the structure is actually 7’-6” as stated, then the height-restricting bar
should be added at the appropriate elevation. Without the bar set at the
proper elevation, users of the facility may be inadvertently allowed to enter
the structure and potentially damage the structure or their vehicles. It is
recommended to adjust the height of the clearance bar to match the
specified height clearance.
Photo 30 – Height clearance bar
measured to be 7’-8” instead of 7’-6” as
noted
Photo 29 – Typical oil stains on concrete
floors and slightly faded striping
G03-11
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Enhancement Items
Stairwells
The concrete stairs were noted without any traffic coating or slip resistant
measures on treads and landings (Photo 31). The northwest stairwell was
also noted to be open without a canopy on the Roof level (Photo 32).
Analysis: It is recommended to add a traffic coating over stair treads and
landings to provide waterproofing for the concrete and embedded steel as
well as to provide proper friction for pedestrian. The open stairwell allows
water to travel through to the lower levels, which could increase water
intrusion and potential for concrete deterioration. We recommend adding a
canopy over the northwest stair on the Roof level.
Floor Delineator
Floor mounted delineators were noted to be damaged and broken which
(Photo 33). It is recommended to replace the damaged and broken
delineators assist with traffic regulation.
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Lighting
It was observed that the parking structure has not been updated to LED
lighting (Photo 34). The lighting levels were recorded in foot-candle (f.c.) as
if all the lights were turned-on, however during the assessment, some lights
of the parking structure were either turned-off or the bulbs had burnt-out.
The light measurements were recorded assuming all lights are functioning
properly and the recordings are summarized in Table 1. Figure 2 is a plan
view of the parking structure illustrating the light measurement locations.
Table 1. Summary of Light Measurements
Location Standard
(f.c.)
Structure
(f.c.)
Interior Driving Aisles 10.0 30.0
Interior Parking Areas at Vehicle Door 5.0 6.0
Interior Parking Areas at Barrier Railing 1.0 1.0
Roof Parking Area 1.0 1.0
Stairways 20.0 10.0
Photo 33 – Missing floor delineator (red)
and faded striping (blue)
Photo 31 –Stair treads and landings
Photo 32 – Northwest stairwell has no
canopy on the Roof
Photo 34 – Typical lighting level
G03-12
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Figure 2. Plan view of light measurement locations
In general the lighting was observed to be at or above suggested industry
standard, except for in the stairways.
We recommend replacing the existing, functioning and nonfunctioning, light
fixtures in the expansion structure with LED lighting will reduce energy
consumption, provide longer bulb lifespans and will save overall utility
lifecycle costs of the structure.
G03-13
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
CONCRETE TESTING
Chloride-Ion Content
Chlorides are typically present in concrete, whether they get introduced
during the mixing, or they migrate into the material due to local environmental
conditions. Close proximity to the ocean may lead to higher exposure to
airborne salts, which can accumulate and increase the chloride
concentration over time. When chloride content reaches or exceeds a critical
value, the protection of the steel reinforcement is lost. Once the passive
protective layer around the steel is completely eroded, corrosion of
reinforcement will begin with the presence of oxygen and moisture at the
steel-concrete interface. Therefore, by measuring chloride content levels in
concrete at strategic locations around the structure, it is possible to predict
the initiation of corrosion in concrete.
Two concrete powder samples (CL1 and CL2) were extracted at the Roof
level from areas next to floor drains and with signs of water stains to check
in-situ concrete chloride content. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) was used
to locate existing embedded reinforcement and avoid damaging it during the
extraction of concrete samples. The extracted samples were then sent to an
independent laboratory, Universal Construction Testing (UCT), for testing.
Chloride content analysis was conducted in general accordance with
provisions of ASTM C1218, “Standard Test Method for Water-Soluble
Chloride in Mortar and Concrete.” Chloride content in concrete was tested
at three depths from the surface of the elements, from 0 to 1 inch, 1 to 2
inch, and 2 to 3 inch.
Typically, the corrosion of steel will begin causing steel section loss, concrete
cracks, delamination, and spalling. Research has shown that this threshold
is typically around 280 to 410 parts per million (PPM) of water-soluble
chloride ion by weight of concrete. The results from testing are shown in
Table 2
Table 2. Summary of Chloride Ion Content Testing Results
Chloride Ion Content (PPM)
Sample ID Sample Description
0-1 Inch 1-2 Inch 2-3 Inch
CL1 Exposed Roof Level 60 20 20
CL2 Exposed Roof Level 50 20 20
G03-14
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
The largest chloride level for any location is 60 PPM. The recommended
lower bound limit for chloride concentration (280 PPM) was not exceeded
for any sample in the 0-1 inch depth range. The chloride content is well below
the suggested limits for all of the chloride samples at depths greater than 1
inch from the top of the slab. This test suggests that the chloride content in
the concrete has not progressed to a point that it will contribute to
embedded reinforcement corrosion at our test locations.
Concrete Sounding
Walter P Moore performed two different concrete sounding techniques,
hammer sounding on the overhead and vertical surfaces, and chain drag on
the slabs, to detect spalling and delamination within the concrete. At spalled
or delaminated concrete locations the sounding techniques will result in a
hollow sounding impact reverberation. Conversely, the sounding of
undamaged concrete will result in a solid impact reverberation. Concrete
sounding assists in determining the repair limits of the identified distress
locations. Limited delaminated locations were identified using the sounding
techniques which will require additional concrete repairs.
Reinforcement Cover
Ground Penetrating Radar is a non-destructive technique that emits a short
pulse of electromagnetic energy, which is radiated into the subsurface. When
this pulse strikes an interface between layers of materials with different
electrical properties, part of the wave reflects back, and the remaining energy
continues to the next interface. Concrete material is a low conductivity, non-
metallic medium that is ideal for GPR signal propagation. However, concrete
typically has steel reinforcement, which is a metallic and therefore completely
reflects the GPR signal and shadows anything directly below the metal. This
non-destructive test method is subject to some error which can be
minimized by performing exploratory measurements with direct
measurements of depth to reinforcement and concrete thickness. However
no exploratory openings (destructive) were made to verify the depth of the
reinforcement as a part of this condition assessment. Therefore, the GPR
testing utilized to determine the reinforcement cover should consider having
an error of up to ±25%.
Photo 35 – Scanning the concrete slab
with a GPR
G03-15
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Specific locations were identified for non-destructive concrete cover testing,
which include slab locations on the Roof level over the concrete beams since
the concrete is directly exposed to weathering and the reinforcement
typically has the lowest cover at these locations. After analyzing the data
collected from the GPR, it was determined that on average there appears to
be sufficient concrete cover over the reinforcement for the Roof level slab.
The minimum concrete cover recommended for durability by the modern
version of the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
14) is 1 inch for prestressed concrete slabs exposed to weathering. The
average concrete cover on the Roof level slab, determined from the GPR, is
approximately 2 inches. It appears that the minimum concrete cover
recommended for durability has aided the structure’s performance, which is
why we noted a limited amount of concrete spalling during our assessment.
G03-16
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations for maintenance repairs are prioritized according to
the need of the structure and are divided into the following five categories:
High Priority Repairs must be addressed in the very near future (within 1-2
years) to maintain serviceability of the associated item and/or maintain the
safety and long-term durability of the structure.
Medium Priority Repairs must be addressed in 2-3 years to mitigate further
deterioration.
Low Priority Repairs must be addressed beyond 3 years to sustain the overall
serviceability of the structure for the long-term.
Enhancements are items recommended to improve the serviceability and
environmental performance of the structure.
High Priority Repair Items
Repair concrete spalls and delaminations at floor slab, slab soffit,
curbs, columns, and walls
Tighten all loose barrier cables
Seal all sills at window openings
Medium Priority Repair Items
Replace cracked or broken brick veneer
Rout and seal slab cracks on all levels
Install/replace sealant at floor joints
Install sealant at vertical joints between walls and columns
Install cove sealant around base of columns and perimeter walls
at all elevated levels
Seal pipe penetration
Replace fire sprinkler heads
Both elevators should receive a new door package, which
includes a new GAL MOVFR solid state closed loop door operator
and all new door hardware such as door rollers, tracks, chains,
cables, etc.
G03-17
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Low Priority Repair Items
Recoat traffic coating on the second level
Replace cracked or broken CMU blocks
Repair cracked mortar joint
Repair cracked stucco on the parking structure facade
Clean all floor drains
Replace corroded overhead grill
Replace precompressed expansion joint on the northeast
entrance off of Palm Street
Power wash structure
Re-stripe all levels
Adjust height of vehicle clearance bar
Enhancements
Install canopy over the northwest stair at the Roof level
Replace existing lighting with LED lighting
Install new traffic coating on stair landings and treads
Replace floor mounted delineator
Paint the interior of the structure
Clean and coat the sprinklers in the structure
Paint the exterior of the structure
These projections and phasing plans are reflected in the 10-year CAMP for
the Structure. See Appendix B.
G03-18
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
OPINION OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Based on our site observations, we have established recommended repair
quantities and prepared an opinion of probable construction costs for the
structure. The following table shows the estimated repair costs in 2018
dollars.
Table 3 – Capital Asset Management Plan – Summary
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION 2019
Costs
Future
Costs Total Cost
1 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 7,000.00$
2 Concrete Curb Repair 2,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$
3 Overhead Slab Repair -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
4 Concrete Wall Repair -$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
5 Concrete Column Repair -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
6 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables 16,500.00$ -$ 16,500.00$
7 Sealing at Sill 16,000.00$ -$ 16,000.00$
High Priority Repair Total 38,000$ 8,500$ 46,500$
8 Brick Replacement -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
9 Rout and Seal Cracks -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
10 Joint Sealant Installation -$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
11 Joint Sealant Replacement -$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
12 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
13 Cove Sealant Installation -$ 54,500.00$ 54,500.00$
14 Seal Pipe Penetration -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
15 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement -$ 58,500.00$ 58,500.00$
16 Elevator Upgrade 43,700.00$ -$ 43,700.00$
Medium Priority Repair Total 43,700$ 138,000$ 181,700$
17 Traffic Coating Recoat -$ 144,000.00$ 144,000.00$
18 CMU / Brick Tuckpointing -$ 500.00$ 500.00$
19 CMU Replacement -$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$
20 Stucco Façade Repair -$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
21 Clean Drains -$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$
22 Replace Corroded Overhead Grill -$ 13,500.00$ 13,500.00$
23 Expansion Joint Replacement - Precompressed -$ 58,500.00$ 58,500.00$
24 Power Wash -$ 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$
25 Re-Striping All Levels -$ 36,000.00$ 36,000.00$
Low Priority Repair Total -$ 306,500$ 306,500$
26 Install Canopy -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
27 Install LED Lighting -$ 53,000.00$ 53,000.00$
28 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs -$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$
29 Replace Floor Mounted Delineater -$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
30 Paint Interior -$ 240,000.00$ 240,000.00$
31 Clean and Paint Sprinklers -$ 176,500.00$ 176,500.00$
32 Paint Exterior -$ 42,000.00$ 42,000.00$
Enhancement Total -$ 533,500$ 533,500$
81,700$ 986,500$ 1,068,200$
9,000$ 102,000$ 111,000$
7,000$ 83,000$ 90,000$
98,000$ 1,172,000$ 1,270,000$
101,000$ 1,450,000$ 1,551,000$
Contigency (10%)
General Conditions (8%)
Total (2018 Dollars)
Total (Adjusted Future Value)
919 PALM STREET PARKING STRUCTURE
High Priority Repair Items
Medium Priority Repair Items
Low Priority Repair Items
Enhancement Items
Sub Total
G03-19
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Notes:
1. Opinion of probable construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of probable construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probable construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not
included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a
factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
These opinions of probable construction costs are for budgeting purposes only and not for actual
construction. Since this is an opinion of cost, Walter P. Moore does not have control over the cost or
availability of labor, equipment or materials, or over market conditions or the contractor’s method of pricing.
In addition, the engineer’s opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the engineer’s
professional judgment and experience.
Furthermore, the engineer makes no warranty, expressed or implied, that the bids or the negotiated cost of
the work will not vary from the engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost.
G03-20
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented represent current technology for parking
structure renovation and maintenance. We have assumed the facilities will
continue in its present use and will require appropriate repairs and periodic
maintenance for this use. Parking structures undergo harsh exposure to
various environmental elements and further deterioration will take place with
continued service related exposure. Proper design and installation of
effective repairs and maintenance can significantly reduce further
deterioration and the associated repair costs.
This report is not a warranty or guarantee of the items noted. The extent of
our evaluation was limited and cannot guarantee that the condition
assessment discovered or disclosed all possible latent conditions. The
evaluation required that certain assumptions be made regarding existing
conditions and some of these conditions cannot be verified without
expending additional sums of money, or destroying otherwise adequate or
serviceable portions of the facility. In this study, we did not include review of
the design, inspection of concealed conditions, or detailed analysis, to verify
adequacy of the structure to carry the imposed loads and to check
conformance to the applicable codes. The assessment also does not
provide specific repair details, construction contract documents, material
specifications, details to develop construction cost or information on means
and methods of construction.
Any comment regarding concealed construction or subsurface conditions
are our professional opinion, based on engineering experience and
judgment, and derived in accordance with standard of care and professional
practice.
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of The
City of San Luis Obispo. This report and the findings contained herein shall
not, in whole or in part, be disseminated or conveyed to any other party or
used or relied upon by any other party, in whole or in part, without prior
written consent.
G03-A-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX A – PHOTOS
Photo 1 – Northwest isometric view of the parking structure
Photo 2 – Southeast isometric view of the parking structure
G03-A-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 3 – A typical view of concrete vertical and overhead surfaces at slab soffit, beam, and column
Photo 4 –General view of the concrete floor surface at the Roof level
G03-A-3
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 5 – Isolated spall located on the Roof with exposed reinforcement
Photo 6 – Barrier cables between each level and the ramp
G03-A-4
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 7 – Barrier cables at the east perimeter of the parking structure along the ramp
Photo 8 – Typical concrete bumper wall at perimeter of the parking structure
G03-A-5
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 9 – Deteriorated sealant in floor joints
Photo 10 – Cove joints between curb-to-slab and wall-to-slab have no sealant.
G03-A-6
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 11 – Typical deteriorated vertical sealant
Photo 12 – Typical missing sealant
G03-A-7
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 13 – Typical missing sealant at sill of window opening
Photo 14 – Traffic coating above the red dashed line on the second level over occupied office space
G03-A-8
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 15 – Localized holes in traffic coating
Photo 16 – Damaged traffic coating on curbs at ends of parking spaces
G03-A-9
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 17 – Deteriorated fire-rated sealant around pipe penetration
Photo 18 – Typical unclean drain
G03-A-10
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 19 – Expansion joint on the first level entrance at the northeast corner
Photo 20 - Cracked brick veneer at southwest entrance
G03-A-11
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 21 - Cracked mortar joint off of Palm street
Photo 22 - Cracked stucco
G03-A-12
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 23 – 10 to 15 year old sprinkler head
Photo 24 –Northwest elevator on the corner of Palm street and Morro street
G03-A-13
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 25 –Southwest elevator on Morro street
Photo 26 –Water stain observed at the underside of stairs
G03-A-14
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 27 – Stair ceiling with corroded grill
Photo 28 – Typical deteriorated CMU blocks beneath the sill of window openings
G03-A-15
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo xx – Typical oil stains on concrete floors and slightly faded striping
Photo 30 – Height clearance bar measured to be 7’-8” instead of 7’-6” as noted
G03-A-16
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 31 – Stair treads and landings
Photo 32 – Northwest stairwell has no canopy on the Roof
G03-A-17
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 33 – Missing floor delineator (red) and faded striping (blue)
Photo 34 – Typical lighting level
G03-A-18
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
Photo 35 - Scanning the concrete slab with a GPR
G03-B-1
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX B – CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
919 PALM STREET
San Luis Obispo, CA
TASK
ITEM NO.TASK ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
High Priority Repair Items
1 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair
7,000$ 3,500$ 3,500$
2 Concrete Curb Repair
3,000$ 2,000$ 1,000$
3 Overhead Slab Repair
1,500$ 1,500$
4 Concrete Wall Repair
1,000$ 1,000$
5 Concrete Column Repair 1,500$ 1,500$
6 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables 16,500$ 16,500$
7 Sealing at Sill 16,000$ 16,000$
High Priority Repair Total 46,500$ 38,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,500$ -$ -$
Medium Priority Repair Items
8 Brick Replacement 4,000$ 4,000$
9 Rout and Seal Cracks 4,000$ 1,500$ 2,500$
10 Joint Sealant Installation 1,000$ 1,000$
11 Joint Sealant Replacement 8,000$ 3,500$ 4,500$
12 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement 5,000$ 2,500$ 2,500$
13 Cove Sealant Installation 54,500$ 40,500$ 14,000$
14 Seal Pipe Penetration 3,000$ 3,000$
15 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement 58,500$ 58,500$
16 Elevator Upgrade 43,700$ 43,700$
Medium Priority Repair Total 181,700$ 43,700$ 56,000$ -$ 58,500$ -$ -$ -$ 23,500$ -$ -$
Low Priority Repair Items
17 Traffic Coating Recoat
144,000$ 72,000$ 72,000$
18 CMU / Brick Tuckpointing 500$ 500$
19 CMU Replacement 11,000$ 11,000$
20 Stucco Façade Repair 8,000$ 8,000$
21 Clean Drains
7,000$ 3,500$ 3,500$
22 Replace Corroded Overhead Grill 13,500$ 13,500$
23 Expansion Joint Replacement - Precompressed
58,500$ 58,500$
24 Power Wash 28,000$ 14,000$ 14,000$
25 Re-Striping All Levels 36,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$
Low Priority Repair Total 306,500$ -$ 84,000$ 50,500$ -$ -$ 12,000$ -$ 148,000$ -$ 12,000$
Enhancement Items
26 Install Canopy
12,000$ 12,000$
27 Install LED Lighting
53,000$ 53,000$
28 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs 7,500$ 7,500$
29 Replace Floor Mounted Delineater 2,500$ 1,500$ 500$ 500$
30 Paint Interior
240,000$ 240,000$
31 Clean and Paint Sprinklers
176,500$ 176,500$
32 Paint Exterior
42,000$ 42,000$
Enhancement Total 533,500$ -$ -$ 74,000$ -$ 42,000$ 500$ -$ -$ 500$ 416,500$
Sub Total Current Program 1,068,200$ 81,700$ 140,000$ 124,500$ 58,500$ 42,000$ 12,500$ -$ 180,000$ 500$ 428,500$
Contigency (10%)111,000$ 9,000$ 14,000$ 13,000$ 6,000$ 5,000$ 2,000$ -$ 18,000$ 1,000$ 43,000$
General Conditions (8%)90,000$ 7,000$ 12,000$ 10,000$ 5,000$ 4,000$ 1,000$ -$ 15,000$ 1,000$ 35,000$
Opinion of Annual Budget (2018 Dollars)1,272,000$ 98,000$ 166,000$ 148,000$ 70,000$ 51,000$ 16,000$ -$ 213,000$ 3,000$ 507,000$
Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted Future Value)1,551,000$ 101,000$ 176,000$ 162,000$ 79,000$ 59,000$ 19,000$ -$ 270,000$ 4,000$ 681,000$
Notes:
1. Opinion of probable construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of probable construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work.
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probable construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
G03-B-2
SLO Parking Structure Assessments – 919 Palm St.
D09.18025.00
ITEM
NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION 2019
Costs
Future
Costs Total Cost
1 Partial Depth Concrete Floor Slab Repair 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 7,000.00$
2 Concrete Curb Repair 2,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 3,000.00$
3 Overhead Slab Repair -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
4 Concrete Wall Repair -$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
5 Concrete Column Repair -$ 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$
6 Inspect and Tighten Loose Barrier Cables 16,500.00$ -$ 16,500.00$
7 Sealing at Sill 16,000.00$ -$ 16,000.00$
High Priority Repair Total 38,000$ 8,500$ 46,500$
8 Brick Replacement -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
9 Rout and Seal Cracks -$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
10 Joint Sealant Installation -$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
11 Joint Sealant Replacement -$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
12 Exterior Vertical Sealant Replacement -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
13 Cove Sealant Installation -$ 54,500.00$ 54,500.00$
14 Seal Pipe Penetration -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
15 Fire Sprinkler Head Replacement -$ 58,500.00$ 58,500.00$
16 Elevator Upgrade 43,700.00$ -$ 43,700.00$
Medium Priority Repair Total 43,700$ 138,000$ 181,700$
17 Traffic Coating Recoat -$ 144,000.00$ 144,000.00$
18 CMU / Brick Tuckpointing -$ 500.00$ 500.00$
19 CMU Replacement -$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$
20 Stucco Façade Repair -$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$
21 Clean Drains -$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$
22 Replace Corroded Overhead Grill -$ 13,500.00$ 13,500.00$
23 Expansion Joint Replacement - Precompressed -$ 58,500.00$ 58,500.00$
24 Power Wash -$ 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$
25 Re-Striping All Levels -$ 36,000.00$ 36,000.00$
Low Priority Repair Total -$ 306,500$ 306,500$
26 Install Canopy -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
27 Install LED Lighting -$ 53,000.00$ 53,000.00$
28 Traffic Coating New System - Stairs -$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$
29 Replace Floor Mounted Delineater -$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
30 Paint Interior -$ 240,000.00$ 240,000.00$
31 Clean and Paint Sprinklers -$ 176,500.00$ 176,500.00$
32 Paint Exterior -$ 42,000.00$ 42,000.00$
Enhancement Total -$ 533,500$ 533,500$
81,700$ 986,500$ 1,068,200$
9,000$ 102,000$ 111,000$
7,000$ 83,000$ 90,000$
98,000$ 1,172,000$ 1,270,000$
101,000$ 1,450,000$ 1,551,000$
Notes:
1. Opinion of probable construction costs are in 2018 dollars and are based on estimated quantities.
2. Opinion of construction costs are based on historical records of similar types of work.
3. Cost may vary due to time of year, local economy, or other factors.
4. Cost based on normal workweek and daylight hours.
5. Testing is not included in the opinion of probable construction costs.
6. Engineering design and construction administration fees, and contractor mobilization costs are not included in this opinion of probable construction costs.
7. Opinion of Annual Budget (Adjusted for Future Value) is the summation of the yearly totals multiplied by a factor to consider 3% annual inflations.
Contigency (10%)
General Conditions (8%)
Total (2018 Dollars)
Total (Adjusted Future Value)
919 PALM STREET PARKING STRUCTURE
High Priority Repair Items
Medium Priority Repair Items
Low Priority Repair Items
Enhancement Items
Sub Total
AP1-1
SLO Parking Garage Assessments
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX 1 – UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION TESTING
CHICAGO
61 Garlisch Dr.
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
P 847-459-9090
F 847-459-9015
DALLAS / FT WORTH
SAN ANTONIO / SO. TEXAS
AUSTIN / WACO
HOUSTON
MIAMI
972.432.6666
210.775.1637
512.551.0336
281.446.7363
954.676.4147
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
DATE:
18-127
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessment - Chloride Content Analysis
06.19.2018
PAGE | 1
Mr. Cesar Carrillo ccarrillo@walterpmoore.com
Walter P Moore PH: 310.254.1900
707 Whilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re: Laboratory Studies of Concrete Powder Samples
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessment
WPM Project No. D09.18025.00
Dear Mr. Carrillo:
Enclosed please find the results of the chloride content analyses for twenty-four (24) concrete
powders samples that were reportedly extracted from the referenced location and delivered to
our laboratories on June 5, 2018.
The water-soluble chloride ion content was determined according to the applicable provisions of
ASTM Standard C1218 – Standard Test Method for Water-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete.
The obtained test results are compiled below in Table 1.
Based upon the present state of knowledge, 0.15% and 0.06% respectively, should be the maximum
water-soluble chloride contents expressed by weight of cement as suggested by the American
Concrete Institute in order to minimize the risk of chloride-induced corrosion in conventionally
reinforced and post tensioned reinforced concretes.
*******
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you.
Sincerely yours,
Universal Construction Testing, Ltd.
Elena I. Emerson
Operations Manager
cc: Pawan Gupta, James Rosewitz , Cheng Song
CHICAGO
61 Garlisch Dr.
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
P 847-459-9090
F 847-459-9015
DALLAS / FT WORTH
SAN ANTONIO / SO. TEXAS
AUSTIN / WACO
HOUSTON
MIAMI
972.432.6666
210.775.1637
512.551.0336
281.446.7363
954.676.4147
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
DATE:
18-127
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessment - Chloride Content Analysis
06.19.2018
PAGE | 2
Table 1 - Chloride Content of Concrete
ASTM C1218 (Water Soluble)
Sample
Number Location in Structure Level tested, inch
from top
Chloride ion (CL-) Content
by weight of
concrete
(PPM)*
by weight of
concrete
%
by weight of
cement*
%
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessment
CL1 919 Palm St. 0-1 60 0.006 0.04
Slab on Roof 1-2 20 0.002 0.01
2-3 20 0.002 0.01
CL2 919 Palm St. 0-1 50 0.005 0.03
Slab on Roof 1-2 20 0.002 0.01
2-3 20 0.002 0.01
CL3 842 Palm St. 0-1 20 0.002 0.01
Slab on Roof 1-2 20 0.002 0.01
2-3 20 0.002 0.01
CL4 842 Palm St. 0-1 50 0.005 0.03
Slab on Roof 1-2 20 0.002 0.01
2-3 20 0.002 0.01
Remarks: *) Assumed cement content 600 lbs/cu.yd. and U.W. = 3800 pcy.
CHICAGO
61 Garlisch Dr.
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
P 847-459-9090
F 847-459-9015
DALLAS / FT WORTH
SAN ANTONIO / SO. TEXAS
AUSTIN / WACO
HOUSTON
MIAMI
972.432.6666
210.775.1637
512.551.0336
281.446.7363
954.676.4147
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
DATE:
18-127
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessment - Chloride Content Analysis
06.19.2018
PAGE | 3
Table 1 - Chloride Content of Concrete (Cont’d)
ASTM C1218 (Water Soluble)
Sample
Number Location in Structure Level tested, inch
from top
Chloride ion (CL-) Content
by weight of
concrete
(PPM)*
by weight of
concrete
%
by weight of
cement*
%
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Structure Assessment
CL5 Marsh St. Original 0-1 30 0.003 0.02
Slab on Roof 1-2 20 0.002 0.01
2-3 20 0.002 0.01
CL6 Marsh St. Original 0-1 30 0.003 0.02
Slab on Roof 1-2 20 0.002 0.01
2-3 20 0.002 0.01
CL7 Marsh St. Addition 0-1 30 0.003 0.02
Slab on Roof 1-2 20 0.002 0.01
2-3 20 0.002 0.01
CL8 Marsh St. Addition 0-1 30 0.003 0.02
Slab on Roof 1-2 20 0.002 0.01
2-3 20 0.002 0.01
Remarks: *) Assumed cement content 600 lbs/cu.yd. and U.W. = 3800 pcy.
AP2-1
SLO Parking Garage Assessments
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX 2 – ALPHA FIRE CORPORATION
07/30/2018
Walter P. Moore
707 Wilshire Boulevard St 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Attn: Pawan Gupta
PGupta@walterpmoore.com
Re: City of San Luis Obispo – Parking Structure Assessment and Maintenance Report
Dear Pawan,
After a thorough walk through of all three parking structures in San Luis Obispo I have
come up with the following costs for regular testing & maintenance as well as a cost for
the replacement of the fire sprinkler heads in each parking structure over the next ten
years. I have also listed some recommendations for each location and included pictures
to show the current condition of each system.
Parking Structure 1 @ 842 Palm St:
Testing & Maintenance:
1) Annual Fire Sprinkler, Fire Pump & Alarm Inspection.
Perform 100% test of initiating and audible fire alarm circuits.
1 wet riser and 1 wet standpipe.
Perform main drain flow test.
Perform waterflow test @ inspectors test valve.
Performance test of fire pump & associated components using inline test
loop installed on-site.
Visual inspection of all fire sprinkler system components.
Minor maintenance including lubrication and cleaning of valves/gauges.
Testing is performed to current NFPA and Title 19 standards.
2) 5 Year Wet Standpipe Test & Inspection.
Perform 5 year standpipe flow test at rooftop outlets to get desired
hydrant flow GPM & PSI. (mobile fire pump rental required)
1 wet standpipe.
Testing is performed to current NFPA and Title 19 standards.
Fire Sprinkler head replacement:
3) Replacement of approximately ~900 fire sprinklers.
After walking through PS-1 it was noted that there are approximately 900
fire sprinkler heads in the facility. The fire sprinkler heads are
approximately 20-25 years old and are showing signs of mild to medium
corrosion. See the spreadsheet below for the cost to replace all of the
sprinkler heads in the facility spread out over ten years.
Recommendations:
4) Seismic bracing upgrade.
After walking through PS-1 it was noted that the existing seismic bracing
does not meet current code requirements. It is recommended to replace
approximately 60 seismic braces in the facility. See the spreadsheet
below for the cost to replace all of the seismic bracing in the facility
spread out over ten years.
5) Fire Pump Upgrade.
After walking through PS-1 it was noted that the existing fire pump &
associated equipment is going on 20-25 years old. Fire pumps typically
have a 30 year life span before becoming a significant burden to the
annual maintenance budget as well as becoming less reliable. It is
recommended to budget for a pump replacement by 2023. Due to the
nature of this upgrade the cost cannot be spread over a ten year period
and should be budgeted for a lump sum upgrade price. See the
spreadsheet below for the 2023 price estimate.
6) Paint all existing fire sprinkler piping.
After walking through PS-1 it was noted that the existing fire sprinkler
piping was showing signs of mild to medium corrosion. It is
recommended to have a painting contractor come in and paint all of the
existing fire sprinkler piping to give it a longer service life.
Additional pictures:
Fire department connection.
Main backflow shutoff valves.
842 Palm Street (PS-1)
Item Task 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
16
Fire Sprinkler
Head
Replacement $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850
17
Fire System
Maintenance $750 $750
5yr due
$3,250 $750 $750 $750 $750
5yr due
$3,250 $750 $750
18
Seismic bracing
upgrade $1,260 $1,260 $1,260 $1,260 $1,260 $1,260 $1,260 $1,260 $1,260 $1,260
19
Fire pump
upgrade $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Structure 2 @ 871 Marsh St:
Testing & Maintenance:
1) Annual Fire Sprinkler, Fire Pump & Alarm Inspection.
Perform 100% test of initiating and audible fire alarm circuits.
6 risers and 2 wet standpipes.
Perform main drain flow test.
Perform waterflow test @ inspectors test valve.
Performance test of fire pump & associated components using inline test
loop installed on-site.
Visual inspection of all fire sprinkler system components.
Minor maintenance including lubrication and cleaning of valves/gauges.
Testing is performed to current NFPA and Title 19 standards.
2) 5 Year Wet Standpipe Test & Inspection.
Perform 5 year standpipe flow test at rooftop outlets to get desired
hydrant flow GPM & PSI. (mobile fire pump rental required)
2 wet standpipes.
Testing is performed to current NFPA and Title 19 standards.
Fire Sprinkler head replacement:
3) Replacement of approximately ~1300 fire sprinklers.
After walking through PS-2 it was noted that there are approximately
1300 fire sprinkler heads in the facility. The fire sprinkler heads are
approximately 10-15 years old and are showing signs of mild corrosion.
See the spreadsheet below for the cost to replace all of the sprinkler
heads in the facility spread out over ten years.
Recommendations:
4) Touch up paint in areas showing corrosion.
After walking through PS-2 it was noted that the existing fire sprinkler
piping was showing signs of mild corrosion in certain areas. It is
recommended to have a painting contractor come in and do touch up
painting to all of the existing fire sprinkler piping showing signs of
corrosion to give it a longer service life.
Additional pictures:
Typical floor control riser:
Fire department connection.
871 Marsh Street (PS-2)
Item Task 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
16
Fire Sprinkler
Head
Replacement $8,450 $8,450 $8,450 $8,450 $8,450 $8,450 $8,450 $8,450 $8,450 $8,450
17
Fire System
Maintenance $1,500 $1,500
5yr due
$4,750 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500
5yr due
$4,750 $1,500 $1,500
Parking Structure 3 @ 919 Palm St:
Testing & Maintenance:
1) Annual Fire Sprinkler & Alarm Inspection.
Perform 100% test of initiating and audible fire alarm circuits.
5 risers and 1 dry standpipe.
Perform main drain flow test.
Perform waterflow test @ inspectors test valve.
Visual inspection of all fire sprinkler system components.
Minor maintenance including lubrication and cleaning of valves/gauges.
Testing is performed to current NFPA and Title 19 standards.
2) 5 Year Dry Standpipe Test & Inspection.
Perform 5 year standpipe flow test at rooftop outlets to get desired
hydrant flow GPM & PSI. (mobile fire pump rental required)
Perform hydrostatic test on dry standpipe.
1 dry standpipe.
Testing is performed to current NFPA and Title 19 standards.
Fire Sprinkler head replacement:
3) Replacement of approximately ~900 fire sprinklers.
After walking through PS-3 it was noted that there are approximately 900
fire sprinkler heads in the facility. The fire sprinkler heads are
approximately 10-15 years old and are showing signs of mild corrosion.
See the spreadsheet below for the cost to replace all of the sprinkler
heads in the facility spread out over ten years.
Recommendations:
4) Touch up paint in areas showing corrosion.
After walking through PS-3 it was noted that the existing fire sprinkler
piping was showing signs of mild corrosion in certain areas. It is
recommended to have a painting contractor come in and do touch up
painting to all of the existing fire sprinkler piping showing signs of
corrosion to give it a longer service life.
Additional pictures:
Fire department connection
Typical floor control riser:
919 Palm Street (PS-3)
Item Task 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
16
Fire Sprinkler
Head
Replacement $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850 $5,850
17
Fire System
Maintenance $750 $750
5yr due
$3,250 $750 $750 $750 $750
5yr due
$3,250 $750 $750
If you have any comments or questions about this report don’t hesitate to call or email.
Thank you,
Trevor Bryan
Service Manager
AP3-1
SLO Parking Garage Assessments
D09.18025.00
APPENDIX 3 – REPUBLIC ELEVATOR
1
Cesar Carrillo
From:Pawan Gupta
Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:31 AM
To:Cesar Carrillo
Subject:FW: San Luis Obispo City Garage Elevator Maintenance and Repair Evaluation
Attachments:SLO ParkingGarageElev Study07272018_0001.pdf
Importance:High
Hi Cesar,
You can just save the file as a word file and then include it in the report.
Thanks
Pawan R. Gupta, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., LEED AP
Principal
Managing Director
WALTER P MOORE
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100 / Los Angeles, California 90017
310.254.1900 p / 213.247.9835 c
pgupta@walterpmoore.com
www.walterpmoore.com
Stewardship 2018 Water *** NEW ***
LinkedIn / Twitter / YouTube / Facebook
THE CONTENTS OF THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THE PROPERTY OF WALTER P. MOORE AND
ASSOCIATES, INC.
From: Bob Love [mailto:blove@republicelevator.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 10:09 AM
To: Pawan Gupta <PGupta@walterpmoore.com>
Cc: hlampkin@republicelevator.com; ajones@republicelevator.com
Subject: San Luis Obispo City Garage Elevator Maintenance and Repair Evaluation
Importance: High
Good morning Pawan,
As promised, I am pleased to submit attached here our completed elevator analysis for the SLO Parking Garage
elevators. I tried to enter the amounts on your chart in Word. However, I could not get the font small enough and as I
was entering the numbers in the boxes I was losing year columns. So, I had to hand print as neat as I could the
appropriate amounts in each space. I trust you will be able to read them ok.
The maintenance amounts are simply the per month amount we are billing for each address and increasing for labor
rate increases of 4% per year. The increases can sometimes be less. So, the total billing for ten (10) years might be
somewhat less than the amount shown for the year 2028. Please note that the amounts in each space are for two (2)
elevators. There are two (2) elevators in each garage as you no doubt know.
Regarding the “replacement” amounts, these are really anticipated amounts that are recommended to be spent at each
garage for needed upgrades along with the budgeted amounts for routine trouble calls and/or repairs during each year.
One of the elevators at Marsh Street needs to be fully modernized. This would include a new controller, new hydraulic
pump unit, new car and hall buttons and signals and new door operator and door hardware. That modernization would
2
cost approximately $95,000.00. We predicted repairs and other expenses such as trouble calls not included in the
maintenance billing to be around $5350.00 per elevator per year. Since one of the elevators at Marsh Street would have
been fully modernized, we added the $5350.00 for just the other elevator, which gave us the total for 2019 (assuming
that upgrade was done during that year) of $100,350.00. It is recommended that the other three (3) non-modernized
elevators, one at Marsh Street and the two (2) at Palm, get new door packages. This includes a new GAL MOVFR solid
state closed loop door operator and all new door hardware such as door rollers, tracks, chains, cables, etc. We showed
these being done during 2019 as well. This door package costs approximately $16,500.00. Therefor, the total amount
entered for the elevators at Marsh Street is $100,350.00 plus the $16,500.00 for the door package on the elevator not
being modernized for a total for 2019 at Marsh Street of $116,850.00. For Palm Street, the amount shown is two (2)
door packages plus the budgeted $5350.00 per elevator for possible repairs/trouble calls, etc. for a total of $43,700.00
for both elevators during 2019. For 2018, since we are already about 50% through the year, we used half of the
$5350.00 amount per elevator, which is $2675.00 times the two (2) elevators giving us the $5350.00 shown for 2018 for
both elevators at each garage. For the years 2020 through 2028 we entered the $5350.00 amount per elevator per year
or $10,700.00 for each garage per year. As I explained in my email yesterday, this is an estimated number for various
trouble calls and possible repairs needed for each of those years per garage. Some of these years may have fewer calls
and/or repairs and some may have more. In general, this should probably be a reasonable amount to budget for the
next ten (10) years.
During this time period the hall doors and frames may need painting and refinishing. They are exposed to the moist,
close to the ocean environment and this takes its toll after a while. We did not include for any of this as it could be a City
expense if their facilities personnel do the painting.
I trust all of this is understandable. If you should have any questions or need anything better explained please do not
hesitate to call me. Again, our apology for this project taking longer than anticipated.
Regards,
Bob Love
Vice President - Sales
Republic Elevator
Office: 800-648-6302
Fax: 805-683-8948
Cell: 805-319-6968
P.O. Box 1222 Goleta, CA 93116
Email: blove@republicelevator.com
www.republicelevator.com