Meeting Documents - California Courts - CA.gov

Meeting Documents

Meeting Date April 8, 2019

1 | P a g e T r i a l C o u r t F a c i l i t y M o d i f i c a t i o n A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e

T R I A L C O U R T F A C I L I T Y M O D I F I C A T I O N A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E

O P E N M E E T I N G W I T H C L O S E D S E S S I O N A G E N D A

Open to the Public Unless Indicated as Closed (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.75(c)(1)) OPEN PORTION OF THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED

Date: April 8, 2019 Time: 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM Location: Sacramento/Teleconference for Public Access Public Call-in Number: 1-877-820-7831 Listen Only Code: 4502468

Meeting materials for open portions of the meeting will be posted on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website at least three business days before the meeting. Agenda items are numbered for identification purposes only and will not necessarily be considered in the indicated order.

I . O P E N M E E T I N G ( C A L . R U L E S O F C O U R T , R U L E 1 0 . 7 5 ( C ) ( 1 ) )

Call to Order and Roll Call 10:00 AM

Approval of Minutes Approve minutes of the March 8, 2019, Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee meeting.

I I . A C T I O N I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 9 )

Action Item 1 – (Action Required) – List A – Emergency Facility Modification Funding (Priority 1)

Summary: Ratify emergency facility modifications from List A.

Action Requested: Staff recommends 14 projects for a total of $261,755 to be paid from Facility Modification program funds previously encumbered for Priority 1.

Presenter: Mr. Jagan Singh, Principal Manager, Facilities Services

Action Item 2 – (Action Required) – List B – Facility Modifications Less than $100K (Priority 2)

Summary: Ratify facility modifications less than $100K from List B.

Action Requested: Staff recommends 41 projects for a total of $268,982 to be paid from Facility Modification program funds previously encumbered for Priority 2 less than $100K.


www.courts.ca.gov/tcfmac.htm [email protected]

http://www.courts.ca.gov/tcfmac.htm

mailto:[email protected]

M e e t i n g A g e n d a | A p r i l 8 , 2 0 1 9


Action Item 3 – (Action Required) – List C – Cost Increases Over $50K Summary: Ratify facility modifications requiring cost increases over $50K from List C.

Action Requested: Staff recommends 6 projects for a total cost increase to the Facility Modification program budget of $1,742,993.


Action Item 4 – (Action Required) – List D – Facility Modifications Over $100K Summary: Review recommended facility modifications over $100K from List D and P3 projects.

Action Requested: Staff recommends approving 2 projects for a total cost to the Facility Modification Program funds of $345,000.


Action Item 5 – (Action Required) – Court Building Seismic Renovation Studies Project Report(s) Summary: Review and approve the Court Building Seismic Renovation Studies Project report(s) for release to public.

Action Requested: Review and approve release of report to public.


Action Item 6 – (Action Required) – Q3 Trial Court Facility Modification Report for Fiscal Year 2018-19

Summary: Draft of Quarter 3 report to the Judicial Council as an Information-Only items.

Action Requested: Review and approve draft for submission to the Judicial Council as an Information-Only item. Presenters: Mr. Jagan Singh, Principal Manager, Facilities Services

Action Item 7 – (Action Required) – Reallocation of Funds

Summary: Review and approve reallocation of $1,000,000 from FMs Less than $100K Allocation to Priority 1 FM Allocation, and $750,000 from Unplanned FMs over $100K Allocation to Priority 1 FM Allocation.

Action Requested: Approve reallocation of $1,000,000 from FMs Less than $100K Allocation to Priority 1 FM Allocation and reallocation of $750,000 from Unplanned FMs over $100K Allocation to Priority 1 FM Allocation.

Presenters: Mr. Jagan Singh, Principal Manager, Facilities Services



Action Item 8 – (Action Required) – FY 20-21 Budget Change Proposal (BCP) Initial Funding Requests (IFRs)

Summary: Review, prioritize and approve the two FY 20-21 BCP IFRs for submittal in May to the Judicial Branch Budget Committee.

Action Requested: Review, prioritize and approve the FY 2020-21 Budget Change Proposal Initial Funding Requests

Presenters: Ms. Mimi Morris, Principal Manager, Facilities Services

Action Item 9 – (Action Required) – DMF Funding Cost Increase

Summary: Review and approve total cost increase of $1,247,895 for two DMF-1 projects.

Action Requested: Review and approve cost increase of $1,247,895 for two DMF-1 projects from the Judicial Council FM budget share.

Presenters: Mr. Jagan Singh, Principal Manager, Facilities Services

I I I . D I S C U S S I O N I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 3 ) ( N O A C T I O N R E Q U I R E D )

Discussion Item 1 – Court Facilities Trust Fund (CFTF) Fund Status

Summary: Update on the status of the Court Facilities Trust Fund.

Presenter: Mr. Jason Haas, Senior Budget Analyst, Budget Services

Discussion Item 2 – List E – Approved Court-Funded Requests (CFRs) Summary: Review and discuss CFR projects approved by the Facilities Services Deputy Director since the last meeting. 32 CFRs were approved during this period.

Presenter: Ms. Pella McCormick, Deputy Director, Facilities Services

Discussion Item 3 – List F – Funded Facility Modifications on Hold Summary: Standard list of previously funded FMs on hold.


I V . I N F O R M A T I O N O N L Y I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 4 ) ( N O A C T I O N R E Q U I R E D )

Information Item 1 – DMF-I Project List Update

Summary: Update on the DMF-I projects.

Information Item 2 – DMF-II Project List Update

Summary: Update on the DMF-II projects.

Information Item 3 – Architectural Revolving Fund Projects Update



Summary: ARF projects update.

Information Item 4 – Facility Modification Budget Reconciliation Report

Summary: FM Budget Reconciliation Projects Update.

V . A D J O U R N M E N T

Adjourn to Closed Session

V I . C L O S E D S E S S I O N ( C A L . R U L E S O F C O U R T , R U L E 1 0 . 7 5 ( d) ) ( A C T I O N I T E M S 1 – 1 )

Call to Order

Approval of Minutes Approve closed session minutes of the December 3, 2018, Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee meeting.

Closed Action Item 1 – Security-Related – Facility Modifications Less than $100K (Closed List B)

Facility Modification Security Projects (Action Required) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 10.75(d)(5) Security plans or procedures or other matters that if discussed in public would compromise the safety of the public or of judicial branch officers or personnel or the security of judicial branch facilities or equipment, including electronic data.

Summary: Review security-related facility modifications less than $100K from Closed List B.

Action Requested: Staff recommends 3 security-related projects for a total of $31,726 to be paid from Facility Modification Program Budget.

Presenters: Mr. Jagan Singh, Principal Manager, Facility Services Mr. Ed Ellestad, Security Operations Supervisor, Facility Services

V I I . C L O S E D I N F O R M A T I O N O N L Y I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 1 ) ( N O A C T I O N R E Q U I R E D )

Closed Information Item 1 – Director’s Update

Summary: Update from the director.

Adjourn Closed Session



V I I I . N O N - P U B L I C S E S S I O N I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 1 ) ( N O T S U B J E C T T O R U L E 1 0 . 7 5 : O N A G E N D A A T D I S C R E T I O N O F T H E C H A I R ) ( N O A C T I O N R E Q U I R E D )

Non-Public Item 1 – Secondary operational expenses incurred during facility modification projects Summary: Information regarding responsibilities for secondary operational expenses incurred during facility modification projects.

Presenter: Mr. Michael Giden, Principal Managing Attorney, Legal Services

Adjourn Non-Public Session


T R I A L C O U R T F A C I L I T Y M O D I F I C A T I O N A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E

M I N U T E S O F O P E N S E S S I O N O F M E E T I N G March 08, 2019

12:00 PM - 1:30 PM Judicial Council of California – Teleconference

Advisory Body Members Present:

Hon. Donald Cole Byrd, Chair Hon. William F. Highberger, Vice-Chair Hon. Jennifer K. Rockwell Hon. Vanessa W. Vallarta Hon. James Stoelker Mr. W. Samuel Hamrick Jr. Ms. Linda Romero Soles Mr. Darrel E. Parker Mr. Jarrod Orr

Advisory Body Members Absent:

Hon. Brad R. Hill Hon. Patricia M. Lucas

Staff Present: The following Judicial Council staff were present: Mr. Mike Courtney, Director, Facilities Services Ms. Pella McCormick, Deputy Director, Facilities Services Mr. Jagan Singh, Principal Manager, Facilities Services Mr. Jim Peterson, Principal Manager, Facilities Services Ms. Maria Atayde-Scholz, Manager, Facilities Services Mr. Andre Navarro, Manager, Facilities Services Ms. Karen Baker, Manager, Facilities Services Ms. Nanci Connelly, Supervisor, Facilities Services Mr. Paul Fitzgerald, Supervisor, Facilities Services Ms. Donna Jorgensen, Supervisor, Facilities Services Mr. Glenn Mantoani, Supervisor, Facilities Services Mr. Randy Swan, Supervisor, Facilities Services Mr. Paul Terry, Supervisor, Facilities Services Mr. Patrick Treanor, Supervisor, Facilities Services Mr. Ed Ellestad, Supervisor, Facilities Services Mr. Charles Martel, Supervising Attorney, Legal Services Ms. Alice Sung, Supervisor, Facilities Services Ms. Kate Albertus, Facilities Analyst, Facilities Services Ms. Sadie Varela, Administrative Specialist, Facilities Services

Others Present: Mr. Brian Taylor, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of CA, County of Solano Ms. Birgitta Corsello, County of Solano Mr. Mark Hummel, County of Solano Ms. Megan Greve, County of Solano Mr. James Bezek, County of Solano Mr. James Kremko, County of Solano

www.courts.ca.gov/tcfmac.htm [email protected]

http://www.courts.ca.gov/tcfmac.htm

mailto:[email protected]

M e e t i n g M i n u t e s │ M a r c h 8 , 2 0 1 9


O P E N S E S S I O N O F M E E T I N G

Call to Order, Opening Remarks, and Roll Call The chair called the open session of the meeting to order at 12:00 PM, roll was taken, and opening remarks were made.

Approval of Minutes The advisory committee voted to approve the open session minutes of its meeting held on January 28, 2019. (Motion: Romero-Soles; Second: Highberger)

P U B L I C W R I T T E N C O M M E N T S

No public comments were received.

O P E N S E S S I O N - A C T I O N I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 6 )

Action Item 1 – List A – Emergency Facility Modification Funding (Priority 1) Summary: Ratify emergency facility modifications from List A. Action: Reviewed and approved 35 projects for a total of $2,092,717 to be paid from Facility Modification program funds previously encumbered. (Motion: Vallarta; Second: Highberger)

Action Item 2 – List B – Facility Modifications Less than $100K (Priority 2) Summary: Ratify facility modifications less than $100K from List B. Action: Reviewed and approved 52 projects for a total of $605,873 to be paid from Facility Modification program funds previously encumbered. (Motion: Romero-Soles; Second: Orr)

Action Item 3 – List C – Cost Increases Over $50K Summary: Ratify facility modifications requiring cost increases over $50K from List C. Action: Reviewed and approved 5 projects for a total cost increase to the Facility Modifications Program budget of $430,229. (Motion: Vallarta; Second: Highberger)

Action Item 4 – List D – Facility Modifications Over $100K Summary: Review recommended facility modifications over $100K from List D and P3 projects. Action: Reviewed and approved 1 facility modification project for a total cost to the Facility Modification Program Budget of $101,469. (Motion: Stoelker; Second: Orr)

Action Item 5 – Facilities Funding Responsibilities between Judicial Council and Superior Courts Summary: Facilities Funding Responsibility document will be submitted for public comment and Court feedback.

M e e t i n g M i n u t e s │ M a r c h 8 , 2 0 1 9


Action: Reviewed and approved the Facilities Funding Responsibilities report and authorized staff to submit the report for public comment and Court feedback. (Motion: Vallarta; Second: Highberger)

Action Item 6 – Solano Hall of Justice Flood Protection Project Summary: Review Solano Hall of Justice Flood Protection Project. Action: This action item is deferred until the August 26, 2019 TCFMAC meeting to determine where the County is on the design issue. (Motion: Highberger; Second: Hamrick)

O P E N S E S S I O N - D I S C U S S I O N I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 2 ) ( N O A C T I O N R E Q U I R E D )

Discussion Item 1 – List E – Approved Court-Funded Requests (CFRs) Summary: Review and discuss CFR projects approved by the Facilities Services Deputy Director since the last meeting. Five CFRs were approved during this period.

Discussion Item 2 – List F – Funded Facility Modifications on Hold Summary: Standard list of previously funded FMs on hold.

O P E N S E S S I O N – I N F O R M A T I O N - O N L Y I T E M S ( I T E M S 1 – 3 ) ( N O A C T I O N R E Q U I R E D )

Information Item 1 – DMF-I Project List Update Summary: Update on the DMF-I projects.

Information Item 2 – DMF-II Project List Update Summary: Update on the DMF-II projects.

Information Item 3 – Facility Modification Budget Reconciliation Report Summary: FM Budget Reconciliation Projects Update.

A D J O U R N M E N T T O C L O S E D S E S S I O N A N D A D J O U R N M E N T

There being no further open session business, the open session of the meeting was adjourned at 1:19 PM, and the advisory committee moved to the closed session of the meeting. The closed session of the meeting—which was closed to the public for discussion of security-related items (per Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 10.75(d))—was adjourned at 1:30 PM. Approved by the advisory body on _____________________

Meeting Date: 04/08/2019

Action Item 1 – (Action Required) - List A – Emergency Facility Modification Funding (Priority 1) Summary: Ratify emergency facility modifications for List A.

Supporting Documentation: • List A – Emergency Facility Modification Funding Report (Priority 1)

Action Requested: Staff recommends 14 projects for a total of $261,755 to be paid from Facility Modification program funds previously encumbered (Priority 1). ***** Priority 1 = Immediately or Potentially Critical. Condition requires immediate action to return a facility to normal operations, or a condition that will become immediately critical if not corrected expeditiously. Such conditions necessitate the need to stop accelerated deterioration or damage, to correct a safety hazard that imminently threatens loss of life or serious injury to the public or court employees, or to remediate intermittent function and service interruptions as well as potential safety hazards. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: major flooding; substantial damage to roofs or other structural building components; or hazardous material exposure. Depending on scope and impact, a severe deterioration in life safety protection may also be considered a priority 1 condition requiring a facility modification. Owing to their critical nature, priority 1 requests will be addressed immediately by JCC staff using internal procedures that ensure timely and effective responses to unplanned emergency or potentially critical conditions, including a method and a process for setting aside funds to address priority 1 conditions.

Total Project Count: 14 Total Potential FM Budget Share of Cost: $261,755

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

E

mer

genc

y an

d Pr

iorit

y 1

(Lis

t A)

2/7/

2019

to 3

/11/

2019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

5/20

19 a

t 4:0

8 PM

1 of

2

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET SHARE OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE

JOB STATUS

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET % of COST

1FM

-006

3480

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Cou

rtho

use

19-A

U1

1Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n / F

ire P

anel

pro

gram

is o

bsol

ete

and

mus

t be

re-w

ritte

n/re

-pro

gram

ed fo

r pro

per

wor

king

ope

ratio

ns, a

nd re

plac

e da

mag

ed c

ircui

t boa

rd. F

ire P

anel

pro

gram

is n

ot re

cogn

izing

trou

ble

calls

to d

iagn

ose

and

iden

tify

prob

lem

s whi

ch c

reat

es a

fire

, life

, saf

ety

issue

for t

he b

uild

ing

and

occu

pant

s. (C

orre

ctio

n N

otic

ed re

ceiv

ed b

y Fi

re M

arsh

all r

ecei

ved)

.

20,5

00$

20,5

00$

In W

ork

100

2FM

-006

3526

San

Bern

ardi

noSa

n Be

rnar

dino

Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

36-R

11

Grou

nds a

nd p

arki

ng lo

t-Re

plac

e (3

) cus

tom

size

d fe

nce

pane

ls in

the

secu

red

park

ing

area

. Pan

els

wer

e da

mag

ed w

hen

high

win

ds c

ause

d a

tree

bra

nch

to fa

ll on

to th

e fe

nce

pane

ls. E

mer

genc

y ca

ll to

in

stal

l tem

pora

ry fe

ncin

g fo

r sec

urity

reas

ons,

then

fabr

icat

e, in

stal

l, an

d pa

int t

o m

atch

thre

e ne

w

pane

ls.

14,3

91$

14,3

91$

Com

plet

e10

0

3FM

-006

3534

Ora

nge

Civi

l Com

plex

Ce

nter

("CX

C")

30-A

31

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Disin

fect

, cle

an a

nd d

ry a

ppro

xim

atel

y 33

0 sq

. ft.

of c

arpe

t, re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ab

out 5

0 lin

er ft

. of c

ove

base

and

retu

rn ro

om to

nor

mal

stat

e. A

clo

gged

jury

room

toile

t in

CX10

4,

over

flow

ed o

vern

ight

and

kep

t run

ning

unt

il di

scov

ered

in th

e m

orni

ng c

ausin

g flo

odin

g to

the

Jury

Ro

om, a

nd a

djac

ent a

reas

.

5,38

0$

5,

380

$

In W

ork

100

4FM

-006

3567

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on

Cour

thou

se19

-AG1

1Ro

of -

Repl

aced

(12)

cei

ling

tiles

, ere

cted

(1) 6

x6x1

1h c

onta

inm

ent,

cond

ucte

d en

viro

nmen

tal

test

ing/

repo

rts,

and

all

rem

edia

tion

wor

k pe

rfor

med

in a

kno

wn

ACM

env

ironm

ent.

Rain

wat

er

leak

ed in

to th

e 12

th fl

oor D

ept.

Q a

nd d

rippe

d in

to th

e ju

ry b

ox. W

ater

affe

cted

(4) j

ury

chai

rs a

nd

the

floor

.

11,3

15$

7,48

3$

Co

mpl

ete

66.1

3

5FM

-006

3582

Mer

ced

Mai

n M

erce

d Co

urth

ouse

24-A

81

HVAC

- Re

plac

e fa

iled

burn

er a

ssem

bly

on H

ot W

ater

Boi

ler -

Onl

y un

it se

rvin

g th

is bu

ildin

g an

d is

curr

ently

unr

elia

ble.

48,8

87$

48,8

87$

In W

ork

100

6FM

-006

3585

Los A

ngel

esN

orw

alk

Cour

thou

se19

-AK1

1In

terio

r fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e (1

) 1' x

1' c

eilin

g til

e fe

ll. E

rect

ed (1

) con

tain

men

t 6'x

6'x

7', i

n th

e se

cure

ha

llway

. Wor

k co

mpl

eted

in k

now

n AC

M e

nviro

nmen

t. Ce

iling

tile

fell

due

age

(orig

inal

to b

uild

, 19

65).

8,84

6$

7,

522

$

In W

ork

85.0

3

7FM

-006

3586

Los A

ngel

esN

orw

alk

Cour

thou

se19

-AK1

1El

ectr

ical

-Rep

lace

two

(2) e

mer

genc

y ba

ck-u

p ge

nera

tor b

atte

ries.

Cle

anup

of b

atte

ry a

cid

and

fire

extin

guish

ing

mat

eria

l inc

lude

d, a

long

with

rech

arge

of f

ire e

xtin

guish

er. B

atte

ries e

xplo

ded

and

leak

ed in

gen

erat

or ro

om.

3,72

5$

3,

167

$

In W

ork

85.0

3

8FM

-006

3594

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on

Cour

thou

se19

-AG1

1Pl

umbi

ng -

Clea

red

175-

ft o

f sew

age

mai

n dr

ain

line

to c

lear

stop

page

cau

sing

wat

er to

bac

k up

, re

plac

ed 1

0 Lf

of 1

-inch

cop

per p

ipe,

(1) 1

-inch

val

ve, (

1) 1

-inch

90,

and

(1) 1

-inch

cou

plin

g. E

rect

ed

(3) c

onta

inm

ents

in th

ree

affe

cted

are

as, c

ondu

cted

env

ironm

enta

l tes

ting

and

clea

ranc

es. A

ll w

ork

perf

orm

ed in

a k

now

n AC

M e

nviro

nmen

t. Cl

ogge

d to

ilet i

n 6t

h flo

or lo

ck u

p, 2

50-g

allo

ns o

f wat

er

trav

eled

dow

n to

mul

tiple

are

as (i

ssue

cau

sed

by in

mat

e).

59,8

77$

39,5

97$

Com

plet

e66

.13

9FM

-006

3601

Los A

ngel

esM

etro

polit

an

Cour

thou

se19

-T1

1In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

ed 6

4 sq

. ft.

of c

arpe

t, (2

) 1x1

cei

ling

tiles

, ere

cted

(1) 7

x5x1

4h c

onta

inm

ent,

cond

ucte

d en

viro

nmen

tal t

estin

g, a

nd p

erfo

rmed

all

wor

k in

a k

now

n AC

M e

nviro

nmen

t. A

1x1

ceili

ng ti

le h

as fa

llen

to th

e flo

or fr

om 1

4' h

igh

ceili

ng o

n th

e 1s

t flo

or, n

ear t

he fr

ont e

ntra

nce

due

to

vibr

atio

ns.

8,38

7$

7,

929

$

Com

plet

e94

.54

10FM

-006

3602

Los A

ngel

esM

etro

polit

an

Cour

thou

se19

-T1

1Ex

terio

r She

ll - R

epla

ced

(4) 1

x1 c

eilin

g til

es, (

1) sq

. ft.

carp

et, e

rect

ed (1

) 6x6

x11h

con

tain

men

t, co

nduc

ted

envi

ronm

enta

l tes

ting

and

perf

orm

ed a

ll w

ork

in a

kno

wn

ACM

env

ironm

ent.

8th

floor

no

rth

side

room

801

cei

ling

is le

akin

g ov

er e

mpl

oyee

's de

sk d

ue to

roof

leak

.

10,3

49$

9,78

4$

Co

mpl

ete

94.5

4

11FM

-006

3605

Alam

eda

Frem

ont H

all o

f Ju

stic

e01

-H1

1Va

ndal

ism -

In-c

usto

dy c

ause

d flo

od b

y pu

ttin

g hi

s shi

rt d

own

the

toile

t and

flus

hing

- Re

med

iatio

n of

co

urtr

oom

606

and

DA'

s Offi

ce b

elow

on

the

1st f

loor

. 21

,075

$

21

,075

$

In

Wor

k10

0

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

E

mer

genc

y an

d Pr

iorit

y 1

(Lis

t A)

2/7/

2019

to 3

/11/

2019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

5/20

19 a

t 4:0

8 PM

2 of

2

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST


JOB STATUS


12FM

-006

3606

Los A

ngel

esCh

atsw

orth

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

Y11

HVAC

- Re

plac

e (1

) BAS

con

trol

ler f

or th

e re

frig

eran

t lea

k de

tect

ion

and

re-p

rogr

am th

e BA

S.

Cont

rolle

r sho

rted

out

pre

vent

ing

the

chill

ers t

o op

erat

e pr

oper

ly n

ot c

oolin

g th

e bu

ildin

g.14

,065

$

11

,786

$

In

Wor

k83

.8

13FM

-006

3608

Los A

ngel

esAl

ham

bra

Cour

thou

se19

-I11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e 2

LF o

f 3" c

ast i

ron

pipe

s, o

ne (1

)3" n

inet

y, a

nd fo

ur (4

) 3" h

ub c

oupl

ings

. Pa

per

tow

els w

ere

stuf

fed

into

two

(2) s

inks

and

toile

t with

wat

er ru

nnin

g in

2nd

floo

r wom

en's

publ

ic

rest

room

, cau

sing

flood

ing.

Dur

ing

rem

edia

tion,

a c

rack

in th

e dr

ain

pipe

was

also

disc

over

ed.

Cont

ainm

ents

, rem

edia

tion,

and

env

ironm

enta

l ove

rsig

ht a

re in

clud

ed.

44,9

86$

38,6

88$

In W

ork

86.0

0

14FM

-006

3619

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on

Cour

thou

se19

-AG1

1Pl

umbi

ng/ R

epla

ced

(1) f

lush

val

ve, (

1) v

acuu

m b

reak

er, (

1) fl

ush

met

er, a

nd (1

) stu

d in

9th

floo

r loc

k up

pip

e ch

ase.

Ere

cted

(1) 1

3x13

x10h

con

tain

men

t, an

d co

nduc

ted

envi

ronm

enta

l tes

ting.

Wat

er

leak

ed fr

om c

rack

ed c

once

aled

flus

h va

lve

at to

ilet.

Area

of i

mpa

ct, 9

th fl

oor l

ock

up p

ipe

chas

e do

wn

to D

epar

tmen

t 802

on

8th

floor

.

38,6

61$

25,5

67$

Com

plet

e66

.13

310,

444

$

261,

755

$

Meeting Date: 04/08/2019 Action Item 2 – List B – Facility Modifications Less than $100K (Priority 2) Summary: Ratify facility modifications less than $100K from List B. Supporting Documentation:

• List B – Facility Modifications Less than $100K (Priority 2) Action Requested: Staff recommended 41 projects for a total of $268,982 to be paid from Facility Modification Program funds previously encumbered for Priority 2. ***** Priority 2—Necessary, but Not Yet Critical. Condition requires correction to preclude deterioration, potential loss of function or service, or associated damage or higher costs if correction is further deferred.


Draf

tTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

F

Ms L

ess T

han

$100

K (L

ist B

)02

/07/

19 to

03/

11/2

019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

7/20

19 a

t 11:

10 A

M1

of 5

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST


JOB STATUS


1FM

-006

1979

Mer

ced

Robe

rt M

. Fal

asco

Just

ice

Cent

er24

-G1

2Ex

terio

r She

ll - W

indo

ws n

eed

to b

e tin

ted

for s

ecur

ity re

ason

s.

459

$

45

9$

Com

plet

e10

0

2FM

-006

2711

San

Luis

Obi

spo

Cour

thou

se A

nnex

40-A

12

COU

NTY

MAN

AGED

- El

ectr

ical

/Lig

htin

g - R

epla

ce fa

iled

light

fixt

ure

lam

ps

and

balla

sts a

t the

stai

rwel

l. A

man

lift

is re

quire

d to

reac

h th

ird fl

oor

ceili

ng.

6,96

4$

6,

964

$

In W

ork

100

3FM

-006

2782

Los A

ngel

esVa

n N

uys C

ourt

hous

e W

est

19-A

X22

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

sixt

y (6

0) sp

rinkl

ers,

six

(6) g

auge

s, a

nd o

ne (1

) es

cutc

heon

. Th

ese

item

s fai

led

the

annu

al F

ire P

rote

ctio

n in

spec

tion

unde

r PM

274

6877

.

15,1

51$

12,1

94$

In W

ork

80.4

8

4FM

-006

3056

Los A

ngel

esEa

st L

os A

ngel

es

Cour

thou

se19

-V1

2El

evat

ors,

Esc

alat

ors,

& H

oist

s - R

epla

ce (1

) set

of h

oist

mot

or se

als f

or

publ

ic e

leva

tor #

3. S

eals

are

leak

ing

grea

se d

ue to

age

& w

ear/

tear

. Thi

s is

affe

ctin

g el

evat

or o

pera

tion,

cur

rent

ly o

ut o

f ser

vice

. Exi

stin

g El

evat

or

mot

or m

ust b

e re

mov

ed &

re-in

stal

led

to e

nact

seal

repl

acem

ent.

24,8

85$

19,3

41$

In W

ork

77.7

2

5FM

-006

3285

Los A

ngel

esEl

Mon

te C

ourt

hous

e19

-O1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e m

issin

g st

ucco

hol

es in

mul

tiple

Jani

toria

l clo

set

wal

ls an

d ba

sem

ent b

oile

r mec

hani

cal r

oom

due

to C

ount

y re

pair

wor

k in

th

e pa

st a

nd re

ceiv

ed b

uild

ing

cond

ition

as i

s. S

tate

Fire

Mar

shal

l co

rrec

tion

notic

e no

ted

pene

trat

ions

nee

ding

to b

e co

rrec

ted

to c

ompl

y w

ith fi

re-r

esist

ed ra

tings

. CFC

sect

ion

703.

1.

13,7

99$

8,02

0$

In

Wor

k58

.12

6FM

-006

3300

Los A

ngel

esAl

ham

bra

Cour

thou

se19

-I12

HVAC

-Rep

lace

min

i-spl

it HV

AC sy

stem

in b

asem

ent M

CR ro

om. E

xist

ing

syst

em in

leak

ing

at th

e ev

apor

ator

coi

ls an

d is

inac

cess

ible

. Ex

istin

g ev

apor

ator

will

hav

e re

frig

eran

t eva

cuat

ed a

nd w

ill b

e ab

ando

ned

in p

lace

.

20,1

80$

17,3

55$

In W

ork

86

7FM

-006

3460

San

Dieg

oN

orth

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Ce

nter

- N

orth

37-F

22

Inte

rior f

inish

es-R

epla

ce o

ne (1

) pai

r of h

ollo

w m

etal

doo

rs a

nd h

inge

s on

east

em

erge

ncy

exit

door

, and

re-u

se e

xist

ing

hard

war

e. T

he d

oor d

oes n

ot

seal

or s

ecur

e pr

oper

ly a

fter i

t was

dam

aged

by

a pe

rson

that

was

det

aine

d af

ter t

rial w

ho th

en a

ttem

pted

to ru

n an

d ex

it th

e bu

ildin

g. J

CC o

btai

ning

ca

se #

for r

estit

utio

n fo

r dam

ages

cau

sed

by d

etai

nee.

4,15

8$

4,

158

$

In W

ork

100

8FM

-006

3499

Hum

bold

tHu

mbo

ldt C

ount

y Co

urth

ouse

(Eur

eka)

12-A

12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Test

for A

CM a

nd L

ead

- due

to m

ultip

le e

vent

s, te

st

area

s for

ACM

and

Lea

d in

pre

para

tion

for r

emed

iatio

n of

wat

er le

ak

dam

age.

Tes

t She

etro

ck w

alls,

cei

ling

tiles

, car

pet a

dhes

ive.

45

ACM

sa

mpl

es a

nd 1

5 Le

ad sa

mpl

es.

6,04

9$

6,

049

$

In W

ork

100

Draf

tTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

F

Ms L

ess T

han

$100

K (L

ist B

)02

/07/

19 to

03/

11/2

019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

7/20

19 a

t 11:

10 A

M2

of 5

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST


JOB STATUS


9FM

-006

3541

Los A

ngel

esCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge F

oltz

Cr

imin

al Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-L

12

Elev

ator

s, E

scal

ator

s, &

Hoi

sts -

Rep

lace

non

-func

tioni

ng (1

) Arm

or/G

E 48

HP

gea

rless

hoi

st m

otor

, bru

sh h

olde

r ass

embl

y, in

stal

l new

bru

shes

and

cl

ean

the

arm

atur

e. E

leva

tor 1

2 in

not

func

tioni

ng a

nd is

use

d fo

r the

Sh

eriff

's to

tran

spor

t inm

ates

to d

iffer

ent f

loor

s whi

ch is

impa

ctin

g ot

her

elev

ator

s.

17,1

39$

11,7

90$

In W

ork

68.7

9

10FM

-006

3566

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on C

ourt

hous

e19

-AG1

2Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n - R

epla

ce tw

o (2

) 2 1

/2" w

ater

flow

switc

hes,

nin

e (9

) sp

rinkl

er h

eads

, and

one

(1) g

roov

ed c

oupl

ing.

Sw

itche

s fai

led

and

sprin

kler

he

ads a

nd c

oupl

ing

are

corr

oded

. Rep

lace

men

t req

uire

d to

mai

ntai

n co

mpl

ianc

e.

1,20

0$

79

4$

Com

plet

e66

.13

11FM

-006

3569

Sant

a Cl

ara

New

San

ta C

lara

Fam

ily

Just

ice

Cent

er43

-B5

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

(1) f

aile

d A/

C co

mpr

esso

r at M

DF ro

om; A

ir co

nditi

onin

g un

it no

t fun

ctio

ning

; Cou

rt im

pact

ed b

y lo

ss o

f crit

ical

coo

ling

for I

T op

erat

ions

.

18,2

50$

18,2

50$

In W

ork

100

12FM

-006

3575

Rive

rsid

eLa

rson

Just

ice

Cent

er33

-C1

2Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n - R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e fa

iled

WO

N D

oor c

ontr

ol b

ox a

nd

mot

or c

ircui

t boa

rd o

f the

3rd

floo

r pub

lic e

leva

tors

fire

cur

tain

. Fire

cur

tain

is

rand

omly

dep

loyi

ng c

reat

ing

an u

npre

dict

able

safe

ty h

azar

d fo

r cu

stom

ers a

nd c

ourt

staf

f. Th

e m

anuf

actu

rers

tech

nici

an h

as a

sses

sed

and

atte

mpt

ed to

repa

ir th

e un

it, h

owev

er p

arts

are

obs

olet

e ne

cess

itatin

g th

e re

plac

emen

t of t

he b

ox a

nd b

oard

.

9,65

0$

9,

399

$

In W

ork

97.3

9

13FM

-006

3576

Mon

tere

ySa

linas

Cou

rtho

use-

Nor

th

Win

g27

-A1

2Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n - R

epai

r def

icie

ncie

s not

ed o

n 5-

yr C

ount

y fir

e de

part

men

t in

spec

tion

- Rep

lace

(6) o

utda

ted

gaug

es -

Repl

ace

corr

oded

dro

p-do

wn

piec

e ab

ove

T-ba

r nex

t to

riser

- M

ater

ial:

2-0

of 1

" pip

e an

d 1"

90

- Rep

lace

(2

) pai

nted

200

* Q

R U

prig

ht lo

cate

d at

stai

r 2 g

oing

up

to ro

of -

Repl

ace

(1)

miss

ing

conc

eale

d he

ad, w

hite

trim

- Re

plac

e (1

) cor

rode

d dr

op in

307

- M

ater

ial:

0-4

1" N

ippl

e w

ith a

djus

tabl

e ni

pple

- Re

plac

e (2

) con

ceal

ed

plat

es -

(1) e

ach

in m

en's

and

wom

en's

rest

room

- Re

plac

e (1

) cor

rode

d sp

rinkl

er h

ead

loca

ted

in #

252

- Mat

eria

l: Br

ass 1

55*

QR

Pend

ent -

Rep

lace

(2

) Cau

lked

con

ceal

ed p

late

s in

hallw

ay o

utsid

e #2

39 -

Repl

ace

(3)

conc

eale

d pl

ates

loca

ted

in c

omm

on re

stro

om b

y 21

3 - (

1) in

side,

(1)

outs

ide

and

(1) i

n w

omen

's re

stro

om.

10,8

47$

10,8

47$

In W

ork

100

14FM

-006

3579

Los A

ngel

esPo

mon

a Co

urth

ouse

Nor

th19

-W2

2HV

AC-R

epai

r air

cond

ition

ing

coils

for A

HUs t

hat a

re n

ot c

urre

ntly

pro

vidi

ng

suffi

cien

t coo

ling

to th

e bu

ildin

g. S

ervi

ce P

rovi

der t

o re

pair

coils

and

ch

ange

out

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y fil

ters

to re

turn

uni

ts to

pro

per f

unct

ion.

9,56

5$

9,

207

$

Com

plet

e96

.25

Draf

tTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

F

Ms L

ess T

han

$100

K (L

ist B

)02

/07/

19 to

03/

11/2

019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

7/20

19 a

t 11:

10 A

M3

of 5

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST


JOB STATUS


15FM

-006

3583

Cont

ra C

osta

Bray

Cou

rts

07-A

32

HVAC

- Re

plac

e on

e 10

hp V

FD D

rive

to A

CU05

that

feed

s the

1st

Flo

or -

Fan

mot

or c

ontr

ols a

re b

y-pa

ssed

and

runn

ing

at fu

ll sp

eed

and

with

out

repl

acem

ent o

f the

VFD

it w

ill n

egat

ivel

y im

pact

ope

ratio

nal e

ffici

ency

.

5,32

3$

4,

553

$

In W

ork

85.5

2

16FM

-006

3584

San

Bern

ardi

noSa

n Be

rnar

dino

Just

ice

Cent

er36

-R1

2In

terio

r fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e on

e (1

) doo

r clo

ser a

nd o

ne (1

) piv

ot se

t for

doo

r in

dep

artm

ent S

2. D

oor c

lose

r fai

led

and

isn't

func

tioni

ng.

4,

678

$

4,67

8$

In

Wor

k10

0

17FM

-006

3587

Los A

ngel

esBe

llflo

wer

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

L12

Vand

alism

- Ex

terio

r she

ll-Re

plac

e on

e (1

) pai

r of 6

'0" x

6' 5

1/2

" doo

rs, (

3)

hing

es a

nd (1

) loc

k. R

epla

ce 5

Sq.

Ft.

of d

amag

ed c

hain

link

fenc

ing.

Em

erge

ncy

Gene

rato

r doo

rs a

nd fe

nce

wer

e da

mag

ed b

y va

ndal

s.

6,59

8$

5,

143

$

In W

ork

77.9

4

18FM

-006

3589

Los A

ngel

esEa

st L

os A

ngel

es

Cour

thou

se19

-V1

2HV

AC-R

epla

ce (1

) 5 to

n sp

lit H

VAC

cond

ensin

g un

it th

at se

rves

IT

equi

pmen

t. E

xist

ing

unit

com

pres

sor f

aile

d an

d it

is to

o ho

t equ

ipm

ent

room

and

cou

ld c

ause

I.T.

syst

ems t

o fa

il

11,1

87$

8,69

5$

In

Wor

k77

.72

19FM

-006

3591

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Cou

rtho

use

19-A

U1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e (1

0) d

amag

ed/b

roke

n hi

nges

& b

all h

inge

s of

swin

g do

ors i

n co

urtr

oom

s loc

ated

on

the

7th,

8th

, & 9

th fl

oors

to p

reve

nt

inju

ry to

cou

rt p

erso

nnel

and

visi

tors

.

9,77

5$

7,

544

$

In W

ork

77.1

7

20FM

-006

3592

Sola

noO

ld S

olan

o Co

urth

ouse

48-A

32

Grou

nds a

nd P

arki

ng L

ot -

Trim

(9) n

ine

Palm

Tre

es a

t app

roxi

mat

ely

50'

heig

ht re

quiri

ng u

se o

f buc

ket t

ruck

; Saf

e of

f wor

k ar

ea a

nd d

irect

traf

fic a

s ne

eded

; Cle

an u

p al

l deb

ris a

nd re

mov

e fr

om si

te. N

eede

d to

miti

gate

fa

lling

deb

ris sa

fety

haz

ard

to p

ublic

11,1

71$

11,1

71$

In W

ork

100

21FM

-006

3595

Los A

ngel

esCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge F

oltz

Cr

imin

al Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-L

12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Repl

ace

brok

en e

xter

ior w

indo

w (2

7.5"

x 5

8.5"

) to

the

8th

floor

Roo

m M

8-10

1, re

mov

e pi

geon

fece

s/w

aste

, and

disi

nfec

t the

30

'x40

' are

a ro

om d

ue to

pig

eons

ent

erin

g th

roug

h th

e br

oken

win

dow

.

9,80

6$

6,

746

$

In W

ork

68.7

9

22FM

-006

3596

Fres

noRe

edle

y Co

urt

10-F

12

Plum

bing

- In

stal

l new

40-

gallo

n na

tura

l gas

dom

estic

wat

er h

eate

r to

repl

ace

exi

stin

g fa

iled

one

- Exi

stin

g w

ater

hea

ter h

as fa

iled

and

is be

yond

re

pair.

1,44

7$

1,

131

$

In W

ork

78.1

3

23FM

-006

3597

San

Dieg

oTr

aile

r - F

amily

Sup

port

37-F

72

Exte

rior s

hell

- Rep

lace

240

SF

of d

eck

sidin

g pa

nels

and

30 L

F of

fram

ing

boar

ds o

n ou

tsid

e de

ck. P

anel

s and

fram

ing

are

dam

aged

by

woo

drot

due

to

ext

erio

r ele

men

t exp

osur

e an

d ca

use

a sa

fety

issu

e.

9,46

1$

9,

461

$

In W

ork

100

24FM

-006

3600

Rive

rsid

eRi

vers

ide

Juve

nile

Cou

rt33

-N1

2Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

Lot

- Re

med

iate

8ft

x 13

ft se

ctio

n (1

04sq

. ft)

of

asph

alt d

irect

ly in

fron

t of t

he e

ntra

nce

to th

e co

urth

ouse

in th

e fir

e la

ne. A

la

rge,

dee

p po

thol

e ha

s dev

elop

ed c

reat

ing

a sa

fety

haz

ard

to th

ose

ente

ring

from

the

park

ing

lot a

nd e

mer

genc

y ve

hicl

es.

3,14

6$

1,

553

$

In W

ork

49.3

4

Draf

tTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

F

Ms L

ess T

han

$100

K (L

ist B

)02

/07/

19 to

03/

11/2

019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

7/20

19 a

t 11:

10 A

M4

of 5

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST


JOB STATUS


25FM

-006

3603

Los A

ngel

esCh

atsw

orth

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

Y12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e (1

) ign

ition

mod

ule,

tim

e de

lay

rela

y, a

nd (2

) pre

ssur

e sw

itche

s for

boi

ler #

1. B

oile

r is n

on o

pera

tiona

l and

affe

ctin

g co

mfo

rt

heat

ing.

4,80

5$

4,

027

$

In W

ork

83.8

26FM

-006

3604

Cont

ra C

osta

Wal

nut C

reek

Cou

rtho

use

07-C

12

Vand

alism

- Ex

terio

r She

ll - R

epla

ce 1

2 LF

of p

atio

fenc

e (2

pan

els)

that

was

da

mag

ed w

hen

som

eone

ran

into

it a

nd fl

ed th

e sc

ene

(Rep

ort f

iled

with

W

alnu

t Cre

ek P

D; R

epor

t #19

-166

7).

3,35

1$

3,

351

$

In W

ork

100

27FM

-006

3607

Los A

ngel

esSt

anle

y M

osk

Cour

thou

se19

-K1

2El

evat

ors,

Esc

alat

ors,

& H

oist

s - R

epla

ce fa

iled

circ

uit b

oard

in E

leva

tor #

3 th

at is

cau

sing

elev

ator

ligh

ts to

flas

h an

d st

op fu

nctio

ning

.14

,105

$

13

,719

$

In

Wor

k97

.26

28FM

-006

3609

San

Bern

ardi

noFo

ntan

a Co

urth

ouse

36-C

12

Exte

rior s

hell-

Repl

ace

two

(2) l

ocks

on

roll

up d

oor f

or w

alk

up w

indo

ws.

Lo

cks w

ere

no lo

nger

func

tiona

l.

2,

895

$

2,89

5$

In

Wor

k10

0

29FM

-006

3610

San

Dieg

oN

orth

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Ce

nter

- N

orth

37-F

22

HVAC

-Rep

lace

two

(2) b

elts

and

one

(1) s

heav

e fo

r air

hand

ler i

n ba

sem

ent.

Ai

r han

dler

was

mak

ing

a lo

ud n

oise

, and

it w

as d

iscov

ered

the

belts

and

sh

eave

wer

e w

orn.

207

$

20

7$

Com

plet

e10

0

30FM

-006

3613

Los A

ngel

esM

icha

el D

. Ant

onov

ich

Ante

lope

Val

ley

Cour

thou

se

19-A

Z12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e (1

) blo

wer

mix

er c

ontr

olle

r for

Boi

ler #

3. B

low

er m

ixer

has

fa

iled

durin

g PM

SW

O 2

8314

63, w

hich

cou

ld c

ause

the

boile

r to

over

heat

an

d w

arp

the

burn

er.

crea

te a

bad

fuel

mix

ture

that

cou

ld d

amag

e th

e bu

rner

, and

mak

e de

posit

s bui

ld u

p.

2,62

2$

1,

928

$

In W

ork

73.5

1

31FM

-006

3617

Los A

ngel

esM

icha

el D

. Ant

onov

ich

Ante

lope

Val

ley

Cour

thou

se

19-A

Z12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e (1

) flo

w sw

itch

on C

hille

r #1.

Fai

led

flow

switc

h is

caus

ing

chill

er to

lock

out a

nd n

ot st

art.

3,05

1$

2,

243

$

In W

ork

73.5

1

32FM

-006

3618

Cont

ra C

osta

Fam

ily L

aw C

ente

r07

-A14

2Ex

terio

r She

ll - R

emov

e tw

o (2

) 3'X

10' g

lass

doo

rs fr

om b

uild

ing

and

repl

ace

faile

d in

tern

al h

ardw

are

on e

ntra

nce

door

and

repl

ace

faile

d fr

ame

hard

war

e on

the

exit

door

. Fa

ilure

to re

pair

door

s cre

ates

a d

isrup

tion

to

the

cour

ts b

y lim

iting

the

acce

ss in

and

out

of t

he b

uild

ing.

2,66

9$

2,

669

$

In W

ork

100

33FM

-006

3622

Mer

ced

Mai

n M

erce

d Co

urth

ouse

24-A

82

HVAC

- Re

plac

e tw

o fa

n m

otor

s tha

t hav

e go

ne o

ut o

n ci

rcui

t num

ber o

ne

PKU

01. C

heck

and

repa

ir co

ntro

ls. T

he tw

o m

otor

s and

uni

t is n

ot w

orki

ng

corr

ectly

.

4,90

2$

4,

902

$

In W

ork

100

34FM

-006

3626

Fres

noFr

esno

Cou

nty

Cour

thou

se10

-A1

2Va

ndal

ism -

Repl

ace

brok

en g

lass

in Ju

ry A

ssem

bly

Room

ent

ranc

e do

or

and

repl

ace

with

one

46"

x 1

02" 1

/4 G

ray

tem

pere

d pa

nel i

nsta

lled

into

ex

istin

g fr

ame

with

impa

ct fi

lm a

pplie

d to

gla

ss -

Glas

s was

bro

ken

due

to

vand

alism

.

2,19

1$

2,

102

$

In W

ork

95.9

1

Draf

tTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

F

Ms L

ess T

han

$100

K (L

ist B

)02

/07/

19 to

03/

11/2

019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

7/20

19 a

t 11:

10 A

M5

of 5

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST


JOB STATUS


35FM

-006

3629

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Cou

rtho

use

19-A

U1

2HV

AC -

Isol

ate

hot w

ater

val

ves,

dra

in h

ot w

ater

, cle

an fl

ange

s, re

plac

e ne

w

gask

ets a

nd b

olt k

its, a

nd re

-insu

late

7" h

ot w

ater

supp

ly li

ne to

the

boile

r du

e to

wat

er le

akin

g on

the

grou

nd w

hich

cou

ld c

ause

a la

rger

leak

cre

atin

g fu

rthe

r dam

age

to th

e HV

AC.

5,42

8$

4,

189

$

In W

ork

77.1

7

36FM

-006

3630

Los A

ngel

esM

icha

el D

. Ant

onov

ich

Ante

lope

Val

ley

Cour

thou

se

19-A

Z12

Inte

rior F

inish

- Re

plac

e (1

) ele

ctrif

ied

Brin

ks C

ell L

ock

for t

he e

ntra

nce

door

to

the

Atto

rney

's In

terv

iew

Roo

m. T

he lo

ck to

the

Atto

rney

's In

terv

iew

ro

om in

the

hold

ing

area

has

faile

d du

e to

a b

roke

n ke

y st

uck

insid

e th

e cy

linde

r.

2,60

5$

2,

605

$

In W

ork

100

37FM

-006

3631

San

Mat

eoN

orth

ern

Bran

ch

Cour

thou

se41

-C1

2Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n –

Corr

ect f

aile

d do

or re

leas

e/dr

op d

evic

e (1

); re

plac

e m

issin

g el

ectr

ical

con

duit

and

cont

rol w

iring

– L

ocal

Fire

Mar

shal

l re

quire

men

ts fo

r cer

tific

atio

n of

exi

stin

g fir

e cu

rtai

ns (3

) at r

ecen

tly re

-oc

cupi

ed a

rea

of fa

cilit

y.

4,89

6$

4,

075

$

In W

ork

83.2

1

38FM

-006

3634

Los A

ngel

esGl

enda

le C

ourt

hous

e19

-H1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e da

mag

ed (1

) 3'x

7' h

ollo

w m

etal

fire

rate

d do

or

(90

min

ute

rate

d), (

3) n

ew b

all b

earin

g hi

nges

, (1)

new

Sch

lage

cyl

indr

ical

lo

ck a

nd (1

) new

Nor

ton

surf

ace

mou

nted

clo

ser (

non-

hold

ope

n). D

oor w

as

note

d as

a d

efic

ienc

y on

Sta

te F

ire M

arsh

all (

SFM

) ins

pect

ion

repo

rt

(loca

ted

in N

&D)

.

2,48

6$

2,

251

$

In W

ork

90.5

4

39FM

-006

3635

Los A

ngel

esN

orw

alk

Cour

thou

se19

-AK1

2Va

ndal

ism-R

epla

ce th

ree

(3) 1

/4 in

gre

y gl

ass i

n al

umin

um st

oref

ront

gla

ss -

two

(2) d

oors

and

one

(1) f

ixed

gla

ss -

70 S

F to

tal.

Gang

-rel

ated

gra

ffiti

etch

ed in

to g

lass

.

4,49

5$

3,

823

$

In W

ork

85.0

3

40FM

-006

3636

Los A

ngel

esBe

llflo

wer

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

L12

HVAC

-Reb

uild

chi

lled

wat

er p

ump

#3, r

epla

ce (1

) im

pelle

r and

(2) c

oupl

ings

. Pu

mp

is le

akin

g w

ater

on

deck

cau

sing

pum

p #1

to o

verh

eat.

5,67

8$

4,

426

$

In W

ork

77.9

4

41FM

-006

3640

Sant

a Cl

ara

Hall

of Ju

stic

e (E

ast)

43-A

12

HVAC

- Co

rrec

t fai

led

chill

er; r

ecov

er re

frig

eran

t; re

plac

e (2

) fai

led

EXV

chill

er v

alve

s at m

odul

ar c

ompr

esso

r 2; i

nsta

ll (1

) filt

er/d

ryer

; pul

l vac

uum

; re

char

ge re

frig

eran

t; co

nfirm

ope

ratio

n - C

hille

r com

pres

sor c

ircui

t fai

led,

ca

usin

g lo

ss o

f coo

ling

capa

city

for f

acili

ty, d

ue to

age

of c

ompo

nent

s.

14,0

68$

14,0

68$

In W

ork

100

311,

342

$

26

8,98

2$


Action Item 3 – (Action Required) - List C – Cost Increases Over $50K

Summary: Ratify facility modifications requiring cost increases over $50K from List C.

Supporting Documentation: • List C – Cost Increases Over $50K Report

Action Requested: Staff recommends 6 projects for a total cost increase to the Facility Modification Program budget of $1,742,993.

Total Project Count: 6 Total Potential FM Budget Share of Cost: $1,742,993

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

In

crea

ses O

ver $

50K

- FM

s (Li

st C

)06

/01/

2005

to 0

3/11

/19

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 a

t 12:

48 P

M1

of

2

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

FM NUMBER

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET SHARE OF TCFMAC FUNDED COST

CURRENT COST ESITMATE

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET SHARE OF CURRENT COST ESTIMATE

NOTES

TOTAL COST INCREASE

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM COST INCREASE

JOB STATUS

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET % OF COST

1Im

peria

lIm

peria

l Co

unty

Co

urth

ouse

13-A

1FM

-004

9657

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

eigh

t (8)

air

hand

ling

units

, the

rmos

tats

, and

co

ntro

l val

ves.

Rep

lace

thirt

y (3

0)

fan

coil

units

, the

rmos

tats

, and

co

ntro

l val

ves.

Int

egra

te B

AS.

Maj

ority

of m

echa

nica

l equ

ipm

ent

is ol

d, h

as le

akag

e an

d w

iring

iss

ues,

and

is n

ot c

ontr

olle

d pr

oper

ly.

Due

to p

oor c

ontr

ol

syst

em a

nd in

effic

ient

equ

ipm

ent,

the

cost

s ass

ocia

ted

with

thei

r op

erat

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

are

hi

gh w

hen

the

cost

s are

com

pare

d to

oth

er c

ourt

hous

e pr

oper

ties.

1,56

4,20

0$

1,

564,

200

$

2,91

4,20

0$

2,

914,

200

$

Addi

tiona

l cos

t is d

ue to

Cod

e ch

ange

, add

ition

al sc

ope

in p

lan

revi

ew. I

ncre

ase

also

incl

udes

ab

atem

ent w

ork

and

curr

ent

mar

ket e

scal

atio

n in

con

stru

ctio

n co

sts.

1,35

0,00

0$

1,35

0,00

0$

In

Wor

k10

0

2Lo

s An

gele

sAl

ham

bra

Cour

thou

se19

-I1FM

-006

2201

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

chill

er c

ompr

esso

r. Du

ring

a re

cent

serv

ice

call

to th

e ab

ove

liste

d fa

cilit

y to

det

erm

ine

why

the

Carr

ier,

mod

el: 2

3XL

scre

w

chill

er #

1, w

hen

oper

atin

g, w

as

runn

ing

loud

er th

an u

sual

, vib

ratio

n an

alys

is w

as p

erfo

rmed

on

the

com

pres

sor a

nd F

ull r

epla

cem

ent i

s re

com

men

ded.

260,

711

$

22

4,21

1$

312,

673

$

26

8,89

9$

Addi

tiona

l cos

t add

ed b

ecau

se o

f Co

unty

insp

ectio

ns a

nd fi

eld

requ

irem

ents

.

51,9

62$

44,6

87$

In

Wor

k86

.0

3Lo

s An

gele

sCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge

Foltz

Cr

imin

al

Just

ice

Cent

er

19-L

1FM

-006

0573

3En

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rtio

r and

ext

erio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

179

28

Fixt

ures

).

976,

386

$

67

1,65

6$

1,04

9,09

7$

72

1,67

4$

Orig

inal

scop

e w

as fo

r a si

mpl

e la

mp

repl

acem

ent p

roje

ct. O

nce

wor

k st

arte

d, so

me

of th

e fix

ture

s ne

eded

repl

acem

ent b

ecau

se o

f in

com

patib

ilitie

s req

uirin

g ac

tual

re-

wiri

ng w

ork

that

add

s add

ition

al

labo

r cos

ts. A

dditi

onal

ly, t

he

Calif

orni

a Co

nser

vatio

n Co

rps (

CCC)

ha

d m

ore

cost

s for

trav

el th

an

orig

inal

ly th

ough

t. Th

e or

igin

al

payb

ack

on th

e pr

ojec

t was

1.8

7 ye

ars a

nd th

e re

vise

d pa

ybac

k is

2.93

yea

rs.

72,7

12$

50,0

18$

In

Wor

k68

.79

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

In

crea

ses O

ver $

50K

- FM

s (Li

st C

)06

/01/

2005

to 0

3/11

/19

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 a

t 12:

48 P

M2

of

2

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

FM NUMBER

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST


CURRENT COST ESITMATE

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET SHARE OF CURRENT COST ESTIMATE

NOTES

TOTAL COST INCREASE

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM COST INCREASE

JOB STATUS

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET % OF COST

4Lo

s An

gele

sPo

mon

a Co

urth

ouse

So

uth

19-W

1FM

-006

0529

3En

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

inst

alla

tion

of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-

lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it.

166,

041

$

15

1,33

0$

250,

871

$

22

8,64

4$

Orig

inal

scop

e w

as fo

r a si

mpl

e la

mp

repl

acem

ent p

roje

ct. O

nce

wor

k st

arte

d, so

me

of th

e fix

ture

s ne

eded

repl

acem

ent b

ecau

se o

f in

com

patib

ilitie

s req

uirin

g ac

tual

re-

wiri

ng w

ork

that

add

s add

ition

al

labo

r cos

ts. A

dditi

onal

ly, t

he C

CC

had

mor

e co

sts f

or tr

avel

than

or

igin

ally

thou

ght.

The

orig

inal

pa

ybac

k on

the

proj

ect w

as 1

.91

year

s and

the

revi

sed

payb

ack

is 3.

17 y

ears

.

84,8

29$

77,3

14$

In

Wor

k91

.14

5Lo

s An

gele

sAi

rpor

t Co

urth

ouse

19

-AU

1FM

-006

0525

3En

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

inst

alla

tion

of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-

lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it.

262,

195

$

20

2,33

6$

376,

273

$

29

0,37

0$

Orig

inal

scop

e w

as fo

r a si

mpl

e la

mp

repl

acem

ent p

roje

ct. O

nce

wor

k st

arte

d, so

me

of th

e fix

ture

s ne

eded

repl

acem

ent b

ecau

se o

f in

com

patib

ilitie

s req

uirin

g ac

tual

re-

wiri

ng w

ork

that

add

s add

ition

al

labo

r cos

ts. A

dditi

onal

ly, t

he C

CC

had

mor

e co

sts f

or tr

avel

than

or

igin

ally

thou

ght.

The

orig

inal

pa

ybac

k on

the

proj

ect w

as 2

.16

year

s and

the

revi

sed

payb

ack

is 4.

02 y

ears

.

114,

078

$

88,0

34$

In

Wor

k77

.17

6Sa

nta

Clar

aDo

wnt

own

Supe

rior

Cour

t

43-B

1FM

-006

0527

3En

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

inst

alla

tion

of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-

lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it.

140,

847

$

14

0,84

7$

273,

786

$

27

3,78

6$

Orig

inal

scop

e w

as fo

r a si

mpl

e la

mp

repl

acem

ent p

roje

ct. O

nce

wor

k st

arte

d, so

me

of th

e fix

ture

s ne

eded

repl

acem

ent b

ecau

se o

f in

com

patib

ilitie

s req

uirin

g ac

tual

re-

wiri

ng w

ork

that

add

s add

ition

al

labo

r cos

ts. A

dditi

onal

ly, t

he C

CC

had

mor

e co

sts f

or tr

avel

than

or

igin

ally

thou

ght.

The

orig

inal

pa

ybac

k on

the

proj

ect w

as 2

.7

year

s and

the

revi

sed

payb

ack

is 5.

24 y

ears

.

132,

939

$

132,

939

$

In

Wor

k10

0

1,80

6,18

0$

1,

390,

380

$

2,26

2,70

0$

1,

783,

373

$

1,80

6,52

1$

1,74

2,99

3$


Action Item 4 – (Action Required) - List D – Facility Modifications Over $100K

Summary: Review recommended facility modifications over $100K from List D and P3 projects.

Supporting Documentation: • List D – Facility Modifications Over $100K Report

Action Requested: Staff recommends approving 2 project for a total cost to the Facility Modification Program budget of $345,000.

***** Priority 2—Necessary, but Not Yet Critical. Condition requires correction to preclude deterioration, potential loss of function or service, or associated damage or higher costs if correction is further deferred.Priority 3—Needed. Condition to be addressed will reduce long-term maintenance or repair costs or will improve the functionality, usability, and accessibility of a court. The condition is not hindering the most basic functions of a facility, but its correction will support improved court operations.


DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

FM

s Gre

ater

Tha

n $1

00K

(Lis

t D)

6/1/

200 5

to 3

/11/

2019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/1

9

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DUCT

- La

st U

pdat

ed 3

/29/

2019

at 2

:38

PM1

of 4

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE


CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM SHARE OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE

TOTAL SCORE RANK

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM % OF COST

1FM

-006

3627

Rive

rsid

eHa

ll of

Just

ice

33-A

32

Elev

ator

Con

trol

s - U

pdat

e el

evat

or c

ontr

ols t

o fix

the

exist

ing

faile

d sy

stem

. Cur

rent

ele

vato

rs

are

runn

ing

on a

bac

kup

syst

em th

at is

old

and

can

cra

sh a

t any

tim

e.16

5,00

0$

16

5,00

0$

165,

000

$

50

10

0.00

2FM

-006

2086

M

ader

aM

ain

Cour

thou

se20

-F1

2Ex

terio

r - R

emed

iatio

n w

ork

to m

itiga

te w

ater

intr

usio

n at

low

er le

vel o

f mai

n el

ectr

ical

room

, tu

nnel

of t

he sa

lly p

ort,

and

low

er le

vel o

f par

king

gar

age.

Sco

pe o

f wor

k to

incl

ude,

but

not

lim

ited

to in

stal

latio

n of

fren

ch d

rain

at s

ally

por

t, ha

rdsc

ape

in la

ndsc

ape

area

s to

min

imize

pe

rcol

atio

n in

filtr

atio

n at

surf

ace

leve

l, an

d in

stal

l sum

ps if

nec

essa

ry a

t ext

erio

r per

re

com

men

datio

n of

geo

tech

nica

l eng

inee

ring

inve

stig

atio

n da

ted

Febr

uary

14,

201

9.

180,

000

$

180,

000

$

34

5,00

0$

64

100.

00

3FM

-005

6863

Sant

a Cr

uzM

ain

Cour

thou

se44

-A1

3HV

AC -I

nsta

ll Pe

rimet

er H

VAC

to in

clud

e; A

HU U

nit,

roof

cur

b, c

oncr

ete

repa

irs, d

uctw

ork,

VAV

bo

xes d

iffus

er a

nd re

turn

gril

les,

new

fron

t end

loca

l PC,

pai

nt d

uct w

ork,

tie

in lo

cal c

ontr

olle

rs

to B

AS, i

nsta

ll VF

Ds. I

nsta

ll ch

illed

wat

er p

ipin

g, a

nd n

ew re

heat

ing

hot w

ater

pip

ing

to re

heat

VA

V bo

xes.

Incl

udes

, tes

ting,

des

ign,

dra

win

gs, a

nd p

erm

its a

nd b

oost

er p

ump

if ne

eded

.-No

dire

ct H

VAC

in sp

ace,

ble

ed o

ver c

ondi

tioni

ng in

adeq

uate

.

160,

700

$

159,

270

$

50

4,27

0$

47

99.1

1

4FM

-005

6761

Vent

ura

Hall

of Ju

stic

e56

-A1

3In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

upho

lster

Aud

ienc

e Se

atin

g as

nee

ded

in 2

8 Co

urtr

oom

s - R

euph

olst

ery

of

appr

ox. 1

,205

aud

ienc

e se

ats f

rom

a to

tal o

f 1,6

26 in

this

build

ing.

Dam

age

incl

udes

torn

fabr

ic,

expo

sed

fram

ewor

k, e

tc.

191,

970

$

191,

970

$

69

6,24

0$

50

100.

00

5FM

-005

2844

Vent

ura

Juve

nile

Co

urth

ouse

56-F

13

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

COU

NTY

MAN

AGED

-Rep

lace

All

Inte

rior D

oor H

ardw

are

Faili

ng o

n 5

sets

of

Bldg

Mai

n Do

ors w

ith V

on D

uprin

Acc

ess a

nd C

ontr

ols-

Low

Qua

lity/

Faili

ng -

Coun

ty M

anag

ed.

70,9

37$

70,9

37$

767,

177

$

70

10

0.00

6FM

-003

5186

Ora

nge

Nor

th Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

30-C

13

HVAC

- Re

frig

eran

t Mon

itorin

g Sy

stem

- In

stal

l new

refr

iger

ant m

onito

ring

syst

ems a

t tw

o (2

) ch

iller

mec

hani

cal r

oom

loca

tions

to c

ompl

y w

ith c

urre

nt c

ode.

In th

e ev

ent o

f a re

frig

eran

t re

leas

e, w

hich

disp

lace

s oxy

gen

and

coul

d le

ad to

suffo

catio

n, th

e sy

stem

will

ale

rt p

erso

nnel

w

ith st

robe

ligh

ts a

nd si

rens

. Mon

itorin

g sy

stem

will

be

tied

into

aut

omat

ion

syst

em.

Asse

ssm

ent c

ompl

eted

by

serv

ice

prov

ider

, Jan

uary

201

6.

55,0

00$

49,6

71$

816,

847

$

70

90

.31

7FM

-005

9239

Los A

ngel

esM

etro

polit

an

Cour

thou

se19

-T1

3HV

AC -

Inst

all a

CO

syst

em th

at w

ill a

llow

the

exha

ust f

ans a

nd su

pply

fans

to o

pera

te o

nly

whe

n re

quire

d. T

his w

ill re

duce

equ

ipm

ent o

pera

tion

time.

The

par

king

exh

aust

fan

and

supp

ly

fan

syst

em is

con

tinuo

usly

ope

ratin

g 24

/7 c

ausin

g un

nece

ssar

y w

ear a

nd te

ar o

n th

e eq

uipm

ent.

168,

906

$

159,

684

$

97

6,53

1$

70

94.5

4

8FM

-006

0302

Los A

ngel

esPa

sade

na

Cour

thou

se19

-J13

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e tw

o hu

ndre

d six

ty (2

60) a

ngle

stop

s, on

e hu

ndre

d fif

ty (1

50) t

oile

t sc

rew

driv

er st

ops,

one

hund

red

(100

) urin

al sc

rew

driv

er st

ops,

five

(5) 3

" gat

e va

lves

, one

(1) 4

" ga

te v

alve

, and

one

(1) 3

" bal

l val

ve. E

xist

ing

stop

s are

cor

rode

d an

d do

not

pro

perly

shut

off

wat

er.

88,2

64$

61,2

11$

1,03

7,74

3$

70

69

.35

9FM

-005

9349

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Co

urth

ouse

19-A

U1

3In

terio

r Fin

ish -

Rem

ove

and

Repl

ace

2,00

0 Sq

uare

Fee

t of E

poxy

Flo

orin

g in

the

hold

ing

area

in

the

base

men

t. Th

e flo

or e

poxy

has

faile

d an

d br

oken

pie

ces c

an b

e us

ed a

s a w

eapo

n. In

ad

ditio

n, it

has

cau

sed

a he

alth

and

safe

ty is

sue.

145,

444

$

112,

239

$

1,

149,

981

$

75

77.1

7

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

FM

s Gre

ater

Tha

n $1

00K

(Lis

t D)

6/1/

200 5

to 3

/11/

2019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/1

9

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DUCT

- La

st U

pdat

ed 3

/29/

2019

at 2

:38

PM2

of 4

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE




TOTAL SCORE RANK


10FM

-005

8706

Los A

ngel

esCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge F

oltz

Cr

imin

al Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-L

13

Elec

tric

al -

Repl

ace

(775

) 3' &

4' f

luor

esce

nt tu

bes w

ith T

8 16

w L

ED tu

bes a

nd (1

02) b

alla

sts w

ith

new

ele

ctro

nic

balla

sts;

inst

all n

ew A

stro

nom

ical

tim

e cl

ock

cont

rol.

Mul

tiple

exi

stin

g flu

ores

cent

ligh

ts a

re b

urne

d ou

t cre

atin

g a

safe

ty /

secu

rity

haza

rd fo

r the

cou

rt.

73,9

86$

50,8

95$

1,20

0,87

7$

75

68

.79

11FM

-005

7578

Alam

eda

Frem

ont H

all o

f Ju

stic

e01

-H1

3Gr

ound

s and

par

king

lot -

Sea

l cra

cks,

slurr

y se

al -1

6,00

0 sq

. ft.

and

re-s

trip

e pa

rkin

g slo

ts.

19,9

08$

19,9

08$

1,22

0,78

4$

77

10

0.00

12FM

-006

0108

Los A

ngel

esSa

nta

Mon

ica

Cour

thou

se19

-AP1

3El

ectr

ical

- Al

l exi

stin

g re

stro

om o

utle

ts a

re n

ot G

FCI P

rote

cted

and

do

not c

ompl

y w

ith th

e co

de. T

he is

sue

is po

sing

a sa

fety

haz

ard

on a

ll cu

stom

er a

nd c

ourt

per

sonn

el u

sing

the

rest

room

. Rem

oved

all

exist

ing

outle

t ins

ide

the

rest

room

and

repl

ace

the

sam

e w

ith S

ixty

(60)

GF

CI p

rote

cted

out

let.

8,38

8$

6,

584

$

1,22

7,36

8$

80

78

.49

13FM

-005

6760

San

Dieg

oJu

veni

le C

ourt

37-E

13

Grou

nds a

nd P

arki

ng L

ot -

Cour

t em

ploy

ee p

arki

ng lo

t is d

eter

iora

ted

and

seve

rely

cra

cked

. Se

vera

l are

as p

rese

nt sa

fety

/trip

/liab

ility

haz

ards

. Due

to d

eter

iora

tion

it is

reco

mm

ende

d to

co

ld m

ill a

ppro

xim

atel

y 1,

100

SF d

own

to th

e su

b gr

ade

(4" d

epth

) in

(2) a

reas

to c

orre

ct

pave

men

t fai

lure

. The

rem

aini

ng 1

4,40

0 SF

will

be

cold

mill

ed d

own

to 1

1/2

" to

prov

ide

a le

vel

base

for t

he n

ew su

rfac

e co

urse

of a

spha

lt; a

pply

prim

e co

at, w

ater

proo

fing

and

tack

coa

t to

14,4

00 S

F. F

inish

pav

e 15

,550

SF.

70,8

50$

70,8

50$

1,29

8,21

8$

85

10

0.00

14FM

-005

9901

Los A

ngel

esCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge F

oltz

Cr

imin

al Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-L

13

Elec

tric

al -I

nsta

ll fo

rty-

four

(44)

tim

ers t

hrou

ghou

t all

floor

s for

ligh

ting.

Lig

hts a

re c

urre

ntly

on

24 h

ours

a d

ay e

very

day

. Tu

rnin

g th

e ap

prox

imat

ely

3,00

0 lig

ht fi

xtur

es o

ff 5

hour

s eac

h ni

ght

and

on w

eeke

nds w

ould

save

abo

ut $

9,00

0 pe

r mon

th.

99,9

15$

68,7

32$

1,36

6,95

0$

85

68

.79

15FM

-005

7407

Los A

ngel

esM

etro

polit

an

Cour

thou

se19

-T1

3HV

AC -

Clea

n ap

prox

imat

ely

100

linea

r fee

t of d

uctw

ork

to k

eep

debr

is fr

om fl

ying

out

of v

ents

. W

hen

adju

stin

g th

erm

osta

t, de

bris

fell

out o

f ven

t ont

o th

e Ad

min

istra

tor's

des

k th

ree

day

in a

ro

w.

3,75

5$

3,

755

$

1,37

0,70

5$

86

10

0.00

16FM

-005

5147

Los A

ngel

esPa

rkin

g St

ruct

ure

Lot

94 A

irpor

t Co

urth

ouse

19-A

U2

3Ex

terio

r She

ll - R

esto

re st

airw

ays (

15,0

0 sq

. ft.

of su

rfac

e ar

ea).

Stai

rway

s are

bad

ly ru

sted

and

ne

ed to

be

rest

ored

, rus

t sta

rtin

g to

eat

thro

ugh

met

al fr

ame

caus

ing

dam

age

to th

e m

etal

s in

tegr

ity.

137,

756

$

106,

307

$

1,

477,

011

$

90

77.1

7

17FM

-005

7042

San

Mat

eoHa

ll of

Just

ice

41-A

13

COU

NTY

MAN

AGED

- Pl

umbi

ng -

**W

ater

Con

serv

atio

n Pr

ojec

t**

- Rep

lace

all

dom

estic

wat

er

fixtu

res w

/new

wat

er sa

ving

fixt

ures

; Ins

tall

sub

met

ers (

2) a

t Wat

er C

oolin

g To

wer

s.15

6,22

8$

82

,332

$

1,

559,

344

$

90

52.7

0

18FM

-005

7139

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on

Cour

thou

se19

-AG1

3In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- G

rind

and

sand

exi

stin

g pa

inte

d w

alls,

ben

ches

, and

cei

ling

of (5

4) c

ells,

ap

prox

imat

ely

42,0

00 S

F, re

pain

t cel

l wal

ls, b

ench

es, d

oors

, cei

ling

and

secu

rity

scre

ens.

Hold

ing

cell

pain

t has

bec

omes

hea

vily

dam

aged

from

in c

usto

dies

and

is b

egin

ning

to p

eel

pres

entin

g a

heal

th a

nd sa

fety

issu

e.

180,

000

$

180,

000

$

1,

739,

344

$

92

100.

00

19FM

-005

3551

Sola

noSo

lano

Just

ice

Build

ing

48-B

13

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

EART

HQU

AKE

- Rem

edia

te a

ll cr

acks

and

aes

thet

ic d

amag

e cr

eate

d by

ea

rthq

uake

thro

ugho

ut b

uild

ing

in se

cure

d ha

llway

s, co

urtr

oom

s 101

-104

, and

jury

cou

rtya

rd

scaf

fold

ing

is re

quire

d. E

poxy

inje

ctio

n at

con

cret

e w

all,

35 li

n ft

. and

app

rox.

650

sq. f

t of

dryw

all a

nd st

ucco

repa

irs.

19,4

76$

19,4

76$

1,75

8,81

9$

94

10

0.00

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

FM

s Gre

ater

Tha

n $1

00K

(Lis

t D)

6/1/

200 5

to 3

/11/

2019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/1

9

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DUCT

- La

st U

pdat

ed 3

/29/

2019

at 2

:38

PM3

of 4

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE




TOTAL SCORE RANK


20FM

-005

3393

Los A

ngel

esS.

Bay

M

unic

ipal

Tr

affic

Cou

rt

Trai

ler

19-C

43

Roof

- O

verla

y ex

istin

g ro

of w

ith n

ew P

VC ro

of sy

stem

app

roxi

mat

ely

4,00

0 sq

. ft.

Due

to ro

of

syst

em c

urre

ntly

bei

ng in

poo

r to

fair

cond

ition

, rem

aini

ng se

rvic

e lif

e is

less

than

5 y

ears

. O

verla

y of

exi

stin

g ro

of sy

stem

will

brin

g th

e bu

ildin

g to

goo

d co

nditi

on.

79,4

07$

67,6

07$

1,82

6,42

6$

95

85

.14

21FM

-005

8793

Los A

ngel

esSa

nta

Mon

ica

Cour

t Ann

ex19

-AP3

3In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Co

urtr

oom

doo

rs a

re w

orn

and

show

ing

signs

of d

eter

iora

tion.

Res

tore

3 se

ts

of c

ourt

room

doo

rs fi

nish

es.

3,01

5$

3,

015

$

1,82

9,44

1$

95

10

0.00

22FM

-005

7708

Ora

nge

Cent

ral J

ustic

e Ce

nter

30-A

13

Elev

ator

s, Es

cala

tors

, & H

oist

s - F

urni

sh a

nd in

stal

l 11

new

LCD

mon

itors

with

key

boar

ds,

mou

se, U

SB in

tern

et, E

mul

ator

Esp

rit 3

00TC

E w

ith p

ower

ada

ptor

, new

cab

les P

A/RS

with

MRS

ad

apto

rs a

nd fu

rnish

new

ele

ctric

al w

iring

dia

gram

s for

eac

h el

evat

or sh

owin

g ch

ange

s. M

onito

rs to

repl

ace

old

and

obso

lete

CRT

mon

itors

and

oth

er c

ompo

nent

s tha

t mak

e th

em

func

tion

with

the

elev

ator

con

trol

lers

.

41,9

91$

38,2

83$

1,86

7,72

4$

99

91

.17

23FM

-005

3444

Cont

ra

Cost

aBr

ay C

ourt

s07

-A3

3In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Ea

rthq

uake

Res

tora

tion

of c

rack

s and

aes

thet

ic d

amag

es to

app

rox.

710

0 sq

. ft

of t

he in

terio

r bui

ldin

g.45

,359

$

38

,791

$

1,

906,

515

$

10

0 85

.52

24FM

-005

7706

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Co

urth

ouse

19-A

U1

3Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n - i

nsta

ll 41

mag

netic

doo

r hol

ders

, 7 P

ower

supp

lies a

nd re

lays

, pro

gram

min

g in

to th

e Fi

re P

anel

, sug

gest

ed p

er L

ACFD

Fire

Mar

shal

insp

ectio

n on

10/

15/1

5.81

,474

$

62

,874

$

1,

969,

389

$

10

0 77

.17

25FM

-006

0276

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r37

-I13

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Inst

all 9

5.94

sq. y

ds. o

f car

pet t

ile a

nd 1

20 L

F of

4in

cov

e ba

se in

the

grou

nd

room

old

IT R

oom

. Cou

rt re

ques

ted

to re

plac

e th

e ol

d w

orn

stai

ned

carp

et sq

uare

s on

the

raise

d flo

or ti

les.

7,82

0$

7,

820

$

1,97

7,20

9$

100

100.

00

26FM

-005

3443

Cont

ra

Cost

aW

akef

ield

Ta

ylor

Co

urth

ouse

07-A

23

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Patc

h an

d pa

int d

amag

ed 1

1,09

4 sq

. ft o

f wal

l and

bas

eboa

rd su

rfac

es;

caul

k/ep

oxy

200

lin. F

t. of

gra

nite

- Ea

rthq

uake

Res

tora

tion.

195,

880

$

195,

880

$

2,

173,

090

$

10

1 10

0.00

27FM

-005

6759

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Co

urth

ouse

19-A

U1

3El

evat

ors,

Esca

lato

rs, &

Hoi

sts -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

lam

inat

e on

doo

rs o

f Ele

vato

r #1

on fl

oors

1,

6, 7

, and

8, E

leva

tor #

2 o

n flo

ors 1

, 5, 8

and

9, E

leva

tor #

3 on

floo

rs 3

, 6, 7

, 8 a

nd 9

and

El

evat

or #

4 on

floo

rs 1

, 2, 5

, and

8. E

leva

tors

1-4

hav

e se

vera

l doo

rway

s on

diffe

rent

floo

rs

dela

min

atin

g. T

his i

s a sa

fety

haz

ard

as it

s pos

sible

for c

loth

ing

to b

e ca

ught

in th

e do

or c

ausin

g bo

dily

har

m o

r the

doo

r ski

ns fa

lling

off

and

strik

ing

pass

enge

rs o

utsid

e th

e el

evat

ors.

209,

737

$

161,

854

$

2,

334,

944

$

10

3 77

.17

28FM

-004

6835

Los A

ngel

esGl

enda

le

Cour

thou

se19

-H1

3Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

Lot

- Re

mov

e 60

,000

Ft X

2" D

epth

of a

spha

lt (C

old-

mil)

. Pow

er c

lean

re

mai

ning

asp

halt

Appl

y 2"

X 6

0,00

0 Ft

. of n

ew a

spha

lt in

clud

es ro

lling

/com

pact

ing

to a

smoo

th

finish

. Res

trip

e m

arke

d pa

rkin

g st

alls,

incl

udes

han

dica

p st

alls,

sign

s, di

rect

iona

l ste

ncils

. Re

loca

te w

heel

stop

s. Al

l wor

k ac

tiviti

es to

be

perf

orm

ed w

ithin

Fed

eral

, Sta

te re

gula

tory

gu

idel

ines

. Wor

k to

be

com

plet

ed d

urin

g af

terh

ours

and

wee

kend

s not

to im

pact

cou

rt

oper

atio

ns. P

arki

ng lo

t gro

unds

are

dam

aged

.

368,

563

$

333,

697

$

2,

668,

640

$

11

0 90

.54

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

FM

s Gre

ater

Tha

n $1

00K

(Lis

t D)

6/1/

200 5

to 3

/11/

2019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/1

9

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DUCT

- La

st U

pdat

ed 3

/29/

2019

at 2

:38

PM4

of 4

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE




TOTAL SCORE RANK


29FM

-006

0048

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r37

-I13

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Repl

ace

dam

aged

win

dow

tint

ing

on th

e 4t

h, 3

rd, 2

nd &

1st

Flo

ors.

1st F

loor

4

win

dow

pan

es -

inst

all 1

17 sq

. ft.;

2nd

Flo

or 1

6 w

indo

w p

anes

- in

stal

l 560

sq. f

t.; 3

rd F

loor

18

win

dow

pan

es in

stal

l 564

sq. f

t.; 4

th F

loor

12

win

dow

pan

es -

inst

all 3

98 sq

. ft.;

Sec

urity

Ent

ry -

8 w

indo

w p

anes

- in

stal

l 173

sq. f

t; Ex

it Do

ors -

8 w

indo

w p

anes

- in

stal

l 55

sq. f

t. A

dark

er ti

nt

to b

e in

stal

led

in fr

ont o

f She

riff S

cree

ning

are

a. W

indo

w ti

ntin

g ha

s bee

n da

mag

ed/v

anda

lized

by

the

publ

ic.

11,6

29$

7,87

4$

2,

676,

514

$

11

0 67

.71

30FM

-005

4723

Los A

ngel

esCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge F

oltz

Cr

imin

al Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-L

13

Elec

tric

al -

Inst

all A

utom

atic

A-B

Tra

nsfe

r Sw

itch

from

Gen

erat

or #

1 to

bac

k-up

Gen

erat

or #

2 fo

r em

erge

ncy

pow

er b

acku

p so

that

whe

n Ge

nera

tor #

1 fa

ils, G

ener

ator

#2

will

aut

omat

ical

ly

star

t.

58,4

68$

40,2

20$

2,71

6,73

5$

120

68.7

9

31FM

-005

7115

Men

doci

noCo

unty

Co

urth

ouse

23-A

13

Roof

- Cu

t in

five

(5) 1

8" x

18"

fire

rate

d ce

iling

hat

ches

to o

btai

n vi

sibili

ty to

roof

dra

ins f

rom

w

ithin

the

build

ing

in A

CM E

nviro

nmen

t.16

,528

$

11

,064

$

2,

727,

798

$

12

0 66

.94

32FM

-005

7469

Los A

ngel

esSa

nta

Mon

ica

Cour

thou

se19

-AP1

3Gr

ound

s - L

ands

capi

ng /

Curr

ent s

hrub

s and

turf

in th

e fr

ont a

nd re

ar o

f the

cou

rtho

use

cons

ume

mor

e w

ater

to m

aint

ain

and

do n

ot h

elp

the

curr

ent d

roug

ht p

robl

em o

f the

stat

e.

Rem

ove

all e

xist

ing

shru

bs a

nd tu

rf. P

rovi

de n

ew d

raug

ht re

sista

nt p

lant

s to

repl

ace

the

old

plan

ts a

t the

bac

k of

the

build

ing

and

prov

ide

woo

d ch

ips c

over

s on

the

sout

h pl

ante

rs a

rea.

5,60

5$

4,

400

$

2,73

2,19

8$

120

78.4

9

33FM

-005

3022

Rive

rsid

eLa

rson

Just

ice

Cent

er33

-C1

3Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

Lot

- Ea

st P

arki

ng L

ot -

Crea

te a

nd in

stal

l 80

park

ing

stal

ls ou

t of p

erim

eter

la

ndsc

ape

arou

nd th

e cu

rren

t lot

. The

rece

nt c

losu

re o

f the

Cou

nty

lot b

ehin

d th

e co

urth

ouse

, cl

osur

e of

the

Cour

t Ann

ex/C

ount

y bu

ildin

g ne

xt d

oor a

nd it

s par

king

lot,

and

the

build

ing

of a

Co

unty

Law

bui

ldin

g ne

xt d

oor h

ave

crea

ted

a se

rious

par

king

issu

e in

the

imm

edia

te a

rea

of

the

Lars

on Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

resu

lting

in a

200

+ pa

rkin

g st

all l

oss.

Cust

omer

s are

cur

rent

ly p

arki

ng

on th

e la

ndsc

ape.

470,

000

$

379,

807

$

3,

112,

005

$

14

5 80

.81


Action Item 5 – Court Building Seismic Renovation Studies Project Report(s)

Summary: Review and approve the Court Building Seismic Renovation Studies Project Report(s) for release to the public.

Supporting Documentation: • Seismic Key Findings• Detailed Methodology Report

Action Requested: Review and approve report(s) for release to the public.

Overview and Key Findings

Report

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT BUILDINGS

SEISMIC RENOVATION FEASIBILITY STUDIES PROJECT

PREPARED BY ARUP

JANUARY 22, 2019

California Superior Court Buildings Seismic Renovation Feasibility Studies

Overview and Key Findings Report

i

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1

A. Background and Context ................................................................................................................................. 1 B. Summary of Project Approach ........................................................................................................................ 2

II. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 8

A. Common Seismic Deficiencies........................................................................................................................ 8 B. Common Retrofit Measures ............................................................................................................................ 9 C. Cost of Phased Construction versus Temporary Relocation ......................................................................... 10 D. Reduction in Anticipated Seismic Losses ..................................................................................................... 12 E. Comparison of Selected Options ................................................................................................................... 14

III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................... 18

IV. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 19

APPENDIX A. ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY



ii

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this report was performed by a consultant team comprising Arup, CO

Architects, and MGAC between January and December of 2018. Funding for the feasibility

study was provided by the Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee. Judicial

Council Facilities Services staff managed and directed the project, while Rutherford + Chekene,

the structural peer reviewer retained by the Judicial Council, reviewed the work presented herein.

Individuals within these organizations are acknowledged below.

Project Manager Clifford Ham, Judicial Council Facilities Services

Primary Authors Mike Mieler, Rob Smith, and Ibrahim Almufti, Arup

Primary Editors Clifford Ham, Judicial Council Facilities Services

Jesse Vernon and Tim Arioto, Arup

Engineers Amie Nulman, Swami Krishnan, Lauren Biscombe, Kevin Chen, Saeed

Fathali, Aysegul Gogus, Nicole Paul, and Terry Zhang, Arup

Architects James Simeo, Antoinette Bunkley, Sona Aroush, Michael Johnson, Ed

Martinez, and Sarah Holton, CO Architects

Cost Estimators Rick Lloyd and Analyn Apan, MGAC

Peer Reviewers William Holmes, Afshar Jalalian, and Marko Schotanus, Rutherford +

Chekene

Contributors Mike Courtney, Pella McCormick, Jagan Singh, and Zenaida Mananquil,

Judicial Council Facilities Services

Staff at the Superior Courts of California who had buildings included in

this study



1

I. INTRODUCTION

In January 2018, the Judicial Council of California Facilities Services engaged Arup, CO

Architects, and MGAC (herein referred to as the consultant team) to perform a seismic

renovation feasibility study for 26 court buildings in California. The study involved developing a

conceptual seismic retrofit scheme for each building, determining the collateral impacts and

associated construction costs of the retrofit schemes, and performing cost-benefit analyses to

determine the most appropriate renovation strategy for each building.

This report summarizes the project approach and scope, key findings (see Section II), and

important risks and assumptions (see Section III) from the feasibility study. Bolded terms

throughout this report are explained in more detail in the glossary in Appendix A.

A. Background and Context

The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (Sen. Bill 1732; Stats. 2002, ch. 1082) initiated the

transfer of responsibility for funding, operation, and ownership of court buildings from the

counties to the Judicial Council and State of California. The act required most existing

facilities to be seismically evaluated and assigned a risk level, with VII being the worst and I

being the best. Facilities evaluated as Risk Level V or worse were ineligible for transfer to

the state because they were deemed to have unacceptable seismic safety ratings. In total, 225

court buildings (comprising 300 building segments) were evaluated; 72 segments were rated

Risk Level IV, while 228 were rated Risk Level V.

In 2015, the Judicial Council engaged Rutherford + Chekene (R+C) to develop a more

refined seismic risk rating (SRR) for the 139 Risk Level V building segments that remained

in the council’s portfolio since the initial 2002 study. Using the Federal Emergency

Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module, R+C

assigned an SRR to each building segment based on the relative collapse probability

obtained from the initial 2002 seismic assessment of the structure (R+C 2017).

Informed by the SRRs, the Judicial Council Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory

Committee authorized the California Superior Court Buildings Seismic Renovation

Feasibility Studies project on August 28, 2017. The committee directed Facility Services

staff to study 27 buildings that meet specific criteria. For a court building to be a candidate

for the renovation feasibility study, it needed to meet all the following criteria:

• It has a Very High or High SRR.

• It is not being replaced by an active new courthouse construction project.

• It is not subject to a memorandum of understanding restricting transfer because of

historic building designation.

• It is owned by the Judicial Council or has a transfer of title pending, or the court

occupies more than 80 percent of a county owned building.



2

• The investment would extend its useful life for long-term service to the public.

Facilities Services engaged the consultant team in January 2018 to perform the study, which

was completed in December 2018. One court building was removed during the study due to a

lack of structural and architectural drawings. The 26 court buildings studied have a total area

of approximately five million gross square feet and comprise 43 building segments. Figure 1

shows the location and area of each court building included in the study.

Figure 1. Location and Size of the 26 Court Buildings Assessed in This Study

B. Summary of Project Approach

As part of the seismic renovation feasibility study, the consultant team reviewed structural

and architectural drawings and previous seismic assessment reports to understand the critical

seismic deficiencies and general layout of the court building. The team then conducted a site

inspection and interviewed court staff to verify critical seismic deficiencies and document

overall facility conditions before performing a supplemental seismic assessment to confirm

previously identified deficiencies and identify new ones.



3

The consultant team then designed a conceptual retrofit scheme for each court building to

address the critical seismic deficiencies identified from the supplemental seismic evaluation.

The primary objective of the retrofit scheme is to reduce the seismic risk level of the court

building from Risk Level V to IV, typically by strengthening existing structural

components, adding new ones, or a combination of both.

The team then determined the collateral impacts of the retrofit scheme and identified code-

required upgrades to accessibility and fire and life safety systems. Collateral impacts refer to

repair work to nonstructural components (e.g., walls, ceilings, lighting, carpeting) made

necessary by the retrofit. This scope of work is referred to as the baseline retrofit option

(Option 1) because it represents the minimum required effort to achieve Risk Level IV

seismic performance.

Because a seismic retrofit can be highly invasive, it provides an opportunity to make

additional building repairs and upgrades for relatively little incremental cost. The Judicial

Council Facilities Services staff asked the consultant team to include approved, unfunded

facility modifications in addition to the minimum scope of work required in the baseline

retrofit. Approved, unfunded facility modifications, referred to as priority upgrades, include

building maintenance and systems upgrades that have been approved by the Judicial Council

or Superior Court but do not have specific funding sources identified yet. Consequently,

these facility modifications would be attractive candidates for inclusion in a seismic

renovation. This option is referred to as the priority upgrades retrofit option (Option 2).

Furthermore, because a seismic retrofit can be extremely costly, the consultant team also

included a full renovation option and two replacement options for the purposes of

benchmarking. While these three options did not involve any design work, they were

included in the study as a reference point to identify situations where it may be more cost

effective to either fully renovate or replace a court building. The full renovation option

(Option 3) involves the same seismic retrofit as the baseline retrofit, plus full demolition and

replacement of the building interior down to the structural skeleton and removal and

replacement of the exterior wall and roof cladding. The first replacement option, referred to

as the replace to 2016 CBC option (Option 4), involves replacing the existing court

building with a new facility that satisfies the requirements of the 2016 California Building

Code (CBC; CBSC 2016a). The second replacement option, referred to as the replace to

beyond code option (Option 5), involves replacing the existing court building with a new

facility that goes beyond the minimum requirements of the 2016 CBC to achieve more

resilient seismic performance (e.g., reduced damage, repair costs, and downtime).

A total of five retrofit and replacement options were considered for each court building. The

consultant team developed construction cost estimates and durations for each option and

compared these costs to the benefits of retrofitting or replacing the court building. The

primary benefit of retrofitting or replacing the court building is reduced seismic risk relative

to the existing court building, including reduced collapse probability, fatalities, repair costs,

and downtime. Additional benefits stemming from retrofitting or replacing the court building



4

(e.g., improved energy efficiency, accessibility, fire and life safety, security, employee

productivity) were not quantified, though the costs of these upgrades were included in the

cost-benefit analysis. The design team developed a risk model for each retrofit and

replacement option to predict the reduction in seismic risk.

The consultant team then performed cost-benefit analyses to compare the financial

effectiveness of the five retrofit and replacement options for each court building. The benefit-

cost ratio measures the benefits of an option relative to its cost and was the primary

consideration in the Judicial Council Facilities Services staff’s decision of which retrofit or

replacement option to select.

The conceptual retrofit schemes were reviewed by R+C, the structural peer reviewer retained

by the Judicial Council for this study, to confirm the validity and appropriateness of the

proposed interventions. R+C also reviewed results from the seismic risk assessments and

cost-benefit analyses.

Table 1 summarizes the selected retrofit or replacement option for each court building. Table

2 summarizes the costs and benefits included and excluded from the cost-benefit analysis.

Table 1. Summary of Selected Option for Each Court Building

ID Name Address Selected option

01-F1 George E. McDonald Hall of Justice 2233 Shoreline Dr., Alameda Priority upgrades

07-A2 Wakefield Taylor Courthouse 725 Court St., Martinez Priority upgrades

07-F1 George D. Carroll Courthouse 100 37th St., Richmond Replace to 2016 CBC

10-A1 Fresno County Courthouse 1100 Van Ness Ave., Fresno Baseline

13-A1 Imperial County Courthouse 939 W. Main St., El Centro Replace to 2016 CBC

17-B1 Clearlake Branch Courthouse 7000A S. Center Dr., Clearlake Replace to 2016 CBC

19-AD1 Santa Clarita Courthouse 23747 W. Valencia Blvd.,

Santa Clarita

Baseline

19-AK1 Norwalk Courthouse 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk Baseline

19-AO1 Whittier Courthouse 7339 Painter Ave., Whittier Priority upgrades

19-AP1 Santa Monica Courthouse 1725 Main St., Santa Monica Baseline

19-AQ1 Beverly Hills Courthouse 9355 Burton Way, Beverly

Hills

Replace to beyond

code

19-AX2 Van Nuys Courthouse West 14400 Erwin St. Mall, Van

Nuys

Priority upgrades

19-G1 Burbank Courthouse 300 E. Olive Ave., Burbank Replace to 2016 CBC

19-H1 Glendale Courthouse 600 E. Broadway, Glendale Priority upgrades



5

ID Name Address Selected option

19-I1 Alhambra Courthouse 150 W. Commonwealth Ave.,

Alhambra

Baseline

19-J1 J2 Pasadena Courthouse 300 E. Walnut St., Pasadena Replace to beyond

code

19-K1 Stanley Mosk Courthouse 110 N. Grand Ave., Los

Angeles

Baseline

19-L1 Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal

Justice Center

210 W. Temple St., Los

Angeles

Priority upgrades

19-O1 El Monte Courthouse 11234 E. Valley Blvd., El

Monte

Replace to 2016 CBC

19-W2 Pomona Courthouse North 350 W. Mission Blvd., Pomona Replace to 2016 CBC

19-X1 West Covina Courthouse 1427 W. Covina Pkwy., West

Covina

Baseline

28-B1 Napa Courthouse 825 Brown St., Napa Replace to 2016 CBC

30-A1 Central Justice Center 700 Civic Center Dr. West,

Santa Ana

Priority upgrades

30-B1 Lamoreaux Justice Center 341 The City Dr. S, Orange Priority upgrades

30-C1 C2 North Justice Center 1275 N. Berkeley Ave.,

Fullerton

Baseline

44-A1 Santa Cruz Courthouse 701 Ocean St., Santa Cruz Replace to 2016 CBC

Table 2. Summary of Costs and Benefits Included in cost-benefit analysis

Item

Included in cost-benefit

analysis

Notes Retrofit or replacement option

1 2 3 4 5

Costs

Hard

construction

costs

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Includes costs of site preparation, design contingencies,

and labor and material required for repair or construction

of substructure, shell, interiors, and building services (as

applicable). For Options 1 and 2, the costs of upgrades to

accessibility and fire and life safety systems were

explicitly calculated. For Options 3-5, compliance with

current accessibility and fire and life safety requirements

is assumed as part of the construction work.

Temporary

relocation

costs

Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A For Options 1-3 (unphased), includes fit out and rental

costs required to relocate court staff and functions to

temporary space for the duration of the retrofit. For

Options 4-5, temporary relocation costs are not



6

Item


analysis


1 2 3 4 5

applicable because it is assumed court staff and

functions can remain in the existing court building while

the new one is constructed in a nearby location.

Construction

phasing costs

Yes Yes No N/A N/A For Options 1 and 2 (phased), includes costs for phasing

the construction work by zones or floors to keep the

court building open during the retrofit. For Option 3,

construction phasing costs were not included because

phasing was assumed to be impractical due to

disruptiveness of the construction work.

Demolition

costs

N/A N/A N/A No No For Options 4 and 5, does not include costs of

demolishing current existing building. For Options 1-3,

demolition costs are not applicable.

Land costs N/A N/A N/A No No For Options 4 and 5, does not include costs of acquiring

land for new court building. For Options 1-3, demolition

costs are not applicable.

Escalation

costs

No No No No No Does not include escalation in construction costs from

the time of this study to the actual start of a retrofit or

replacement project.

Design and

engineering

consultant

fees

No No No No No Does not include consultant fees for further engineering

analyses or detailed design services prior to retrofit or

replacement of a court building.

Construction

and owner

contingencies

No No No No No

Loose

furniture,

fixtures, and

equipment

No No No No No

Benefits

Avoided

injuries in

future

earthquakes

No No No No No Does not include the benefit of avoided injuries due to

incomplete data on the financial cost of injuries.

Avoided

fatalities in

future

earthquakes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Includes the benefit of avoided fatalities. Fatalities were

calculated using peak instantaneous building

populations, which were derived from magnetometer

counts for each court building. The value of a statistical

life (i.e., cost of a fatality) was selected to be $9 million

for this study. Refer to detailed methodology report

(Arup 2019) for further discussion.



7

Item


analysis


1 2 3 4 5

Avoided

repair costs

in future

earthquakes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Includes costs to repair damage to major structural and

nonstructural components. Does not include losses from

damage to building contents (e.g., furniture, computers).

Avoided

downtime in

future

earthquakes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Includes cost to fit out and rent temporary space for the

duration of repair work after an earthquake. Does not

include indirect costs from protracted downtime (e.g.,

increased backlog of court cases, employee attrition)

Improved

energy

efficiency

No No No No No Does not include the benefit of improved energy

efficiency from replacing existing mechanical and

electrical equipment.

Improved

accessibility

No No No No No

Improved

fire and life

safety

No No No No No

Improved

functionality

No No No No No Does not include the benefit of improved functionality

from construction work, including possible

improvements to daylighting, security, and building

layout.

Asset-life extension

Minimum

asset-life

extension

(years)

15 25 40 50 50 Asset-life extension refers to the assumed life time of a

building before further necessary building-wide

renovation or replacement is required. It is the length of

time over which the benefits (above) are assumed to

accrue. It is not a prediction of the length of actual court

occupancy in a particular building. Refer to detailed

methodology report (Arup 2019) for further discussion.



8

II. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The following sections summarize key findings from the seismic renovation feasibility study

performed by the consultant team.

A. Common Seismic Deficiencies

The 26 court buildings included in this study were evaluated previously as some of the most

seismically vulnerable buildings in the Judicial Council’s portfolio. Most were built before

modern seismic design codes were in place and have one or more significant seismic

deficiencies that could jeopardize their structural integrity and occupant safety in an

earthquake. Figure 2 lists common seismic deficiencies for the 26 buildings, including the

percentage of buildings having each deficiency. Table 3 describes each seismic deficiency

and the risk it poses to the safety of building occupants.

Figure 2. Common Seismic Deficiencies For the 26 Court Buildings in This Study

Inadequate

connection of heavy

cladding

Vertical discontinuity

in lateral system

Inadequate

foundation capacity

Inadequate

diaphragms

Insufficient strength

of lateral system

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of court buildings with deficiency



9

Table 3. Description of Common Seismic Deficiencies

Deficiency Description Risk

Insufficient strength of lateral

system

The lateral system refers to the

structural elements that provide

resistance against earthquakes.

This is as opposed to the gravity

system, which supports vertical

loads only. Some structural

elements serve both purposes.

Insufficient strength implies that

the system is too weak to

withstand earthquake forces.

The structure could suffer

excessive damage, potentially

very suddenly. This could pose a

significant risk to the safety of

building occupants.

Inadequate diaphragms Diaphragm refers to a floor slab or

roof. The material may be timber

planks or sheathing, reinforced

concrete, or some form of metal

sheathing. Inadequate diaphragms

have insufficient strength or

stiffness to transfer loads to other

parts of the structure.

Damage to the diaphragm itself

could occur. Excessive local

damage could also cause damage

to connecting walls.

Inadequate foundation capacity The foundation has insufficient

strength or stiffness to prevent

either structural failure or

excessive deformation of the soil

underneath.

Collapse from excessive

movement in a foundation is rare.

It is more common that foundation

failure leads to excessive

settlement and damage to a

building.

Vertical discontinuity in lateral

system

The lateral system, such as a wall

or braced frame, does not continue

uninterrupted from the roof to the

foundation.

Excessive damage could occur

below the interrupted element,

where load cannot be transferred

to the foundation. This could pose

a significant risk to the safety of

building occupants.

Inadequate connection of heavy

cladding

Heavy cladding typically refers to

stone or concrete facade panels.

They are connected to the main

structure with clips or similar

connections. Older styles of

construction did not consider the

requirement to restrain the panels

from lateral acceleration.

While unlikely to lead to building

collapse, falling cladding could

pose a significant risk to the safety

of building occupants.

B. Common Retrofit Measures

A custom conceptual seismic retrofit scheme was developed for each court building.

However, similar building types typically had similar retrofit measures. Figure 3 lists

common retrofit measures across the 26 buildings studied, including the percentage with

each retrofit measure. Table 4 describes the typical scope of structural work for each retrofit

measure but does not include the architectural impacts of such work (e.g., removal of wall

finishes, ceilings, floor coverings), which can be significant.



10

Figure 3. Common Retrofit Measures For the 26 Court Buildings in This Study

Table 4. Description of Typical Retrofit Measures

Retrofit Measure Description

Strengthen existing foundations Increase the size of existing concrete footings beneath structural

walls, braces, or columns (in select locations) through the

addition of concrete and steel reinforcement.

Strengthen existing concrete walls Increase the thickness or length of existing concrete walls (in

select locations) through the addition of concrete and steel

reinforcement, or wrap existing concrete walls (in select

locations) with a fiber-reinforced polymer.

Strengthen existing concrete diaphragms Install a layer of fiber-reinforced polymer on top of concrete

diaphragms, or add concrete edge beams to strengthen the

connection between diaphragms and structural walls.

Strengthen existing beams and columns Reinforce existing beams and columns below discontinuous

structural walls through the addition of steel reinforcement and

concrete (for concrete wall buildings) or steel plates (for steel

moment frame buildings).

Add new seismic braces Install new seismic braces within existing steel frames (in select

locations), and strengthen existing beams, columns, and

connections around the frames.

C. Cost of Phased Construction versus Temporary Relocation

Because of the disruptive nature of seismic retrofits, the consultant team considered two

construction scenarios. The first assumes the court building remains occupied during the

Add new seismic

braces

Strengthen existing

beams and columns

Strengthen existing

concrete diaphragms

Strengthen existing

concrete walls

Strengthen existing

foundations

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of court buildings with retrofit measure



11

seismic retrofit. Consequently, the retrofit work is performed in multiple phases, either by

floors or zones of the building, to minimize disruption to court operations. This scenario is

referred to as phased construction. It results in longer construction times but does not

require court staff and functions to relocate to temporary facilities. The consultant team

estimated the cost premium for phased construction for each court building based on the

scope and extent of the proposed retrofit scheme. The premium includes scheduling costs to

cover the extended construction duration due to phasing and escalation costs to cover

increases in the price of labor and materials due to the extended construction duration.

However, it does not include the impact of phased construction on the capacity or efficiency

of court operations, employee productivity, and other similar factors. On average, the cost

premium across the 26 court buildings is $90 per square foot for phased construction, which

is in addition to hard construction costs for the retrofit. Note that in the cost-benefit analysis

of each court building, the actual cost premium (as determined by the consultant team) was

used, not the average.

The second construction scenario assumes the court building is completely vacated during

the seismic retrofit. This scenario is referred to as unphased construction because the entire

facility is shut during the retrofit. This results in shorter construction times but requires court

staff and functions to relocate to temporary facilities for the duration of the retrofit. Based on

typical commercial office space rental rates and fit out costs for court occupancies, the

consultant team estimated the cost premium for unphased construction for each court

building (see Equation 1 for more detail). The premium for unphased construction includes

only rental and fit out costs, and excludes additional relocation costs that may be incurred

(e.g., moving costs, parking costs, shortages of available rental space). On average, the cost

premium across the 26 court buildings is $220 per square foot for temporary relocation,

which is in addition to hard construction costs for the retrofit.

𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 0.75 × 𝐺𝐹𝐴𝐽𝐶𝐶 × (𝐶𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑢𝑡 + 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 × 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡) Equation 1

Where:

𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒 = cost of temporary relocation

𝐺𝐹𝐴𝐽𝐶𝐶 = gross floor area occupied by the Judicial Council in current existing

facility

0.75 × 𝐺𝐹𝐴𝐽𝐶𝐶 = gross floor area rented by the Judicial Council in a temporary facility

(75% reduction factor developed in consultation with Facilities Services

staff)

𝐶𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑜𝑢𝑡 = cost to fit out temporary space

= $250 per square foot

𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 = cost to rent temporary space



12

= $50 per square foot per year for San Francisco Bay Area and Los

Angeles and Orange counties ($30 per square foot per year for other

locations)

𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡 = construction duration of retrofit (determined by consultant team)

The significant difference in average cost premium for the two scenarios ($90 per square foot

for phased construction versus $220 for unphased construction) results in phased

construction typically being the more financially attractive scenario across the portfolio of 26

court buildings in this study. However, when a retrofit of a court building is undertaken in the

future, the costs of both scenarios should be re-evaluated as market conditions are likely to

have changed. In addition, individual court buildings may be subject to constraints that were

not considered in this study that could bias one scenario over another (e.g., a lack of suitable

rental space nearby). Furthermore, it may be possible to relocate court staff and operations

temporarily to a nearby court building, thus avoiding some or all temporary space costs.

D. Reduction in Anticipated Seismic Losses

The primary consequence of retrofitting or replacing a court building is an overall reduction

in the collapse risk relative to the current existing facility. In addition, the retrofitted or

replaced building is also expected to experience reduced repair costs and downtime in future

earthquakes. The consultant team developed probabilistic risk models for each of the 26

existing court buildings and its five retrofit and replacement options. The risk models predict

damage and related consequences (in terms of fatalities, repair costs, and downtime) for each

retrofit/replacement option and court building under various earthquake intensity levels,

ranging from small, frequent earthquakes to large, rare ones.

The predicted losses at each earthquake intensity can be converted into annualized losses for

each court building and retrofit/replacement option. Annualized losses represent the

anticipated seismic losses in any given year, and typically would not be incurred every year

(i.e., in most years, there are no earthquakes and therefore no losses; however, if a significant

earthquake occurs, the losses that year will greatly exceed the annualized losses). Over a long

period of time, the actual losses incurred would approach the anticipated annualized losses.

Though abstract in nature, annualized losses are useful because they capture in a single

metric the magnitude of losses across a range of seismic intensities, thus enabling the risk

reduction potential of each retrofit and replacement option to be compared more readily.

Table 5 presents annualized losses, in terms of fatalities, repair costs, and downtime, for each

of the 26 court buildings and the selected retrofit or replacement option.



13

Table 5. Annualized Losses for the Portfolio of 26 Court Buildings

ID Name Selected

option*

Annualized loss ($thousands)

Existing court building Selected option

F† RC‡ DT** F† RC‡ DT**

01-F1 George E. McDonald Hall of

Justice

2 2,276 141 112 115 29 73

07-A2 Wakefield Taylor Courthouse 2 3,353 624 430 1,422 184 409

07-F1 George D. Carroll Courthouse 4 9,910 406 383 NS†† 86 304

10-A1 Fresno County Courthouse 1 11,405 204 325 4,697 100 281

13-A1 Imperial County Courthouse 4 19,637 1,193 513 NS†† 71 238

17-B1 Clearlake Branch Courthouse 4 1,221 29 42 NS†† 4 15

19-AD1 Santa Clarita Courthouse 1 2,629 73 161 313 34 137

19-AK1 Norwalk Courthouse 1 8,261 377 767 3,402 194 750

19-AO1 Whittier Courthouse 2 2,495 180 329 280 49 257

19-AP1 Santa Monica Courthouse 1 2,879 134 231 833 37 142

19-AQ1 Beverly Hills Courthouse 5 1,113 162 545 NS†† 23 140

19-AX2 Van Nuys Courthouse West 2 9,338 442 880 3,845 202 838

19-G1 Burbank Courthouse 4 2,235 168 217 NS†† 30 167

19-H1 Glendale Courthouse 2 3,920 106 224 374 49 159

19-I1 Alhambra Courthouse 1 1,021 136 361 295 77 337

19-J1 J2 Pasadena Courthouse 5 4,755 380 534 NS†† 115 454

19-K1 Stanley Mosk Courthouse 1 25,376 676 1,396 NS†† 8 32

19-L1 Clara Shortridge Foltz

Criminal Justice Center

2 8,104 797 1,853 2,338 342 1,374

19-O1 El Monte Courthouse 4 5,571 289 440 NS†† 76 281

19-W2 Pomona Courthouse North 4 5,029 157 203 NS†† 35 116

19-X1 West Covina Courthouse 1 5,219 144 374 NS†† 31 223

28-B1 Napa Courthouse 4 3,179 194 152 NS†† 64 91

30-A1 Central Justice Center 2 17,915 694 1,935 6,780 368 1,505

30-B1 Lamoreaux Justice Center 2 8,483 409 658 3,493 213 571

30-C1 C2 North Justice Center 1 6,508 329 619 775 122 607

44-A1 Santa Cruz Courthouse 4 5,866 120 188 NS†† 31 106

* Option 1: Baseline Retrofit

Option 2: Priority Upgrades Retrofit

Option 3: Full Renovation



14

Option 4: Replace to 2016 CBC

Option 5: Replace to Beyond Code

† F: annualized loss from fatalities ($thousands), which are based on peak building populations and 90th percentile

estimates of fatalities from the seismic risk assessment and, thus, likely represent an upper bound on annual losses from

fatalities. Refer to the detailed methodology report (Arup 2019) for findings from a sensitivity study on building

populations.

‡ RC: annualized loss from repair costs ($thousands)

** DT: annualized loss from downtime ($thousands). For buildings where the selected option is 1, 2, or 3, the primary

intent of the retrofit is to reduce the risk of collapse and fatalities. While some reduction in downtime may be expected,

the conceptual retrofit scheme does not include specific measures to reduce downtime. Therefore, downtime losses

typically do not decrease significantly because of the retrofit.

†† NS: not significant. New replacement buildings (or, in the case of Stanley Mosk, base-isolated retrofits) are expected to

have significantly improved seismic safety relative to current existing court buildings; therefore, in this study, fatalities

were not modelled.

E. Comparison of Selected Options

Table 6 compares benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) of the selected retrofit or replacement options

across the portfolio of 26 court buildings included in this study. The BCR measures the

benefits of an option relative to its cost and was the primary consideration in the Judicial

Council Facilities Services staff’s decision of which retrofit or replacement option to select.

If the BCR exceeds one, then the benefits of the option exceed its costs, indicating it is

effective from a purely financial perspective.

Court buildings in Table 6 are sorted from highest BCR to lowest. Court buildings with the

largest BCRs represent the best retrofit or replacement investments, but additional factors

(e.g., total construction cost, asset-life extension, importance of the existing court building to

continuing Superior Court operations) need to be considered in developing judicial branch-

wide renovation strategies or priorities. The total estimated construction cost associated with

retrofitting or replacing all 26 court buildings is $2.3 billion.

Table 6. Comparison of Construction Costs and Benefit-Cost Ratios for 26 Court Buildings

ID Name Court

Departments

Selected

Option*

Total

Construction

Cost

(millions)

Benefit-

Cost

Ratio

Asset-Life

Extension

(years)

13-A1 Imperial County

Courthouse 7 4 $48.9 6.78 50

17-B1 Clearlake Branch

Courthouse 1 4 $8.0 2.50 50

19-O1 El Monte Courthouse 6 4 $41.0 2.28 50

19-X1 West Covina

Courthouse 11 1 $23.6 2.26 15

07-F1 George D. Carroll

Courthouse 8 4 $82.2 1.98 50

44-A1 Main Courthouse (Santa

Cruz) 7 4 $49.8 1.91 50



15

ID Name Court

Departments

Selected

Option*

Total

Construction

Cost

(millions)

Benefit-

Cost

Ratio

Asset-Life

Extension

(years)

19-AD1 Santa Clarita

Courthouse 3 1 $12.9 1.79 15

19-W2 Pomona Courthouse

North 7 4 $47.9 1.73 50

28-B1 Historical Courthouse

(Napa) 4 4 $32.6 1.63 50

01-F1 George E. McDonald

Hall of Justice 3 2 $18.4 1.61 25

19-AK1 Norwalk Courthouse 20 1 $45.9 1.07 15

19-H1 Glendale Courthouse 8 2 $44.0 1.07 25

30-A1 Central Justice Center 65 2 $196.5 0.77 25

30-C1 C2 North Justice Center 18 1 $75.4 0.77 15

19-G1 Burbank Courthouse 7 4 $50.4 0.76 50

10-A1

Fresno County

Courthouse

(Downtown)

28 1 $103.0 0.65 15

30-B1 Lamoreaux Justice

Center 29 2 $106.7 0.63 25

19-K1 Stanley Mosk

Courthouse 100 1 $461.3 0.58 15

19-AO1 Whittier Courthouse 7 2 $54.3 0.57 25

19-J1 J2 Pasadena Courthouse 19 5 $157.4 0.52 50

07-A2 Wakefield Taylor

Courthouse 12 2 $64.6 0.47 25

19-AQ1 Beverly Hills

Courthouse 6 4 $45.1 0.47 50

19-AX2 Van Nuys Courthouse

West 23 2 $160.4 0.46 25

19-AP1 Santa Monica

Courthouse 17 1 $50.5 0.43 15


Criminal Justice Center 60 2 $300.2 0.27 25

19-I1 Alhambra Courthouse 9 1 $42.3 0.19 15








16

As described in the footnotes to Table 6, annual losses from fatalities are based on peak

building populations and 90th percentile estimates of fatalities from the seismic risk

assessment, likely resulting in an upper bound on annual losses from fatalities. In contrast,

annual losses from repair costs and downtime are based on mean estimates of repair costs

and downtime, respectively, which effectively translates into a higher weighting for losses

stemming from fatalities. This higher weighting is consistent with the primary focus of the

study: improving the seismic safety of the current existing court building. However, it

inflates the BCRs relative to if an equivalent continuous occupancy (ECO) population were

assumed for each court building. An ECO population accounts for the fact that the peak

population persists for only a short period of time in a building over a typical year, so there is

only a small probability that an earthquake would occur when the building is fully occupied.

As a result, because the BCRs emphasize fatalities, they should not be considered absolute.

The detailed methodology report (Arup 2019) presents findings from a sensitivity study of

the BCRs to the assumed building population to investigate whether the higher weighting

given to fatalities might also change the relative rankings of the BCRs for each of the five

retrofit or replacement options considered for each court building. In summary, changing the

building population from peak to ECO, which typically reduces the number of fatalities

reported by a factor of 4, does not change the relative order of the retrofit and replacement

options. While the BCRs were not the only factor in the decision-making process, the

sensitivity study demonstrates that changes to the assumed building population does not

impact the selected option for each court building.

Figure 4 shows the number of court buildings per selected option. Approximately 60 percent

of court buildings were selected for retrofit (Options 1, 2, or 3), while 40 percent were

selected for replacement (Options 4 or 5). Figure 5 show the total gross floor area per

selected option. Approximately 80 percent of gross floor area was selected for retrofit, while

20 percent was selected for replacement. Together, these figures illustrate the overall trend of

replacing smaller court buildings while retrofitting larger ones.

Baseline Retrofit 8 buildings

Priority Upgrades Retrofit 8 buildings

Full Renovation 0 buildings

Replacement 10 buildings

Figure 4. Number of Court Buildings Per Selected Option



17

Baseline Retrofit 1.70 million ft2

Priority Upgrades Retrofit 2.34 million ft2

Full Renovation 0.00 million ft2

Replacement 0.85 million ft2

Figure 5. Total Area Per Selected Option



18

III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Table 7 summarizes important project risks and assumptions for the feasibility study, and

describes the potential impact each item could have on the conceptual retrofit schemes, its

collateral impacts, and its construction costs and duration. These items need to be considered in

later phases of the project when more detailed designs of the seismic retrofit schemes or

replacement facilities are completed.

Table 7. Summary of Important Project Risks and Assumptions

Category Description Impact

Analysis scope The conceptual retrofit schemes developed for this study

are based on limited information and seismic analysis.

For example, no materials testing, geotechnical studies,

or intrusive testing have been performed. Analytical

models of the court buildings were not developed.

Furthermore, design optimization has not been carried out

(i.e., minimizing collateral impacts and construction

costs). While this is appropriate for budgetary checking,

more thorough engineering studies would need to be

performed prior to construction.

More thorough studies

could impact construction

costs and collateral

impacts.

Asbestos abatement For many court buildings, the Judicial Council database

indicates the presence of asbestos. While the cost

estimates for retrofit developed for this study include

abatement, further study is required to understand the full

extent and impact of asbestos contamination.

Depending on the extent of

asbestos, its presence could

impact construction costs.

Cost estimates for

replacement court

buildings

Replacement court buildings are assumed to be

constructed on land near existing facilities. As a result,

cost estimates for replacement buildings do not include

rental costs for temporary space because the court can

occupy the existing facility until the new one is finished.

Land costs are also not included.

If suitable land is not

available, an existing

facility may need to be

demolished before a new

one can be built, which

would impact construction

costs and duration.

Facade connections For some court buildings, the conceptual retrofit scheme

assumes existing facade connections are deficient.

Consequently, the facade is removed and replaced with a

lightweight design. However, further investigation of the

connections is required as part of detailed retrofit design.

If the facade connections

are adequate, it could

reduce construction costs

and collateral impacts.

Liquefaction Some court buildings have high liquefaction risk. The

conceptual retrofit scheme does not mitigate this risk. To

determine the extent of foundation retrofit required, a

site-specific geotechnical investigation is required.

If foundation strengthening

is required, it could impact

construction costs and

collateral impacts.

Historical elements While none of the 26 court buildings is on the state or

federal historical register, some are local points of

historic interest, which could limit the range of possible

interventions. Therefore, to the extent practical, the

conceptual retrofit scheme avoids modifying of the

following items: exterior appearance of the building,

interior public spaces (e.g., lobbies), and courtrooms.

If a court building is placed

on the state or federal

historical register, it could

impact construction costs

and collateral impacts.



19

IV. REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2003. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings

(31-03).

———. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (7-10). Third printing.

Arup. 2019. Detailed Methodology: California Superior Court Buildings Seismic Renovation

Feasibility Studies Project. Prepared for the Judicial Council of California.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2016. California Building Standards Code.

California Code of Regulations. Title 24. Part 2: California Building Code.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings

for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook. FEMA P-154. Third Edition. Washington, D.C.

Rutherford + Chekene (R+C). 2017. Seismic Risk Rating of California Superior Court Buildings:

Volume 1 & 2. Prepared for the Judicial Council of California.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Seismic-Risk-Rating-of-California-Superior-Court-

Buildings.pdf.

Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002. Senate Bill 1732, Statutes 2002, Chapter 1082.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Seismic-Risk-Rating-of-California-Superior-Court-Buildings.pdf




A-1

A. Abbreviations

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

BCR benefit-cost ratio

CBC California Building Code

CBSC California Building Standards

Commission

FEMA Federal Emergency Management

Agency

R+C Rutherford + Chekene

SRR seismic risk rating

B. Glossary

Asset-life extension – For a given retrofit or replacement option, the assumed life time of a

building before further necessary building-wide renovation or replacement renovation is

required. This is used to calculate total benefit. Asset-life extension is not a prediction of the

length of actual court occupancy in a particular building.

Baseline retrofit option (Option 1) – A retrofit option that represents the minimum level of

effort and expenditure to mitigate the seismic risk at a court building, including seismic upgrades

to structural and nonstructural components (e.g., stairs, elevators, ceilings, lights, partitions) to

achieve Risk Level IV performance, nonstructural repairs made necessary by the retrofit, and

triggered upgrades to accessibility and fire and life safety systems.

Building segment – A portion of a building that may respond independently of other sections in

an earthquake. Building segments can have very different properties (e.g., construction material

and number of floors) and be built at different times, but from an operational perspective, they

typically function together as a single facility.

Building type – A classification that groups buildings with common seismic-force-resisting

systems and performance characteristics in past earthquakes. The building types relevant to the

26 court buildings in this study include those listed in the table below (ASCE 2003):

Type Description

C1 Concrete moment frames

C2 Concrete shear walls with stiff diaphragms

C2A Concrete shear walls with flexible diaphragms

PC1A Precast/tilt-up concrete shear walls with stiff diaphragms

RM1 Reinforced masonry bearing walls with flexible diaphragms

RM2 Reinforced masonry bearing walls with stiff diaphragms

S1 Steel moment frames with stiff diaphragms

S2 Steel braced frames with stiff diaphragms



A-2

Type Description

S4 Steel frames with concrete shear walls

URM Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with flexible diaphragms

California Building Code (CBC) – The set of regulations in California that governs how new

buildings are designed and constructed.

Collapse probability – The likelihood that a building will either partially or totally collapse in

an earthquake. FEMA P-154 (2015) defines collapse as when the gravity load carrying system in

part or all of the building loses the ability to carry the weight.

Collateral impacts – Repair work to nonstructural components (e.g., walls, ceilings, lighting,

carpeting) made necessary by the seismic retrofit.

Full renovation option (Option 3) – A retrofit option that includes the same seismic upgrades

to structural components as the baseline retrofit option, plus full demolition and replacement of

the interior down to the structural skeleton and removal of the exterior wall and roof cladding.

Note that the budget for the nonstructural components is based unit costs per square foot, and no

design was performed as part of this study.

Nonstructural components – Architectural, mechanical, and electrical components of a

building permanently installed in or integral to a building system.

Phased construction – A scenario in which the court building would be kept open and

operational during the retrofit, requiring the work would need to be done in multiple phases

either by floors or zones of the buildings.

Priority upgrades – A list of approved, unfunded facility modifications at a court building.

Priority upgrades do not include all possible maintenance needs at a court building.

Priority upgrades retrofit option (Option 2) – A retrofit option that includes the same

upgrades as the baseline retrofit option, plus any priority upgrades. This retrofit option was

included in the study because seismic retrofits often provide an opportunity to upgrade outdated

or deficient building systems (which would normally be highly disruptive) at relatively little

additional cost

Replace to 2016 CBC option (Option 4) – A replacement option that involves replacing an

existing court building with a new facility that satisfies Risk Category III requirements of the

2016 California Building Code (CBC). Risk Category III refers to “buildings and structures that

could pose a substantial risk to human life in case of damage or failure,” including those with a

potential to cause “a substantial economic impact and/or mass disruption of day-to-day civilian

life” (ASCE 2013). California Superior Court buildings are classified as Risk Category III

because of the consistent large density of occupants in these public buildings.



A-3

Replace to beyond code option (Option 5) – A replacement option that involves replacing an

existing court building with a new facility that goes beyond the minimum requirements of the

2016 CBC to achieve more resilient seismic performance (e.g., reduced damage, repair costs, and

downtime).

Seismic risk rating (SRR) – A ranking based on the relative probability of collapse in a seismic

event as estimated by a Hazus model of the building, which considers the structural capacity of

the building, site-specific seismic hazard, and structural characteristics that influence the

capacity or response to earthquakes. Court buildings with SRRs exceeding 10 are classified as

Very High Risk, while those with SRRs between 2 and 10 are classified as High Risk.

Structural components – Components of a building that provide gravity- or lateral-load

resistance as part of a continuous load path to the foundation, including beams, columns, slabs,

braces, walls, wall piers, coupling beams, and connections.

Unphased construction – A scenario in which the court building is closed and vacated during

construction, requiring court staff and functions to be relocated to a temporary facility.

Detailed Methodology

Report

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT BUILDINGS SEISMIC RENOVATION FEASIBILITY STUDIES PROJECT

PREPARED BY ARUP

JANUARY 22, 2019


Detailed Methodology Report

i

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4

A. Background and Context ................................................................................................................................. 4 B. Summary of Project Approach ........................................................................................................................ 5 C. Report Organization ........................................................................................................................................ 7

II. MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RETROFITS ..................................................................... 8

A. Sources of Information .................................................................................................................................... 8 B. Authorities Having Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................................... 9 C. Seismic Retrofit Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 9

1. Minimum Seismic Retrofit Requirements per 2016 CEBC ................................................................... 10 2. Minimum Seismic Retrofit Requirements per the Judicial Council ..................................................... 11

D. Triggered Upgrades to Accessibility ............................................................................................................. 14 E. Triggered Upgrades to Fire and Life Safety .................................................................................................. 15 F. Retrofit and Replacement Options to Evaluate ............................................................................................. 15 G. Referenced Code Language and Tables ........................................................................................................ 18

1. CEBC Section 317.3............................................................................................................................. 18 2. CEBC Table 317.5 ............................................................................................................................... 18 3. CEBC Section 319.12........................................................................................................................... 19

III. BASIS OF SEISMIC RETROFIT DESIGN ............................................................................................. 20

A. Available Existing Information ..................................................................................................................... 20 B. Seismic Evaluation Methodology.................................................................................................................. 20 C. Conceptual Retrofit Design Methodology ..................................................................................................... 21 D. Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 24

IV. PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 26

A. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 26 B. Seismic Hazard Analyses .............................................................................................................................. 28

1. Soil Site Class ...................................................................................................................................... 30 2. Earthquake Intensity Levels ................................................................................................................. 31 3. Uniform Hazard Spectra ...................................................................................................................... 32 4. Spectral Acceleration ........................................................................................................................... 33 5. Liquefaction ......................................................................................................................................... 33

C. Simplified Structural Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 35 1. Peak Interstory Drift Ratio .................................................................................................................. 36 2. Peak Floor Acceleration ...................................................................................................................... 36 3. Residual Interstory Drift Ratio ............................................................................................................ 37

D. Collapse Fragilities ........................................................................................................................................ 37 E. Exposure Data ............................................................................................................................................... 39

1. Inventory of Structural and Nonstructural Components ...................................................................... 40 2. Population Data ................................................................................................................................... 41 3. Building Replacement Values .............................................................................................................. 42

F. Vulnerability Data ......................................................................................................................................... 42 G. Consequence Data ......................................................................................................................................... 44

1. Repair Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 44 2. Downtime ............................................................................................................................................. 45 3. Casualty Rates ..................................................................................................................................... 47

H. PSRA Outputs ............................................................................................................................................... 47

V. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 50

A. Calculation of Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 50 B. Calculation of Benefits .................................................................................................................................. 52



ii

C. Calculation of Benefit-Cost Ratio ................................................................................................................. 56 D. Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 58 E. Sensitivity Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 61

VI. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 64


APPENDIX B. R+C PEER REVIEW LETTER



iii

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this report was performed by a consultant team comprising Arup, CO

Architects, and MGAC between January and December of 2018. Funding for the feasibility

study was provided by the Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee. Judicial

Council Facilities Services staff managed and directed the project, while Rutherford + Chekene,

the structural peer reviewer retained by the Judicial Council, reviewed the work presented herein.

Individuals within these organizations are acknowledged below.

Project Manager Clifford Ham, Judicial Council Facilities Services

Primary Authors Mike Mieler, Rob Smith, and Ibrahim Almufti, Arup

Primary Editors Clifford Ham, Judicial Council Facilities Services

Jesse Vernon and Tim Arioto, Arup

Engineers Amie Nulman, Swami Krishnan, Lauren Biscombe, Kevin Chen, Saeed

Fathali, Aysegul Gogus, Nicole Paul, and Terry Zhang, Arup

Architects James Simeo, Antoinette Bunkley, Sona Aroush, Michael Johnson, Ed

Martinez, and Sarah Holton, CO Architects

Cost Estimators Rick Lloyd and Analyn Apan, MGAC

Peer Reviewers William Holmes, Afshar Jalalian, and Marko Schotanus, Rutherford +

Chekene

Contributors Mike Courtney, Pella McCormick, Jagan Singh, and Zenaida Mananquil,

Judicial Council Facilities Services

Staff at the Superior Courts of California who had buildings included in

this study



4

I. INTRODUCTION

In January 2018, the Judicial Council of California Facilities Services engaged Arup, CO

Architects, and MGAC (herein referred to as the consultant team) to perform a seismic

renovation feasibility study for 26 court buildings in California. The study involved developing a

conceptual seismic retrofit scheme for each building, determining the collateral impacts and

associated construction costs of the retrofit schemes, and performing cost-benefit analyses to

determine the most appropriate renovation strategy for each building.

This report provides additional detail about the methodology used by the consultant team as part

of the seismic renovation feasibility study. Bolded terms throughout this report are explained in

more detail in the glossary in Appendix A.

A. Background and Context

The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (Sen. Bill 1732; Stats. 2002, ch. 1082) initiated the

transfer of responsibility for funding, operation, and ownership of court buildings from the

counties to the Judicial Council and State of California. The act required most existing

California court buildings to be seismically evaluated and assigned a risk level, with VII

being the worst and I being the best. Facilities evaluated as Risk Level V or worse were

ineligible for transfer to the state because they were deemed to have unacceptable seismic

safety ratings. In total, 225 court buildings (comprising 300 building segments) were

evaluated; 72 segments were rated Risk Level IV, while 228 were rated Risk Level V.

In 2015, the Judicial Council engaged Rutherford + Chekene (R+C) to develop a more

refined seismic risk rating (SRR) for the 139 Risk Level V building segments that remained

in the council’s portfolio since the initial 2002 study. Using the Federal Emergency

Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module, R+C

assigned an SRR to each building segment based on the relative collapse probability

obtained from the 2003 seismic assessment of the structure (R+C 2017).

Informed by the SRRs, the Judicial Council Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory

Committee authorized the California Superior Court Buildings Seismic Renovation

Feasibility Studies project on August 28, 2017. The committee directed Facility Services

staff to study 27 buildings that meet specific criteria. For a court building to be a candidate

for the renovation feasibility study, it needed to meet all the following criteria:

• It has a Very High or High SRR.

• It is not being replaced by an active new courthouse construction project.

• It is not subject to a memorandum of understanding restricting transfer because of

historic building designation.

• It is owned by the Judicial Council or has a transfer of title pending, or the court

occupies more than 80 percent of a county owned building.



5

• The investment would extend its useful life for long-term service to the public.

Facilities Services engaged the consultant team in January 2018 to perform the study, which

was completed in December 2018. One court building was removed during the study due to a

lack of structural and architectural drawings. The 26 court buildings studied have a total area

of approximately five million gross square feet and comprise 43 building segments. Figure 1

shows the location and area of each court building included in the study.

Figure 1. Location and Size of the 26 Court Buildings Assessed in This Study

B. Summary of Project Approach

As part of the seismic renovation feasibility study, the consultant team reviewed structural

and architectural drawings and previous seismic assessment reports to understand the critical

seismic deficiencies and general layout of each court building. The team then conducted a

site inspection and interviewed court staff to verify critical seismic deficiencies and

document overall facility conditions before performing a supplemental seismic assessment to

confirm previously identified deficiencies and identify new ones.



6

The consultant team then designed a conceptual retrofit scheme for each court building to

address the critical seismic deficiencies identified from the supplemental seismic evaluation.

The primary objective of the retrofit scheme is to reduce the seismic risk level of the court

building from Risk Level V to IV, typically by strengthening existing structural

components, adding new ones, or a combination of both.

The team then determined the collateral impacts of the retrofit scheme and identified code-

required upgrades to accessibility and fire and life safety systems. Collateral impacts refer to

repair work to nonstructural components (e.g., walls, ceilings, lighting, carpeting) made

necessary by the retrofit. This scope of work is referred to as the baseline retrofit option

(Option 1) because it represents the minimum required effort to achieve Risk Level IV

seismic performance.

Because a seismic retrofit can be highly invasive, it provides an opportunity to make

additional building repairs and upgrades for relatively little incremental cost. The Judicial

Council Facilities Services staff asked the consultant team to include approved, unfunded

facility modifications in addition to the minimum scope of work required in the baseline

retrofit. Approved, unfunded facility modifications, referred to as priority upgrades, include

building maintenance and systems upgrades that have been approved by the Judicial Council

or Superior Court but do not have specific funding sources identified yet. Consequently,

these facility modifications would be attractive candidates for inclusion in a seismic

renovation. This option is referred to as the priority upgrades retrofit option (Option 2).

Furthermore, because a seismic retrofit can be extremely costly, the consultant team also

included a full renovation option and two replacement options for the purposes of

benchmarking. While these three options did not involve any design work, they were

included in the study as a reference point to identify situations where it may be more cost

effective to either fully renovate or replace a court building. The full renovation option

(Option 3) involves the same seismic retrofit as the baseline retrofit, plus full demolition and

replacement of the building interior down to the structural skeleton and removal and

replacement of the exterior wall and roof cladding. The first replacement option, referred to

as the replace to 2016 CBC option (Option 4), involves replacing the existing court

building with a new facility that satisfies the requirements of the 2016 California Building

Code (CBC; CBSC 2016a). The second replacement option, referred to as the replace to

beyond code option (Option 5), involves replacing the existing court building with a new

facility that goes beyond the minimum requirements of the 2016 CBC to achieve more

resilient seismic performance (e.g., reduced damage, repair costs, and downtime).

A total of five retrofit and replacement options were considered for each court building. The

consultant team developed construction cost estimates and durations for each option and

compared these costs to the benefits of retrofitting or replacing the court building. The

primary benefit of retrofitting or replacing the court building is reduced seismic risk relative

to the existing court building, including reduced collapse probability, fatalities, repair costs,

and downtime. Additional benefits stemming from retrofitting or replacing the court building



7

(e.g., improved energy efficiency, accessibility, fire and life safety, security, employee

productivity) were not quantified, though the costs of these upgrades were included in the

cost-benefit analysis. The design team developed a risk model for each retrofit and

replacement option to predict the reduction in seismic risk. Refer to Section IV for additional

discussion of the seismic risk assessment methodology.

The consultant team then performed cost-benefit analyses to compare the financial

effectiveness of the five retrofit and replacement options for each court building. The benefit-

cost ratio measures the benefits of an option relative to its cost and was the primary

consideration in the Judicial Council Facilities Services staff’s decision of which retrofit or

replacement option to select. Refer to Section V for additional discussion of the cost-benefit

methodology.

The conceptual retrofit schemes were reviewed by R+C, the structural peer reviewer retained

by the Judicial Council for this study, to confirm the validity and appropriateness of the

proposed interventions. R+C also reviewed results from the seismic risk assessments and

cost-benefit analyses.

C. Report Organization

Section II documents minimum code requirements for seismic retrofits of court buildings in

California. Section III describes the approach for evaluating and designing the seismic

retrofits in this study. Section IV explains the seismic risk assessment methodology for

predicting casualties, repair costs, and downtime for existing court buildings and the retrofit

and replacement schemes across a range of earthquake intensities. Section V details the cost-

benefit analysis methodology for evaluating the financial effectiveness of retrofitting or

replacing each of the 26 court buildings in this study.

Appendix A provides a list of abbreviations and glossary of terminology used throughout this

report. Appendix B provides a letter from R+C stating their professional opinion about

overall appropriateness or validity of the methodology used for the seismic renovation

feasibility study.



8

II. MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RETROFITS

This section summarizes the minimum code requirements for seismic retrofits of California court

buildings. These requirements form the basis for the scopes of work for the three retrofit options

included in the feasibility study: baseline retrofit, priority upgrades retrofit, and full renovation.

Per Table 317.5 of the 2016 California Existing Building Code (CEBC), all three retrofit

options must achieve the following two-tiered seismic performance objective (CBSC 2016c):

1. Level 1: In the 20 percent in 50-year seismic event (i.e., the 225-year earthquake), life

safety performance for both structural and nonstructural components

2. Level 2: In the 5 percent in 50-year seismic event (i.e., the 975-year earthquake), collapse

prevention performance for the structure, while the performance of nonstructural

components is not considered

As documented in the sections that follow, this two-tiered seismic performance objective is

equivalent to (and therefore achieves) Risk Level IV performance, which is the minimum

performance level required by the Judicial Council for the seismic retrofit of court buildings.

This two-tiered objective is also equivalent to the basic performance objective for existing

buildings (BPOE) for Risk Category II structures, as outlined in ASCE 41-13 (2014). While

court buildings are classified as Risk Category III structures in the 2016 California Building

Code (CBC), which governs how new buildings are designed and constructed, the two-tiered

performance objective specified in Table 317.5 of the 2016 CEBC translates to a Risk Category

II classification per ASCE 41-13. Note that the risk categories in ASCE 41-13 and the 2016

CBC, which provide the basis for applying earthquake provisions based on a building’s use or

occupancy, are distinct from Judicial Council risk levels, which measure the damageability of a

court building in an earthquake.

Per additional requirements in the 2016 CEBC, the seismic retrofit of a court building will

trigger required upgrades to both accessibility and fire and life safety systems (CBSC 2016c).

Section II.A lists the sources of information reviewed to determine minimum retrofit

requirements for court buildings. Section II.B discusses the authorities having jurisdiction over

different aspects of the seismic retrofit process. Section II.C discusses minimum seismic retrofit

requirements for Judicial Council court buildings. Section II.D discusses minimum accessibility

upgrades triggered by the seismic retrofit, while Section II.E discusses minimum fire and life

safety upgrades. Section II.F describes the three retrofit options (and two replacement options)

considered as part of this study. Section II.G provides relevant excerpts from the 2016 CEBC

that are referenced in the following sections.

A. Sources of Information

To determine the minimum retrofit requirements for court buildings in California, the

consultant team reviewed various written documents that serve as the regulatory framework

governing the seismic retrofit of court buildings in California. These include the following

documents:



9

• 2016 California Existing Building Code (CBSC 2016a)

• Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (Sen. Bill 1732; Stats. 2002, ch. 1082)

• Leasing memos from the Judicial Council (2008) and the California Department of

General Services (DGS; 2009)

• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 41-13, Seismic Evaluation

and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2014)

The consultant team also had numerous conversations with Judicial Council Facilities

Services staff and engineers at R+C, the peer reviewer for the feasibility study, to discuss

retrofit requirements.

B. Authorities Having Jurisdiction

Section 70391(b) of Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 gives the Judicial Council “the full

range of policymaking authority over trial court facilities, including, but not limited to,

planning, construction, acquisition, and operation, to the extent not expressly otherwise

limited by law” (Sen. Bill 1732; Stats. 2002, ch. 1082). Based on this language and

conversations with the Judicial Council, including the project kick-off meeting on January

26, 2018, Table 1 summarizes the authorities have jurisdiction over different aspects of the

seismic retrofit of court buildings in California, including structure, accessibility, and fire and

life safety.

Table 1. Authorities Having Jurisdiction Over the Seismic Retrofit of Court Buildings

Retrofit

Aspect

Authority Having

Jurisdiction Source Notes

Structure Judicial Council Section 1.2.1.2 of

the 2016 CEBC

The Judicial Council hires a structural peer

reviewer to verify compliance with California

Building Standards Code, which includes the

2016 CEBC.

Accessibility Division of the

State Architect

Section 1.9 of the

2016 CEBC

Fire and life

safety

State Fire Marshal Section 1.11 of

the 2016 CEBC

C. Seismic Retrofit Requirements

Seismic retrofits of court buildings in California are subject to the requirements of both the

2016 CEBC and the Judicial Council. These requirements are reviewed in the following

sections, culminating with a determination of the minimum seismic retrofit requirements

used in this study. Figure 2 provides a flowchart summarizing the retrofit requirements

discussed below.



10

Figure 2. Summary of Retrofit Requirements of Court Buildings in California

1. Minimum Seismic Retrofit Requirements per 2016 CEBC

Sections 317 through 322 of the 2016 CEBC prescribe “minimum standards for

earthquake evaluation and design for retrofit of existing state-owned structures, including

buildings owned by… the Judicial Council” (CBSC 2016c, Section 301.1). Section 317.3



11

specifies conditions under which any retrofit, repair, or modification of a building must

adhere to the minimum requirements of the 2016 CEBC. Refer to Section II.G.1 for the

code language. If none of the conditions of Section 317.3 are satisfied, then the retrofit is

considered voluntary and only the provisions of Section 319.12 of the CEBC apply. In

overview, these provisions require that a voluntary seismic retrofit not reduce the

capacity of or increase the loading on existing structural elements, or create a “dangerous

condition.” However, Section 319.12 stops short of prescribing minimum performance

objectives for voluntary seismic retrofits (CBSC 2016c). Refer to Section II.G.3 for

specific code language.

If any of the conditions in Section 317.3 are met, the retrofit must satisfy the provisions

of Section 317 of the 2016 CEBC, herein referred to as a mandatory retrofit. Of the

several conditions listed, the most likely to be triggered is that of the total construction

costs exceeding 25 percent of the cost of replacing the building. Based on previous

experience, the consultant team anticipated that a typical seismic retrofit of a court

building would exceed this threshold; therefore, the retrofit options considered in this

study were required to meet the minimum requirements of the CEBC as specified in

Section 317. After designing each retrofit and estimating its cost, the consultant team

verified that the 25 percent cost threshold is triggered for all court buildings.

Table 317.5 of the 2016 CEBC prescribes minimum seismic performance objectives for a

retrofit that meets any of the conditions of Section 317.3. Refer to Section II.G.2 for

specific code language for Table 317.5. For the seismic retrofit of a Judicial Council

court building, the first row of Table 317.5 governs, and the retrofit must achieve the

following two-tiered performance objective:

1. Level 1: In the 20 percent in 50-year seismic event (i.e., the 225-year earthquake),

life safety performance for both the structure and nonstructural components.

2. Level 2: In the 5 percent in 50-year seismic event (i.e., the 975-year earthquake),

collapse prevention performance for the structure, while the performance of

nonstructural components is not considered.

This performance objective is equivalent to the BPOE for Risk Category II structures

specified in ASCE 41-13. While court buildings are classified as Risk Category III

structures in the 2016 CBC, which governs how new buildings are designed and

constructed, the two-tiered performance objective specified in Table 317.5 of the 2016

CEBC translates to a Risk Category II classification per ASCE 41-13.

2. Minimum Seismic Retrofit Requirements per the Judicial Council

Regardless of whether the seismic retrofit is deemed voluntary or mandatory per the 2016

CEBC, the minimum performance requirements specified by the Judicial Council will

govern the retrofit. Per previous conversations with the Judicial Council Facilities

Services staff, the seismic retrofit of court buildings must, at a minimum, achieve Risk



12

Level IV performance. Language in Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 reinforces this

understanding, as a building evaluated as Risk Level V or worse is classified as having an

“unacceptable seismic safety rating.”

Consequently, the following two situations are possible:

1. If the retrofit is deemed voluntary per the 2016 CEBC, achieving Risk Level IV

performance is the sole requirement.

2. If the retrofit is deemed mandatory per the 2016 CEBC, the retrofit is required to

achieve the more stringent of Risk Level IV performance or the two-tiered

performance objective in Table 317.5 of the 2016 CEBC, though, as will be

demonstrated in the following paragraphs, these two performance requirements

are equivalent.

Since the designation of the risk levels used by the Judicial Council is not recognized in

any of the governing building code standards (including the CEBC, which references

ASCE 41), it is essential to establish the definition for Risk Level IV so it can be related

to the regulatory requirements of current code (see Section II.C.1).

Towards this end, the consultant team reviewed two documents that explicitly define

Risk Level IV performance: one written by the California Department of General

Services (DGS; 2009) and one written by the Judicial Council (2008). DGS (2009)

outlines requirements for conducting independent seismic reviews of buildings the DGS

might lease. It states that the DGS will not approve for occupancy a newly leased

building if it is evaluated as Risk Level V or higher. The document contains a table that

defines “Earthquake Damageability Levels for Existing Buildings,” which the consultant

team interpreted as being equivalent to the risk levels used by the Judicial Council. Table

2 reproduces the original table from DGS (2009). The table defines Damageability Level

IV, which is equivalent to Risk Level IV, as “a building evaluated as meeting or

exceeding the requirements of Chapter 34 of CBC [now the CEBC] for Occupancy

Category I-III performance criteria [now referred to as Risk Categories].”

As described in preceding sections, the minimum code requirements for a seismic retrofit

of a court building depend on whether it is considered voluntary or mandatory. However,

using the definition provided for Risk Level III in Table 2 and previous versions of the

CBC, it is possible to back-calculate that Risk Level IV performance is equivalent to the

two-tiered seismic performance objective in Table 317.5 of the 2016 CEBC. More

specifically, from Table 2, Risk Level III involves replacing the BSE-R (i.e., the 225-year

earthquake, which in ASCE 41-13 is the BSE-1E) with the BSE-1 (475-year earthquake,

which in ASCE 41-13 is the BSE-1N), and the BSE-C (975-year earthquake, which in

ASCE 41-13 is the BSE-2E) with the BSE-2 (2,475-year earthquake, which in ASCE 41-

13 is the BSE-2N), implying that Risk Level IV performance involves using the same

seismic hazard levels as specified in Table 317.5 of the 2016 CEBC (i.e., BSE-R and

BSE-C).



13

Table 2. Earthquake Damageability Levels (Risk Levels) for Existing Buildings (DGS 2009)

Risk Level III is also described as meeting the CBC requirements for new buildings. This

is generally understood to mean life safety performance in the BSE-1 and collapse

prevention performance in the BSE-2. Consequently, Risk Level IV is equivalent to the

two-tiered seismic performance objective in Table 317.5 of the 2016 CEBC.

The Judicial Council’s (2008) Court Facilities Planning: Seismic Safety Policy for

Leased Buildings report specifies that the Judicial Council will not approve leasing or



14

renewal of a lease in a building if it is evaluated as Risk Level V or higher. The document

defines Risk Level IV in a similar fashion as DGS (2009).

Based on DGS (2009) and the Judicial Council (2008), the consultant team determined

that for a retrofit to achieve Risk Level IV performance, it must satisfy the requirements

for mandatory seismic retrofits in the 2016 CEBC. Consequently, use of Section 319.12

is prohibited in a retrofit of a court building because its provisions do not ensure that the

two-tiered performance objective in Table 317.5 of the 2016 CEBC is achieved.

D. Triggered Upgrades to Accessibility

Chapter 11B of the 2016 CBC specifies minimum accessibility requirements for public

buildings. In accordance with the Division of the State Architect’s 2016 California Access

Compliance Advisory Reference Manual commentary on Section 202.3 of Chapter 11B of

the 2016 CBC, an accessible primary entrance, toilet and bathing facilities, drinking

fountains, signs, public telephones, and path of travel connecting these elements shall be

provided in existing buildings. If these items are not already in compliance, a seismic retrofit

would trigger accessibility upgrades to the primary entrance, the facilities that serve it (e.g.,

toilets, drinking fountains, signs, public telephones), and the path of travel between them.

In addition, when alterations or additions are made to existing buildings, an accessible path

of travel to the specific area (or areas) of alteration or addition shall be provided. The

accessible path of travel shall include:

• Toilet and bathing facilities serving the area

• Drinking fountains serving the area

• Public telephones serving the area

• Signs

Consequently, any area impacted by the conceptual retrofit scheme (e.g., strengthening of a

concrete wall in an administrative space) would require accessibility upgrades to the facilities

serving the impacted area (e.g., toilets, drinking fountains, signs, public telephones) and the

path of travel from the primary entrance.

The 2016 CBC also requires accessibility upgrades whenever the primary use or function of a

building is altered; however, such changes in use or function are not anticipated.

The extent of compliance with these accessibility requirements shall be provided by

equivalent facilitation or to the greatest extent possible without creating an unreasonable

hardship. Should the enforcing agency, the Division of the State Architect, determine the cost

of full applicable compliance is an unreasonable hardship, then the cost compliance shall be

limited to 20 percent of the adjusted construction cost of alterations, structural repairs, or

additions (CBC Section 202.4, Exception 8; CBSC 2016a). The consultant team anticipates

the Judicial Council would be unable to obtain a hardship exemption.



15

E. Triggered Upgrades to Fire and Life Safety

The 2016 California Fire Code (CFC) specifies “minimum requirements… to safeguard the

public health, safety and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous

conditions in new and existing buildings” (CFC Section 1.1.2; CBSC 2016b). In accordance

with 2016 CFC, minimum means of egress in compliance with requirements of the building

code at the time of construction and provisions as detailed in 2016 CFC 1104.1 shall be

provided.

Based on observations of the existing court buildings, the following recommendations are

necessary to bring existing conditions into compliance:

• Provide emergency responder radio coverage (subject to determination by fire code

official)

• Provide standpipes in buildings with occupied floors located more than 50 feet above

the lowest level of fire department access or more than 50 feet below the highest level

of fire department access (CFC Section 1103.6)

• Provide fire alarm system (CFC Section 1103.7), with both automatic and manual fire

alarm systems in Group I-3 occupancy (CFC Section 1103.7.4)

Ultimately, fire and life safety upgrades are at the discretion of the State Fire Marshal. For

the purposes of this study, the consultant team assumed that all required upgrades specified

in the 2016 CFC would be triggered by a seismic retrofit. However, if the existing court

building does not currently have a fire sprinkler system, the seismic retrofit design does not

include installing one, though the State Fire Marshal may require it. In aggregate, these

assumptions are reasonably conservative and would likely result in upper-bound estimates of

fire and life safety construction costs.

F. Retrofit and Replacement Options to Evaluate

Based on the minimum retrofit requirements summarized in previous sections, the consultant

team, with input from Facilities Services, established several retrofit and replacement options

to be considered for each court building. The five options — three retrofit options and two

replacement options — are summarized in the text below and in Table 3.

For court buildings with multiple segments, a conceptual retrofit scheme was developed for

each building segment. For a small number of court buildings, not all segments are rated Risk

Level V, meaning they are not required to be retrofitted to achieve a level of seismic

performance consistent with the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002. However, because the

building segments typically function together as a single facility (which often has only one

public entrance), the decision was made to develop retrofit schemes, collateral impacts, and

construction costs for all building segments.

1. Baseline retrofit: includes seismic upgrades to structural and nonstructural

components (e.g., stairs, elevators, ceilings, lights, partitions) to achieve Risk Level



16

IV performance (i.e., ASCE 41-13 BPOE for Risk Category II structures),

nonstructural repairs made necessary by the retrofit, and triggered upgrades to

accessibility and fire and life safety systems. This option represents the minimum

level of effort and expenditure to mitigate the seismic risk at each court building.

2. Priority upgrades retrofit: includes the same upgrades as Option 1, plus any priority

upgrades, which refer to approved but unfunded facility modifications. This option

was included in the study because seismic retrofits often provide an opportunity to

upgrade outdated or deficient building systems (which would be highly disruptive) at

relatively little additional cost.

3. Full renovation: includes the same seismic upgrades to structural components as

Option 1, plus full demolition and replacement of the building interior down to the

structural skeleton, including removal of the exterior wall and roof cladding.

Consequently, the necessary nonstructural seismic upgrades, nonstructural repairs,

triggered upgrades to accessibility and fire and life safety systems, and priority

upgrades are not specifically considered in this option, since a new building interior

will incorporate these features. This option was included because some retrofits are

highly invasive, so that a complete interior and exterior renovation would provide

direct access for improvement of structural frame connections, and hence might not

entail much additional cost compared to retrofit Option 1 or 2. Design of the fully

renovated interior and exterior is beyond the scope of this study.

4. Replace to 2016 CBC: involves replacing the existing court building with a new

facility that satisfies the requirements of the 2016 CBC, sized in accordance with the

Judicial Council California Trial Court Facilities Standards (2011). The size of a

replacement building was determined by using the number of court departments at the

existing court building and the median gross area per court department for California

Superior Court buildings of similar scope constructed in the recent decade. In

addition, a replacement court building would contain only Superior Court functions,

resulting in a replacement building size that is in general alignment with the Judicial

Council Standards for new court buildings, but may be substantially smaller or larger

than the existing building. This replacement option was included for the purposes of

benchmarking because some retrofit schemes are so disruptive and costly that it might

be more cost effective to replace the court building with a new facility. The

construction costs for replacement buildings are derived from the Judicial Council

cost-model database of construction costs for California Superior Court buildings of

similar scope and location constructed in the recent decade. Design of the new court

facility is beyond the scope of this study.

5. Replace to beyond code: involves replacing the existing court building with a new

facility that achieves a seismic performance level exceeding the minimum

requirements of the 2016 CBC, sized in accordance with the Judicial Council

California Trial Court Facilities Standards (2011). This facility is expected to be more



17

resilient — experience less damage and downtime in future earthquakes — than a

code-compliant building. The Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi)

framework outlines criteria for resuming building operations quickly after an

earthquake (Arup 2013). While a building designed in accordance with REDi criteria

has a similar level of seismic safety (i.e., collapse probability) as one designed to the

2016 CBC, a REDi building is explicitly designed to recover functionality within a

specified timeframe after a large earthquake (e.g., 30 days for REDi Gold

performance). For example, REDi requires equipment anchorage to remain

essentially elastic and drift-sensitive components like partitions to accommodate

relative displacements with aesthetic damage in the design basis earthquake. Code-

compliant buildings, on the other hand, are not designed to minimize the type of

earthquake-induced damage that can result in significant repair costs and downtime.

This option was included because it is often only marginally more expensive (less

than 5 percent premium) to construct a more resilient building. The cost premium for

this option was assumed to be 5 percent of the cost of Option 4.

Table 3. Retrofit and Replacement Options

Option

Upgrade Options

Seismic Accessibility Fire and Life

Safety

Building

Systems

Baseline Retrofit

(Option 1) Minimum* Primary† Minimum**

Not considered

(unless impacted

by retrofit work)

Priority Upgrades Retrofit

(Option 2) Minimum* Primary† Minimum** Priority only††

Full Renovation

(Option 3) Minimum* Full‡ Full‡ Full‡

Replace to 2016 CBC

(Option 4) New facility

Replace to Beyond Code

(Option 5) New facility

* Retrofit achieves Risk Level IV performance, which is equivalent to BPOE for Risk Category II structures as defined in

ASCE 41-13. Minimum seismic upgrades apply to all segments of the court building.

† Primary accessibility upgrades address path-of-travel upgrades from the primary entrance to areas impacted by the

seismic retrofit, including upgrades to the facilities servicing the impacted areas (e.g., toilets, signage).

‡ Assumes complete building renovation (i.e., full accessibility, fire and life safety, and building systems upgrades).

Design of such upgrades is beyond the scope of this study; however, costs are estimated for inclusion in cost-benefit

analysis.

** Minimum fire and life safety upgrades include those detailed in Section II.E.

†† Priority building system upgrades (if any) are identified from a list of approved but unfunded facility modification

projects submitted to the consultant team by the individual courts. A full facility condition assessment is beyond the

scope of this study.



18

G. Referenced Code Language and Tables

1. CEBC Section 317.3

2. CEBC Table 317.5



19

3. CEBC Section 319.12



20

III. BASIS OF SEISMIC RETROFIT DESIGN

This section describes the basis of design for the conceptual seismic retrofit schemes developed

by the consultant team for the 26 court buildings in this study. The primary intent of the retrofit

schemes is to reduce the seismic risk level of the building from Risk Level V to IV. The retrofit

schemes are intended for feasibility evaluation and preliminary cost-estimation purposes only.

Section III.A describes the information used to seismically evaluate the existing court buildings

and design retrofit schemes. Section III.B summarizes the seismic evaluation methodology,

which follows the ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 evaluation procedures with some additional load path

calculations. Section III.C describes the methodology for designing the seismic retrofits, which

follows Section 1.5 of ASCE 41-13. Section III.D discusses the limitations of the seismic

evaluations and retrofit schemes.

A. Available Existing Information

The consultant team considered many sources of information in evaluating the existing court

buildings and designing conceptual retrofit schemes. The Judicial Council provided the

following documents to the consultant team:

• Original architectural, structural, or as-built drawings for each court building

• Drawings of previous modifications, alterations, or retrofits for each court building

• Seismic assessment reports from 2003 for each court building (based on ASCE 31-03

Tier 1 or 2 procedures)

• Facility conditions report for each court building

• A database containing information about the portfolio of court buildings, including

ownership, gross area, area occupied by courts, number of floors, age, building type,

seismic risk rating (SRR), number of courtrooms, and presence of asbestos

The quality and availability of information available varies from one court building to the

next. For locations with missing or illegible drawings, or incomplete seismic assessment

reports, the consultant team made appropriate assumptions about structural details, material

strengths, location of structural components, and other missing information. In addition to the

documents listed above, the consultant team also compiled a large amount of information

from additional sources, including notes from interviews with court staff, photos from site

inspections, and responses to online questionnaires sent to court staff.

B. Seismic Evaluation Methodology

Following the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002, most of the 26 court buildings included in

this study were evaluated per ASCE 31-03 (a predecessor to ASCE 41-13) and assigned a

risk level. The reports from these seismic evaluations (executed c. 2003) were made available

to the consultant team. While the reports catalog specific seismic deficiencies for each court



21

building, changes have been made to both the evaluation procedures in ASCE 41-13 and the

seismic hazard in California. Considering these changes, the consultant team, in discussion

with Judicial Council Facilities Services staff, decided to conduct a supplemental ASCE 41-

13 Tier 1 seismic assessment of each court building using the most recent seismic hazard

information for California, published in 2014 by USGS (Petersen et al. 2014).

The standard ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 Screening Procedure “consists of several sets of checklists

that allow a rapid evaluation of the structural, nonstructural, and foundation and geologic

hazard elements of the building and site conditions” (Section C3.3.2; ASCE 2014). For the

purposes of this study, the consultant team replicated the full ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 checklist

and performed relevant calculations pertinent to the changes in the evaluation code (ASCE

41-13 versus ASCE 31-03 [2003]). This included the evaluation of the adequacy of the load

path of the entire seismic-force-resisting system through simplified demand-capacity

calculations. The load path includes all the horizontal and vertical components participating

in the structural response of the building (e.g., floor diaphragms, foundations, vertical

components such as walls, frames, and braces) and the connections between each element.

These calculations are required to size primary structural components within the retrofit

scheme and verify overall feasibility.

A standard ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 seismic evaluation only requires identifying deficient

components from standard checklists. It does not require checking the adequacy of

supporting elements in the load path once the deficient components have been retrofitted, or

checking the performance of the entire seismic-force-resisting system. Both checks were

included in the supplemental seismic evaluations performed by the consultant team.

To inform these supplemental evaluations, the consultant team reviewed existing structural

drawings and previous ASCE 31-03 Tier 1 and Tier 2 seismic assessments, and conducted

site inspections to verify general conformance of existing conditions relative to the provided

documents. Site inspections did not include any destructive testing to verify material

properties or involve removing finishes or precast exterior cladding to confirm structural

properties or specific deficiencies. In addition, no geotechnical investigations were

performed to verify soil properties or liquefaction risk. Nor were any system-level analytical

models of the structure developed as part of the seismic evaluation process.

C. Conceptual Retrofit Design Methodology

Based on the deficiencies identified by the supplemental seismic evaluation, the consultant

team developed a conceptual retrofit scheme for each court building using a simplified

version of the process outlined in Section 1.5 of ASCE 41-13. This methodology consists of

the following steps:

1. Select a seismic performance objective for the retrofit. For court buildings in

California, the seismic retrofit is required to achieve ASCE 41-13 BPOE for Risk

Category II buildings. Refer to Section II for additional discussion.



22

2. Quantify the level of seismicity. Refer to Table 4 for additional information.

3. Obtain as-built information and conduct a site visit using the data collection

requirements of ASCE 41-13 Section 6.2 (via Section 319.2 of the 2016 CEBC) as a

guide.

4. Evaluate the adequacy of the load path of the existing seismic force-resisting system

through simplified demand-capacity calculations. Seismic demands and components

capacities are quantified based on ASCE 41-13. Refer to Section III.B and Table 4 for

additional information.

5. Conceive retrofit measures to address the deficiencies identified in the ASCE 31-03

seismic evaluation reports from 2003 and the demand-capacity calculations in Step 4

above. Retrofit measures may involve one or more of the following strategies as

permitted by ASCE 41-13:

a. Local modification of structural components, including:

i. Local strengthening of individual components (e.g., cover plating steel

beams or columns, adding wood structural panel sheathing to an

existing timber diaphragm)

ii. Local improvement of the deformation capacity or ductility of

individual components (e.g., adding a confinement steel jacket or fiber

reinforced polymer wrap around a reinforced concrete column to

improve its ability to deform without spalling or degrading

reinforcement splices, reducing the cross-section of selected structural

components to increase their flexibility and response displacement

capacity)

b. Removal or reduction of existing irregularities, including:

i. Removal of soft or weak stories by adding braced frames or shear

walls within the story

ii. Removal of torsional irregularities by adding moment frames, braced

frames, or shear walls or by partially demolishing structural elements,

removing setback towers or side wings, or adding a seismic joint to

balance the distribution of mass and stiffness within a story

c. Global structural stiffening, including the addition of new braced frames or

shear walls, or shotcreting over existing concrete walls

d. Global structural strengthening, including the addition of moment frames,

braced frames, or shear walls, though the last two measures may increase the

demands due to increased stiffness



23

e. Mass reduction, including the demolition of upper stories (e.g., penthouses),

replacement of heavy cladding or interior partitions, or removal of heavy

storage or equipment loads

f. Seismic isolation, including the addition of elastomeric bearings or friction

pendulum isolators; retrofits that involve seismic isolation must include a peer

review per Section 317.8 of the 2016 CEBC

g. Supplemental energy dissipation, including the addition of fluid viscous

dampers or friction-based hysteretic devices; retrofits the involve

supplemental energy dissipation must include peer review per Section 317.8

of the 2016 CEBC

While some of the strategies listed above may not be feasible or appropriate for historic

structures, none of the 26 court buildings in this study are listed on the state or federal

historic registers. Some, however, are classified as local points of historic interest, which

may limit the retrofit interventions possible. In these instances, provisions were made to

preserve historic elements in place

Table 4. Additional Information About the Seismic Retrofit Design Methodology

Item Description

Seismic

performance

objective for

retrofits

Retrofits of court buildings in California are required to achieve ASCE 41-13 BPOE for

Risk Category II structures. This performance objective comprises two tiers:

1. Level 1: In the 20 percent in 50-year seismic event (i.e., the 225-year

earthquake), life safety performance for both the structure and nonstructural

components.

2. Level 2: In the 5 percent in 50-year seismic event (i.e., the 975-year

earthquake), collapse prevention performance for the structure, while the

performance of nonstructural components is not considered.

Refer to Section II for additional discussion.

Basis of seismic

hazard

While ASCE 41-13 requires the use of seismic design maps developed by USGS in

2008, updated design maps developed by USGS in 2014 (Petersen et al. 2014) provided

the basis of seismic hazard for this study.

Soil type The soil type at each site was classified using Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10, with values

of the time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 meters (VS30) obtained from

USGS (Yong et al. 2016).

Material strength Nominal values for material strength were taken from existing structural drawings or

ASCE 41-13, unless better information was available.

Knowledge factor

(κ)

The level of knowledge is classified as “Usual” per Table 6-1 of ASCE 41-13 and the

knowledge factor (κ) is set to 1.0. This assumes that “Usual testing” per ASCE 41-13

will be undertaken in the future as part of a more detailed structural evaluation if the

court building is retrofitted.



24

Item Description

Scope of seismic

evaluation

The consultant team performed an enhanced Tier 1 seismic evaluation of the court

building. The standard Tier 1 Screening Procedure “consists of several sets of

checklists that allow a rapid evaluation of the structural, nonstructural, and foundation

and geologic hazard elements of the building and site conditions” (ASCE 2014, Section

C3.3.2). For the purposes of this study, the consultant team replicated the full checklist

and performed relevant calculations pertinent to the changes in the evaluation code

(ASCE 41-13 versus ASCE 31-03 [2003]). This included the evaluation of the

adequacy of the load path of the entire seismic force-resisting system through

simplified demand-capacity calculations. Refer to Section III.B for additional

discussion.

Nonstructural

items

Using Table 13-1 of ASCE 41-13 as a guide, nonstructural items that pose a life safety

hazard (e.g., heavy items that are not braced, precast hanging elements not adequately

anchored) were identified and retrofit measures recommended in accordance with

FEMA E-74 (2012a). Where not feasible (e.g., historic facades), alternative mitigation

strategies were developed.

D. Limitations

The retrofit schemes developed for this study are intended for feasibility evaluation and

preliminary cost-estimation purposes only — the schemes are not detailed retrofit designs

and should not serve as construction documents. An architect and Structural Engineer of

Record must be engaged by the Judicial Council in the future for design development of

constructible retrofit solutions. In addition to the deficiencies identified in the ASCE 31-03

seismic evaluation reports from 2003 and the supplemental seismic evaluations performed as

part of this study, the Structural Engineer of Record will need to consider any additional

deficiencies that may be identified when the structures are assessed per ASCE 41-13 (or the

enforceable standard at that time).

As discussed previously, the retrofit scheme is based on limited information and seismic

analysis and, therefore, is subject to the following limitations:

• No materials testing, geotechnical studies, or intrusive testing were performed.

• An analytical model of the building was not developed.

• Design optimization was not carried out (i.e., minimizing collateral impacts and

construction costs).

To address these limitations, the consultant team made conservative assumptions about the

overall condition of the facility (e.g., material strengths, connection details) to understand

and test the feasibility of retrofitting the court building. This likely results in a conservative

retrofit scheme and an upper bound on collateral impacts and construction costs (i.e., some

retrofit measures may not be required or can be scaled back after further investigation, or

alternative retrofit schemes might be possible). While this is appropriate for feasibility

studies and budgetary checking, a more thorough engineering study would need to be

performed prior to construction.



25

While the need to strengthen existing foundations or add new ones for new structural

elements such as shear walls and braced frames is relatively common in seismic retrofits,

rehabilitation of deficiencies in the existing foundation is less common. There are two basic

reasons for this:

• Foundation work in existing buildings is expensive.

• There has been relatively little loss of life and property damage resulting from

foundation failure in buildings in previous earthquakes (FEMA 2006).

That said, it is important to perform a careful foundation analysis, especially to estimate the

extent of soil movement and study the demands that this movement would impose on the

superstructure. Large soil movements from rigid body rotation of a shear wall, for example,

may have minimal consequences if the entire structure rotates, but may have significant

consequences to attached adjacent elements that are not rotating in phase or at all. Estimating

soil movements requires a careful geotechnical investigation, which may involve collection

and testing of soil samples. Such geotechnical investigations were not performed in this

study. In the absence of such investigations, the consultant team used the bearing capacity of

soils listed in the original drawings and compared them against the demand imposed by the

foundations in the design earthquake. Where the bearing capacity is exceeded, the consultant

team suggested a strategy for and extent of foundation retrofit to obtain a cost estimate for

the work. When the actual retrofit design is developed in the future, a geotechnical

investigation should be performed to assess the need for and extent of foundation retrofit

based on soil deformations rather than soil strength.



26

IV. PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

This section describes the seismic risk assessment performed by the consultant team to predict

the seismic performance of each court building across a range of earthquake intensities.

Probabilistic seismic risk models were developed for each court building and its five retrofit and

replacement options (refer to Section II.F for more information). The risk models predict damage

and related consequences (e.g., collapse probability, casualties, repair costs, downtime) for each

court building and retrofit/replacement option under various earthquake intensity levels. The

seismic risk assessment relies on thousands of computer simulations (Monte Carlo analysis) and

various earthquake intensities to predict seismic performance. This is known as a fully

probabilistic seismic risk assessment (PSRA).

The PSRA integrates the following information to predict casualties, repair costs, and downtime:

• Quantification of the seismic hazard at six intensities, ranging from frequent to very rare:

45-, 100-, 225-, 475-, 975-, 2,475-year return periods (Section IV.B)

• Anticipated building movements (i.e., engineering demand parameters) from simplified

structural analysis at each seismic intensity (Section IV.C)

• Collapse fragilities derived from previous seismic analyses by R+C (Section IV.D)

• Exposure data, including number of people within the building, quantity and type of

building components, contents, and value of each building (Section IV.E)

• Vulnerability data, expressed as fragility functions, that relate the anticipated building

movements to damage in structural and nonstructural components and contents (Section

IV.F)

• Consequence data that relates the anticipated damage in each building to repair costs,

repair time, downtime, casualties, and contents losses (Section IV.G)

Section IV.A summarizes the general PSRA methodology, while Sections IV.B through IV.G

describe the major inputs to the PSRA listed above. Section IV.H summarizes the primary

outputs from the PSRA and provides a sample of the output.

A. Methodology

The probabilistic seismic risk assessment (PSRA) is based on the standard loss methodology

outlined in FEMA P-58 (2012b). FEMA P-58 represents the state-of-the-art in site-specific

seismic risk assessment, drawing from over 10 years of research by FEMA. The FEMA P-58

methodology relates anticipated building movements (e.g., peak floor accelerations, drifts,

and residual drifts) to damage of individual components (e.g., concrete walls, architectural

glazing, water piping) and the associated consequences of this damage in terms of repair cost,

repair time, and casualty rate.



27

The PSRA also leverages the REDi downtime assessment methodology (Arup 2013) as an

overlay to the standard FEMA P-58 loss methodology. The REDi methodology converts

repair times from FEMA P-58 into estimates of downtime through consideration of labor

allocation, delays to initiation of repairs (i.e., impeding factors), and intermediate recovery

states (i.e., re-occupancy and functional recovery) along the path to full recovery. The

downtime estimates produced by REDi are expected to more realistically predict the duration

of time a court building could be unusable following different earthquake intensities.

The consultant team developed probabilistic seismic risk models for each of the following

scenarios:

• Current existing court building

• Baseline retrofit option (Option 1)

• Full renovation option (Option 3)

Risk models were not explicitly developed for the priority upgrades option (Option 2), the

replace to 2016 CBC option (Option 4), or the replace to beyond code option (Option 5). For

the priority upgrades option (Option 2), results from the risk model for the baseline retrofit

option (Option 1) were leveraged due to similarities in expected seismic performance (i.e.,

the only difference between these two options is typically a small number of building system

upgrades, which are not expected to impact seismic performance significantly). Refer to

Sections IV.C and IV.E for additional discussion about the risk models for each retrofit

option.

For the two replacement options (Options 4 and 5), risk models were not developed due to

insufficient information about the design and configuration of these new facilities. Instead,

for the replace to 2016 CBC option (Option 4), repair costs and downtime from the risk

model for the full renovation option (Option 3) were scaled by a factor of 0.75. The

consultant team selected this factor based on previous project experience and the fact that

seismic retrofits typically are designed to approximately 75 percent of the seismic hazard of

new code buildings, meaning that new buildings are stronger and would be expected to

perform better than retrofitted buildings. While increased strength may not always translate

into reduced repair costs and downtime, in the absence of information about the designs of

the replacement court buildings, this approximation was judged to be appropriate for the

purposes of this study.

For the replace to beyond code option (Option 5), repair costs and downtime from the risk

model for the full renovation option (Option 3) were scaled by a factor of 0.25 because

beyond-code buildings (e.g., those that achieve REDi Gold performance) are specifically

designed to minimize damage, repair costs, and downtime. Typically, this is achieved

through improved detailing of nonstructural elements or by seismically isolating the building,

resulting in substantial reductions in repair costs and downtime, often for a small increase in

initial construction costs.



28

For both Options 4 and 5, casualties were not modeled because the two replacement facilities

are expected to have significantly improved seismic safety relative to the existing court

building.

The risk models are used to predict the seismic performance of both the existing court

building and the five retrofit and replacement options in terms of collapse probability,

casualties, repair costs, and downtime. There is significant uncertainty in predicting these

metrics. The PSRA addresses this uncertainty through Monte Carlo analysis, a process in

which hundreds to thousands of simulations are performed to determine the range of possible

outcomes. For each of the six earthquake intensities evaluated, one thousand Monte Carlo

simulations were performed per building. Each realization corresponds to a specific

earthquake scenario, from which the building movement is estimated and the associated risks

are determined. Each individual simulation randomly draws slightly different values of each

input variable from a probabilistic distribution that captures uncertainty in each input. Figure

3 and Figure 4 show how casualties, repair costs, and downtime are calculated for an

individual realization.

B. Seismic Hazard Analyses

Seismic hazard is an important input to the PSRA, as the prediction of casualties, repair

costs, downtime, and other outputs are sensitive to the anticipated intensity of earthquake

shaking. The consultant team performed a simplified seismic hazard analysis for each court

building. Because this study uses simplified structural analysis techniques (see Section IV.C),

the primary output from each analysis is an estimate of the spectral acceleration at the

fundamental period of the court building (for both existing and retrofitted configurations) for

each of the six earthquake intensities considered in this study.

The seismic hazard analyses draw from the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment

performed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as part of the 2014 update to the

National Seismic Hazard Maps (Petersen et al. 2014). The consultant team obtained the

seismic hazard at each of the six intensities in this study using the Java-based platform

developed by USGS as part of the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (USGS, n.d.).

There are some limitations in the characterization of the seismic hazard from published

sources like USGS. Namely, it typically does not account for site-specific impacts, including

important local effects (e.g., basin amplification) and nonlinear soil response, including

liquefaction. Consequently, site-specific seismic hazard analyses would need to be performed

as part of a detailed retrofit or replacement design for a court building.

The following sections provide additional explanation of how the seismic hazard (i.e.,

spectral acceleration) was determined for each court building.



29

Figure 3. Overview of the PSRA Methodology Used in This Study



30

Figure 4. Overview of FEMA-P58 Loss Methodology (Top) and REDi Downtime Methodology (Bottom)

1. Soil Site Class

The soil conditions at a site can significantly influence the strength of earthquake ground

shaking. Soil conditions can vary substantially from site to site, even for those close to

each other. As such, the identification and characterization of the site soil conditions for

each court building is an important input to the seismic hazard analysis.

In common seismic hazard assessment practice, the average shear wave velocity in the

top 30 meters of soil (Vs,30) is used as a proxy to characterize how the site will respond in

an earthquake. The sites considered in this study range from as soft as 600 ft/s (Site Class

E) to as stiff as 5,000 ft/s (Site Class B) (ASCE 2014). Where possible, site class data

was obtained from geotechnical reports referenced in the 2003 ASCE 31-03 Tier 1 or 2

seismic evaluation reports provided by the Judicial Council. However, there was a

significant subset of court buildings for which such documentation was not available. In

those cases, the soil site class was determined by averaging Vs,30 data from USGS. If Vs,30

data was not available, Site Class D was assumed.

Figure 5 shows a map of soil site class values for the 26 court buildings in this study.

Stanley Mosk Courthouse (19-K1) is Site Class B but is obscured on the map due to the



31

high density of court buildings in Los Angeles County. All but six court buildings are

Site Class D.

Figure 5. Map Showing Soil Site Class Values for 26 Court Buildings Note: Stanley Mosk Courthouse (19-K1) is Site Class B but is obscured on the map due to the high density

of court buildings in Los Angeles County.

2. Earthquake Intensity Levels

Table 5 presents the six earthquake intensity levels included in this study, spanning the

range of frequent to very rare events. Six intensities were selected to ensure that the

PSRA captured the full spectrum of damage to a court building, from minor or no

damage at the 45-year earthquake intensity level to severe damage or even collapse at the

2,475-year level.



32

3. Uniform Hazard Spectra

For each earthquake intensity level and court building site, the consultant team

determined the uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) using the 2014 update to the USGS

National Seismic Hazard Maps (Petersen et al. 2014) and the assumed soil site class

values. The UHS plots the spectral acceleration at a site as a function of fundamental

building period for each earthquake intensity. Figure 6 shows the UHS for the Santa

Monica Courthouse (19-AP1) as an example.

Table 5. Six Earthquake Intensities Levels Considered in the PSRA

Average return period

(years)

Average annual rate

(per year)

Probability in 30 years Probability in 50 years

45 0.02222 49% 67%

100 0.01000 26% 39%

225 0.00444 12% 20%

475 0.00211 6% 10%

975 0.00103 3% 5%

2475 0.00040 1% 2%

Figure 6. Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) for the Santa Monica Courthouse

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.01 0.1 1 10

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion (

g)

Fundamental Period (seconds)

UHS for Santa Monica Courthouse (19-AP1)

45-year

100-year

225-year

475-year

975-year

2,475-year



33

4. Spectral Acceleration

Using the UHS for each site and the fundamental period of the existing court building or

retrofit option, the consultant team determined the spectral acceleration at each

earthquake intensity. This is a primary input to the simplified structural analysis of each

court building, which is described in Section IV.C.

Per Section IV.A, three risk models were developed for each court building: the current

existing court building, the baseline retrofit option, and the full renovation option.

Consequently, the fundamental period needs to be determined for each model. The

consultant team used Equation 12.8-7 of ASCE 7-10 (2013) to calculate the approximate

fundamental period for the two retrofit models (see Equation 1 below). The two

coefficients in Equation 1, 𝐶𝑡 and 𝑥, were determined from the structure type of the

retrofitted court building. For example, for concrete shear wall structures, 𝐶𝑡 = 0.02 and

𝑥 = 0.75 per Table 12.8-2 in ASCE 7-10. The period estimate from this equation

represents a lower bound on the fundamental period for the retrofit. Lower bound period

estimates are used in design because they tend to produce conservative estimates of the

seismic demand (i.e., shorter periods have higher spectral accelerations, as illustrated in

Figure 6).

𝑇𝑎 = 𝐶𝑡ℎ𝑛𝑥 Equation 1

Where:

𝑇𝑎 = approximate fundamental period

ℎ𝑛 = structural height

𝐶𝑡, 𝑥 = coefficients based on structure type; refer to Table 12.8-2 in ASCE 7-10

(2013) for coefficient values

For existing court buildings, the consultant team attempted to determine more realistic

estimates of fundamental period. While detailed structural analyses were not performed

in this study (which would have produced the most accurate estimates of period), the

consultant team leveraged the provision in ASCE 7-10 that limits the fundamental period

to 𝑇𝑎 (from Equation 1) multiplied by 𝐶𝑢, the coefficient for upper limit on calculated

period. A value of 1.5 was assumed for 𝐶𝑢 in this study. In the experience of the

consultant team, the limit on the fundamental period (i.e., 𝑇𝑎 × 𝐶𝑢) would likely be

exceeded if a more detailed structural model were developed, meaning the cap is an

appropriate estimate of the fundamental period of the existing court building for this

study. The consultant team judged the longer period of the existing facility to be

appropriate given the fact that a seismic retrofit typically stiffens a structure. Also, older

buildings tend to be less stiff than modern code-compliant ones.

5. Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which earthquake ground shaking produces excess pore

pressure and causes a subsequent loss of soil strength, resulting in significant lateral



34

displacement or uneven vertical settlement of a building. This behavior is a concern for

structures with shallow foundations in loose, saturated soils, such as clays or sands below

the water table.

Though not explicitly considered in the PSRA, the consultant team estimated the

liquefaction susceptibility for each court building using data from previous liquefaction

studies by the USGS and California Geological Survey (USGS 2000, USGS 2006, Jones

et al. 2008). Figure 7 shows the liquefaction susceptibility values for the 26 court

buildings in this study. These values are provided for information purposes only — a site-

specific geotechnical evaluation would be required to verify liquefaction susceptibility at

each court building as part of a detailed retrofit or replacement design.

Figure 7. Map Showing Liquefaction Susceptibility Values for 26 Court Buildings



35

C. Simplified Structural Analysis

Using outputs from the seismic hazard analysis, the consultant team performed simplified

structural analyses of each court building and retrofit scheme to estimate important

engineering demand parameters (EDPs) for the PSRA. EDPs capture the building movements

(e.g., interstory drift ratio, floor acceleration) caused by an earthquake. Table 6 lists the EDPs

and calculation methods used in this study.

Table 6. Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs) Calculated from the Simplified Structural Analysis

EDP Calculation Method Additional Discussion

Peak interstory drift ratio Miranda (1999) and FEMA P-58 Simplified

Analysis Procedure (2012b)

Section IV.C.1

Peak floor acceleration FEMA P-58 Simplified Analysis Procedure (2012b) Section IV.C.2

Residual interstory drift

ratio

FEMA P-58 Simplified Analysis Procedure (2012b) Section IV.C.3

The methodology was largely adopted from the FEMA P-58 Simplified Analysis Procedure

(2012b), which enables the estimation of important EDPs using relatively limited building

information and seismic hazard characterized by spectral acceleration. While some of the

limitations of the simplified procedure were exceeded for some court buildings (i.e., those

with more than 15 stories or irregular plans or elevations), detailed structural analyses were

not possible given the high-level nature of the supplemental ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 evaluations

and the conceptual nature of the retrofit schemes. Consequently, the consultant team judged

the FEMA P-58 simplified procedure to be appropriate for this study, capturing the expected

seismic response of the court buildings at a high level.

Inputs to the simplified structural analysis are based largely on non-detailed evaluations,

including rapid visual screening and simple calculations based on available structural

drawings or knowledge of historical building codes in California. Consequently, the

simplified analysis is unable to capture building-specific deficiencies such as setbacks and

vertical offsets and is not a substitute for detailed structural analysis.

The EDPs from the simplified structural analyses are assumed to be the best estimate (i.e.,

median) values. In computing these quantities, variability is applied to account for significant

uncertainty in the analyses, including the completeness of the analytical models and as-built

construction documents. This variability, referred to as the modeling dispersion, is described

in more detail in Chapter 5 of FEMA P-58 (2012b). Per recommendations in FEMA P-58,

the consultant team used a modeling dispersion value of 0.5 (the maximum value possible)

for all court buildings to account for the simplified nature of the analysis (including the fact

that some of the limitations of the simplified procedure that were exceeded) and the lack of

consistency in drawing quality. In future studies, the modeling dispersion can be reduced by

increasing the sophistication of the structural analysis.

The following sections describe how each of the EDPs in Table 6 is calculated.



36

1. Peak Interstory Drift Ratio

The FEMA P-58 Simplified Analysis Procedure (2012b) outlines a methodology for

estimating peak interstory drift ratios (IDRs). However, the methodology requires

development of a 3-D linear elastic building model to estimate elastic deformations,

which is beyond the scope of this study. Consequently, the consultant team used an

alternate method described by Miranda (1999) to estimate elastic deformations. In

overview, Miranda proposes an equivalent continuum model to estimate elastic

deformations of multi-story buildings using simplified inputs, including fundamental

period, structural behavior type (i.e., shear, flexural, or combined), lateral load

distribution shape, floor heights and weights, yield strength, and yield drift ratio. Table 7

summarizes how each of these inputs is calculated.

Table 7. Summary of Inputs Required for Equivalent Continuum Model Proposed by Miranda (1999)

Input Calculation Method

Fundamental period Calculated using the procedure described in Section IV.B.4

Structural behavior type Assigned based on existing building drawings and the following

mapping:

• Wall buildings: shear behavior

• Frame buildings: flexural behavior

• Other buildings (including braced frame): combined behavior

Lateral load distribution shape Triangular

Floor heights and weights Obtained or calculated from existing building drawings

Yield strength Calculated from existing building drawings or conceptual retrofit

scheme

Yield drift ratio Based on previous project experience and simplified elastic models

using structural analysis software (e.g., Oasys GSA)

Assumptions implicit in the application of Miranda (1999) include uniform mass and

stiffness distribution over the height of the building and lateral displacements

approximated by the first mode contribution. These assumptions were found to be

reasonable for the objectives of this study, but further detailed analysis would be

necessary to increase the confidence level in the EDPs for each building.

Elastic deformations from the equivalent continuum models are then adjusted using

various correction factors to obtain peak IDRs using the FEMA P-58 Simplified Analysis

Procedure. Refer to FEMA P-58 for more information (2012b).

2. Peak Floor Acceleration

The consultant team used the FEMA P-58 Simplified Analysis Procedure without

modification to calculate peak floor accelerations. Primary inputs to this calculation

include the peak ground acceleration, fundamental period of the structure, yield strength,

and spectral acceleration at the fundamental mode. Calculation of the fundamental period



37

and yield strength are described in Table 7, while the peak ground acceleration and

spectral acceleration at the fundamental period are outputs of the seismic hazard analysis

(refer to Section IV.B). The peak ground acceleration is then adjusted using various

correction factors to obtain peak floor accelerations throughout the structure.

3. Residual Interstory Drift Ratio

Using peak IDRs and the yield drift ratio, the FEMA P-58 Simplified Analysis Procedure

proposes a simple equation to estimate the residual IDRs, as shown in Equation 2.

∆𝑟= {

0, ∆ ≤ ∆𝑦

0.3(∆ − ∆𝑦), ∆𝑦< ∆ < 4∆𝑦

∆ − 3∆𝑦 , ∆ ≥ 4∆𝑦

Equation 2

Where:

∆ = Peak interstory drift ratio

∆𝑟 = Residual interstory drift ratio

∆𝑦 = Yield drift ratio

The yield drift ratio is based on previous project experience and simplified elastic models

using structural analysis software (e.g., Oasys GSA).

D. Collapse Fragilities

The probability of collapse is an important input to the PSRA because of the large number of

casualties and significant financial losses that collapse can generate. The consultant team

developed collapse fragilities for each court building and retrofit scheme. A collapse fragility

relates the probability of collapse to the intensity of earthquake ground shaking, typically

characterized by the spectral acceleration at the fundamental building period. Figure 8 shows

sample collapse fragilities for the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center (19-L1), for

both the current existing court building and the conceptual retrofit scheme. Because the

seismic upgrades to the structure are the same across retrofit options 1, 2, and 3, the collapse

fragility is equivalent for each option.

To determine collapse fragilities for existing court buildings, the consultant team leveraged

the seismic risk ratings (SRRs) developed by R+C from their 2017 study of Risk Level V

court buildings for the Judicial Council (R+C 2017). The SRRs, which were computed using

the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module (FEMA 2013b), measure the relative

probability of collapse in the BSE-2E as defined in ASCE 41-13 (2014). Equation 3 provides

the formula for computing the SRR (from R+C 2017).



38

Figure 8. Collapse Fragilities for the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center (19-L1)

𝑆𝑅𝑅 = 𝑃(𝐶𝑂𝐿|𝑆𝑇𝑅5) × 𝑃(𝑆𝑇𝑅5) Equation 3

Where:

𝑃(𝐶𝑂𝐿|𝑆𝑇𝑅5) = Collapse factor of the Hazus Advanced Engineering Building Module

𝑃(𝑆𝑇𝑅5) = Probability of complete structural damage, based on Hazus Advanced

Engineering Building Module methods and parameters

Per Equation 3, the SRR indicates the portion of the total building area that has collapsed;

however, this definition of collapse differs from those implicit to ASCE 41-13 and ASCE 7-

10, which define collapse more broadly to include complete collapse, partial collapse, and

near collapse scenarios. Therefore, the consultant team established a method for modifying

the SRRs to be consistent with the code definition of collapse, as detailed below.

The consultant team used 𝑃(𝑆𝑇𝑅5), the probability of complete structural damage, as the

probability of collapse for a court building because its definition (refer to FEMA 2013a for

definitions for common building types) was judged to more closely align with the definition

of collapse implied in modern building codes. The consultant team established a minimum

threshold of 20 percent for 𝑃(𝑆𝑇𝑅5), as lower values were judged to not accurately represent

the collapse risk because the court buildings all have significant seismic vulnerabilities. This

single point, illustrated in Figure 8 as a green circle, was used to anchor the collapse fragility

curve for an existing court building. The fragility curve has lognormal distribution and

dispersion of 0.6 per the standard collapse fragility curve in ASCE 7-10 (2013).

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f C

oll

apse

| S

pec

tra

Acc

eler

atio

n

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Existing court building

Retrofit scheme



39

To determine collapse fragilities for the conceptual retrofit schemes, the consultant team used

implicit performance objectives in ASCE 7-10 to estimate the probability of collapse of a

retrofitted building in the BSE-2E. ASCE 7-10 targets a collapse probability of

approximately 10 percent in the BSE-2N for new buildings. Using this target as a guide, the

consultant team assumed a 5 percent collapse probability for retrofitted buildings in the BSE-

2E. This value reflects conservatisms in the retrofit process that would likely reduce the

collapse probability to less than 10 percent. This single point, illustrated in Figure 8 with a

purple square, was used to anchor the collapse fragility curve for retrofitted buildings. The

fragility curve has lognormal distribution and dispersion of 0.6 per the standard collapse

fragility curve in ASCE 7-10 (2013).

Collapse fragilities for replacement court buildings were not developed due to significant

improvements in the seismic safety of new, code-compliant buildings relative to existing

court buildings, which are typically over 30 years old and have significant seismic

vulnerabilities. Consequently, the collapse probability of a replacement court building is

taken as less than 1 percent across the range of earthquake intensities considered in this

study. While new buildings are designed to have approximately 10 percent probability of

collapse in the BSE-2N, new court buildings are expected to perform much better than this

because they must satisfy the more stringent requirements of Risk Category III structures.

Collapse fragilities are the primary input in computing fatalities in the PSRA. However, there

is significant variability in the range of outcomes within the complete structural damage

state. For example, for concrete shear wall buildings (i.e., C2 buildings), complete structural

damage is defined as follows: “Structure has collapsed or is in imminent danger of collapse

due to failure of most of the shear walls and failure of some critical beams or columns.

Approximately 13 percent (low-rise), 10 percent (mid-rise) or 5 percent (high-rise) of the

total area of C2 buildings with complete damage is expected to be collapsed” (FEMA

2013a). To account for this variability, a factor of 0.15 was applied across all buildings when

computing fatalities in realizations where collapse had occurred (see Figure 3). Refer to

Section IV.G.3 for additional discussion of the fatality rate.

E. Exposure Data

Exposure data refers to the inventory of assets in a building, including structural components,

nonstructural components, building contents, and building populations. These assets can be

damaged, destroyed, or, in the case of people, injured or killed by an earthquake. The PSRA

requires a comprehensive inventory of significant assets in a building to ensure that predicted

casualties, repair costs, and downtime are representative of the assets at risk.

The consultant team developed inventories of structural and nonstructural components for

each court building from existing building drawings, on-site evaluations, and normative

quantities from FEMA P-58 (2012b). The process for developing these inventories is detailed

in Section IV.E.1. Building populations and replacement costs were provided by the Judicial

Council and are described in Sections IV.E.2 and IV.E.3, respectively.



40

1. Inventory of Structural and Nonstructural Components

The consultant team developed inventories of structural components for each existing

court building using information from existing building drawings, including (but not

limited to) floor areas, plan dimensions, structural system configuration, number of

columns or braces, and length of structural wall. For buildings with incomplete drawings,

on-site evaluations and estimated floor areas guided the estimation of structural

component quantities. The consultant team used drawings and descriptions of the

conceptual retrofit schemes to determine changes in quantities of structural components

for the baseline retrofit and full renovation risk models.

The consultant team developed inventories of nonstructural components using existing

building drawings and normative quantities from FEMA P-58. Normative quantities are

estimates of the quantities of nonstructural components and contents likely to be present

in a building of a specific occupancy on a gross square foot basis (FEMA 2012b). FEMA

developed normative quantities for different occupancies (e.g., commercial office,

healthcare, residential, retail) based on surveys of various construction types, occupancy

types, and floor areas. For this study, the commercial office occupancy was judged to be

most similar to a typical court building; therefore, normative quantities for commercial

office were used to estimate quantities of most nonstructural components. Table 8

documents the quantities of nonstructural components included in each of the three

seismic risk models developed for each court building.

Table 8. Quantities of Nonstructural Components Included in Each Seismic Risk Model (Normative quantities for commercial office are assumed.)

Component Existing Court

Building

Baseline and Priority

Upgrades Options

(Options 1 and 2)

Full Renovation

Option (Option 3)

Cladding Use satellite imagery,

drawings, photos, field

notes

Use retrofit drawings to

determine percentage

replaced

Replace 100 percent

Roof tiles Not included

Interior partitions Use 90th percentile normative quantities

Ceramic wall tiles Not included

High end marble or

wood panel

Not included

Ceramic tile floors Not included

Vinyl/carpet floor

finishes

Use floor areas

Raised access floors Not included

Ceilings Use 50th percentile normative quantities

Stairs Determine from drawings

Elevators Determine from drawings



41

Component Existing Court

Building


Upgrades Options

(Options 1 and 2)

Full Renovation

Option (Option 3)

Plumbing (pipes

and bracing)

Use 50th percentile normative quantities

Mechanical/HVAC

equipment


HVAC ducting Use 50th percentile normative quantities

Electrical

equipment


Pendant lighting Use 50th percentile normative quantities (half to pendant lighting)

Recessed lighting Use 50th percentile normative quantities (half to recessed lighting)

Fire sprinkler

piping

Determine presence of sprinklers from survey; if

fully sprinkled, use 50th percentile normative

quantities, otherwise do not include

Use 50th percentile

normative quantities

Fire sprinkler drops Determine presence of sprinklers from survey; if

fully sprinkled, use 50th percentile normative

quantities, otherwise do not include

Use 50th percentile

normative quantities

2. Population Data

To calculate casualty rates from building damage and collapse, population models are

required to estimate the number of people in each court building. Peak populations can be

used for FEMA P-58 risk assessments, resulting in conservative estimates of casualties.

However, peak populations persist within buildings for only short periods of time, with

building populations varying drastically due to hourly, daily, and monthly fluctuations.

To account for the movement of populations within each building over time, an

equivalent continuous occupancy can be calculated to obtain an averaged building

population at any given time.

For this study, peak populations are used in the PSRA to obtain an upper bound on the

number of casualties at each court building and earthquake intensity level (refer to

Section V.E for findings from a sensitivity study in which building populations were

changed from peak to ECO). The Judicial Council provided population data for each

court building in the form of average total number of daily visitors and staff (excluding

judges) from magnetometer data. This includes all visitors, whether they stay for an hour

or the entire day, and thus may overestimate the peak population. However, for very busy

days (such as Mondays), the peak instantaneous population is higher than other days, and

thus may be close to the average total population. In the absence of better data, the

average total number of daily visitors and staff is considered to be equivalent to the peak

instantaneous population of the building.



42

3. Building Replacement Values

Replacement values for court buildings are derived from a cost-model database of

construction costs for California Superior Court buildings of similar scope and location

that were constructed in the past 10 years. This cost-model database was provided by the

Judicial Council. Replacement values are in 2018 dollars and exclude costs for

demolition, escalation, design and engineering consultant fees, loose furniture, fixtures,

and equipment, and construction and owner contingencies. The replacement value of the

court building represents the direct financial loss if the structure collapses or is damaged

beyond repair, which is assumed to occur if repair costs exceed 40 percent of the

replacement value.

F. Vulnerability Data

The likelihood of damage for various components is modeled using fragility functions. A

fragility function relates the probability of being in a particular damage state (e.g., aesthetic

or life-safety critical) to an engineering demand parameter (EDP) such as interstory drift ratio

(IDR) or peak floor acceleration. Certain building components are sensitive to IDR (e.g.,

interior gypsum partition walls, steel moment frames), while others are sensitive to peak

floor acceleration (e.g., suspended ceilings, motor control centers). A sample fragility curve

for partial-height gypsum partition walls is shown in Figure 9 as a function of IDR. As

illustrated by the colored regions, at increasing levels of drift, the likelihood of being in a

more severe damage state increases.

Figure 9. Sample Fragility Function for Partial-Height Gypsum Partition Walls (FEMA 2012b)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f no

n-e

xce

edan

ce

Interstory drift ratio

Fragility curve

DS1: Minor cracking

DS2: Crushing of gypsum

DS3: Buckling of studs



43

FEMA P-58 provides a large library of fragility functions for both structural and

nonstructural components. These fragility functions were developed by various researchers,

often by compiling data from dynamic or quasi-static testing, or from observations during

past earthquakes. In some cases, fragility functions are based on expert opinion.

Table 9 lists the fragility functions chosen for the nonstructural components in each of the

three seismic risk models. Refer to Table 8 for the corresponding quantities of nonstructural

components in each risk model. In general, nonstructural components in existing court

buildings were modeled with fragility functions lacking seismic detailing due to the old ages

of the court buildings (all are at least 30 years old). For the baseline retrofit risk models, a

limited number of structural and nonstructural components (e.g., cladding, ceilings, stairs,

elevators) were replaced per the retrofit drawings, with the fragility functions for these

components reflecting new construction with proper seismic detailing. For the full renovation

risk model, all nonstructural components were modeled with fragility functions having

proper seismic detailing because the building interior is demolished and replaced.

Table 9. Fragility Functions for Nonstructural Components Included in Each Seismic Risk Model

Component Existing Court Building


Upgrades Options

(Options 1 and 2)

Full Renovation Option

(Option 3)

Cladding Determine fragility from

drawings and satellite

imagery

For replacement cladding,

use fragility for modern

curtain wall, for existing

cladding, determine

fragility from drawings

and satellite imagery

Use fragility for modern

curtain wall

Roof tiles Not included

Interior partitions Use fragility for full height partitions (fixed above and below)

Ceramic wall tiles Not included

High end marble or

wood panel

Not included

Ceramic tile floors Not included

Vinyl/carpet floor

finishes

Use fragility for weakest pipe (per FEMA P-58)

Raised access floors Not included

Ceilings Use fragility for SDC

A/B/C (vertical support

only)

Use 25% SDC A/B/C

(vertical support only)

and 75% SDC D/E

(vertical and lateral

support)

Use fragility for SDC D/E

(vertical and lateral

support)

Stairs Use fragility without

seismic joint

If stairs replaced, use

fragility with seismic

joint, otherwise use

fragility without seismic

joint

Use fragility with seismic

joint



44

Component Existing Court Building


Upgrades Options

(Options 1 and 2)

Full Renovation Option

(Option 3)

Elevators If elevator not

modernized, use fragility

for pre-1976 installation,

otherwise use fragility for

post-1976 installation

Use fragility for post-1976 installation

Plumbing (pipes

and bracing)

Use fragility for SDC A/B/C Use fragility for SDC

D/E/F

Mechanical/HVAC

equipment

Use fragility for hard anchored or vibration isolated equipment

HVAC ducting Use fragility for SDC A/B/C Use fragility for SDC

D/E/F

Electrical

equipment

Use fragility for hard anchored or vibration isolated equipment

Pendant lighting Use fragility for non-seismic installation Use fragility for

seismically rated

installation

Recessed lighting Use fragility for lighting with independent support wires

Fire sprinkler

piping

If fully sprinkled, use

fragility with no bracing


fragility with designed

bracing

Use fragility with

designed bracing

Fire sprinkler drops If fully sprinkled, use

fragility for dropping into

unbraced lay-in tile


fragility for dropping into

braced lay-in tile

Use fragility for dropping

into braced lay-in tile

G. Consequence Data

Consequences associated with component damage or building failure include casualties,

repair costs, and downtime. Baseline values for repair costs, repair times, and casualty rates

for each damage state for each building component were obtained from the FEMA P-58

database (FEMA 2012b).

1. Repair Costs

FEMA P-58 provides repair procedures and associated repair costs for each damage state

of each structural and nonstructural component. FEMA P-58 repair costs are calculated in

2011 dollars, based on Northern California labor rates. To account for inflation and

escalation between 2011 and 2018, the consultant team used factors of 1.11 and 1.25,

respectively, resulting in a time factor of 1.39 to convert repair costs to 2018 dollars.

Labor rates were assumed to be similar between Northern and Southern California.

Contents losses (e.g., furniture, computers) were not considered.

For earthquake simulations that result in a total loss, the repair costs are equivalent to the

total building replacement value plus demolition costs, which are assumed to be 5 percent



45

of the total replacement value. Construction of the replacement facility is assumed to take

4 years. A building is considered a total loss and subsequently demolished and replaced if

any of the following conditions apply:

• The building has collapsed, either locally or globally.

• The building has significant permanent displacement (i.e., residual drift) after an

earthquake. Heavy structures such as concrete are especially vulnerable to

demolition due to permanent displacement, whereas lighter structures might be

more economical to be put back in plumb. A default demolition fragility curve

was developed based on Ramirez and Miranda (2012).

• It is uneconomical to repair. This occurs if the aggregate repair cost exceeds 40

percent of the total building replacement value, as recommended by FEMA P-58.

2. Downtime

Downtime is calculated using the REDi downtime methodology (Arup 2013) with

unpublished enhancements used for this study. The REDi methodology uses FEMA P-58

repair times to calculate downtime. Downtime refers to the time required to restore

building functionality after an earthquake. Unlike FEMA P-58 repair times, downtime

includes potential delays to the initiation of repairs, resulting in a more realistic

estimation of duration of loss of functionality.

The first step in calculating downtime involves determining whether the extent and

severity of damage to specific components warrants closure of the building (i.e., a yellow

or red tag due to a life-safety risk) or renders it unusable (e.g., damage to equipment

hinders functionality of lighting or ventilation). This mapping is accomplished through

use of repair classes, which determine if a damaged component would hinder

reoccupancy or functionality. For each earthquake realization, each building component

is assigned a repair class based on the extent and severity of damage and the criticality of

the component. Some modifications were made to the default repair class assumptions in

Arup (2013) based on improved knowledge. These are summarized in Table 10.



46

Table 10. Summary of Changes to Repair Class Assignments from Those Published in Arup (2013)

Component Damage Description Modified Repair Class Basis

Anchored equipment Anchorage failure Repair Class 1

(hinders full recovery)

Equipment overturning

or other falling hazards

do not represent a

persistent life-safety

risk and thus would not

likely result in yellow

or red-tagging of a

building (i.e., it would

not trigger Repair Class

3). Any associated

casualty rate is

explicitly accounted for

in the risk assessment.

Anchored equipment Equipment failure Repair Class 2 (hinders

functional recovery)

Unanchored

equipment

Equipment failure due to

overturning

Repair Class 2 (hinders


Lighting fixtures Disassembly of rod

system at connections,

fatigue failure, pullout of

rods from ceiling

Repair Class 2 (hinders


The next step in calculating downtime involves developing repair sequence logic that

accounts for delays to the initiation of repairs. These delays, which are referred to as

impeding factors, include post-earthquake inspection, financing, engineer mobilization,

permitting, and contractor mobilization. These delays can be significant, and for low to

moderate amounts of building damage can dominate the overall building downtime.

Figure 10 shows the repair sequence logic (including impeding factors) described in Arup

(2013).

Figure 10. Repair Sequence Logic (Including Impeding Factors) for Calculating Downtime (from Arup

2013)

Table 11 summarizes the values for different impeding factors used in the study. Default

values published in Arup (2013) were used for inspection, financing, engineering

mobilization, and permitting. In contrast, contractor mobilization was modified to include

improved data from previous projects and research efforts, including a survey of

contractors and subcontractors to estimate the number of weeks required to procure

materials and equipment and mobilize labor for different types of repairs. Contractor



47

mobilization times also account for the scarcity of contractors in the aftermath of a large

earthquake, and for the time required for the bidding and procurement process.

Table 11. Summary of Impeding Factors as a Function of Building Damage

Impeding factor Component Delay associated with

aesthetic damage

Delay associated with

functional or life-safety

damage

Inspection All 5 days

Financing All 15 weeks

Engineering mobilization Structural 6 weeks 12 weeks

Permitting All 1 week 8 weeks

Contractor mobilization Structural 14 weeks 22 weeks

Architectural 7 weeks 18 weeks

Exterior cladding 13 weeks 21 weeks

Mechanical 12 weeks 19 weeks

Electrical 9 weeks 11 weeks

Elevators 19 weeks 28 weeks

Stairs 8 weeks 17 weeks

3. Casualty Rates

Casualty rates (which includes both injuries and fatalities) for damaged structural and

nonstructural components (which do not result in building collapse) were taken directly

from the FEMA P-58 database. However, casualties tend to be dominated by building

collapse as opposed to component-related damage in earthquakes. Thus, an assumption

had to be made regarding the casualty rate for collapsed portions of a structure. Because

of the heavy nature of most court buildings, a fatality rate of 100 percent was assumed in

areas of collapse. Recall that in the event of building collapse, 15 percent of the total

building area was assumed to have collapsed (see Section IV.D).

H. PSRA Outputs

The outputs of the PSRA include estimates of casualties, repair costs, and downtime for each

court building (including each retrofit and replacement option) at the six earthquake

intensities considered in this study. The predicted losses at each intensity can be converted

into annualized losses using the annual recurrence of each seismic intensity. Annualized

losses represent the anticipated seismic losses in any given year, and typically would not be

incurred every year (i.e., in most years, there are no earthquakes and therefore no losses;

however, if a significant earthquake occurs, the losses that year will greatly exceed the

annualized losses). Over a long period of time, the actual losses incurred would approach the

anticipated annualized losses. Though abstract in nature, annualized losses are useful because

they capture in a single metric the magnitude of losses across a range of seismic intensities,



48

thus enabling the risk reduction potential of each retrofit and replacement option to be

compared more readily.

Table 12 provides annualized losses for each of the 26 court buildings and the selected

retrofit or replacement options. Refer to Section V.B for more information about how

annualized losses are computed.

Table 12. Annualized Losses for the Portfolio of 26 Court Buildings

ID Name Selected

option*





Justice

2 2,276 141 112 115 29 73

07-A2 Wakefield Taylor Courthouse 2 3,353 624 430 1,422 184 409

07-F1 George D. Carroll Courthouse 4 9,910 406 383 NS†† 86 304

10-A1 Fresno County Courthouse 1 11,405 204 325 4,697 100 281

13-A1 Imperial County Courthouse 4 19,637 1,193 513 NS†† 71 238

17-B1 Clearlake Branch Courthouse 4 1,221 29 42 NS†† 4 15

19-AD1 Santa Clarita Courthouse 1 2,629 73 161 313 34 137

19-AK1 Norwalk Courthouse 1 8,261 377 767 3,402 194 750

19-AO1 Whittier Courthouse 2 2,495 180 329 280 49 257

19-AP1 Santa Monica Courthouse 1 2,879 134 231 833 37 142

19-AQ1 Beverly Hills Courthouse 5 1,113 162 545 NS†† 23 140

19-AX2 Van Nuys Courthouse West 2 9,338 442 880 3,845 202 838

19-G1 Burbank Courthouse 4 2,235 168 217 NS†† 30 167

19-H1 Glendale Courthouse 2 3,920 106 224 374 49 159

19-I1 Alhambra Courthouse 1 1,021 136 361 295 77 337

19-J1 J2 Pasadena Courthouse 5 4,755 380 534 NS†† 115 454

19-K1 Stanley Mosk Courthouse 1 25,376 676 1,396 NS†† 8 32



2 8,104 797 1,853 2,338 342 1,374

19-O1 El Monte Courthouse 4 5,571 289 440 NS†† 76 281

19-W2 Pomona Courthouse North 4 5,029 157 203 NS†† 35 116

19-X1 West Covina Courthouse 1 5,219 144 374 NS†† 31 223

28-B1 Napa Courthouse 4 3,179 194 152 NS†† 64 91

30-A1 Central Justice Center 2 17,915 694 1,935 6,780 368 1,505

30-B1 Lamoreaux Justice Center 2 8,483 409 658 3,493 213 571



49

ID Name Selected

option*




30-C1 C2 North Justice Center 1 6,508 329 619 775 122 607

44-A1 Santa Cruz Courthouse 4 5,866 120 188 NS†† 31 106






† F: annualized loss from fatalities ($thousands), which are based on peak building populations and 90th percentile

estimates of fatalities from the seismic risk assessment and, thus, likely represent an upper bound on annual losses from

fatalities; refer to Section V.E for findings from a sensitivity study on building populations

‡ RC: annualized loss from repair costs ($thousands)

** DT: annualized loss from downtime ($thousands); For buildings where the selected option is 1, 2, or 3, the primary

intent of the retrofit is to reduce the risk of collapse and fatalities. While some reduction in downtime may be expected,

the conceptual retrofit scheme does not include specific measures to reduce downtime. Therefore, downtime losses

typically do not decrease significantly because of the retrofit.

†† NS: not significant. New replacement buildings (or, in the case of Stanley Mosk, base-isolated retrofits) are expected to

have significantly improved seismic safety relative to current existing court buildings; therefore, in this study, fatalities

were not modelled








inflates the benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) presented later in this report (refer to Section V)

relative to if an equivalent continuous occupancy (ECO) population were assumed for each

court building. An ECO population accounts for the fact that the peak population persists for

only a short period of time in a building over a typical year, so there is only a small

probability that an earthquake would occur when the building is fully occupied. As a result,

because the BCRs presented later in this report emphasize fatalities, they should not be

considered absolute. Additional limitations in the BCR values are described in Section V.D.

Section V.E presents findings from a sensitivity study of the BCRs to the assumed building

population to investigate whether the higher weighting given to fatalities might also change

the relative rankings of the BCRs for each of the five retrofit or replacement options

considered for each court building. In summary, changing the building population from peak

to ECO, which typically reduces the number of fatalities reported by a factor of 4, does not

significantly change the relative order of the retrofit and replacement options. While the

BCRs were not the only factor in the decision-making process, the sensitivity study

demonstrates that changes to the assumed building population do not impact the selected

option for each court building.



50

V. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

This section outlines the cost-benefit analysis performed by the consultant team to evaluate the

financial effectiveness of retrofitting or replacing each of the 26 court buildings in this study.

Judicial Council Facilities Services staff used results from this analysis to inform decisions about

which retrofit or replacement option to pursue for each court building.

In general, cost-benefit analysis involves quantification of the benefits and costs stemming from

a particular action — in this study, the retrofit or replacement of a court building. In terms of

benefits, the primary consideration is the reduction in seismic risk associated with each retrofit or

replacement option. Each option will improve the performance of a court building in future

earthquakes to varying degree. The benefits of this improved seismic performance take the form

of reduced (or avoided) fatalities, repair costs, and downtime in future earthquakes. The benefit

is then compared to cost of retrofitting or replacing the building.

The cost-benefit analysis is based on standard methodologies described in FEMA P-58 (2012b),

FEMA P-366 (2017), and FEMA 227 (1991), as well as other recent cost-benefit studies in the

published literature (Liel and Deierlein 2013, Welch et al. 2014, Molina Hutt et al. 2015,

Sullivan 2016). In overview, the analysis integrates construction cost estimates with results from

the probabilistic seismic risk assessment (PSRA; refer to Section IV for additional information)

to compute the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for each retrofit and replacement option and court

building. The BCR measures the value of the benefits of an option (in terms of avoided fatalities,

repair costs, and downtime in future earthquakes) relative to its initial construction costs and was

an important factor in deciding which retrofit or replacement option to pursue.

Section V.A describes how the costs of a retrofit or replacement option are calculated. Section

V.B describes how the benefits are calculated. Section V.C describes how the BCR is calculated.

Section V.D summarizes important limitations in the cost-benefit analysis. Section V.E provides

sample results for the portfolio of 26 court buildings.

A. Calculation of Costs

The consultant team prepared conceptual construction cost assessments for each of the 26

existing court buildings using the proposed scopes of work for seismic upgrades, collateral

impacts, fire and life safety and accessibility upgrades, priority upgrades, and other

nonstructural upgrades. Where applicable, costs for hazardous materials were also identified

based on input from the Judicial Council.

Costs for structural seismic work and code-required upgrades were calculated based on floor

plans and narratives describing the conceptual retrofit scheme. The Judicial Council provided

specific building system upgrades based on identified deferred facility modification scope

items (i.e., priority upgrades). For buildings considered to be a local point of historic interest,

a premium was included to cover costs for maintaining or replacing historic elements of the

building. None of the buildings is on the federal or state historic buildings register, but

several were identified as having features that would be considered historic.



51

For each court building, cost assessments are provided for the three retrofit options:

• Baseline retrofit (Option 1)

• Priority upgrades retrofit (Option 2)

• Full renovation (Option 3)

For each court building, two cost scenarios were developed for both Options 1 and 2. The

first cost scenario assumes unphased construction, meaning that construction costs are

based on the building being closed and vacated during the retrofit. In this scenario, it is

assumed that new commercial building space will be fit out and rented for the duration of

construction. The costs assume that an area equivalent to 75 percent of the existing space

occupied by the Superior Court would need to be rented.

The second cost scenario assumes phased construction, meaning that additional

construction costs would be incurred to keep the court building open and operational. These

additional costs include premiums for phasing (assuming the work would need to be done in

multiple phases either by floors or zones of the buildings), a schedule premium to cover an

extended construction duration due to the phasing requirements, and an escalation premium

to cover increases in the cost of labor and materials due to the extended time for construction.

Option 3 assumes only unphased construction is possible due to the increased scope of work

associated with full renovation (i.e., the court building cannot be occupied during

construction).

In addition, two options for replacement of the court building are assumed:

• Replace to 2016 CBC (Option 4)

• Replace to beyond code (Option 5)

For the two replacement building options, floor areas are based on the number of court

departments at the existing court building and the median gross area per court department

from recently constructed California court buildings. They exclude the floor area currently

occupied by agencies other than the Judicial Council. In some cases, this has resulted in a

bigger building being required, and in other cases a smaller one. Floor areas were provided to

the consulting team by the Judicial Council.

Construction costs for replacement buildings are derived from the Judicial Council cost-

model database of construction costs for California Superior Court buildings of similar scope

and location constructed in the recent decade. This data was provided to the consulting team

by the Judicial Council. A five percent cost premium was assumed for replacing to beyond

code (Option 5) based on previous experience of the consultant team. No land costs or

demolition costs are considered for the replacement buildings because these costs may not be

applicable in all situations. For example, the Judicial Council could obtain land for a new

facility from the city or county for free or at a significantly reduced cost. In addition, the



52

Judicial Council may decide to sell the current existing court building to another entity

instead of demolishing it.

All construction cost estimates are provided in current dollars (2018) and market conditions,

and exclude costs for future escalation because actual construction start dates have not been

established at this time. Other project-related costs such as design and engineering consultant

fees, loose furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and construction and owner contingencies have

all been excluded. These would need to be considered and factored into overall project

budgets by the Judicial Council.

B. Calculation of Benefits

Estimating the benefits of retrofitting or replacing a court building involves a significant

amount of uncertainty, as the benefits can accrue over a long period of time in the future,

unlike the initial construction costs, which are incurred at the beginning of a project.

Furthermore, some benefits are intangible and can be challenging to quantify or measure

(e.g., increased productivity or happiness of employees working in a renovated or newly-

constructed building). This study focuses on the more tangible and measurable benefits of

retrofitting or replacing a court building. The primary benefit is improved seismic

performance, which is quantified in terms of reduced (or avoided) fatalities, repair costs, and

downtime in future earthquakes. These are standard engineering risk metrics used in FEMA

P-58 and previous cost-benefit studies of retrofits.

To calculate the benefits, results from the PSRA are used to compute annualized measures of

performance of the existing court building and the five retrofit and replacement options. As

described in Section IV, a range of seismic intensities is considered in the PSRA, from rare

earthquakes to more frequent ones, which can also generate significant losses. PSRA results

from each intensity are used to compute annualized losses for each retrofit and replacement

option in terms of fatalities, repair costs, and downtime. Net annual benefits of an option are

computed by subtracting the annualized losses for the option from the annualized losses for

the current existing court building. Then, net annual benefits are summed over the assumed

asset-life extension of the option (refer to Table 13 for additional information) and

discounted to present value to obtain the net present value of benefits, 𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑏,𝑖, as shown in

Equation 4.

𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑏,𝑖 = ∆𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑖 [1 −

1(1 + 𝑟)𝑇𝑖

𝑟] Equation 4

Where:

𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑏,𝑖 = net present value of benefits for Option 𝑖, where 𝑖 = 1, … , 5

∆𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑖 = net annual benefits of Option 𝑖



53

= 𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖

𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 = annualized losses for current existing court building

𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖 = annualized losses for Option 𝑖

𝑇𝑖 = assumed asset-life extension of Option 𝑖

𝑟 = discount rate, which measures the value of money in the future

The assumed asset-life extension, 𝑇𝑖, is an important variable in the calculation of 𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑏,𝑖 in

Equation 4, as it determines the length of time over which the benefits of retrofit or

replacement can accrue. Asset-life extension is the assumed length of time — after a

renovation — to the next necessary building-wide renovation or replacement. It is not a

prediction of the length of court occupancy in the building (i.e., the court will not abandon or

move out of the building at the end of the assumed asset-life extension). Table 13

summarizes the values of asset-life extension assumed for each option. Longer asset-life

extension means that the benefits of a retrofit or replacement option have more time to

accrue, thus making the option more effective from a financial perspective. The trade-off,

however, is that the full renovation and replacement options, which have longer asset-life

extensions than the baseline retrofit, often have significantly larger initial construction costs.

Table 13. Assumed Asset-Life Extension for Each Retrofit and Replacement Option

Option Assumed Asset-

Life Extension Notes

1. Baseline retrofit 15 years A relatively short asset-life extension is assumed

because the baseline retrofit does not address deficient

building systems, which are conservatively assumed to

have 15 years remaining life. The benefits of the

seismic retrofit do not cease after 15 years; however, to

continue to occupy the building comfortably, additional

investment would be required at that time.

2. Priority upgrades retrofit 25 years A longer asset-life extension than the baseline retrofit

is assumed because deficient building systems are

replaced.

3. Full renovation 40 years A longer asset-life extension than the priority upgrades

retrofit is assumed because an entirely new building

interior and facade is installed (e.g., all building

systems are replaced, a more efficient and secure court

layout is implemented).

4. Replace to 2016 CBC 50 years An asset-life extension consistent with the typical

design life for new building is assumed, though

buildings can be occupied longer.

5. Replace to beyond code 50 years An asset-life extension consistent with the typical

design life for new building is assumed, though

buildings can be occupied longer.



54

The discount rate, 𝑟, is another important variable in determining 𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑏,𝑖. Because a dollar in

the future is not worth the same as a dollar today, the benefits of a retrofit or replacement that

accrue in the future need to be converted to present value via the discount rate. Larger

discount rate values mean that money today is worth significantly more than money in the

future. The federal government requires a discount rate of 7 percent for cost-benefit analysis,

which is at the higher end of the range found in the published literature, reflecting the

government’s tendency to prioritize actions where the benefits accrue quickly (as opposed to

20 years in the future). In previous cost-benefit analyses, the consultant team used discount

rates closer to 5 percent. For this study, the Judicial Council Facilities Services selected a

value of 6 percent.

Annualized losses for existing court buildings, 𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔, and each retrofit and replacement

option, 𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖, are calculated by summing the following three quantities: average

annualized repair cost, average annualized downtime, and 90th percentile annualized

fatalities. Figure 11 shows graphically how the average annualized repair cost is computed,

for both an existing court building and the baseline retrofit. The average annualized repair

cost for the existing court building is the area under the green curve, which plots the average

repair cost as a function of the annual exceedance probability for the six earthquake

intensities evaluated (45-year, 100-year, 225-year, 475-year, 975-year, 2,475-year). Average

repair cost at each earthquake intensity is obtained from the PSRA (refer to Section IV for

more information). Similarly, the average annualized repair cost for the baseline retrofit is

the area under the purple curve. The difference between average annualized repair costs for

the existing building and the baseline retrofit (i.e., the green shaded area in Figure 11) is the

annualized benefit of the baseline retrofit (in terms of repair cost only).

The process for computing the other two annualized performance measures is the same as

outlined in the previous paragraph, though for fatalities, 90th percentile values are used

instead of average values. The consultant team, with input from Judicial Council Facilities

Services staff, decided to use 90th percentile values because the primary goal of the study is

to reduce the risk of collapse and loss of life in 26 of the most vulnerable court buildings in

California. By using 90th percentile values, fatalities are given higher weighting than repair

costs and downtime to emphasize the importance of this performance measure.

Before the three annualized performance measures can be summed to determine the total

annualized losses (e.g., 𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝐴𝐴𝐿𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖), the average annualized downtime and 90th

percentile annualized fatalities need to be monetized. For downtime, this involves

establishing a cost associated with not being able to use a court building after an earthquake.

In this study, the cost of downtime is taken as the cost to fit out and rent temporary space.

Consequently, if the downtime at a court building exceeds six months after an earthquake,

the court must fit out and rent temporary space while building damage is repaired. If

downtime is less than six months, it is assumed that the court building can either shift cases

to nearby facilities or delay them. Table 14 summarizes the costs of fitting out and renting

temporary space.



55

Figure 11. Plot of Average Repair Cost as a Function of the Annual Exceedance Probability for the Six Earthquake Intensities Evaluated

Table 14. Summary of Costs Associated with Fitting Out and Renting Temporary Space

Location Area rented Fit out costs Rental costs (per year)

Urban 75% of current existing

court building

$250 per ft2 $50 per ft2

Rural 75% of current existing

court building

$250 per ft2 $30 per ft2

To monetize the cost of fatalities, the value of a statistical life needs to be established. The

consultant team reviewed previous cost-benefit studies to determine an appropriate value for

this study. Numerous federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency,

Department of Agriculture, and Food and Drug Administration, use values between $8 and

$10 million (in 2018 dollars). In contrast, academic studies tend to use lower values,

typically between $2 and $5 million. In consultation with Judicial Council Facilities Services

staff, a value of $9 million was selected for this study.

45-year earthquake

100-year earthquake

225-year earthquake

475-year earthquake

975-year earthquake

2,475-year earthquake

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

Aver

age

rep

air

cost

(m

illi

ons)

Annual exceedence probability

Existing court building Baseline retrofit

+

Average annualized repair cost for baseline retrofit

Average annualized repair cost for existing building

Annualized benefit of baseline retrofit



56

C. Calculation of Benefit-Cost Ratio

The financial effectiveness of each retrofit and replacement option is evaluated by computing

the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) per Equation 5. The BCR measures the value of the benefits of

an option (in terms of avoided fatalities, repair costs, and downtime in future earthquakes)

relative to its initial construction costs. Values greater than one indicate that the benefits of

an option, over the assumed asset-life extension, exceed the initial construction costs. Based

on prior experience of the consultant team, it is not uncommon that BCRs for all options

remain below one; however, even in this situation, the BCRs are still useful in terms of

prioritizing which option makes the most sense to pursue.

𝐵𝐶𝑅𝑖 =𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑏,𝑖

𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑐,𝑖 Equation 5

Where:

𝐵𝐶𝑅𝑖 = benefit-cost ratio of Option 𝑖

𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑏,𝑖 = net present value of benefits for Option 𝑖 (see Equation 4)

𝑁𝑃𝑉𝑐,𝑖 = net present value of costs for Option 𝑖

= total initial construction costs for Option 𝑖

The BCR is an important consideration in the decision-making process because it

incorporates a wide range of factors into a single measure, including the reduction in seismic

risks (e.g., fatalities, repair costs, downtime), asset-life extension, and total construction

costs. If the retrofit or replacement option with the highest BCR had a value that was

significantly larger than the option with the next highest BCR value (the consultant team

established 25 percent as the threshold for significantly larger), then it was selected as the

option to pursue. The 25 percent threshold was established because the uncertainty in

calculating the BCR was such that two values within ± 25 percent of each other could be

considered similar.

If the BCRs for each option were similar, then additional metrics were considered in the

selection process, including total construction costs, cost per square foot, and the ratio of

total construction costs to asset-life extension.

Table 15 compares benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) of the selected retrofit or replacement options

across the portfolio of 26 court buildings included in this study. Court buildings are sorted

from highest BCR to lowest. Court buildings with the largest BCRs represent the best retrofit

or replacement investments, but additional factors (e.g., total construction cost, importance of

the existing court building to continuing Superior Court operations) need to be considered in

developing judicial branch-wide renovation strategies or priorities. The total construction

cost associated with retrofitting or replacing all 26 court buildings is $2.3 billion.



57

Table 15. Comparison of Construction Costs and Benefit-Cost Ratios for 26 Court Buildings

ID Name Court

Departments

Selected

Option*

Total

Construction

Cost (millions)

Benefit-

Cost

Ratio

Asset-Life

Extension

(years)

13-A1 Imperial County

Courthouse

7 4 $48.9 6.78 50

17-B1 Clearlake Branch

Courthouse

1 4 $8.0 2.50 50

19-O1 El Monte Courthouse 6 4 $41.0 2.28 50

19-X1 West Covina Courthouse 11 1 $23.6 2.26 15

07-F1 George D. Carroll

Courthouse

8 4 $82.2 1.98 50

19-AD1 Santa Clarita Courthouse 3 1 $12.1 1.92 15

44-A1 Santa Cruz Courthouse 7 4 $49.8 1.91 50

19-W2 Pomona Courthouse

North

7 4 $47.9 1.72 50

28-B1 Napa Courthouse 4 4 $32.6 1.63 50

01-F1 George E. McDonald

Hall of Justice

3 2 $18.4 1.61 25

19-AK1 Norwalk Courthouse 20 1 $45.9 1.07 15

19-H1 Glendale Courthouse 8 2 $44.0 1.07 25

30-A1 Central Justice Center 65 2 $196.5 0.77 25

30-C1 C2 North Justice Center 18 1 $75.4 0.77 15

19-G1 Burbank Courthouse 7 4 $50.4 0.76 50

10-A1 Fresno County

Courthouse

28 1 $103.0 0.65 15

30-B1 Lamoreaux Justice Center 29 2 $106.7 0.63 25

19-K1 Stanley Mosk Courthouse 100 1 $461.3 0.58 15

19-AO1 Whittier Courthouse 7 2 $54.3 0.57 25

19-AQ1 Beverly Hills Courthouse 6 5 $47.3 0.55 50

19-J1 J2 Pasadena Courthouse 19 5 $165.3 0.52 50

07-A2 Wakefield Taylor

Courthouse

12 2 $64.6 0.47 25

19-AX2 Van Nuys Courthouse

West

23 2 $160.4 0.46 25

19-AP1 Santa Monica Courthouse 17 1 $50.5 0.43 15



60 2 $300.2 0.26 25

19-I1 Alhambra Courthouse 9 1 $42.3 0.19 15



58













inflates the BCRs presented later in Table 15 relative to if an equivalent continuous

occupancy (ECO) population were assumed for each court building. An ECO population

accounts for the fact that the peak population persists for only a short period of time in a

building over a typical year, so there is only a small probability that an earthquake would

occur when the building is fully occupied. As a result, because the BCRs presented in Table

15 emphasize fatalities, they should not be considered absolute. Additional limitations in the

BCR values are described in Section V.D.

Section V.E presents findings from a sensitivity study of the BCRs to the assumed building

population to investigate whether the higher weighting given to fatalities might also change

the relative rankings of the BCRs for each of the five retrofit or replacement options

considered for each court building. In summary, changing the building population from peak

to ECO, which typically reduces the number of fatalities reported by a factor of 4, does not

change the relative order of the retrofit and replacement options. While the BCRs were not

the only factor in the decision-making process, the sensitivity study demonstrates that

changes to the assumed building population do not impact the selected option for each court

building.

D. Limitations

The cost-benefit analysis considers a limited set of costs and benefits, as summarized in

Table 16.

On the cost side, only hard construction costs and phasing or relocation costs are considered

for each retrofit and replacement option. Costs for future escalation, design and engineering

consultant fees, loose furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and construction and owner

contingencies are not included. For the replacement options, land costs and demolition costs

are not included. Refer to Section V.A for additional discussion. In general, inclusion of

these costs would make each option more expensive, which, per Equation 5, would reduce its

corresponding BCR. While the BCRs of all retrofit and replacement options would decrease,

the relative change among the options for an individual court building is more difficult to

predict.



59

Table 16. Summary of Costs and Benefits Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis

Item


analysis


1 2 3 4 5

Costs

Hard

construction

costs

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Includes costs of site preparation, design contingencies,

and labor and material required for repair or construction

of substructure, shell, interiors, and building services (as

applicable). For Options 1 and 2, the costs of upgrades to

accessibility and fire and life safety systems were

explicitly calculated. For Options 3-5, compliance with

current accessibility and fire and life safety requirements

is assumed as part of the construction work.

Temporary

relocation

costs

Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A For Options 1-3 (unphased), includes fit out and rental

costs required to relocate court staff and functions to

temporary space for the duration of the retrofit. For

Options 4-5, temporary relocation costs are not

applicable because it is assumed court staff and

functions can remain in the existing court building while

the new one is constructed in a nearby location.

Construction

phasing costs

Yes Yes No N/A N/A For Options 1 and 2 (phased), includes costs for phasing

the construction work by zones or floors to keep the

court building open during the retrofit. For Option 3,

construction phasing costs were not included because

phasing was assumed to be impractical due to

disruptiveness of the construction work.

Demolition

costs

N/A N/A N/A No No For Options 4 and 5, does not include costs of

demolishing current existing building. For Options 1-3,

demolition costs are not applicable.

Land costs N/A N/A N/A No No For Options 4 and 5, does not include costs of acquiring

land for new court building. For Options 1-3, demolition

costs are not applicable.

Escalation

costs

No No No No No Does not include escalation in construction costs from

the time of this study to the actual start of a retrofit or

replacement project.

Design and

engineering

consultant

fees

No No No No No Does not include consultant fees for further engineering

analyses or detailed design services prior to retrofit or

replacement of a court building.

Construction

and owner

contingencies

No No No No No

Loose

furniture,

fixtures, and

equipment

No No No No No



60

Item


analysis


1 2 3 4 5

Benefits

Avoided

injuries in

future

earthquakes

No No No No No Does not include the benefit of avoided injuries due to

incomplete data on the financial cost of injuries.

Avoided

fatalities in

future

earthquakes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Includes the benefit of avoided fatalities. Fatalities were

calculated using peak instantaneous building

populations, which were derived from magnetometer

counts for each court building, and 90th percentile

estimates of fatalities from the seismic risk assessment.

The value of a statistical life (i.e., cost of a fatality) was

selected to be $9 million for this study. Refer to Section

V.B for further discussion.

Avoided

repair costs

in future

earthquakes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Includes costs to repair damage to major structural and

nonstructural components. Does not include losses from

damage to building contents (e.g., furniture, computers).

Avoided

downtime in

future

earthquakes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Includes cost to fit out and rent temporary space for the

duration of repair work after an earthquake. Does not

include indirect costs from protracted downtime (e.g.,

increased backlog of court cases, employee attrition)

Improved

energy

efficiency

No No No No No Does not include the benefit of improved energy

efficiency from replacing existing mechanical and

electrical equipment.

Improved

accessibility

No No No No No

Improved

fire and life

safety

No No No No No

Improved

functionality

No No No No No Does not include the benefit of improved functionality

from construction work, including possible

improvements to daylighting, security, and building

layout.

Asset-life extension

Minimum

asset-life

extension

(years)

15 25 40 50 50 Asset-life extension refers to the assumed life time of a

building before further necessary building-wide

renovation or replacement is required. It is the length of

time over which the benefits (above) are assumed to

accrue. It is not a prediction of the length of actual court

occupancy in a particular building. Refer to Section V.B

for further discussion.



61

On the benefit side, only repair costs, fatalities, and downtime stemming from structural and

nonstructural damage are considered when determining the benefits of each retrofit and

replacement option. Losses from damage to building contents are not included; neither are

indirect costs stemming from protracted downtime (e.g., increased backlog of court cases,

employee attrition). In addition, energy savings from a new facade or HVAC equipment are

not included. These benefits, some of which are difficult to quantify, would generally

increase the BCRs, making each option more attractive. While the BCRs of all options would

increase, the relative change among the options for an individual court building is more

difficult to predict.

E. Sensitivity Studies

Many of the inputs to the cost-benefit analysis carry significant uncertainty that stems from

various sources, including incomplete knowledge (e.g., compressive strength of existing

concrete) and use of simplistic calculation methods (e.g., simplified structural analysis

procedures to compute EDPs; see Section IV.C). As described in Section IV.A, the PSRA,

which provides important inputs to the cost-benefit analysis, explicitly accounts for

uncertainty through Monte Carlo analysis, a process in which hundreds to thousands of

simulations are performed to determine the range of possible outcomes after an earthquake

scenario.

Subsequently, the cost-benefit analysis accounts for uncertainty indirectly via the inputs it

obtains from the PSRA, including estimates of fatalities, repair costs, and downtime. While

sensitivity studies were not performed for each major input to the cost-benefit analysis, the

consultant team explored the impact of a particularly important parameter — building

population — on the relative order of BCRs for each court building. Towards this end, the

consultant team reran both the PSRA and cost-benefit analysis using ECO rather than peak

building populations to study whether the relative order of the BCRs for the five retrofit and

replacement options changed for any of the 26 court buildings.

As discussed in Section V.C, using peak building populations inflates the BCRs for all

options, meaning the values presented in Table 15 should not be considered absolute. More

important, however, is the relative order of the BCRs for each retrofit and replacement

option, as that is what informed the final decision-making process for each court building

(though other factors were considered). Therefore, the sensitivity study investigates whether

using ECO populations, which more accurately reflect the building population over the

course of a typical year, would significantly change the relative order of the BCRs.

Table 17 summarizes findings from the sensitivity study. It shows the changes, if any, to the

options with the highest BCR using peak and ECO populations. For most court buildings, the

option with the highest BCR does not change after adjusting the building population. For five

court buildings, however, the option does change. For these buildings, the closeness

parameter reported in the last column of Table 17 measures the percent difference between

the option with the highest BCR using peak populations and the option with the highest BCR



62

using ECO populations. Values within 25% are considered to be similar due to the significant

uncertainties associated with calculating the BCRs.

For example, for the North Justice Center, the option with the highest BCR using peak

populations is Option 1, while the option with the highest BCR using ECO populations is

Option 4/5 (for the purposes of the sensitivity study, the two replacement options were

considered interchangeable). While the option with the highest BCR changed, the BCR for

Option 1 using ECO populations is within 14% of Option 4/5, which has the highest BCR.

Consequently, the resulting change is not considered significant because both BCRs are with

25 percent.

As Table 17 shows, even for court buildings where the option with the highest BCR changes,

the two options are still within 25 percent of each other. Consequently, changing the building

populations does not significantly alter the relative ranking of the BCRs for each court

building. While the BCRs were not the only factor in the decision-making process, the

sensitivity study demonstrates that changes to the assumed building population do not impact

the selected option for each court building.

Table 17. Summary of Findings from Sensitivity Study of Building Populations

ID Name

Option w highest

BCR (peak

populations)*

Option w highest

BCR (ECO

populations)*

Closeness†


Justice

2 2 match

07-A2 Wakefield Taylor Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

07-F1 George D. Carroll Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

10-A1 Fresno County Courthouse 3 4/5 1%

13-A1 Imperial County Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

17-B1 Clearlake Branch Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

19-AD1 Santa Clarita Courthouse 1 4/5 4%

19-AK1 Norwalk Courthouse 1 1 match

19-AO1 Whittier Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

19-AP1 Santa Monica Courthouse 1 1 match

19-AQ1 Beverly Hills Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

19-AX2 Van Nuys Courthouse West 4/5 4/5 match

19-G1 Burbank Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

19-H1 Glendale Courthouse 2 2 match

19-I1 Alhambra Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

19-J1 J2 Pasadena Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

19-K1 Stanley Mosk Courthouse 1 1 match



63

ID Name

Option w highest

BCR (peak

populations)*

Option w highest

BCR (ECO

populations)*

Closeness†

19-L1 Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal

Justice Center

4/5 4/5 match

19-O1 El Monte Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

19-W2 Pomona Courthouse North 1 4/5 3%

19-X1 West Covina Courthouse 1 1 match

28-B1 Napa Courthouse 4/5 4/5 match

30-A1 Central Justice Center 2 2 match

30-B1 Lamoreaux Justice Center 2 4/5 6%

30-C1 C2 North Justice Center 1 4/5 14%

44-A1 Santa Cruz Courthouse 3 3 match




Option 4/5: Replacement (for the purposes of the sensitivity study, the two replacement options were considered

interchangeable)

† Closeness measures the percent difference between the option with the highest BCR using peak populations and the

option with the highest BCR using ECO populations, with values within 25% considered to be similar due to uncertainty

in calculating the BCRs. For example, for the North Justice Center, the option with the highest BCR using peak

populations is Option 1, while the option with the highest BCR using ECO populations is Option 4/5. However, the BCR

for Option 1 using ECO populations is within 14% of Option 4/5, which has the highest BCR. Consequently, the

closeness is reported as 14%.



64

VI. REFERENCES

Arup. 2013. REDi Rating System: Resilience-Based Earthquake Design Initiative for the Next

Generation of Buildings. Version 1. https://www.arup.com/-

/media/arup/files/publications/r/redi_final-version_october-2013-arup-website.pdf.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2003. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings

(31-03).

———. 2013. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (7-10). Third printing.

———. 2014. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (41-13).

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2016a. California Building Standards

Code. California Code of Regulations. Title 24. Part 2: California Building Code.

———. 2016b. California Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations. Title 24.

Part 9: California Fire Code.

———. 2016c. California Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations. Title 24.

Part 10: California Existing Building Code.

Department of General Services (DGS). 2009. Seismic Independent Review Report.

https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/resd/RELPS/SeismicIndependentReviewReport.pdf.

Division of the State Architect. 2016. 2016 California Access Compliance Advisory Reference

Manual. State of California Department of General Services.

https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/pubs/2016cbc_advisory_manual.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1991. A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic

Rehabilitation of Hazardous Buildings Volume 1: A User’s Manual. FEMA 227.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1403228695368-

210f1be4cbc6a07876a737a02c69a543/FEMA_227_-_A_Benefit-

Cost_Model_for_the_Seismic_Rehabilitation_of_Buildings_Volume_1.pdf

———. 2006. Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. 2006 edition.

FEMA 547. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1554-20490-

7382/fema547.pdf

———. 2012a. Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage – A Practical Guide.

FEMA E-74. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1398197749343-

db3ae43ef771e639c16636a48209926e/FEMA_E-

74_Reducing_the_Risks_of_Nonstructural_Earthquake_Damage.pdf

———. 2012b. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings: Volume 1 – Methodology. FEMA

P-58-1. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1396495019848-

0c9252aac91dd1854dc378feb9e69216/FEMAP-58_Volume1_508.pdf.

https://www.arup.com/-/media/arup/files/publications/r/redi_final-version_october-2013-arup-website.pdf

https://www.arup.com/-/media/arup/files/publications/r/redi_final-version_october-2013-arup-website.pdf

https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/resd/RELPS/SeismicIndependentReviewReport.pdf

https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/pubs/2016cbc_advisory_manual.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1403228695368-210f1be4cbc6a07876a737a02c69a543/FEMA_227_-_A_Benefit-Cost_Model_for_the_Seismic_Rehabilitation_of_Buildings_Volume_1.pdf



https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1554-20490-7382/fema547.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1554-20490-7382/fema547.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1398197749343-db3ae43ef771e639c16636a48209926e/FEMA_E-74_Reducing_the_Risks_of_Nonstructural_Earthquake_Damage.pdf



https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1396495019848-0c9252aac91dd1854dc378feb9e69216/FEMAP-58_Volume1_508.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1396495019848-0c9252aac91dd1854dc378feb9e69216/FEMAP-58_Volume1_508.pdf



65

———. 2013a. Hazus®-MH 2.1 – Technical Manual. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-

data/20130726-1820-25045-6286/hzmh2_1_eq_tm.pdf

———. 2013b. Hazus®-MH 2.1 Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) – Technical

and User’s Manual. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1820-25045-

1705/hzmh2_1_aebm_um.pdf

———. 2015. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook.

Third edition. FEMA P-154. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1426210695633-

d9a280e72b32872161efab26a602283b/FEMAP-154_508.pdf

———. 2017. Hazus® Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. FEMA P-

366. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1497362829336-

7831a863fd9c5490379b28409d541efe/FEMAP-366_2017.pdf

Haselton, C. B., Dustin Cook, and Katherine Wade. (2018). White Paper on Expected Seismic

Performance of New Building-Code-Compliant Buildings in California. https://s3-us-west-

2.amazonaws.com/static-

assets.hbrisk.com/reports/WhitePaper_ExpectedSeismicPerformanceOfNewBuildingsInCalif

ornia_2018_02_13.pdf?inf_contact_key=e1bffbdd9c6fb824e54fb1c9c8d6b9da

Jones, Lucile M., Richard Bernknopf, Dale Cox, James Goltz, Kenneth Hudnut, Dennis Mileti,

Suzanne Perry, et al. 2008. The ShakeOut Scenario. United States Geological Survey Open-

File Report 2008-1150 and California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25. Version 1.0.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/.

Judicial Council of California. 2008. Court Facilities Planning: Seismic Safety Policy for Leased

Buildings. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/081508item1.pdf

———. 2011. California Trial Court Facilities Standards.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ctcfs2011.pdf

Koliou, Maria, Hassan Masoomi, and John W van de Lindt. 2017. “Performance Assessment of

Tilt-Up Big-Box Buildings Subjected to Extreme Hazards: Tornadoes and Earthquakes.”

Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities (ASCE).

Liel, Abbie B., and Gregory G. Deierlein. 2013. “Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Seismic Risk

Mitigation Alternatives for Older Concrete Frame Buildings.” Earthquake Spectra 29, no. 4

(November): 1391–1411. https://doi.org/10.1193/030911EQS040M

Miranda, Eduardo. 1999. “Approximate Seismic Lateral Deformation Demands in Multistory

Buildings.” Journal of Structural Engineering 125, no. 4: 417–425.

Molina Hutt, Carlos, Gregory G. Deierlein, Ibrahim Almufti, and Michael Willford. 2015. “Risk-

Based Seismic Performance Assessment of Existing Tall Steel-Framed Buildings in San

Francisco.” Proceedings of SECED 2015 Conference, Cambridge, UK, July 9–10, 2015.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1820-25045-6286/hzmh2_1_eq_tm.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1820-25045-6286/hzmh2_1_eq_tm.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1820-25045-1705/hzmh2_1_aebm_um.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1820-25045-1705/hzmh2_1_aebm_um.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1426210695633-d9a280e72b32872161efab26a602283b/FEMAP-154_508.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1426210695633-d9a280e72b32872161efab26a602283b/FEMAP-154_508.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1497362829336-7831a863fd9c5490379b28409d541efe/FEMAP-366_2017.pdf

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1497362829336-7831a863fd9c5490379b28409d541efe/FEMAP-366_2017.pdf

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/static-assets.hbrisk.com/reports/WhitePaper_ExpectedSeismicPerformanceOfNewBuildingsInCalifornia_2018_02_13.pdf?inf_contact_key=e1bffbdd9c6fb824e54fb1c9c8d6b9da




https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/081508item1.pdf

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ctcfs2011.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1193/030911EQS040M



66

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2014. NPFA 70, National Electric Code. 2014

edition.

Petersen, Mark D., Morgan P. Moschetti, Peter M. Powers, Charles S. Mueller, Kathleen M.

Haller, Arthur D. Frankel, Yuehua Zeng, et al. 2014. Documentation for the 2014 Update of

the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps. United States Geological Survey Open-File

Report 2014-1091. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1091/pdf/ofr2014-1091.pdf.

Porter, Keith, and Kyle Ramer. 2012. “Estimating Earthquake-Induced Failure Probability and

Downtime of Critical Facilities.” Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning 5

(4): 352–364.

Ramirez, C. Marcelo, and Eduardo Miranda. 2012. “Significance of Residual Drifts in Building

Earthquake Loss Estimation.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 41 (11):

1477–1493.

Rutherford + Chekene (R+C). 2017. Seismic Risk Rating of California Superior Court Buildings:

Volume 1 & 2. Prepared for the Judicial Council of California.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Seismic-Risk-Rating-of-California-Superior-Court-

Buildings.pdf.

Sullivan, T. J. 2016. “Use of Limit State Loss versus Intensity Models for Simplified Estimation

of Expected Annual Loss.” Journal of Structural Engineering 20 (6): 954–974.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1112325.

Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002. Senate Bill 1732, Statutes 2002, Chapter 1082.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Preliminary Maps of Quaternary Deposits and

Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County San Francisco Bay Region, California: A Digital

Database. USGS Open-File Report 00-444. Online version 1.0.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-444/.

———. 2006. Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San

Francisco Bay Region, California. USGS Open-File Report 2006-1037. Version 1.1.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/.

———. n.d. “nshmp-haz Wiki.” Accessed April 11, 2018. https://github.com/usgs/nshmp-

haz/wiki.

Welch, D. P., T. J. Sullivan, and G. M. Calvi. 2014. “Developing Direct Displacement-Based

Procedures for Simplified Loss Assessment in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering.”

Journal of Structural Engineering 18 (2): 290–322.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.851046

Yong, Alan, Eric M. Thompson, David J. Wald, Keith L. Knudsen, Jack K. Odum, William J.

Stephenson, and Scott Haefner. 2016. Compilation of VS30 Data for the United States: U.S.

Geological Survey Data Series 978. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds978.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1091/pdf/ofr2014-1091.pdf



https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2015.1112325

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-444/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/

https://github.com/usgs/nshmp-haz/wiki

https://github.com/usgs/nshmp-haz/wiki

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.851046

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds978



A-1

A. Abbreviations

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

BCR benefit-cost ratio

BPOE basic performance objective for

existing buildings

CBC California Building Code

CBSC California Building Standards

Commission

CEBC California Existing Building Code

EDP engineering demand parameters

FEMA Federal Emergency Management

Agency

IDR interstory drift ratio

PSRA probabilistic seismic risk assessment

R+C Rutherford + Chekene

REDi Resilience-based Earthquake Design

Initiative

SRR seismic risk rating

UHS uniform hazard spectrum

USGS United States Geological Survey

B. Glossary

Asset-life extension – For a given retrofit or replacement option, the assumed life time of a

building before further necessary building-wide renovation or replacement renovation is

required. This is used to calculate total benefit. Asset-life extension is not a prediction of the

length of actual court occupancy in a particular building.

Authority having jurisdiction – An organization, office, or individual responsible for enforcing

the requirements of a code or standard, or for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or

a procedure (NFPA 2014).

Baseline retrofit option (Option 1) – A retrofit option that represents the minimum level of

effort and expenditure to mitigate the seismic risk at a court building, including seismic upgrades

to structural and nonstructural components (e.g., stairs, elevators, ceilings, lights, partitions) to

achieve Risk Level IV performance (i.e., ASCE 41-13 BPOE for Risk Category II structures),

nonstructural repairs made necessary by the retrofit, and triggered upgrades to accessibility and

fire and life safety systems.

BSE-1E – Basic safety earthquake-1 for use with the BPOE, taken as a seismic hazard with a

20% probability of exceedance in 50 years, but not greater than the BSE-1N, at a site.



A-2

BSE-1N – Basic safety earthquake-1 for use with the basic performance objective equivalent to

new building standards (BPON), taken as two-thirds of the BSE-2N at a site.

BSE-2E – Basic safety earthquake-2 for use with the BPOE, taken as a seismic hazard with a 5%

probability of exceedance in 50 years, but not greater than the BSE-2N, at a site.

BSE-2N – Basic safety earthquake-2 for use with the BPON, taken as the ground shaking based

on the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) per ASCE 7-10 at a site.

Building segment – A portion of a building that may respond independently of other sections in

an earthquake. Building segments can have very different properties (e.g., construction material

and number of floors), and can be built at different times. However, from an operational

perspective, they typically function together as a single facility.

Building type – A classification that groups buildings with common seismic-force-resisting

systems and performance characteristics in past earthquakes. The building types relevant to the

26 court buildings in this study include those listed in the table below (ASCE 2003):

Type Description

C1 Concrete moment frames

C2 Concrete shear walls with stiff diaphragms

C2A Concrete shear walls with flexible diaphragms

PC1A Precast/tilt-up concrete shear walls with stiff diaphragms

RM1 Reinforced masonry bearing walls with flexible diaphragms

RM2 Reinforced masonry bearing walls with stiff diaphragms

S1 Steel moment frames with stiff diaphragms

S2 Steel braced frames with stiff diaphragms

S4 Steel frames with concrete shear walls

URM Unreinforced masonry bearing walls with flexible diaphragms

California Building Code (CBC) – The set of regulations in California that governs how new

buildings are designed and constructed.

California Existing Building Code (CEBC) – The set of regulations in California that governs

how existing buildings are repaired, altered, or expanded.

Collapse prevention performance – A post-earthquake damage state in which a building is on

the verge of partial or total collapse. Substantial damage to the structure has occurred, potentially

including significant degradation in the stiffness and strength of the lateral-force-resisting

system, large permanent lateral deformation of the structure, and—to a more limited extent—

degradation in vertical-load-carrying capacity. However, all significant components of the

gravity-load-resisting system must continue to carry their gravity loads. Significant risk of injury

caused by falling hazards from structural debris might exist. The structure might not be



A-3

technically practical to repair and is not safe for re-occupancy because aftershock activity could

induce collapse.

Collapse probability – The likelihood that a building will either partially or totally collapse in

an earthquake. FEMA P-154 (2015) defines collapse as when the gravity load carrying system in

part or all of the building loses the ability to carry the weight.

Collateral impacts – Repair work to nonstructural components (e.g., walls, ceilings, lighting,

carpeting) made necessary by the seismic retrofit.

Design basis earthquake – A level of ground shaking defined in the design standards for new

buildings (e.g., ASCE 7). For California, this has a return period of between 200 and 800 years.

FEMA P-58 risk assessments – A standard engineering method for quantifying the seismic

performance of a building in terms of casualties, repair costs, and repair time.

Full renovation option (Option 3) – A retrofit option that includes the same seismic upgrades

to structural components as the baseline retrofit option, plus full demolition and replacement of

the interior down to the structural skeleton and removal of the exterior wall and roof cladding.

The budget for the nonstructural components is based unit costs per square foot, and no design

was performed as part of this study.

Life safety performance – A post-earthquake damage state in which significant damage to a

building has occurred but some margin against either partial or total structural collapse remains.

Some structural components are severely damaged, but this damage has not resulted in large

falling debris hazards, either inside or outside the building. Injuries might occur during the

earthquake; however, the overall risk of life-threatening injury from structural damage is

expected to be low. It should be possible to repair the structure; however, for economic reasons,

this repair might not be practical. Although the damaged structure is not an imminent collapse

risk, it would be prudent to implement structural repairs or install temporary bracing before re-

occupancy.

Nonstructural components – Architectural, mechanical, and electrical components of a

building permanently installed in or integral to a building system.

Phased construction – A scenario in which the court building would be kept open and

operational during the retrofit, requiring the work would need to be done in multiple phases

either by floors or zones of the buildings.

Priority upgrades – A list of approved, unfunded facility modifications at a court building.

Priority upgrades do not include all possible maintenance needs at a court building.

Priority upgrades retrofit option (Option 2) – A retrofit option that includes the same

upgrades as the baseline retrofit option, plus any priority upgrades. This retrofit option was

included in the study because seismic retrofits often provide an opportunity to upgrade outdated

or deficient building systems (which would normally be highly disruptive) at relatively little

additional cost



A-4

Replace to 2016 CBC option (Option 4) – A replacement option that involves replacing an

existing court building with a new facility that satisfies Risk Category III requirements of the

2016 California Building Code (CBC). Risk Category III refers to “buildings and structures that

could pose a substantial risk to human life in case of damage or failure,” including those with a

potential to cause “a substantial economic impact and/or mass disruption of day-to-day civilian

life” (ASCE 2013). California Superior Court buildings are classified as Risk Category III

because of the consistent large density of occupants in these public buildings.

Replace to beyond code option (Option 5) – A replacement option that involves replacing an

existing court building with a new facility that goes beyond the minimum requirements of the

2016 CBC to achieve more resilient seismic performance (e.g., reduced damage, repair costs, and

downtime).

Seismic risk rating (SRR) – A ranking based on the relative probability of collapse in a seismic

event as estimated by a Hazus model of the building, which considers the structural capacity of

the building, site-specific seismic hazard, and structural characteristics that influence the

capacity or response to earthquakes. Court buildings with SRRs exceeding 10 are classified as

Very High Risk, while those with SRRs between 2 and 10 are classified as High Risk.

Structural components – Components of a building that provide gravity- or lateral-load

resistance as part of a continuous load path to the foundation, including beams, columns, slabs,

braces, walls, wall piers, coupling beams, and connections.

Supplemental ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 seismic assessment – A standard ASCE 41-13 Tier 1

seismic evaluation involves completing checklists of evaluation statements to identify seismic

deficiencies in a building based on performance of similar buildings in past earthquakes. It does

not require checking the adequacy of supporting elements in the load path once the deficient

components have been retrofitted, or checking the performance of the entire seismic-force-

resisting system. Both checks were included in the supplemental seismic evaluations performed

by the consultant team.

Unphased construction – A scenario in which the court building is closed and vacated during

construction, requiring court staff and functions to be relocated to a temporary facility.

APPENDIX B. R+C PEER REVIEW LETTER



B-1

Appendix B provides a letter from Rutherford + Chekene, structural peer reviewer to the Judicial

Council, stating their professional opinion about overall appropriateness or validity of the

methodology used for the seismic renovation feasibility study.

DRAFT

Structural | Geotechnical Engineers 375 Beale Street Suite 310 | San Francisco CA 94105 | T 415 568 4400 | F 415 618 0684 | www.ruthchek.com

7 January 2019

Clifford HamSenior Project Manager & Architectural Program LeadFacilities Services OfficeJudicial Council of California455 Golden Gate AvenueSan Francisco, CA [email protected]

2018-032S, Task 1

Subject: CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT BUILDINGS SEISMIC RENOVATION FEASIBILITY STUDIESSEISMIC PEER REVIEW FINDINGS

Dear Mr. Ham:

On behalf of the Judicial Council of California, Rutherford and Chekene performed Seismic Peer Review for the Court Renovation Feasibility Studies project. The purpose of this project was to create individual Project Feasibility Reports defining the feasibility, scope and budget for renovation construction to mitigate the seismic safety risks in 26 existing superior court facilities with very high or high seismic risk ratings.

Each study involved developing a conceptual seismic retrofit scheme, determining the collateral impacts and associated construction costs of the retrofit scheme and renovation options, and performing cost-benefit analyses to determine the most appropriate renovation strategy for the subject facility. A total of five retrofit and replacement options were considered for each facility. In addition to a seismic retrofit only project (option 1), additional options were developed that included seismic retrofit with priority building infrastructure and systems upgrades (option 2), seismic retrofit with full building renovation (option 3), building replacement (option 4), and building replacement with enhanced performance (option 5). The consultant team then performed costs-benefit analyses to compare the financial effectiveness of the five retrofit and replacement options for each facility. The benefit-cost ratio was the primary consideration of the Judicial Council Facilities Services staff’s decision of which retrofit or replacement option to select.

The goal of the peer review was to advice the Judicial Council Facilities Services on the validity of structural engineering performance criteria for the strategic approaches to building renovation, e.g. Life-Safety, Current Code, Enhanced Performance, and the validity of the structural engineering design concepts proposed by Consultant for the building renovations.

This letter summarizes our findings related to the methodology used to develop the retrofit concepts and calculate Benefit-Cost Ratios for the various options considered for each facility, and our findings regarding the validity of the engineering design concept for the building renovation/ retrofit to meet the intended seismic performance level.

FINDINGS

1. The project used the ASCE 41-13 Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings for Risk Category II buildings as the Structural Design Criteria for evaluation and retrofit design.

Mr. Clifford Ham 7 January 2019Judicial Council of California Page 2

This seismic performance objective is considered equivalent to (and therefore achieves) Risk Level IV performance, which is the minimum performance level required by the Judicial Council of California for the seismic retrofit of court buildings and meets the minimum requirements of the 2016 California Existing Building Code (CEBC) for State Owned Buildings, as stated in Table 317.5 of CEBC - California Code of Regulations – Title 24, Part 10.

2. The consultant team used the ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 Screening procedure and the most recent seismic hazard information for California, supplemented with numerical checks of the adequacy of the load path and seismic force-resisting system to evaluate each building. Based on the deficiencies identified by this seismic evaluation, the consultant team developed a conceptual retrofit scheme to mitigate each deficiency.

3. The scope of architectural impacts and triggered improvements is extensive, and constitutes a significant portion of the retrofit costs.

4. The seismic retrofit drawings incorporate standard structural details, typically taken from the FEMA document “Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings”, FEMA 547. Though these details may not reflect the actual construction of the court building and are not developed in enough detail for the purpose of construction, they are typically adequate to convey the intent of the retrofit to the cost estimator.

5. Some of the facilities such as the Central Justice Center (30-A1), the Glendale Courthouse (19-H1), the Imperial County Courthouse (13-A1), the Napa Courthouse (28-B1), and the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse (07-A2) are local points of historic interest, or have historically significant architectural features. Though some attention was given to avoid modification of exterior appearance, interior public space and courtrooms when developing the retrofit concept, it may be expected that the final retrofit design would focus on localizing the retrofit work to the extent possible and would consider additional retrofit schemes to further reduce the impact of the retrofit construction on the historically significant elements.

6. The calculation of seismic benefit-cost ratios is primarily based on the method published in the FEMA document “Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings”, FEMA P-58. The method is comprehensive and relatively complex and requires development of many input parameters. The scope of the feasibility studies was limited, requiring determination of many of the parameters more efficiently than recommended by the P-58 methodology, often essentially by engineering judgment. As pointed out in the Detailed Methodology Report, many of the input parameters and resulting output have large uncertainties. Uncertainty is always present in seismic analysis and related calculations, largely due to the uncertainty in the ground motion itself. The methodology used in these reports takes uncertainty into account explicitly, enabling the user to study the potential effects of various uncertainties. Since the methods used for each building and each alternative (and related uncertainties) are consistent throughout the study, the relative values of the results should be sufficiently stable to be used for comparison of various actions.

7. Losses due to casualties are monetized using values common in the industry. However, the number of casualties estimated by the study is exceptionally high. This is due to use of a large occupancy (number of people in the building exposed to damage or collapse), derived from JCC counts of entries into each building. This method, in itself, is susceptible to double counting, but also many studies of the kind use the Equivalent Continuous Occupancy (ECO) which averages occupancy over 24 hour days and 7 day weeks. The ECO is


typically one third of the normal daytime occupancy. In addition, the casualties used to estimate benefit and costs was taken as the 90th percentile of the probabilistic calculation rather than the mean taken for other loss parameters. Studies documented in the Detailed Methodology Report indicate that the assumptions resulting in high casualties and monetized losses have little effect on relative values between options and between buildings and therefore do not invalidate the results of the study.

8. When considering a replacement building as an option, the size and construction cost of each replacement building was provided by the Judicial Council; the gross area is an estimate, subject to change with detailed design, but suitable for these reports. The configuration and structural system of the new building and its site on the other hand were unknown, and detailed loss models could not be developed as a result. Therefore, loss values for the replacement buildings were proportioned using linear scaling factors from losses calculated for the existing building. Although losses from a new building would normally be less than from an existing retrofitted building, it is unclear if all losses have the same proportionality or how variations in the reduced losses could affect the benefits of these options.

9. The benefit-cost ratios calculated in this study are relatively low, often below 1.0. One reason for this result is that there are high costs related to the non-seismic upgrades (e.g. sprinklers, disabled access, mechanical, etc.) required for most of these buildings. The total costs of installation of these systems are included in the “costs” but there are only small seismic-related “benefits;” and therefore the seismic cost-benefit ratios are lowered.

To an extent consistent with the scope of our review, our professional opinion is that the retrofit concept presented in this report when further developed into construction documents will be capable of achieving a Risk Level IV and minimum code requirements and is adequate for the purpose of developing conceptual cost estimates used for budget purposes.

We further find that the methodology and assumptions used to calculate cost-benefit ratios for the 5 retrofit and replacement option considered are reasonable and the results properly considered for the purposes of these studies.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

We carried out the Seismic Peer Review in accordance with the agreed upon scope of work, included in our Work Order No. 1035898 with the Judicial Council of California. The scope of our review is summarized below:

Participated in regular meetings and conference calls between April and November 2018.

Participated in a series of workshops where design assumptions, retrofit design concepts and benefit-cost ratios were presented and discussed.

Reviewed submitted information and reports for each building, provided comments, and worked with the consultant team to reach resolution of comments.

Issued a letter for each building stating our professional opinion about performance criteria for strategic approaches to building renovation/conceptual retrofit design.

Provided a letter stating our professional opinion about overall appropriateness of the processes used for this project relative to current best engineering practices.


Rutherford + Chekene staff participating in the review were Ayse Celikbas, William Holmes, Afshar Jalalian, and Marko Schotanus.

Please contact us at (415) 568-4400 if you wish to discuss any elements of the review.

Sincerely,

RUTHERFORD + CHEKENE

Afshar Jalalian, S.E.Executive Principal

cc: Michael Mieler, Rob Smith, Ibrahim Almufti – Arup, San Francisco

FEASIBILITY STUDIES PEER REVIEW FINDINGS LETTER_RC20180107.DOCX

Meeting Date: 04/08/2019 Action Item 6 – Quarter 3 Trial Court Facility Modification Reports for FY 2018-19 Summary: Review and approve Q3 draft report for submission to the Judicial Council. Supporting Documentation:

• Quarter 3 Trial Court Facility Modification Report for FY 2018-19

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688

www.courts.ca.gov

R E P O R T T O T H E J U D I C I A L C O U N C I L For business meeting on: May 16, 2019

Title

Court Facilities: Trial Court Facility Modifications Report for Quarter 3 of Fiscal Year 2018–19

Submitted by

Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee

Hon. Donald Cole Byrd, Chair Hon. William F. Highberger, Vice-chair

Agenda Item Type

Information Only

Date of Report

March 29, 2019

Contact

Mike Courtney, 916-263-2981 [email protected]

Jagan Singh, 415-865-7755 [email protected]

Executive Summary This informational report to the Judicial Council outlines the allocations of facility modification funding made to improve trial court facilities in the third quarter (January through March) of fiscal year 2018–19. To determine allocations, the Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee reviews and approves facility modification requests from across the state in accordance with the council’s Trial Court Facility Modifications Policy.

Relevant Previous Council Action This report is submitted quarterly as required by the Judicial Council’s Trial Court Facility Modifications Policy (see Link A).1 Most recently, on February 22, 2019, the council received the quarterly report for the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2018–19 (see Link B).

Analysis/Rationale Funding decisions during the third quarter of FY 2018–19 were based on the prioritization and ranking methodologies of the Trial Court Facility Modifications Policy. There are six priority

1 Per this policy, each quarterly report includes a list of all facility modifications funded during the quarter as well as any reallocation of funds between the funding categories (i.e., facility modification priority categories 1–6).

2

categories of facility modifications: Priority 1, Immediately or Potentially Critical; Priority 2, Necessary, but Not Yet Critical; Priority 3, Needed; Priority 4, Does Not Meet Current Codes or Standards; Priority 5, Beyond Rated Life, but Serviceable; and Priority 6, Hazardous Materials, Managed but Not Abated. The current level of funding allows the Trial Court Facilities Modification Advisory Committee (TCFMAC) to address only the most critically needed Priorities 1 and 2 and some Priority 3 facility modifications statewide.

Facility modification requests are also reviewed and approved in accordance with the Judicial Council’s Court-Funded Facilities Request Policy (see Link C). This policy presents the procedure and requirements to allow trial courts to make court-funded facilities requests (CFRs). Trial courts may assist with the funding of certain facilities costs (i.e., facility modifications and lease-related costs) by contributing funds toward urgent facilities costs—not including capital-outlay expenses—through allocation reductions from the Trial Court Trust Fund. Allowable facilities costs that a trial court can fund through a CFR include (1) facility modifications as defined in the Trial Court Facility Modifications Policy; (2) court operations costs allowable under rule 10.810 of the California Rules of Court, such as equipment, furnishings, interior painting, flooring replacement or repair, furniture repair, and records storage; and (3) lease-related costs, such as lease payments and operating costs, repairs, and modifications authorized by a lease. CFRs are approved by Judicial Council staff, with the following exceptions, which require TCFMAC review and approval: ongoing operational cost increases to the Judicial Council beyond the initial outlay for the project (e.g., additional utility or maintenance costs); staff concerns about whether the CFR meets the policy’s criteria or whether the proposed budget is accurate; and appeals of staff determinations.

Fiscal Impact and Policy Implications During the third quarter of FY 2018–19, the TCFMAC reviewed and approved 263 facility modifications for a total estimated cost of $7.65 million (see Attachment A). Of these, 86 were Priority 1 facility modifications and 177 were Priority 2 facility modifications. The Judicial Council’s facility modification program’s share of the estimated cost was $5.92 million, with the affected counties responsible for the balance. Most of these facility modifications involved elevator, roofing, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning repairs or replacements.

In addition, council staff approved and the TCFMAC reviewed 17 CFRs in the third quarter of FY 2018–19 (see Attachment B).

Completed project spotlights Below are examples of facility modification projects completed during this quarter.

3

Priority 2: HVAC Cooling Tower Replacement, Bellflower Courthouse, Los Angeles County

• Replacement of (2) failing cooling towers and installation of a new centrifugal separator. The final project cost was $329,794.80. (FM-0061667)

Above: Existing failing cooling tower Below: Newly replaced cooling tower

4

Priority 2: Roof replacement, Alhambra Courthouse, Los Angeles County

• Removal of the existing roofing and replacement with Class-A fire rated, 80 mil, PVC single-ply membrane over new insulation. The final project cost was $897,702. (FM-0053003)

Above: Old roof of Alhambra Courthouse Below: Replaced roof with Class-A fire rated, 80 mil, PVC single-ply membrane

5

Attachments and Links 1. Attachment A: TCFMAC-Funded Project List: Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2018–19 2. Attachment B: Court-Funded Facilities Requests (CFRs): Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2018–19 3. Link A: Trial Court Facility Modifications Policy (rev. Feb. 13, 2019),

www.courts.ca.gov/documents/eandp-20190213-mm.pdf 4. Link B: Court Facilities: Trial Court Facility Modifications Report for Quarter 2 of Fiscal

Year 2018–19 (February 22, 2019), https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6613667&GUID=2BEDCB08-CC49-407B-A30B-9058A5C6FC57

5. Link C: Court Facilities: Court-Funded Facilities Request Policy (Aug. 26, 2016), https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4625695&GUID=15BB7747-C300-48DA-AA81-5546168A1991

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/eandp-20190213-mm.pdf

https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6613667&GUID=2BEDCB08-CC49-407B-A30B-9058A5C6FC57

https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6613667&GUID=2BEDCB08-CC49-407B-A30B-9058A5C6FC57

https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4625695&GUID=15BB7747-C300-48DA-AA81-5546168A1991

https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4625695&GUID=15BB7747-C300-48DA-AA81-5546168A1991

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE


FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM SHARE OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM SHARE % OF COST

1FM

-005

9159

Los A

ngel

esBe

llflo

wer

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

L11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e 3

leak

ing

pneu

mat

ic h

ot w

ater

val

ves &

(3) d

aman

ged

2' x

4' c

eilin

g til

es. W

ork

perf

orm

ed in

AC

M k

now

n en

viro

nmen

t. 24

,856

$

19

,373

$

77

.94

2FM

-005

9338

Los A

ngel

esBe

llflo

wer

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

L11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e fa

iled

1/2"

gat

e va

lve.

Gat

e va

lve

leak

ed, s

atur

atin

g a

2'x1

' cei

ling

tile

caus

ing

it to

fall

and

land

on

a c

ourt

visi

tor h

ead.

Wor

k pe

rfor

med

in k

now

n AC

M E

nviro

nmen

t.24

,186

$

18

,851

$

77

.94

3FM

-005

9639

Los A

ngel

esN

orw

alk

Cour

thou

se19

-AK1

1Pl

umbi

ng -

1st f

loor

Pub

lic D

efen

ders

rest

room

toile

t bac

ked-

up a

nd o

verf

low

ed. C

ateg

ory

3 se

wag

e w

ater

floo

ded

the

offic

e ar

ea a

nd p

enet

rate

d do

wn

into

the

base

men

t fili

ng ro

om. E

xtra

cted

app

rox.

2,0

00 sq

. ft o

f was

te w

ater

, PD

Offi

ce se

t up

(3) 6

x 1

0 an

d (1

) 20

x10

criti

cal b

arrie

rs, b

asem

ent f

iling

room

set u

p (3

) 36

x 39

and

(1) 2

0 x2

0

criti

cal b

arrie

rs a

nd a

20

x20

clea

n ro

om. E

xecu

ted

rem

edia

tion,

ACM

env

irom

ent

110,

575

$

94,0

22$

85.0

3

4FM

-006

0199

Los A

ngel

esPa

sade

na C

ourt

hous

e19

-J11

Plum

bing

- Ran

Cab

le th

roug

h 4

inch

sew

er c

lean

out

app

roxi

mat

ely

150

feet

to c

lear

stop

page

. Rem

edia

tion

was

pe

rfor

med

on

cate

gory

3 w

ater

. Con

tain

men

t was

set u

p in

em

ploy

ee re

stro

om a

nd st

orag

e ro

oms t

o iso

late

dr

ying

equ

ipm

ent.

Men

s toi

let s

topp

ed u

p an

d 50

gal

lons

of c

ateg

ory

3 w

ater

had

to b

e ex

trac

ted.

All

area

s hav

e be

en c

lear

ed fo

r re-

occu

panc

y.

30,4

62$

21,1

25$

69.3

5

5FM

-006

2691

San

Dieg

oN

ew C

entr

al S

an

Dieg

o Co

urth

ouse

37-L

11

Plum

bing

- Ch

ambe

rs 1

669

repl

aced

25

sq ft

affe

cted

dry

wal

l, 18

sq ft

insu

latio

n, a

nd 2

4 ln

ft c

ove

base

). Ro

om

1668

repl

aced

16

sq ft

affe

cted

insu

latio

n, 1

6 sq

ft d

ry w

all,

and

15 L

N ft

cov

e ba

se. R

emed

iatio

n an

d en

viro

nmen

tal t

estin

g. C

ham

bers

166

9 re

stro

om to

ilet f

lapp

er w

as st

uck

open

, cau

sing

toile

t to

cont

inuo

usly

run

clea

n w

ater

dow

n an

d ov

erflo

win

g th

e bo

wl;

flood

ing

Cham

bers

166

9. W

ater

ran

dow

n th

e w

est w

all i

mpa

ctin

g ad

jace

nt sp

aces

: 16t

h flo

or ro

oms:

168

8, 1

689,

169

1, a

nd 5

floo

rs b

elow

room

s 157

9, 1

468,

136

8, 1

269,

116

9.

48,4

91$

48,4

91$

100

6FM

-006

2719

Sant

a Cl

ara

Mor

gan

Hill

Cour

thou

se43

-N1

1El

evat

ors,

Esc

alat

ors &

Hoi

sts –

repl

ace

faile

d lo

ad se

nsor

that

cau

sed

afte

r-ho

ur e

leva

tor e

ntra

pmen

t and

per

form

re

quire

d te

stin

g to

con

firm

cor

rect

ope

ratio

n of

ele

vato

r #4.

3,10

4$

3,10

4$

100

7FM

-006

2947

Los A

ngel

esEd

mun

d D.

Ede

lman

Ch

ildre

n's C

ourt

19-Q

11

Fire

pro

tect

ion

- Ins

tall

(1) 6

" bal

ly b

and,

4" s

prin

kler

line

is c

rack

ed a

nd le

akin

g. E

rect

ed (1

) 4'x

8' m

oist

ure

barr

ier.

Dry

affe

cted

are

a, 4

' x 4

' are

a of

har

d ce

iling

.16

,823

$

11

,774

$

69

.99

8FM

-006

3007

Los A

ngel

esSt

anle

y M

osk

Cour

thou

se19

-K1

1Pl

umbi

ng –

Lea

k fr

om 3

rd fl

oor m

en's

publ

ic re

stro

om im

pact

ed se

cure

d ha

llway

, pub

lic h

allw

ay, e

scal

ator

pits

, 2n

d flo

or ro

om 2

03, a

nd 1

st fl

oor r

oom

105

B. 2

15 sq

. ft.

of 1

ft. X

1 ft

. ACM

floo

r tile

s on

3rd

floor

rem

oved

and

re

med

iate

d. R

emov

ed/R

eins

talle

d (1

4) 2

ft. X

2 ft

. car

pet s

quar

es in

room

105

. Rem

edia

tion

com

pete

d un

der

envi

ronm

enta

l pro

toco

l. So

urce

flus

h va

lve

tailp

iece

repl

aced

.

92,5

00$

89,9

66$

97.2

6

9FM

-006

3010

San

Dieg

oN

orth

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Cen

ter -

N

orth

37-F

21

Plum

bing

- W

ater

intr

usio

n be

twee

n ch

ambe

rs d

ue to

faul

ty a

ngle

stop

on

com

mod

e. R

epla

ced

angl

e st

op, s

et u

p 20

7sq

ft c

onta

inm

ent,

perf

orm

ed e

nviro

nmen

tal t

estin

g, re

med

iatio

n, a

nd d

emo

of a

ffect

ed d

ryw

all,

stud

s,

insu

latio

n, fl

oorin

g an

d tw

o (2

) w

ood

vani

ties d

ue to

wat

er sa

tura

tion

and

mol

d. R

ebui

lt 10

0 sq

. ft o

f dry

wal

l, re

plac

ed a

ppro

x. 1

0 sq

. ft o

f vin

yl fl

oor,

120

sq. f

t ca

rpet

and

pad

ding

, cov

e ba

se, v

anity

cab

inet

s and

cou

nter

tops

ne

cess

ary

to re

turn

cha

mbe

rs b

ack

to n

orm

al u

se.

66,0

00$

66,0

00$

100

10FM

-006

3012

Los A

ngel

esPa

sade

na C

ourt

hous

e19

-J11

Plum

bing

-Toi

let o

verf

low

ed in

1st

floo

r Loc

k-up

cou

rt e

xclu

sive

spac

e. A

BM se

cure

d w

ork

area

and

ext

ract

ed 5

0 ga

llons

of w

ater

from

floo

r. R

emed

iatio

n te

am e

rect

ed c

onta

inm

ent o

n flo

or #

1 an

d Ba

sem

ent.

Env

ironm

enta

list

subm

itted

stat

emen

t of w

ork

for C

AT3

wat

er lo

ss to

JCC

envi

ronm

enta

list f

or re

view

and

rele

ase

for r

e-oc

cupa

ncy.

20,5

00$

20,5

00$

100

11FM

-006

3045

Los A

ngel

esIn

glew

ood

Juve

nile

Co

urt

19-E

11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

ed (1

) 1-in

ch is

olat

ion

valv

e, a

nd a

10

ft se

ctio

n of

1-in

ch c

oppe

r pip

e to

hot

wat

er su

pply

. Er

ecte

d co

ntai

nmen

t, co

mpl

eted

env

ironm

enta

l tes

ting,

and

all

wor

k w

as p

erfo

rmed

in a

kno

w A

CM a

rea.

Wat

er

leak

ing

insid

e w

all o

f the

1st

floo

r jan

itors

clo

set.

25,5

00$

20,5

99$

80.7

8

Page

1 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




12FM

-006

3163

Los A

ngel

esPa

sade

na C

ourt

hous

e19

-J11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e 50

LF

of 1

" CP

one

(1) 1

" val

ve, f

ive

(5) f

lush

val

ves,

five

(5) t

oile

t spu

ds, a

nd o

ne (1

) cou

plin

g,

build

bac

k an

d pa

int w

alls

with

acc

ess d

oor,

due

to w

ater

leak

foun

d in

side

wal

ls da

mag

ing

wal

ls ca

usin

g a

heal

th

and

safe

ty is

sue

for i

nmat

es in

2 c

ells

on m

ultip

le fl

oors

und

erne

ath

each

oth

er.

Repl

ace

brok

en p

orce

lain

sink

to

adja

cent

cel

l loc

ated

on

6th

floor

affe

ctin

g in

mat

e co

urt o

pera

tions

. AC

M a

nd L

BP te

stin

g an

d cl

eara

nce

incl

uded

.

17,9

20$

12,4

28$

69.3

5

13FM

-006

3232

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on C

ourt

hous

e19

-AG1

1HV

AC -

Repl

aced

(1) 4

0 HP

VFD

on

8th

floor

supp

ly A

HU. V

FD is

not

resp

ondi

ng, m

ultip

le a

reas

hav

e re

port

ed n

o ai

rflo

w, a

nd te

mpe

ratu

res a

re e

xeed

ing

74 d

egre

es.

8,50

0$

5,62

1$

66.1

3

14FM

-006

3233

Los A

ngel

esIn

glew

ood

Juve

nile

Co

urt

19-E

11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

ed (1

) 3-ft

sect

ion

of c

ast i

ron

pipe

, (6)

4-in

ch n

o hu

b fit

tings

, (2)

4-in

ch c

omby

s, a

nd sn

aked

out

15

0-ft

of m

ain

drai

n lin

e to

cle

ar st

oppa

ge. E

xtra

cted

150

0 ga

llons

of s

ewag

e w

ater

from

mec

hani

cal b

asem

ent,

erec

ted

(2) c

onta

inm

ents

, con

duct

ed c

ateg

ory

3 cl

eara

nce

sam

ples

, and

all

wor

k w

as p

erfo

rmed

in a

kno

w A

CM

area

. Mai

n lin

e st

oppa

ge c

ausin

g 1,

500

gallo

ns o

f wat

er to

leak

into

the

Base

men

t Mec

hani

cal R

oom

.

20,1

23$

16,2

55$

80.7

8

15FM

-006

3253

Los A

ngel

esEd

mun

d D.

Ede

lman

Ch

ildre

n's C

ourt

19-Q

11

Elev

ator

s, E

scal

ator

s, &

Hoi

sts –

Rep

lace

faile

d El

evat

or re

lay

and

blow

n-ou

t fus

e. Ju

dge'

s ele

vato

r is n

ot

resp

ondi

ng to

cal

ls. E

leva

tor i

s out

of s

ervi

ce w

ith d

oors

stuc

k in

the

open

pos

ition

.2,

500

$

2,

500

$

10

0

16FM

-006

3264

Sono

ma

Hall

of Ju

stic

e49

-A1

1HV

AC -

Air Q

ualit

y iss

ues -

Dep

loy

four

teen

(14)

200

0 cf

m A

ir Sc

rubb

ers d

ue to

unh

ealth

y ai

r cau

sed

by th

e CA

MP

fire

and

seve

n (7

) filt

ers.

57

,415

$

57

,415

$

10

0

17FM

-006

3269

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on C

ourt

hous

e19

-AG1

1Pl

umbi

ng- S

nake

d 17

5-fe

et o

f mai

n se

wag

e dr

ain

line

in, e

xtra

cted

150

gal

lons

of s

ewag

e w

ater

, ere

cted

a 5

0x50

co

ntai

nmen

t, co

nduc

ted

envi

ronm

enta

l tes

ting.

Bas

emen

t loc

k-up

mai

n lin

e re

stric

tion,

15-

20 g

allo

ns o

f wat

er

com

ing

from

floo

r dra

ins a

nd to

ilet.

Wat

er ra

n in

to th

e ha

llway

affe

ctin

g m

ultip

le a

reas

in lo

ck u

p.

19,5

00$

12,8

95$

66.1

3

18FM

-006

3278

Los A

ngel

esSt

anle

y M

osk

Cour

thou

se19

-K1

1Pl

umbi

ng -

Wat

er in

trus

ion

impa

ctin

g 6t

h flo

or e

mpl

oyee

rest

room

con

tain

men

t req

uire

d fo

r dry

ing

12x1

2x8

extr

actio

n of

20

Gallo

ns w

ater

, ins

talla

tion

of d

ehum

idifi

er a

nd n

egat

ive

air m

achi

ne. 5

th fl

oor e

mpl

oyee

bre

ak

room

523

con

tain

men

t req

uire

d 15

x14x

10 w

ith d

econ

tam

inat

ion

and

inst

alla

tion

of d

ehum

idifi

er a

nd n

egat

ive

air

mac

hine

. Roo

m 5

23B

cont

ainm

ent r

equi

red

7x7x

10 in

stal

latio

n of

deh

umid

ifier

and

neg

ativ

e ai

r mac

hine

. 6th

Fl

oor R

oom

620

Wom

en's

Empl

oyee

Res

troo

m m

ain

line

back

ed u

p du

e to

clo

g. O

n sit

e te

chni

cian

cle

ared

bl

ocka

ge a

nd te

sted

for p

rope

r fun

ctio

n be

fore

rele

asin

g ar

ea.

23,5

00$

22,8

56$

97.2

6

19FM

-006

3286

Sono

ma

Mai

n Ad

ult D

eten

tion

Faci

lity

49-A

21

HVAC

- Ai

r Qua

lity

issue

s - D

eplo

y tw

o (2

) Air

Scru

bber

s due

to u

nhea

lthy

air c

ause

d by

the

CAM

P fir

e.7,

560

$

7,

560

$

10

0

20FM

-006

3287

Sono

ma

Empi

re A

nnex

49-B

11

HVAC

- Ai

r Qua

lity

issue

s - D

eplo

y fiv

e (5

) Air

Scru

bber

s due

to u

nhea

lthy

air c

ause

d by

the

CAM

P fir

e.18

,900

$

18

,900

$

10

021

FM-0

0632

88So

nom

a30

55 C

leve

land

Av

enue

49-B

21

HVAC

- De

ploy

13

air s

crub

bers

thro

ugho

ut fa

cilit

y to

rem

edia

te sm

oke

- Poo

r air

qual

ity c

ausin

g he

alth

/saf

ety

issue

s for

pub

lic/C

ourt

staf

f due

to w

ildla

nd fi

res.

54,0

41$

54,0

41$

100

22FM

-006

3289

Sono

ma

Juve

nile

Just

ice

Cent

er49

-D2

1HV

AC -

Air Q

ualit

y iss

ues -

Dep

loy

one(

1) A

ir Sc

rubb

ers d

ue to

unh

ealth

y ai

r cau

sed

by th

e CA

MP

fire.

3,95

6$

3,95

6$

100

23FM

-006

3290

Cont

ra C

osta

Geor

ge D

. Car

roll

Cour

thou

se07

-F1

1HV

AC -

Air Q

ualit

y iss

ues -

Dep

loy

twen

ty (2

0) 2

000

cfm

Air

Scru

bber

s due

to u

nhea

lthy

air c

ause

d by

the

CAM

P fir

e an

d on

e hu

ndre

d- tw

o (1

02) f

ilter

s.

65,0

00$

65,0

00$

100

24FM

-006

3305

Lake

La

kepo

rt C

ourt

Fa

cilit

y17

-A3

1HV

AC -

Air Q

ualit

y iss

ues -

Dep

loy

four

(4) 2

000

cfm

Air

Scru

bber

s due

to u

nhea

lthy

air c

ause

d by

the

CAM

P fir

e an

d tw

enty

one

(21)

filte

rs.

20,0

00$

20,0

00$

100

Page

2 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




25FM

-006

3310

San

Dieg

oN

orth

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Cen

ter -

N

orth

37-F

21

Plum

bing

- re

med

iatio

n an

d re

stor

atio

n of

ent

ire b

asem

ent l

evel

of t

he C

ourt

hous

e as

a re

sult

of a

blo

cked

and

ru

ptur

ed se

wag

e lin

e in

the

park

ing

lot.

Sew

er w

ater

floo

ded

the

base

men

t lev

el to

app

roxi

mat

ely

4 to

6 in

ches

. Pr

ojec

t inc

lude

s rep

lace

men

t of a

ll af

fect

ed d

oors

, dry

wal

l, an

d flo

orin

g w

here

app

licab

le.

Proj

ect a

lso in

clud

es

rem

oval

of c

onta

min

ated

equ

ipm

ent a

nd fu

rnitu

re.

Full

cont

ainm

ent a

nd re

med

iatio

n of

the

base

men

t is

nece

ssar

y to

rest

ore

the

area

for C

ourt

use

. Co

sts h

ave

been

forw

arde

d to

Risk

Man

agem

ent f

or In

sura

nce

reim

burs

emen

t and

is c

urre

ntly

und

er re

view

.

361,

702

$

361,

702

$

100

26FM

-006

3314

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Cou

rtho

use

19-A

U1

1Pl

umbi

ng- R

epla

ced

10-fo

ot se

ctio

n of

cas

t iro

n pi

pe, (

1) 2

" P-t

rap,

(4) 2

" no

hub

coup

lings

, ere

cted

(1)1

9x19

co

ntai

nmen

t, (2

) 10x

10 c

onta

inm

ent,

and

extr

acte

d 20

gal

lons

of w

ater

. Wat

er le

akin

g fr

om th

e 1s

t flo

or c

afet

eria

do

wn

to th

e Ba

sem

ent r

oom

72,

leak

ing

20 g

allo

ns o

f wat

er o

n th

e ha

rd fl

oors

and

affe

ctin

g (3

) row

s of c

ourt

file

s.

Due

to si

nk d

rain

ing

slow

ly, p

lum

ber s

nake

d ou

t dra

in c

ausin

g th

e 2"

p-t

rap

to fa

il.

28,5

00$

21,9

93$

77.1

7

27FM

-006

3317

Alam

eda

Hayw

ard

Hall

of

Just

ice

01-D

11

HVAC

- Ai

r Qua

lity

issue

s - D

eplo

y tw

enty

- fiv

e (2

5) 2

000

cfm

Air

Scru

bber

s due

to u

nhea

lthy

air c

ause

d by

the

CAM

P fir

e an

d on

e hu

ndre

d ei

ghty

- eig

ht (1

88) f

ilter

s.

95,5

65$

84,3

84$

88.3

28FM

-006

3325

Los A

ngel

esSa

nta

Mon

ica

Cour

thou

se19

-AP1

1HV

AC- R

epla

ce b

roke

n re

gula

tor a

nd le

akin

g ai

r drie

r for

the

pneu

mat

ic sy

stem

, cal

ibra

te a

nd se

t to

prop

er

pres

sure

sett

ings

. Pne

umat

ic sy

stem

was

lost

on

all t

he fl

oors

alo

ng th

e so

uth

side

of th

e bu

ildin

g an

d m

akin

g te

mpe

ratu

re a

djus

tmen

ts im

poss

ible

.

8,48

1$

6,65

7$

78.4

9

29FM

-006

3326

Los A

ngel

esDo

wne

y Co

urth

ouse

19-A

M1

1El

evat

or, E

scal

ator

s, a

nd H

oist

s - R

epla

ce b

ad c

onta

cts,

rela

y w

ires,

and

test

due

to th

e Ju

dge'

s ele

vato

r bei

ng st

uck

on th

e 1s

t flo

or a

nd n

ot re

spon

ding

. 4,

257

$

4,

257

$

10

0

30FM

-006

3334

Los A

ngel

esSa

nta

Mon

ica

Cour

thou

se19

-AP1

1El

ectr

ical

- Re

set h

igh

volta

ge m

ain

brea

ker o

n th

e M

CC p

anel

. Re

plac

ed (1

) bur

ned

out m

ag st

arte

r and

(1) 1

0 HP

m

otor

to su

pply

fan

that

stop

ped

wor

king

due

to p

ower

out

age.

The

supp

ly fa

n m

otor

pro

vide

s com

fort

coo

ling

and

heat

ing

to th

e ju

ry a

ssem

bly

room

.

9,57

0$

7,51

1$

78.4

9

31FM

-006

3335

Los A

ngel

esBe

verly

Hill

s Co

urth

ouse

19-A

Q1

1El

evat

or -

Repl

aced

(1) c

ontr

olle

r tra

nsfo

rmer

on

Elev

ator

#1

that

cau

sed

the

elev

ator

to st

op w

ith th

e ja

nito

rial

crew

ent

rapp

ed.

4,30

5$

3,42

3$

79.5

2

32FM

-006

3337

Los A

ngel

esBu

rban

k Co

urth

ouse

19-G

11

Elev

ator

- Re

plac

e w

ater

dam

aged

(1) d

oor o

pera

tor a

nd (3

) rel

ays o

n Cu

stod

y El

evat

or #

2. W

ater

dam

age

was

fr

om ro

of le

ak.

15,8

10$

14,3

49$

90.7

6

33FM

-006

3339

San

Luis

Obi

spoP

aso

Robl

es

Cour

thou

se40

-J11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e W

ater

hea

ter a

nd re

late

d pa

rts.

Per

form

cle

anup

and

repa

ir to

surr

ound

ing

finish

es -

Wat

er

heat

er b

urst

, wat

er to

all

cham

ber r

estr

oom

s and

pub

lic re

stro

oms t

empo

raril

y ou

t of o

rder

.5,

700

$

5,

700

$

10

0

34FM

-006

3342

Alam

eda

New

Eas

t Cou

nty

Hall

of Ju

stic

e01

-J11

HVAC

- Ai

r Qua

lity

issue

s - D

eplo

y tw

elve

(12)

200

0 cf

m A

ir Sc

rubb

ers d

ue to

unh

ealth

y ai

r cau

sed

by th

e CA

MP

fire

and

two

hund

red

(200

) filt

ers.

18

,172

$

18

,172

$

10

0

35FM

-006

3344

Los A

ngel

esN

orw

alk

Cour

thou

se19

-AK1

1In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e (1

) 5'x

8' c

eilin

g til

e ha

s fal

len

in D

ept.

N. S

et u

p (1

) rem

edia

tion/

envi

rom

enta

l co

ntai

nmen

t (4x

4x8h

) with

sing

le d

econ

cha

mbe

r. Ce

iling

tile

fell

due

to se

ismic

act

ivity

in a

rea.

All

wor

k do

ne

unde

r ACM

env

ionm

ent.

11,3

46$

9,64

8$

85.0

3

36FM

-006

3346

Los A

ngel

esSa

nta

Clar

ita

Cour

thou

se19

-AD1

1Co

unty

Man

aged

- Pl

umbi

ng -

Repl

ace

4ft o

f 4in

ch c

ast i

ron

drai

n lin

e. D

rain

line

has

cra

ck a

nd sp

illed

sew

age

in

the

base

men

t mec

hani

cal r

oom

.2,

750

$

2,

750

$

10

0

37FM

-006

3351

Alam

eda

Frem

ont H

all o

f Ju

stic

e01

-H1

1HV

AC -

Air Q

ualit

y iss

ues -

Dep

loy

ten

(10)

200

0 cf

m A

ir Sc

rubb

ers d

ue to

unh

ealth

y ai

r cau

sed

by th

e CA

MP

fire

and

eigh

ty- e

ight

(88)

filte

rs.

14,2

63$

11,3

25$

79.4

38FM

-006

3360

Los A

ngel

esVa

n N

uys C

ourt

hous

e Ea

st19

-AX1

1In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Rep

lace

app

rox.

220

sq.ft

. of f

allin

g an

d bo

win

g 1'

x1' c

eilin

g til

es in

Dep

t C Ju

dge'

s cha

mbe

rs

(Cou

rt E

xclu

sive

spac

e). C

eilin

g til

es a

re lo

ose

and

bow

ing

due

to a

ge &

are

no

long

er h

oldi

ng. W

ork

to b

e pe

rfor

med

in k

now

n AC

M E

nviro

nmen

t; En

viro

nmen

tal t

estin

g &

Con

tain

men

t.

41,4

05$

41,4

05$

100

39FM

-006

3370

Los A

ngel

esCo

unty

Rec

ords

Ce

nter

19-A

V31

Coun

ty M

anag

ed -

Plum

bing

- Fl

ood

Clea

n-up

ISD

resp

onde

d to

an

Emer

genc

y ca

ll, F

ire S

prin

kler

bro

ke in

the

3rd

floor

at t

he A

rchi

ves B

uild

ing

caus

ing

wat

er d

amag

e. F

ire S

prin

kler

repl

aced

, Wat

er e

xtra

ctio

n an

d cl

eara

nce

test

ing

perf

orm

ed.

28,8

30$

28,8

30$

100

Page

3 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




40FM

-006

3371

Alam

eda

Wile

y W

. Man

uel

Cour

thou

se01

-B3

1HV

AC -

Air Q

ualit

y iss

ues -

Dep

loy

fifte

en (1

5) A

ir Sc

rubb

ers d

ue to

unh

ealth

y ai

r cau

sed

by th

e CA

MP

fire

and

Thre

e hu

ndre

d an

d ei

ght (

308)

filte

rs.

45,8

44$

45,8

44$

100

41FM

-006

3377

Los A

ngel

esDo

wne

y Co

urth

ouse

19-A

M1

1El

evat

or, E

scal

ator

s, &

Hoi

sts -

Rep

lace

(6) w

orn

elev

ator

cab

les a

nd (1

2) w

edge

shac

kles

on

Elev

ator

#1

due

to th

e ro

pes h

avin

g ro

ugin

g, b

eing

stre

tche

d ca

usin

g le

velin

g iss

ues a

nd th

e po

ssib

ility

of d

amag

ing

the

shea

ve.

Indu

stry

st

anda

rds i

ndic

ate

that

mos

t ele

vato

r wire

rope

s will

last

20

year

s and

sinc

e th

ese

are

30 y

ears

old

and

rust

ed,

they

are

dee

med

uns

afe

and

reco

mm

ende

d fo

r rep

lace

men

t.

39,8

88$

33,3

86$

83.7

42FM

-006

3378

Alam

eda

Wile

y W

. Man

uel

Cour

thou

se01

-B3

1HV

AC -

Rem

edia

te w

ater

leak

; ins

tall

acce

ss p

anel

at e

nclo

sed

chas

e; c

orre

ct fa

iled

heat

ing/

hot/

wat

er p

ipe

unio

ns

(4),

nipp

les (

8); t

ask

requ

ires s

caffo

ldin

g -

HVAC

wat

er p

ipe

leak

ed c

ausin

g da

mag

e to

are

a.22

,258

$

18

,652

$

83

.8

43FM

-006

3387

Los A

ngel

esW

hitt

ier C

ourt

hous

e19

-AO

11

Exte

rior S

hell

- Rep

lace

125

feet

of f

ailin

g st

ucco

, cra

cks i

n fa

cade

, and

bot

tom

met

al fl

ashi

ng to

ext

erio

r she

ll.

Clea

n an

d ap

ply

80 sq

uare

feet

of l

iqui

d ep

oxy

to m

ultip

le c

rack

ed c

oncr

ete

floor

in m

echa

nica

l pen

thou

se A

HU

room

.

83,1

00$

71,8

23$

86.4

3

44FM

-006

3389

Los A

ngel

esSt

anle

y M

osk

Cour

thou

se19

-K1

1HV

AC -

Repl

ace

chill

ed w

ater

cus

tom

ized

coil

due

to C

FM o

utpu

t. CF

M o

utpu

t rea

ding

is a

t 16,

027.

Bui

ldin

g pr

ints

in

dica

te th

at th

e ou

tput

shou

ld b

e 27

,730

CFM

a d

iffer

ence

of 1

1,70

3 CF

M.

Repl

aced

filte

rs o

n AH

U S

-10

due

to

initi

al c

all o

f too

hot

in D

ept 1

, Roo

m 5

34.

Inst

alle

d lin

e st

op a

nd re

plac

ed is

olat

ion

prio

r to

coil

repl

acem

ent.

99,0

00$

96,2

87$

97.2

6

45FM

-006

3400

Los A

ngel

esCh

atsw

orth

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

Y11

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

dam

age

air c

ontr

ol re

gula

tor,

rese

t wat

er fl

ow sw

itch,

repl

ace

leak

ing

com

pres

sor k

it, a

nd

repl

ace

air c

ompr

esso

r. Re

mov

e an

d by

pas

s wat

er fl

ow w

ire c

onne

ctio

ns to

rem

ove

faul

ts fr

om m

ain

fire

pane

l, th

e pr

e-ac

tion

faile

d an

d ac

tivat

ed th

e fir

e al

arm

whi

ch d

ispat

ched

the

fire

depa

rtm

ent.

6,70

5$

5,61

9$

83.8

46FM

-006

3406

San

Mat

eoN

orth

ern

Bran

ch

Cour

thou

se41

-C1

1HV

AC -

Corr

ect f

aile

d bo

iler;

repl

ace

faile

d bo

iler v

ents

(4) a

nd (1

) fai

led

blow

er -

Air v

ents

faile

d al

low

ing

air i

nto

blow

er c

ausin

g fa

ilure

loss

of h

eatin

g to

Cou

rt sp

ace.

7,28

9$

6,06

5$

83.2

1

47FM

-006

3416

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on C

ourt

hous

e19

-AG1

1HV

AC -

Repl

aced

flow

switc

h on

boi

ler #

3. F

low

switc

h fa

iled

on 1

3th

floor

Bol

ier #

3, c

ausin

g 10

gal

lons

of w

ater

to

leak

to 1

2th

floor

. Er

ecte

d co

ntai

nmen

ts in

affe

cted

are

a, c

ompl

eted

bui

ld b

ack,

and

con

duct

ed e

nviro

nmen

tal

sam

plin

g.

16,8

59$

11,1

49$

66.1

3

48FM

-006

3420

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Cou

rtho

use

19-A

U1

1El

ectr

ical

- Re

plac

e da

mag

ed li

ght c

onta

ct to

rest

ore

pow

er to

the

1st f

loor

and

the

entir

e 3r

d flo

or m

akin

g th

e em

erge

ncy

light

s illu

min

ate.

5,11

0$

3,94

3$

77.1

7

49FM

-006

3421

Alam

eda

Frem

ont H

all o

f Ju

stic

e01

-H1

1Pl

umbi

ng -

Dom

estic

hot

wat

er -

Repl

ace

appr

oxim

atel

y six

ty fe

et o

f lea

king

3/4

" cop

per a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d fit

tings

an

d in

sula

tion

- No

hot w

ater

any

whe

re in

the

build

ing

until

repa

irs a

re m

ade

23,2

73$

18,4

79$

79.4

50FM

-006

3424

Los A

ngel

esLo

s Pad

rinos

Juve

nile

Co

urt

19-A

I11

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Cler

k's B

reak

room

- In

stal

l (1)

doo

r bar

rier (

room

size

12'

x12'

), (1

) dec

onta

min

atio

n ch

ambe

r, &

(1

) air

scru

bber

. De

pt 2

50 C

ourt

Rep

orte

rs o

ffice

- In

stal

l (1)

doo

r bar

rier (

room

size

10'

x12'

), (1

) dec

onta

min

atio

n ch

ambe

r, &

(1) a

ir sc

rubb

er. R

epla

ce (4

) 1ft

X 1

ft c

eilin

g til

es, p

erfo

rm e

nviro

nmen

tal t

estin

g an

d cl

eara

nce

due

to

ceili

ng ti

les f

allin

g ca

usin

g de

bris

in a

kno

wn

envi

ronm

enta

l are

a.

5,77

3$

5,77

3$

100

51FM

-006

3214

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al

Cent

er37

-I11

Elev

ator

s, e

scal

ator

s, &

hoi

sts-

Repl

ace

rolle

r gui

des,

cou

nter

wei

ght,

and

carb

on b

rush

es fo

r ser

vice

ele

vato

r #10

. El

evat

or is

mak

ing

loud

noi

ses a

s it t

rave

ls th

roug

h th

e bu

ildin

g.4,

654

$

3,

151

$

67

.71

52FM

-006

3195

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on C

ourt

hous

e19

-AG1

1Pl

umbi

ng-R

epla

ce o

ne (1

) mop

sink

fauc

et.

Faul

ty fa

ucet

cau

sed

wat

er in

trus

ion.

Wat

er le

aked

to 7

th fl

oor,

room

75

6. C

onta

inm

ents

ere

cted

due

to w

et c

eilin

g til

es. R

emed

iatio

n an

d en

viro

nmen

tal o

vers

ight

requ

ired.

Occ

urre

d af

ter h

ours

.

36,5

00$

24,1

37$

66.1

3

53FM

-006

3203

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on C

ourt

hous

e19

-AG1

1Pl

umbi

ng -

Hose

was

left

out

side

of b

asin

in ja

nito

r clo

set o

n 6t

h flo

or.

Wat

er ra

n do

wn

to 6

th fl

oor,

Dept

. 9.

Dept

. 9 h

as te

n (1

0) 1

' x 1

' cei

ling

tiles

satu

rate

d, si

x (5

) 1' x

1' c

eilin

g til

es h

ave

falle

n, a

nd 3

6 SF

are

a of

car

pet i

s w

et.

20,5

00$

-$

0

54FM

-006

3380

Alam

eda

Wile

y W

. Man

uel

Cour

thou

se01

-B3

1HV

AC -

Repl

ace

(1) f

aile

d ch

illed

wat

er c

oil i

n AC

2 - d

iffic

ult l

ocat

ion

requ

ires c

rane

wor

k - F

ailu

re d

ue to

End

of L

ife

com

pone

nt (o

rigin

al e

quip

men

t 40+

year

s) c

ausin

g lo

ss o

f coo

ling

capa

city

. 30

,057

$

25

,188

$

83

.8

Page

4 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




55FM

-006

3436

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al

Cent

er37

-I11

Roof

-Rep

lace

30

linea

r fee

t of a

4" c

rack

ed d

rain

line

and

1 d

efec

tive

roof

dra

in. R

epla

ce 5

00 S

F of

cei

ling

tile

on a

40

foot

cei

ling,

usin

g sc

affo

ld. T

his w

as d

iscov

ered

whe

n w

ater

was

leak

ing

in m

ultip

le a

reas

on

the

first

floo

r due

to

a ra

inst

orm

.

64,3

08$

43,5

43$

67.7

1

56FM

-006

3440

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al

Cent

er37

-I11

Elev

ator

, esc

alat

ors,

& h

oist

s - R

efur

bish

gen

erat

or fo

r ele

vato

r #1.

Rem

ove

gene

rato

r, ta

ke it

to sh

op fo

r re

furb

ishm

ent,

and

then

re-in

stal

l gen

erat

or.

Elev

ator

is st

uck

on 1

st fl

oor a

nd n

ot re

spon

ding

due

to b

urnt

out

ge

nera

tor.

15,4

26$

10,4

45$

67.7

1

57FM

-006

3452

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al

Cent

er37

-I11

Elev

ator

s, e

scal

ator

s, &

hoi

sts-

Repl

ace

oper

atin

g co

mpu

ter,

17" m

onito

r, co

mm

unic

atio

ns c

able

, sof

twar

e pa

ckag

e, a

nd a

dapt

er fo

r ele

vato

r mon

itorin

g fo

r ele

vato

rs 5

and

6.

Exist

ing

com

pute

r, so

ftw

are

pack

age,

and

m

onito

r fai

led

and

cann

ot b

e re

paire

d.

2,17

2$

1,47

1$

67.7

1

58FM

-006

3455

Los A

ngel

esBu

rban

k Co

urth

ouse

19-G

11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e da

mag

ed fl

oat s

witc

hes a

nd p

ump

out t

rash

/deb

ris. F

loat

switc

hes w

ere

dam

aged

by

an

accu

mul

atio

n of

pla

stic

and

fem

inin

e pr

oduc

ts in

sum

p ca

usin

g se

wer

line

s to

back

up.

3,44

5$

3,12

7$

90.7

6

59FM

-006

3456

Los A

ngel

esHo

llyw

ood

Cour

thou

se19

-S1

1HV

AC -

Repl

ace

(1) d

amag

ed c

ontr

ol b

oard

to p

acka

ge u

nit #

2. C

ontr

ol b

oard

shor

ted

caus

ing

no a

irflo

w to

the

build

ing

caus

ing

tem

pera

ture

s to

rise

to 9

0 de

gree

s. C

ourt

is o

ccup

ied

by S

herif

f/Se

curit

y st

aff.

6,12

9$

5,58

3$

91.0

9

60FM

-006

3458

Los A

ngel

esEd

mun

d D.

Ede

lman

Ch

ildre

n's C

ourt

19-Q

11

HVAC

- Re

plac

e on

e (1

) mot

or, o

ne (1

) hea

der,

and

one

(1) r

elie

f val

ve fo

r boi

ler #

2. B

oile

r pum

p w

as le

akin

g du

e to

faile

d m

otor

.2,

188

$

1,

531

$

69

.99

61FM

-006

3459

Los A

ngel

esEa

st L

os A

ngel

es

Cour

thou

se19

-V1

1Ro

of -R

epla

ce fo

ur (4

) 2' x

2' c

eilin

g til

es in

3rd

Flo

or D

ept.

6. E

rect

ed (1

) con

tain

men

t 4’x

4’x

10’,

in D

epar

tmen

t 6

impa

ctin

g co

urt o

pera

tions

. Rai

n w

ater

leak

ed th

roug

h th

e ce

iling

, affe

ctin

g a

4' x

4' s

ectio

n of

car

pet.

7,25

4$

5,63

8$

77.7

2

62FM

-006

3461

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al

Cent

er37

-I11

Elev

ator

s, e

scal

ator

s, &

hoi

sts-

Repl

ace

one

(1) S

SD1

driv

e an

d on

e (1

) cap

acito

r for

pub

lic e

leva

tor #

3 th

at fa

iled

and

caus

ed th

e el

evat

or to

be

stuc

k an

d no

t res

pond

.5,

189

$

3,

513

$

67

.71

63FM

-006

3474

Mon

tere

yM

arin

a Co

urth

ouse

27-B

11

Plum

bing

- Cl

ear m

ain

sew

er li

ne; r

emed

iate

affe

cted

are

a- S

ewer

clo

g ca

used

floo

ding

at P

ublic

Res

troo

ms.

3,89

5$

3,89

5$

100

64FM

-006

3475

Del N

orte

Del N

orte

Cou

nty

Supe

rior C

ourt

08-A

11

Roof

- Ac

tive

Leak

- Re

pair

dam

aged

gut

ter s

eala

nt (a

ppro

x. 3

0 lin

ear f

eet)

and

surr

ound

ing

dow

n sp

out (

1), R

epai

r da

mag

e to

Cei

ling

tiles

and

dry

dam

p ca

rpet

s in

2 of

fices

.7,

500

$

4,

595

$

61

.27

65FM

-006

3476

San

Mat

eoTr

affic

/ Sm

all C

laim

s An

nex

41-A

21

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Rem

edia

te ra

in w

ater

intr

usio

n at

Cou

rtro

om a

ppro

x. 1

40 sq

. ft.

extr

act w

ater

dep

loy

floor

fans

- Ex

cess

ive

rain

fall

over

nigh

t ove

rwhe

lmed

sum

p pu

mp

and

seve

ral f

eet o

f car

pet w

as a

ffect

ed a

t em

erge

ncy

exit

door

.

2,78

1$

2,78

1$

100

66FM

-006

3479

Los A

ngel

esAl

fred

J. M

cCou

rtne

y Ju

veni

le Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-A

E11

Coun

ty M

anag

ed -

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

dia

ler f

or F

ire P

anel

due

to fa

iled

Annu

al F

ire A

larm

test

ing/

insp

ectio

n.

Dial

er is

inop

erat

ive,

ther

efor

e do

es n

ot c

omm

unic

ate

to m

onito

ring

serv

ice

& fa

ils to

cle

ar tr

oubl

e sig

nals.

4,

834

$

4,

834

$

10

0

67FM

-006

3485

Los A

ngel

esBe

llflo

wer

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

L11

HVAC

- Re

plac

e on

e (1

) 10

hous

e-po

wer

supp

ly fa

n m

otor

, bel

ts, b

ushi

ngs,

and

all

asso

ciat

ed h

ardw

are

for A

ir Ha

ndle

r Uni

t #6

on th

e 3r

d flo

or. M

otor

seize

d an

d su

pply

fan

faile

d to

pro

vide

hea

ting

and

cool

ing

to e

ntire

floo

r. Fa

ilure

due

to u

sage

& n

o Pr

even

tive

Mai

nten

ance

pro

gram

for A

HU's.

3,88

8$

3,03

0$

77.9

4

68FM

-006

3487

Los A

ngel

esW

hitt

ier C

ourt

hous

e19

-AO

11

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Wat

er le

aked

from

a c

rack

ed 9

0 de

gree

roof

floo

r sin

k dr

ain

affe

ctin

g a

30' x

30'

are

a of

car

pet

satu

rate

d in

3rd

floo

r sel

f-hel

p of

fice

(Cou

rt e

xclu

sive

spac

e). P

erfo

rmed

env

ironm

enta

l tes

ting,

con

tain

men

t, dr

ying

, and

cle

aran

ce d

ue to

the

cate

gory

2 w

ater

intr

usio

n. C

rack

ed ro

of fl

oor s

ink

from

pre

viou

s HVA

C m

echa

nica

l equ

ipm

ent,

is be

ing

re-r

oute

d fr

om a

sani

tary

sew

er li

ne to

the

prop

er st

orm

dra

in.

29,4

42$

25,4

47$

86.4

3

Page

5 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




69FM

-006

3492

Sant

a Cl

ara

Hall

of Ju

stic

e (W

est)

43-A

21

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e (1

) fai

led

sew

er li

ft p

ump.

Tes

t flo

ats a

nd c

ontr

ol p

anel

for p

rope

r ope

ratio

n - S

ewer

lift

pum

p fa

iled

(at e

nd o

f life

) cau

sing

back

-up

flood

ing

affe

ctin

g th

e co

urts

hol

ding

cel

l cap

abili

ties.

30,2

72$

30,2

72$

100

70FM

-006

3493

Alam

eda

Wile

y W

. Man

uel

Cour

thou

se01

-B3

1Va

ndal

ism -

Rem

edia

te o

verf

low

toile

t wat

er d

amag

e at

3rd

, 4th

& 5

th fl

oors

; ext

ract

wat

er fr

om th

e ca

rpet

s;

rem

ove

ceili

ng ti

les;

dep

loy

dehu

mid

ifica

tion

equi

pmen

t - In

-cus

tody

clo

gged

toile

t and

con

tinua

lly fl

ushe

d ca

usin

g flo

od u

ntil

stop

ped

by S

herif

f.

6,97

4$

6,97

4$

100

71FM

-006

3498

Butt

eBu

tte

Coun

ty

Cour

thou

se04

-A1

1Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n - A

ir Q

ualit

y - P

rovi

de (3

33) N

95 re

spira

tors

for c

ourt

staf

f, a

nd (1

4) a

ir sc

rubb

ers f

or 2

wee

ks to

im

prov

e ai

r qua

lity

thro

ugh-

out t

he b

uild

ing,

Air

sam

plin

g se

rvic

es to

test

air

qual

ity.

50,0

00$

50,0

00$

100

72FM

-006

3507

Los A

ngel

esM

alib

u Co

urth

ouse

19-A

S11

Coun

ty M

anag

ed -

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

men

t of l

eaki

ng fi

re su

ppre

ssio

n lin

e an

d re

-ene

rgize

sum

p pu

mps

to

prev

ent w

ater

from

poo

ling.

5,86

6$

5,86

6$

100

73FM

-006

3508

Sant

a Cl

ara

Hist

oric

Cou

rtho

use

43-B

21

HVAC

- Co

rrec

t fai

led

build

ing

exha

ust f

an; r

emov

e ov

erhe

ad fa

n bl

ower

, rep

lace

(2) f

aile

d be

arin

gs (e

mer

genc

y re

pair)

; ins

pect

fan

blow

er sh

aft;

test

ope

ratio

n - C

urre

ntly

affe

ctin

g th

e co

urts

HVA

C ai

r con

ditio

ning

syst

em a

nd

affe

ctin

g th

e bu

ildin

g ai

r bal

ance

.

4,43

6$

4,43

6$

100

74FM

-006

3511

Los A

ngel

esCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge F

oltz

Cr

imin

al Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-L

11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e fa

iled

- Hof

fman

com

fort

hea

ting

valv

e. 1

50k

gallo

ns o

f wat

er is

est

imat

ed fo

r thi

s los

s.

Elec

tric

al -

Repl

ace

Grou

nded

dry

type

indo

or 3

-pha

se 6

0HZ

clas

s AA

tran

sfor

mer

on

the

4th

floor

via

cra

ne. S

uppl

y Te

mpo

rary

gen

erat

or to

min

imize

ope

ratio

nal i

mpa

ct d

urin

g tr

ansf

orm

er lo

ss. E

nviro

nmen

tal-

Proc

edur

e 5

wat

er

loss

impa

cted

are

as o

n flo

ors 6

, 5, 4

, 3, 2

, 1, S

ervi

ce a

nd Ju

dges

Par

king

leve

ls. C

ourt

room

s, c

ham

bers

, ele

vato

r 19,

ca

fete

ria, a

nd fi

le st

orag

e ar

eas s

ever

ely

impa

cted

. Pro

cedu

re 5

dam

age

to Ju

dges

Ele

vato

r req

uire

s rep

lace

men

t of

seve

ral k

ey c

ompo

nent

s to

mai

ntai

n co

mpl

ianc

e. R

epla

cem

ent o

f car

pet,

ceili

ng ti

les,

and

all

impa

cted

are

as p

er

envi

ronm

enta

l pro

toco

l.

2,26

5,05

7$

1,55

8,13

3$

68.7

9

75FM

-006

3514

Los A

ngel

esVa

n N

uys C

ourt

hous

e Ea

st19

-AX1

1In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e (1

) doo

r ope

ner c

ircui

t boa

rd fo

r the

mai

n en

tran

ce sl

idin

g do

ors.

Circ

uit b

oard

faile

d du

e to

age

(ove

r 10

yrs.

old

) cau

sing

the

Cour

t's m

ain

entr

ance

slid

ing

door

s to

rem

ain

stuc

k in

the

open

pos

ition

.1,

811

$

1,

625

$

89

.74

76FM

-006

3527

Los A

ngel

esVa

n N

uys C

ourt

hous

e W

est

19-A

X21

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e 10

ft. o

f 4" c

rack

ed c

ast i

ron

sew

age

wat

er p

ipe.

Rep

lace

(1) 3

.5 fa

iled

flush

ass

embl

y va

lve.

M

en's

staf

f res

troo

m to

ilet f

ound

in a

uto

flush

cau

sing

wat

er to

seep

thro

ugh

crac

ked

pipe

affe

ctin

g 2n

d flo

or

Cler

ks a

rea.

Rem

edia

te c

at/3

wat

er c

onta

min

atio

n. R

epla

ce a

ppro

x. 1

,888

sf c

arpe

t, re

plac

e 50

sf c

ellu

lose

cei

ling

tiles

. Dec

onta

min

ate

(10)

wor

ksta

tions

& (4

) cha

irs. S

et u

p co

ntai

nmen

ts, w

ork

perf

orm

ed w

ith e

nviro

nmen

tal

over

sight

.

118,

721

$

95,5

47$

80.4

8

77FM

-006

3529

Vent

ura

Juve

nile

Cou

rtho

use

56-F

11

Elev

ator

s, e

scal

ator

s, &

hoi

sts -

Rep

lace

safe

ty e

dge

for l

ocku

p el

evat

or #

3. T

he sa

fety

edg

e ha

s fai

led,

the

elev

ator

do

ors w

ill n

ot c

ompl

etel

y cl

ose

and

will

not

stop

from

clo

sing

whe

n th

ere

is so

met

hing

in th

e do

orw

ay. R

epla

ce

key

cylin

der a

nd k

eys.

Key

s wor

king

inte

rmitt

ently

.

5,59

8$

5,59

8$

100

78FM

-006

3533

Los A

ngel

esBu

rban

k Co

urth

ouse

19-G

11

Plum

bing

- 1s

t flo

or w

omen

's pu

blic

rest

room

. Rep

lace

90

degr

ee 4

inch

cas

t iro

n el

bow

, (2)

4in

ch n

o hu

bs

coup

lings

, a 3

feet

x 3

feet

dry

wal

l pat

ch a

nd p

aint

. Cei

ling

is le

akin

g du

e to

dam

age

90 d

egre

e 4i

nch

cast

iron

elb

ow

vent

pip

ing,

Ere

ct (1

) crit

ical

bar

rier f

or re

med

iatio

n al

l wor

k pe

rfor

med

und

er A

CM c

ondi

tions

15,3

30$

13,9

14$

90.7

6

79FM

-006

3535

Ora

nge

Cent

ral J

ustic

e Ce

nter

30-A

11

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

appr

oxim

atel

y 89

0 sq

. ft.

of c

arpe

t, 16

sq. f

t. of

cei

ling

tile,

160

sq. f

t. of

dr

ywal

l and

80

linea

r fee

t of c

ove

base

in a

tota

l of 8

offi

ces a

long

the

Fina

nce/

Faci

litie

s are

a da

mag

ed d

urin

g re

cent

rain

s. W

ork

incl

udes

disi

nfec

ting,

cle

anin

g an

d dr

ying

, and

ACM

aba

tem

ent a

nd d

econ

tam

inat

ion

in 3

rd

floor

offi

ce o

f affe

cted

are

as to

retu

rn o

ffice

s to

norm

al st

ate.

13,1

11$

11,9

53$

91.1

7

80FM

-006

3537

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on C

ourt

hous

e19

-AG1

1Pl

umbi

ng -

Repl

ace

20 L

F of

6" c

ast i

ron

pipe

and

thre

e (3

) hea

vy d

uty

no h

ub c

oupl

ings

. Ere

cted

(10

8x10

x9h

cont

ainm

ent,

cond

ucte

d en

viro

nmen

tal t

estin

g, a

nd re

plac

ed (1

0) c

eilin

g til

es. A

ll w

ork

perf

orm

ed in

a k

now

n AC

M e

nviro

nmen

t. W

ater

leak

ed in

to D

epar

tmen

t N fr

om c

rack

ed ro

of d

rain

.

34,6

10$

22,8

88$

66.1

3

Page

6 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




81FM

-006

3542

Los A

ngel

esCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge F

oltz

Cr

imin

al Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-L

11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e 35

feet

of c

orro

ded

1-1/

4 su

pply

line

with

new

cop

per d

rain

line

that

had

bro

ken

from

AHU

2-3

dr

ain

pan

caus

ing

wat

er to

leak

thro

ugh

the

ceili

ng ti

les i

nto

Dept

. 32

Cour

troo

m. R

emed

iatio

n an

d en

viro

nmen

tal

over

sight

incl

uded

.

38,2

80$

26,3

33$

68.7

9

82FM

-006

3547

Cont

ra C

osta

Rich

ard

E. A

rnas

on

Just

ice

Cent

er07

-E3

1Pl

umbi

ng -

Seal

an

18 in

ch c

rack

in a

faile

d ca

st ir

on d

rain

line

. Rem

ove

fifty

(50)

gal

lons

of w

ater

from

the

low

er

leve

l ent

ry. R

emov

e 10

0 Sq

. Ft.

of w

et sh

eetr

ock.

Cle

an a

nd d

ry th

e en

try

area

. Wat

er fr

om th

e le

ak h

as fl

oode

d th

e Ju

dges

ent

ry a

rea.

25,3

77$

25,3

77$

100

83FM

-006

3554

Los A

ngel

esSt

anle

y M

osk

Cour

thou

se19

-K1

1El

evat

ors,

Esc

alat

ors,

& H

oist

s - R

epla

ce n

on-fu

nctio

ning

ele

vato

r pho

ne w

ith n

ew A

DA p

hone

insid

e El

evat

or #

3 to

pr

ovid

e sa

fety

to p

asse

nger

s to

reac

h ou

t for

hel

p if

an e

ntra

pmen

t wer

e to

occ

ur.

1,13

6$

1,10

5$

97.2

6

84FM

-006

3562

San

Dieg

oJu

veni

le C

ourt

37-E

11

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e 20

yar

ds o

f car

pet a

nd b

ase

affe

cted

by

sew

er le

ak c

ause

d by

loos

e fit

ting

on se

wer

pip

e. S

et

Up

cont

ainm

ent,

deac

on c

ham

bers

, and

inst

all d

ryin

g eq

uipm

ent.

Envi

ronm

enta

l ove

rsig

ht in

clud

ed. P

ipe

over

head

was

leak

ing

due

to lo

ose

fittin

g an

d w

ater

leak

ed in

to d

epar

tmen

t 4.

25,0

82$

18,7

16$

74.6

2

85FM

-006

3577

Mon

tere

ySa

linas

Cou

rtho

use-

N

orth

Win

g27

-A1

1El

evat

ors -

In c

usto

dy e

leva

tor f

aile

d du

e to

leak

in h

ydra

ulic

line

– e

leva

tor n

ever

refu

rbish

ed so

repl

aced

all

seal

s an

d ga

sket

s - C

ourt

impa

cted

by

redu

ced

capa

city

. Thi

s is t

he o

nly

elev

ator

in th

e bu

ildin

g.11

,875

$

11

,875

$

10

0

86FM

-006

3615

Sa

n Jo

aqui

nTr

acy

Bran

ch

Cour

thou

se39

-E1

1Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

Lot

- Sa

fety

Issu

e - R

emov

e tr

ees a

nd la

ndsc

apin

g sh

rubs

aro

und

the

cour

thou

se to

det

er

vand

alism

and

urb

an c

ampe

r pop

ulat

ion

from

stag

ing

at th

e co

urth

ouse

.33

,347

$

33

,347

$

10

0

87FM

-005

9140

Los A

ngel

esPa

sade

na C

ourt

hous

e19

-J12

Exte

rior S

hells

- Re

stor

e m

issin

g pa

int p

rote

ctio

n to

(43)

air

vent

s (48

"x48

" eac

h), (

11) d

oors

& fr

ames

, (20

) air

vent

s (25

"x32

"), (

1) m

echa

nica

l tan

k (1

0'x3

0'),

and

(1) r

oof a

cces

s mec

hani

cal l

adde

r to

prot

ect f

rom

the

elem

ents

an

d ca

use

dam

age

to th

e in

fras

truc

ture

.

$

10,

120

$

7

,018

69

.35

88FM

-005

9141

Butt

eBu

tte

Coun

ty

Cour

thou

se04

-A1

2HV

AC- R

epla

ced

mot

or a

nd p

ump

asse

mbl

y. P

ump-

Mot

or w

as fa

iling

alo

ng w

ith p

ipes

, exp

ansio

n ta

nk, c

hem

ical

fe

ed ta

nk, t

hat h

ave

star

ted

leak

ing.

$

14,

967

$

14,

967

100

89FM

-005

9165

Fres

noFr

esno

Cou

nty

Cour

thou

se10

-A1

2El

evat

ors -

Rek

ey th

e th

ree

publ

ic e

leva

tor e

leva

tors

so th

e Fi

re S

ervi

ce k

eys a

re th

e sa

me

as th

e on

es fo

r the

two

inm

ate/

staf

f ele

vato

rs.

Repl

ace

the

switc

hes a

nd h

alos

for a

ll th

ree

elev

ator

s as w

ell a

s the

hal

l sta

tions

and

su

pply

add

ition

al k

eys -

Key

s for

fire

serv

ice

are

requ

ired

to b

e un

iform

per

Cal

iforn

ia 2

013

Fire

Cod

e. C

urre

ntly

, th

e th

ree

publ

ic e

leva

tors

use

a fl

at k

ey n

o lo

nger

supp

orte

d in

the

indu

stry

. Fr

esno

Fire

(AHJ

) app

rova

l and

cod

e re

fere

nce

are

atta

ched

.

$

3

,238

$

3,1

06

95.9

1

90FM

-005

9294

Ora

nge

Cent

ral J

ustic

e Ce

nter

30-A

12

HVAC

- R

oof E

xhau

st F

an R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e fa

iling

vib

ratio

n iso

latio

n sp

rings

on

exha

ust f

an #

10. T

he c

urre

nt

sprin

gs a

re a

llow

ing

vibr

atio

n an

d no

ise to

com

e in

to th

e 11

th fl

oor c

ourt

room

bel

ow, r

esul

ting

in d

isrup

tion.

As

sess

men

t com

plet

ed b

y se

rvic

e pr

ovid

er u

nder

con

trac

t, Ju

ne 2

016.

$

12,

441

$

11,

342

91.1

7

91FM

-005

9562

Ora

nge

Cent

ral J

ustic

e Ce

nter

30-A

12

Plum

bing

- Re

med

iate

wat

er fr

om fl

oodi

ng e

ffect

ing

7th

thru

9th

floo

r tow

er a

nd o

btai

n ba

cter

ial c

lear

ance

. Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ap

prox

. 110

sq. f

eet o

f dry

wal

l, 68

line

ar fe

et o

f cov

e ba

se a

nd 6

cei

ling

tiles

. P1

SWO

14

4928

1

$

20,

896

$

19,

051

91.1

7

92FM

-005

9624

Sant

a Cr

uzM

ain

Cour

thou

se44

-A1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

mov

e (2

4) e

xist

ing

diffu

sers

and

inst

all n

ew d

iffus

ers c

ut to

size

. Exi

stin

g lig

ht d

iffus

ers a

re

britt

le a

nd w

ill n

ot m

aint

ain

shap

e as

wel

l as c

reat

ing

a lo

w li

ght c

ondi

tion.

Diff

user

s are

bey

ond

serv

icea

ble

life.

$

6

99

$

693

99

.11

93FM

-005

9642

Sant

a Cr

uzM

ain

Cour

thou

se44

-A1

2Pl

umbi

ng -

Sew

er li

nes r

equi

re in

spec

tion

to d

eter

min

e th

e ca

use

mul

tiple

sew

er b

ack

ups.

Sew

er li

nes w

ill b

e in

spec

ted

with

vid

eo a

s dire

cted

by

loca

tor s

ervi

ce. C

ourt

is im

pact

ed b

y do

wn

time

and

requ

ired

clea

n up

of

sew

age

syst

em o

verf

low

s dur

ing

cour

t hou

rs.

$

10,

304

$

10,

212

99.1

1

94FM

-005

9666

Los A

ngel

esCl

ara

Shor

trid

ge F

oltz

Cr

imin

al Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

19-L

12

Plum

bing

-Rep

lace

two

(2) s

ewer

inje

ctor

pum

ps w

ith tw

o (2

) mac

erat

ing

pum

ps. O

nce

pum

ps w

ere

repl

aced

it

was

disc

over

ed th

at tw

o (2

) pum

p su

ctio

n lin

es n

eed

to b

e re

plac

ed.

It w

as a

lso d

iscov

ered

that

a n

ew m

otor

co

ntro

l and

disc

onne

ct w

ould

be

requ

ired

for t

he p

umps

to o

pera

te.

$

47,

708

$

32,

818

68.7

9

Page

7 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




95FM

-005

9700

Los A

ngel

esGl

enda

le C

ourt

hous

e19

-H1

2Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

Lot

- Re

plac

e (1

6) 1

2" x

12"

rece

ssed

ligh

t fix

ture

s and

(2) l

ight

pos

ts th

at n

eed

to b

e re

trof

itted

from

Met

al H

alid

e to

LED

. Spe

cial

equ

ipm

ent w

ill b

e ne

eded

(boo

m li

ft).

Met

al H

alid

e ba

llast

s and

la

mps

hav

e be

en d

iscon

tinue

d an

d ar

e no

long

er a

vaila

ble

to p

urch

ase.

Pro

vide

pow

er to

(1) a

dditi

onal

par

king

lig

ht p

ole

from

nea

rest

sour

ce b

y in

terc

eptin

g th

e ex

istin

g co

ndui

t at t

he b

ase

of th

e po

le.

This

is ca

usin

g th

e pa

rkin

g lo

t are

a to

be

very

dar

k at

nig

ht, c

ausin

g a

safe

ty is

sue

for e

mpl

oyee

s.

$

31,

496

$

28,

516

90.5

4

96FM

-005

9707

San

Dieg

oJu

veni

le C

ourt

37-E

12

COU

NTY

MAN

AGED

- HV

AC -

Rep

lace

drif

t elim

inat

ors,

fill

mat

eria

l and

inta

ke lo

uver

s on

cool

ing

tow

er a

t Cen

tral

Pl

ant.

Cur

rent

ly, c

oolin

g to

wer

that

supp

orts

Juve

nile

Just

ice

Com

plex

is lo

sing

signi

fican

tly m

ore

wat

er th

an

thro

ugh

natu

ral e

vapo

ratio

n pr

oces

s. T

his h

as re

sulte

d in

a sm

all a

mou

nt o

f sal

ts fo

und

in w

ater

cor

rodi

ng

com

pone

nts.

In

addi

tion,

repa

irs w

ill c

onse

rve

wat

er, i

mpr

ove

ener

gy, a

nd p

rovi

de th

e ne

eded

cap

acity

of c

oolin

g w

ater

requ

ired

to su

ppor

t cam

pus.

$

19,

071

$

14,

231

74.6

2

97FM

-005

9779

Los A

ngel

esBe

llflo

wer

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

L12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Repl

ace

faili

ng n

on-r

efle

ctiv

e w

indo

w fi

lm o

n Fo

rty-

eigh

t (48

) win

dow

s. T

he w

indo

w fi

lm

redu

ces e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n on

the

build

ing

HVAC

syst

em.

$

5

,981

$

4,6

62

77.9

4

98FM

-005

9824

Lake

La

kepo

rt C

ourt

Fa

cilit

y17

-A3

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Sa

fety

Cor

rect

sub-

floor

(app

rox.

105

0 sq

./ft

.) at

Cou

rt O

ps &

Jury

Ser

vice

s to

rem

ove

trip

ha

zard

s; re

plac

e ca

rpet

tile

s at p

atch

es -

Curr

ently

9 id

entif

ied

loca

tions

of 3

800

sq./

ft. a

rea

have

dam

aged

sub-

floor

from

repe

ated

Roo

f/HV

AC w

ater

leak

s.

$

56,

001

$

16,

800

30

99FM

-005

9844

Los A

ngel

esHo

llyw

ood

Cour

thou

se19

-S1

2HV

AC-R

epla

ce o

ne (1

) dup

lex

horiz

onta

l air

com

pres

sor.

Inst

all o

ne (1

) new

PRV

stat

ion,

one

(1) n

ew ta

nk d

rain

an

d af

terc

oole

r, an

d on

e (1

) new

air

drye

r. E

xist

ing

com

pres

sor n

ot fu

nctio

ning

pro

perly

whi

ch a

ffect

s coo

ling

and

heat

ing

cont

rols.

$

19,

167

$

17,

459

91.0

9

100

FM-0

0599

30Lo

s Ang

eles

Mic

hael

D.

Anto

novi

ch A

ntel

ope

Valle

y Co

urth

ouse

19-A

Z12

Elec

tric

al -

Repl

ace

(3) F

lagp

ole

light

s not

func

tioni

ng d

ue to

shor

t circ

uit i

n co

nduc

tors

. Rew

ire c

ondu

ctor

s on

(3)

Flag

pole

s usin

g to

tal o

f 150

' #8

& #

10 w

ire.

$

7

,410

$

5,4

47

73.5

1

101

FM-0

0599

98Lo

s Ang

eles

Whi

ttie

r Cou

rtho

use

19-A

O1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

-Fur

nitu

re &

Equ

ipm

ent-

Relo

cate

nin

ety-

four

(94)

aud

ienc

e se

ats f

rom

upp

er c

ourt

room

s to

Room

10

2. R

e-up

holst

er b

acks

and

seat

s. A

dditi

onal

cos

ts to

cov

er E

nviro

nmen

tal C

onsu

ltant

on

site

supe

rvisi

on a

nd a

ir m

onito

ring.

Cur

rent

seat

ing

is br

oken

, with

pro

trud

ing

sprin

gs c

ausin

g a

safe

ty is

sue;

par

ts a

re o

bsol

ete.

$

10,

000

$

10,

000

100

102

FM-0

0607

27Lo

s Ang

eles

Sant

a M

onic

a Co

urth

ouse

19-A

P12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

LA C

ount

y IS

D w

ill p

rovi

de c

onst

ruct

ion

docu

men

ts fo

r pla

n re

view

and

per

mit,

JCC

will

re

view

/com

men

t on

docu

men

ts a

nd is

sue

perm

it an

d in

spec

t con

stru

ctio

n as

requ

ired.

Cou

nty

will

reim

burs

e JC

C fo

r all

cost

s.

$

10,

000

$

-

0

103

FM-0

0607

68Lo

s Ang

eles

Mic

hael

D.

Anto

novi

ch A

ntel

ope

Valle

y Co

urth

ouse

19-A

Z12

Grou

nds a

nd P

arki

ng L

ot- R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e th

irty-

six (3

6) li

ght f

ixtu

res i

n th

e pa

rkin

g lo

t with

LED

ligh

t fix

ture

s.

The

exist

ing

light

s are

bur

ned

out,

crea

ting

a sa

fety

issu

e. T

he L

ED li

ghts

will

cre

ate

a sa

ving

s in

pow

er

cons

umpt

ion

and

will

last

long

er th

an c

urre

nt li

ghtin

g. C

urre

ntly

a sa

fety

issu

e. 5

0% o

f the

ligh

ts a

re c

urre

ntly

not

w

orki

ng.

$

67,

569

$

49,

670

73.5

1

104

FM-0

0619

51Ki

ngs

Hanf

ord

Cour

thou

se16

-A5

2Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

Lot

- Pe

r arc

hite

ctur

al p

lan,

pro

vide

and

inst

all 1

2 ne

w p

oles

with

No

Park

ing

signs

in e

xist

ing

plan

ters

, lay

out a

nd p

aint

36

para

llel p

arki

ng st

alls,

and

pai

nt re

d th

e fa

ce o

f the

exi

stin

g 6"

cur

bs a

djac

ent t

o th

e ne

w d

esig

nate

d N

o Pa

rkin

g ar

eas a

nd 7

20 lf

of a

dditi

onal

fire

lane

cur

bing

- Th

e pu

blic

is p

arki

ng in

unm

arke

d fir

e la

nes,

cre

atin

g a

safe

ty h

azar

d, w

hich

has

bee

n ca

lled

out b

y th

e Ha

nfor

d Fi

re D

epar

tmen

t. Th

e Ha

nfor

d Fi

re

Depa

rtm

ent h

as a

ppro

ved

the

arch

itect

ural

pla

n an

d w

ill p

rovi

de lo

cal i

nspe

ctio

n. O

SFM

has

revi

ewed

the

prop

osed

pro

ject

, whi

ch w

ill n

eed

subm

ittal

via

Gov

Mot

us.

$

7

,008

$

7,0

08

100

105

FM-0

0629

71Hu

mbo

ldt

Hum

bold

t Cou

nty

Cour

thou

se (E

urek

a)12

-A1

2CO

UN

TY M

ANAG

ED -

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

air s

ampl

es -

chec

k ai

r for

issu

es a

fter

odo

rs fo

und

in fl

oors

2,3

& 4

of

cour

thou

se c

omm

on a

reas

$

2

,172

$

2,1

72

100

Page

8 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




106

FM-0

0630

11N

evad

aN

evad

a Ci

ty

Cour

thou

se29

-A1

2CO

UN

TY M

ANAG

ED -

HVAC

- Rep

lace

bui

ldin

g ga

s fire

d bo

iler.

The

syst

em is

leak

ing

and

beyo

nd li

fe e

xpec

tanc

y. $

1

0,75

3 $

1

0,75

3 10

0

107

FM-0

0630

17Bu

tte

Nor

th B

utte

Cou

nty

Cour

thou

se04

-F1

2El

ectr

ical

- Re

plac

e in

tern

al p

arts

of l

ight

ing

due

to w

ater

dam

age.

Exc

avat

e a

port

ion

of th

e pl

ante

r sur

roun

ding

lig

hts t

o ac

cess

wiri

ng a

nd re

posit

ion

grad

e rin

g. R

emov

e (2

) def

ectiv

e lig

hts a

nd in

stal

l new

ligh

ts. L

ight

s are

fille

d w

ith w

ater

due

to in

corr

ect i

nsta

llatio

n pr

even

ting

the

fixtu

res f

rom

seal

ing

corr

ectly

whi

ch h

as c

ause

d de

fect

ive

light

ing.

Cur

rent

ly th

ere

is no

land

scap

e lig

htin

g in

this

area

. N

eed

to re

pair/

repl

ace

to p

reve

nt fu

rthe

r dam

age.

$

2

,386

$

2,3

86

100

108

FM-0

0631

83Ve

ntur

aJu

veni

le C

ourt

hous

e56

-F1

2HV

AC -

Roof

top

Exha

ust F

an; R

epla

ce fa

iled

pillo

w b

earin

gs d

ue to

wea

r/te

ar &

reba

lanc

e un

it. T

he e

xhau

st fa

n be

arin

gs a

re w

orn

and

the

shaf

t is o

ut o

f bal

ance

cau

sing

the

exha

ust f

an to

vib

rate

. The

vib

ratio

n is

caus

ing

a lo

ud

ratt

ling

noise

& d

isrup

ting

Cour

t ope

ratio

n. N

oise

is h

eard

thro

ugho

ut th

e Ju

dges

Cha

mbe

rs a

nd L

aw L

ibra

ry.

$

3

,007

$

3,0

07

100

109

FM-0

0631

88Sh

asta

Mai

n Co

urth

ouse

45-A

12

HVAC

- Re

mov

e ex

istin

g co

mpr

esso

r, re

plac

e w

ith n

ew c

ompr

esso

r. Re

cove

r exi

stin

g re

frig

eran

t fro

m c

ircui

t. Pr

essu

re te

st c

ircui

t with

Nitr

ogen

. Vac

uum

syst

em to

dee

p va

cuum

, rec

harg

e w

ith re

frig

eran

t. U

nloc

k un

it an

d op

erat

e fo

r tes

t. Re

turn

Uni

t to

serv

ice.

The

re is

cur

rent

ly o

nly

one

circ

uit o

n on

e un

it co

olin

g in

room

#B-

8

Repl

acin

g th

e de

fect

ive

com

pres

sor w

hich

is le

akin

g oi

l and

vib

ratin

g ex

cess

ivel

y w

ill p

rovi

de b

ack-

up a

nd b

ette

r fu

nctio

nalit

y, a

s wel

l as r

educ

ing

the

risk

of c

atas

trop

hic

failu

re d

ue to

com

prom

ised

refr

iger

ant l

ines

. Thi

s uni

t is

criti

cal f

or c

oolin

g ro

om B

-8

$

7

,670

$

7,6

70

100

110

FM-0

0632

02St

anisl

aus

Mod

esto

Mai

n Co

urth

ouse

50-A

12

Plum

bing

- re

plac

e 50

lf of

4in

roof

dra

in li

ne fr

om 2

nd fl

oor t

o ba

sem

ent (

tota

l of 6

dow

nspo

uts)

- pi

pes h

ave

dete

riora

ted

and

are

activ

ely

leak

ing

thro

ugho

ut c

ourt

hous

e. $

1

4,59

0 $

1

4,59

0 10

0

111

FM-0

0632

09Fr

esno

B.F.

Sisk

Cou

rtho

use

10-O

12

HVAC

- Gr

ind

dow

n ex

istin

g co

olin

g to

wer

col

d w

ater

bas

ins a

nd sa

nd b

last

as n

eces

sary

. Re

-line

all

seam

s with

se

alan

t, an

d ap

ply

a ne

w b

asin

line

r/co

atin

g of

two-

part

ure

than

e, a

ppro

xim

atel

y 80

0 sf

- Co

olin

g to

wer

bas

in is

le

akin

g w

ater

and

line

r is l

iftin

g an

d pe

alin

g, a

dver

sely

affe

ctin

g HV

AC p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd ri

skin

g gr

eate

r equ

ipm

ent

failu

re.

$

25,

002

$

25,

002

100

112

FM-0

0632

10Fr

esno

Fres

no C

ount

y Co

urth

ouse

10-A

12

HVAC

- Gr

ind

dow

n an

d re

-line

all

cool

ing

tow

er b

asin

seam

s with

seal

ant.

App

ly a

new

bas

in li

ner/

coat

ing

of tw

o-pa

rt u

reth

ane

cove

ring

all s

eam

s, a

ppro

xim

atel

y 80

0 sf

- Co

olin

g to

wer

bas

in is

leak

ing

wat

er, a

dver

sely

affe

ctin

g HV

AC p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd ri

skin

g gr

eate

r equ

ipm

ent f

ailu

re.

$

17,

682

$

16,

888

95.5

1

113

FM-0

0632

61La

ssen

Hall

of Ju

stic

e18

-C1

2El

ectr

ical

- Rem

oved

(5) d

efec

tive

lam

ps (p

ossib

le d

efec

tive

balla

sts)

and

inst

all n

ew la

mps

and

bal

last

s. T

his j

ob

will

requ

ire 2

Tec

hnic

ians

(req

uire

d fo

r saf

ety

conc

erns

) and

a L

ift. 5

par

king

pol

e la

mps

are

bur

ned

out a

nd

caus

ing

safe

ty c

once

rns t

o em

ploy

ees a

nd p

ublic

per

sonn

el.

$

5

,401

$

5,4

01

100

114

FM-0

0632

65Sa

n Di

ego

Hall

of Ju

stic

e37

-A2

2HV

AC -

Re-in

sula

te p

ipes

, val

ves,

and

fitt

ings

for c

hille

d w

ater

line

on

boos

ter p

umps

with

1 1

/2" f

iber

glas

s and

re-

insu

late

pum

ps w

ith 1

/4" r

ubbe

r. E

xist

ing

insu

latio

n is

allo

win

g co

nden

satio

n to

drip

on

ceili

ng a

nd ti

le fl

oor b

elow

ca

usin

g a

trip

and

env

ironm

enta

l haz

ard.

$

6

,570

$

6,5

70

100

115

FM-0

0632

66Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

San

Bern

ardi

no

Just

ice

Cent

er36

-R1

2HV

AC -

Inst

all n

ew p

ulle

ys, b

earin

gs, a

nd b

elt,

alig

n an

d te

nsio

n be

lt, a

nd re

furb

ish sh

aft f

or E

xhau

st F

an P

EF B

1-1.

Fa

n is

curr

ently

not

func

tioni

ng.

$

7

,859

$

7,8

59

100

116

FM-0

0632

70Sa

cram

ento

Caro

l Mill

er Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

Cou

rt F

acili

ty34

-D1

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

the

mot

or w

indi

ng te

mpe

ratu

re se

nsor

s on

chill

er #

2. R

emov

e th

e re

frig

eran

t fro

m th

e ch

iller

, (3

30 lb

s.),

repl

acin

g th

e m

otor

win

ding

sens

ors a

nd g

aske

ts.

Evac

uatin

g th

e ch

iller

ves

sel o

f air,

and

cha

rgin

g th

e ch

iller

with

the

recl

aim

ed re

frig

eran

t. Th

e m

otor

win

ding

tem

pera

ture

sens

ors a

re p

art o

f the

safe

ty c

ircui

t tha

t al

low

s the

chi

ller t

o ru

n. T

his i

s the

seco

nd o

f fou

r sen

sors

that

has

faile

d on

the

com

pres

sor m

otor

. Th

is m

ust b

e re

plac

ed to

ens

ure

long

evity

of t

he c

ompr

esso

r.

$

7

,267

$

7,2

67

100

117

FM-0

0632

73Hu

mbo

ldt

Hum

bold

t Cou

nty

Cour

thou

se (E

urek

a)12

-A1

2HV

AC -

Rep

air r

efrig

eran

t Lea

k - I

sola

te c

ompr

esso

r A p

ower

, rec

over

rem

aini

ng R

-22

refr

iger

ant,

mak

e re

pairs

to

loca

ted

leak

s, p

ull a

trip

le v

acuu

m, r

echa

rge

and

test

. $

5,5

00

$

5

,500

10

0

Page

9 o

f 20

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




118

FM-0

0632

74Lo

s Ang

eles

Com

pton

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

G12

Exte

rior F

inish

es -

Cap

all w

ater

supp

ly li

nes,

term

inat

e al

l ele

ctric

al p

ower

, fill

with

(8) c

ubic

yar

ds o

f gra

vel b

ase,

an

d (4

) cub

ic y

ards

of c

oncr

ete.

Are

a ha

s bee

n va

ndal

ized

seve

ral t

imes

and

it h

as b

ecom

e a

safe

ty is

sue

due

to

fires

star

ted

by tr

ansie

nts.

$

11,

129

$

7

,360

66

.13

119

FM-0

0632

75Lo

s Ang

eles

Torr

ance

Cou

rtho

use

19-C

12

Elev

ator

- U

nbol

t sel

ecto

r she

ave,

and

del

iver

to sh

op fo

r bea

ring

repl

acem

ent.

Re-in

stal

l, lif

t ele

vato

r, ca

libra

te

and

test

for p

rope

r ope

ratio

n. E

leva

tor #

2 is

mak

ing

exce

ssiv

ely

loud

noi

se w

hen

elev

ator

is in

mot

ion.

$

18,

717

$

15,

936

85.1

4

120

FM-0

0632

76Lo

s Ang

eles

Holly

woo

d Co

urth

ouse

19-S

12

Elec

tric

al -

Repl

ace

(9) e

xit l

ight

s, (4

) egr

ess l

ight

s, a

nd re

stor

e re

mai

ning

ligh

ts th

at d

id n

ot il

lum

inat

e un

der

gene

rato

r pow

er d

urin

g th

e an

nual

PM

und

er S

WO

279

3682

. $

4,4

90

$

4

,090

91

.09

121

FM-0

0632

77La

ke

Lake

port

Cou

rt

Faci

lity

17-A

32

Coun

ty M

anag

ed -

HVAC

- Fai

led

boile

r tub

es -

Repl

ace

(40)

boi

ler t

ubes

. Bey

ond

usef

ul li

fe, P

itted

and

rust

ing

thro

ugh.

Imm

inen

t fai

lure

due

to c

ondi

tion,

resu

lting

in n

o he

at to

ent

ire b

uild

ing

for 6

-8 w

eeks

. $

5,9

18

$

5

,918

10

0

122

FM-0

0632

79Fr

esno

Juve

nile

Del

inqu

ency

Co

urth

ouse

10-P

12

Elev

ator

s - R

epla

ce fa

iled

circ

uit b

oard

s for

doo

r con

trol

ler i

n Ju

dges

Ele

vato

r #3

- Dur

ing

pre

limin

ary

orde

r wor

k,

the

circ

uit b

oard

s fai

led

afte

r a b

ad e

leva

tor b

reak

er w

as re

plac

ed a

nd p

ower

turn

ed b

ack

on.

Elev

ator

is n

on-

func

tiona

l.

$

5

,000

$

5,0

00

100

123

FM-0

0632

81M

onte

rey

Salin

as C

ourt

hous

e-

Nor

th W

ing

27-A

12

HVAC

- Co

rrec

t fai

led

mot

or; i

nsta

ll on

e (1

) new

40h

p W

eg c

oolin

g to

wer

rate

d m

otor

; Pro

vide

cra

ne a

nd ri

ggin

g cr

ew fo

r the

new

/old

mot

or; a

lignm

ent o

f new

mot

or to

blo

wer

whe

el p

ully

; tes

ting

- Hig

h sp

eed

cool

ing

tow

er

mot

or fa

iled

caus

ing

HVAC

failu

re.

$

14,

983

$

14,

983

100

124

FM-0

0632

92Lo

s Ang

eles

Chat

swor

th

Cour

thou

se19

-AY1

2HV

AC -

Rest

ored

con

dens

er p

ump

#1 a

nd re

plac

e le

akin

g sh

aft s

eals

to c

onde

nser

pum

p #1

. Co

nden

ser p

ump

#1

has f

aile

d an

d is

effe

ctin

g th

e co

olin

g to

the

build

ing.

$

1

1,16

6 $

9,2

90

83.2

125

FM-0

0632

93Lo

s Ang

eles

Chat

swor

th

Cour

thou

se19

-AY1

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

(1) f

aile

d se

al fr

om c

hille

r #1

due

to re

frig

eran

t lea

k. R

emov

e re

frig

eran

t to

perf

orm

leak

che

ck a

nd

re-fi

ll re

frig

eran

t for

nor

mal

ope

ratio

ns. A

dd 4

5 po

unds

of r

efrig

eran

t. $

8,0

45

$

6

,742

83

.8

126

FM-0

0632

94Lo

s Ang

eles

Mic

hael

D.

Anto

novi

ch A

ntel

ope

Valle

y Co

urth

ouse

19-A

Z12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

(15)

dry

pen

dent

SSP

s loc

ated

thro

ugho

ut th

e bu

ildin

g th

at a

re o

utda

ted

per t

he A

nnua

l Dr

y Sy

stem

insp

ectio

n. $

7,2

66

$

5

,341

73

.51

127

FM-0

0632

95Sa

nta

Clar

aN

ew S

anta

Cla

ra

Fam

ily Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

43-B

52

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e fa

iled

pvc

pipe

(6ft

.) fo

r wat

er so

ften

er; r

emed

iate

wat

er d

amag

e at

8th

floo

r con

fere

nce

room

(a

ppro

x. 4

00 sq

.ft.)

and

7th

floor

"cus

tom

" cei

ling

pane

ls - W

ater

soft

ener

pip

e fa

iled

caus

ing

dam

age

to a

rea.

$

7

,831

$

7,8

31

100

128

FM-0

0632

97Su

tter

Sutt

er C

ount

y Su

perio

r Cou

rtho

use

51-C

12

HVAC

- Re

mov

e de

fect

ive

mot

or a

nd in

stal

l new

mot

or o

n ro

of. T

est m

otor

ope

ratio

ns. R

emov

e de

bris

and

clea

n su

rrou

ndin

g ar

eas.

Del

iver

def

ectiv

e m

otor

to g

roun

d le

vel.

This

cool

ing

syst

em ru

ns 2

pum

ps/m

otor

s and

1 is

de

fect

ive.

Thi

s Chi

ller i

s crit

ical

to c

oolin

g th

e M

DF ro

oms o

n al

l 3 fl

oors

, con

tinuo

usly

, 7 d

ays p

er w

eek.

$

4

,180

$

4,1

80

100

129

FM-0

0632

98Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

Civi

c Ce

nter

Co

urth

ouse

38-A

12

Plum

bing

- Co

rrec

t sew

age

ejec

tor p

ump

(1);

conf

ined

spac

e; 2

man

cre

w w

/add

ition

al sa

fety

man

for e

mer

genc

y re

scue

- P

ump

chec

k va

lve

clog

ged

caus

ing

pum

p to

kee

p ru

nnin

g. $

1

1,28

3 $

1

1,28

3 10

0

130

FM-0

0632

99Lo

s Ang

eles

Wes

t Cov

ina

Cour

thou

se19

-X1

2In

terio

r fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e on

e (1

) 35

3/4

" x 8

3 1/

2" x

1 3

4" st

ain

grad

e 1

hour

fire

rate

d do

or, h

inge

s, c

lose

r, an

d lo

ck.

Door

is d

amag

ed a

nd c

anno

t be

open

ed a

nd c

lose

d sa

fely

, and

has

lost

its f

ire ra

ting.

$

4

,913

$

4,0

78

83.0

1

131

FM-0

0633

01So

lano

Hall

of Ju

stic

e48

-A1

2Ro

of -

Clea

n an

d pr

ep p

arap

ets (

5,60

0 sq

ft);

Seal

cra

cks a

nd sp

lits;

Inst

all c

aulk

ing

(1,2

00 L

F); I

nsta

ll Ac

rylic

seal

ant

(tw

o ga

llons

per

squa

re),

on th

e le

dge

(1,6

00 S

qft)

and

a d

oubl

e co

at o

n th

e ve

rtic

al w

alls

(4,0

00 S

qft)

; Pro

vide

20

year

war

rant

y on

pro

duct

and

inst

alla

tion.

- Pa

rape

t roo

f sea

lant

has

faile

d al

low

ing

wat

er in

trus

ion

into

the

build

ing.

$

43,

862

$

31,

940

72.8

2

132

FM-0

0633

04Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

Bars

tow

Cou

rtho

use

36-J1

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

four

(4)

faul

ty T

erm

inca

l Ele

ctro

nic

Cont

rolle

rs (T

EC) f

or 4

mix

ing

boxe

s at B

arst

ow C

ourt

hous

e.

TECs

faile

d an

d ar

e no

t con

trol

ling

tem

pera

ture

s. $

6,2

25

$

4

,851

77

.93

Page

10

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




133

FM-0

0633

06El

Dor

ado

John

son

Bldg

.09

-E1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- In

fill s

tair

riser

s to

prev

ent c

atch

ing

the

uppe

r tre

ad li

p an

d tr

ippi

ng u

pon

acce

nt o

f the

stai

rs.

Repa

int a

ll tr

eads

and

rise

rs a

fter

inst

alla

tion

of in

fill -

Saf

ety

conc

ern.

Ret

rofit

and

repa

ir st

airw

ells.

$

6

,514

$

6,5

14

100

134

FM-0

0633

07Lo

s Ang

eles

Mic

hael

D.

Anto

novi

ch A

ntel

ope

Valle

y Co

urth

ouse

19-A

Z12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

exi

stin

g 1/

6 HP

pre

-act

ion

air c

ompr

esso

r with

new

1/4

HP

air c

ompr

esso

r. Re

plac

e co

rrod

ed 1

1/2

" bal

l drip

dra

in p

ipin

g an

d dr

ip c

up a

long

with

bal

l bal

l drip

. Con

duct

a c

eilin

g le

ak in

spec

tion

due

to

the

syst

em n

ot h

oldi

ng th

e ai

r nee

ded

to k

eep

com

pres

sor o

ff an

d on

ly c

omin

g on

whe

n ne

eded

to m

aint

ain

the

desir

ed sy

stem

air

pres

sure

.

$

5

,894

$

4,3

33

73.5

1

135

FM-0

0633

08Lo

s Ang

eles

Torr

ance

Cou

rtho

use

19-C

12

Elec

tric

al -

Rem

ove

old

outle

t and

inst

all (

15) n

ew G

FCI o

utle

ts in

Judg

e's C

ham

ber r

estr

oom

s and

em

ploy

ee's

rest

room

s. R

epla

ce (3

) dim

ly li

t exi

t sig

ns th

roug

h ou

t the

cou

rtho

use

per S

FM w

rite

up.

$

2

,513

$

2,1

40

85.1

4

136

FM-0

0633

09Lo

s Ang

eles

S. B

ay M

unic

ipal

Tr

affic

Cou

rt T

raile

r19

-C4

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

(1) p

acka

ge u

nit.

Uni

t has

faile

d an

d sy

stem

is c

urre

ntly

not

allo

win

g he

at tr

ansf

er c

ausin

g tr

affic

tr

aile

r to

get t

oo h

ot.

$

11,

203

$

9

,538

85

.14

137

FM-0

0633

11Sa

n Di

ego

Nor

th C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r -

Nor

th

37-F

22

Inte

rior f

inish

es-R

epla

ce o

ne (1

) 20

min

ute

fire

rate

d do

or th

at w

as d

amag

ed b

y th

e fir

e de

part

men

t, w

hen

repo

rtin

g to

an

afte

r-hr

s cal

l. $

2,7

80

$

2

,780

10

0

138

FM-0

0633

12Al

amed

aHa

ywar

d Ha

ll of

Ju

stic

e01

-D1

2El

ectr

ical

- Re

plac

e on

e fa

iled

Gene

rato

r Day

Tan

k flo

at sw

itch

- Stic

king

cau

ses a

fuel

ove

rflo

w in

to se

cond

ary

cont

ainm

ent.

$

3

,438

$

3,0

36

88.3

139

FM-0

0633

13Lo

s Ang

eles

Torr

ance

Cou

rtho

use

19-C

12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Repl

ace

mal

func

tioni

ng d

oor c

lose

r to

the

fron

t doo

rs o

f Dep

artm

ent 8

Cou

rtro

om th

at is

sla

mm

ing

too

hard

whe

n do

ors a

re o

pene

d or

clo

sed.

$

8

,090

$

6,8

88

85.1

4

140

FM-0

0633

15St

anisl

aus

Mod

esto

Mai

n Co

urth

ouse

50-A

12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e fa

iled

cont

rol-a

ir co

mpr

esso

r val

ve u

nloa

der a

ssem

bly

and

head

gas

ket -

com

pres

sor i

s lea

king

oil

from

one

of t

wo

com

pres

sors

. $

2,7

98

$

2

,798

10

0

141

FM-0

0633

16Sa

n Jo

aqui

nSt

ockt

on C

ourt

hous

e39

-F1

2Ex

terio

r She

ll - R

epla

ce fa

iled

rheo

stat

s for

Doo

rs 0

1225

B, 0

1225

B.3

and

Serv

ice

door

s. T

wo

of th

e fr

ont d

oors

are

sla

mm

ing

and

the

rheo

stat

s tha

t con

trol

the

clos

ing

func

tion

of th

e m

otor

s nee

d to

be

repl

aced

. $

2,6

40

$

2

,640

10

0

142

FM-0

0633

18Sa

nta

Clar

aHa

ll of

Just

ice

(Wes

t)43

-A2

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Va

ndal

ism: C

orre

ct p

ublic

rest

room

and

ele

vato

rs b

uild

ing

wid

e; re

pair/

repl

ace

(18)

mirr

ors;

In

stal

l (1)

rem

ovab

le m

etal

shie

ld to

ele

vato

r doo

r; sa

nd/p

atch

/pai

nt (

4) re

stro

om p

artit

ions

wal

ls - G

ang

rela

ted

graf

fiti i

n pu

blic

are

as.

$

19,

085

$

19,

085

100

143

FM-0

0633

20Lo

s Ang

eles

Torr

ance

Cou

rtho

use

19-C

12

Elev

ator

- Re

plac

e de

terio

ratin

g ca

r rol

ler o

n Ju

dge'

s Ele

vato

r #5

that

is m

akin

g lo

ud n

oise

s and

cau

ses a

roug

h rid

e in

bot

h di

rect

ions

. $

4,4

55

$

3

,793

85

.14

144

FM-0

0633

28Lo

s Ang

eles

Alha

mbr

a Co

urth

ouse

19-I1

2Pl

umbi

ng-R

epla

ce o

ne (1

) but

terf

ly v

alve

for b

oile

r #3.

The

boi

ler c

ould

not

pas

s AQ

MD

test

and

can

not b

e br

ough

t up

to st

anda

rd b

ecau

se th

e va

lve

is se

ized

and

need

s to

be re

plac

ed.

$

3

,072

$

2,6

42

86

145

FM-0

0633

29Lo

s Ang

eles

Nor

wal

k Co

urth

ouse

19-A

K12

HVAC

-Rep

lace

the

two

(2) f

loat

s for

coo

ling

tow

ers 1

& 2

. Exi

stin

g flo

ats a

re n

ot fu

nctio

ning

as d

esig

ned

and

are

fillin

g ei

ther

too

high

cau

sing

exce

ssiv

e w

ater

usa

ge o

r too

low

inte

rmitt

ently

. $

9,9

61

$

8

,470

85

.03

146

FM-0

0633

31Lo

s Ang

eles

El M

onte

Cou

rtho

use

19-O

12

HVAC

-Rep

lace

the

pum

p fo

r the

pne

umat

ic a

ir co

mpr

esso

r. T

he c

ompr

esso

r is f

ailin

g an

d m

akin

g a

loud

sc

reec

hing

noi

se.

If th

e co

mpr

esso

r fai

ls, it

will

not

be

poss

ible

to c

ontr

ol te

mpe

ratu

res t

hrou

ghou

t the

co

urth

ouse

.

$

4

,979

$

2,8

94

58.1

2

147

FM-0

0633

32Lo

s Ang

eles

El M

onte

Cou

rtho

use

19-O

12

Inte

rior f

inish

es-R

epla

ce fl

oor c

lose

r for

exi

t doo

r. T

he e

xist

ing

clos

er is

not

func

tioni

ng a

s des

igne

d an

d is

caus

ing

the

door

to sl

am a

nd c

reat

ing

a sa

fety

issu

e. $

2,7

47

$

1

,597

58

.12

148

FM-0

0633

33Lo

s Ang

eles

Com

pton

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

G12

Plum

bing

-Rep

lace

one

(1) p

enal

war

e sin

k an

d fa

ucet

for 1

1th

floor

lock

up ,

cell

11E.

Exi

stin

g sin

k an

d fa

ucet

are

ob

sole

te a

nd p

arts

are

not

ava

ilabl

e, so

they

nee

d to

be

repl

aced

. Ex

istin

g sin

k in

not

func

tioni

ng.

$

5

,934

$

3,9

24

66.1

3

149

FM-0

0633

36Lo

s Ang

eles

Bellf

low

er

Cour

thou

se19

-AL1

2El

evat

ors,

esc

alat

ors,

& h

oist

s - R

epla

ce th

e do

or o

pera

ting

mot

or fo

r pub

lic e

leva

tor #

1. T

he e

xist

ing

mot

or fa

iled

due

to e

xces

sive

usag

e. $

9,0

64

$

7

,064

77

.94

150

FM-0

0633

38Lo

s Ang

eles

Nor

wal

k Co

urth

ouse

19-A

K12

HVAC

-Rem

ove

hot w

ater

pum

p #6

from

pre

mise

s and

refu

rbish

. Wel

d cr

ack

in fl

ange

. Re

turn

pum

p, re

-inst

all,

and

corr

ectly

alig

n pu

mp.

Exi

stin

g pu

mp

is le

akin

g da

mag

ed se

als a

nd fl

ange

. $

8,0

55

$

6

,849

85

.03

Page

11

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




151

FM-0

0633

40Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

Juve

nile

Dep

ende

ncy

Cour

thou

se36

-P1

2El

ectr

ical

- Par

king

Lot

- Rep

lace

20

high

pre

ssur

e so

dium

bal

last

s & la

mps

with

20

LED

Retr

o-Ki

t out

door

par

king

lot

light

s. C

urre

ntly

8 li

ghts

are

out

cau

sing

a sa

fety

haz

ard.

Exi

stin

g lig

hts a

re a

ppro

x. 8

yrs

old

and

faili

ng. L

ED li

ght

fixtu

res a

re c

heap

er th

an re

pairi

ng e

xist

ing,

will

save

ene

rgy,

last

long

er a

nd m

ore

cost

effe

ctiv

e sin

ce a

boo

m li

ft

will

alre

ady

be o

nsite

.

$

11,

957

$

6

,520

54

.53

152

FM-0

0633

43Lo

s Ang

eles

Bellf

low

er

Cour

thou

se19

-AL1

2El

evat

ors,

esc

alat

ors,

& h

oist

s-Re

plac

e on

e (1

) hyd

raul

ic p

ump

muf

fler f

or e

leva

tor 5

. Exi

stin

g m

uffle

r has

faile

d du

e to

out

livi

ng li

fe e

xpec

tanc

y. $

9,9

64

$

7

,766

77

.94

153

FM-0

0633

45Lo

s Ang

eles

Burb

ank

Cour

thou

se19

-G1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Co

nduc

t env

ironm

enta

l tes

t, re

mov

e da

mag

ed a

ppro

x. 2

0 sq

. ft.

of c

eilin

g til

es &

dry

wal

l on

the

NE

corn

er o

f Jud

ge's

cham

bers

. Ere

ct d

ust b

arrie

r to

encl

ose

the

affe

ct a

rea.

Pla

ster

and

tile

s are

wat

er d

amag

ed

from

pre

viou

s roo

f lea

k.

$

12,

736

$

12,

736

100

154

FM-0

0633

49Sa

nta

Barb

ara

Figu

eroa

Div

ision

42-B

12

Elec

tric

al -

The

rela

ys a

re o

ld a

nd sh

owin

g sig

ns o

f age

as t

hey

are

inte

rmitt

ently

faili

ng. T

he c

ontr

ol b

oard

(c

ompu

ter e

lem

ents

of t

his p

anel

) are

out

dat

ed a

nd p

aire

d w

ith th

e in

term

itten

tly fa

iling

rela

ys, c

ausin

g th

e bo

ard

to m

alfu

nctio

n an

d no

t mai

ntai

n th

e sc

hedu

le fo

r tur

ning

ligh

ts o

n an

d of

f for

the

cour

t, ca

usin

g se

rvic

e pr

ovid

er to

ha

ve to

man

ually

turn

ligh

ts o

n an

d of

f at t

imes

. Rep

lace

one

(1) c

ontr

ol p

anel

for o

utsid

e lig

htin

g fo

r cou

rtya

rd

and

cler

k's a

rea

and

prog

ram

the

cont

rol p

anel

. Exi

stin

g pa

nel i

s not

func

tioni

ng a

s des

igne

d an

d ne

eds t

o be

re

plac

ed.

$

6

,107

$

6,1

07

100

155

FM-0

0633

50Sa

n M

ateo

Hall

of Ju

stic

e41

-A1

2CO

UN

TY M

ANAG

ED -

HVAC

- Co

rrec

t fai

led

supp

ly fa

n un

it #1

(SF1

); in

stal

l tem

pora

ry fa

n sh

aft;

man

ufac

ture

new

re

plac

emen

t fan

shaf

t - A

HU fa

n sh

aft b

roke

cau

sing

loss

of H

VAC

to C

ourt

room

/Cha

mbe

rs 2

A, 2

B, 2

C, 2

D, C

EO

and

Jury

Ser

vice

s offi

ces.

$

28,

577

$

28,

577

100

156

FM-0

0633

52Ri

vers

ide

Sout

hwes

t Jus

tice

Cent

er33

-M1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- S1

01 M

ain

Cour

troo

m D

oors

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

faile

d co

urtr

oom

fire

rate

d en

try

door

s for

S1

01. T

he d

oors

hav

e sp

lit a

nd se

para

ted

at th

e la

tchi

ng d

evic

e co

mpr

omisi

ng th

eir e

ffect

iven

ess d

urin

g a

fire

and

secu

rity.

Add

ition

ally

, the

con

ditio

n is

prev

entin

g th

e co

urtr

oom

doo

rs fr

om b

eing

pro

perly

lock

ed a

nd se

cure

d.

$

12,

571

$

12,

571

100

157

FM-0

0633

53Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

Cent

ral C

ourt

hous

e36

-A1

2El

evat

ors,

esc

alat

ors,

& h

oist

s-Re

plac

e fo

ur (4

) doo

r gib

s. D

oor g

ibs a

re fa

iling

and

doo

rs g

et st

uck

inte

rmitt

ently

. $

3,8

86

$

3

,717

95

.64

158

FM-0

0633

55Ri

vers

ide

Lars

on Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

33-C

12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- 1st

Flo

or P

ublic

Sta

irwel

l Eas

t - R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e tw

o (2

) 1.5

hou

r fire

rate

d do

ors a

t the

1st

flo

or p

ublic

stai

rwel

l eas

t. Th

e cu

rren

t doo

rs h

ave

hard

war

e fa

ilure

(hin

ges)

and

hav

e br

oken

in m

ultip

le p

lace

s an

d re

quire

repl

acem

ent t

o m

eet N

FPA

code

and

are

requ

ired

to p

reve

nt th

e sp

read

of f

ire fr

om th

e se

cond

floo

r to

oth

er a

reas

of t

he C

ourt

. Wor

k in

clud

es re

plac

emen

t of 6

hin

ges,

2 p

anic

bar

s, a

nd 2

surf

ace

mou

nted

doo

r cl

oser

s with

new

.

$

11,

713

$

11,

407

97.3

9

159

FM-0

0633

58Tu

lare

Sout

h Co

unty

Just

ice

Cent

er54

-I12

Elec

tric

al -

Repl

ace

the

mal

func

tioni

ng E

lect

roni

c Co

ntro

l Mod

ule

in th

e em

erge

ncy

gene

rato

r - F

uel i

s flo

odin

g th

e en

gine

and

the

gene

rato

r can

not o

pera

te.

$

4

,467

$

4,4

67

100

160

FM-0

0633

59Lo

s Ang

eles

Nor

wal

k Co

urth

ouse

19-A

K12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e on

e (1

) 10

Hp m

otor

for r

etur

n fa

n #5

. Exi

stin

g fa

n m

otor

bea

rings

are

seize

d. $

2,9

29

$

2

,461

84

.03

161

FM-0

0633

61Lo

s Ang

eles

Pasa

dena

Cou

rtho

use

19-J1

2El

evat

or -

Repl

ace

non-

func

tioni

ng fu

el tr

ansf

er p

ump

and

asso

ciat

ed p

arts

for t

he g

ener

ator

whi

ch is

not

wor

king

an

d cr

eatin

g a

safe

ty is

sue

since

the

path

of e

gres

s will

not

be

lit in

cas

e of

em

erge

ncy.

$

2

,194

$

1,5

22

69.3

5

162

FM-0

0633

65Co

ntra

Cos

taW

akef

ield

Tay

lor

Cour

thou

se07

-A14

2In

terio

r Fin

ish -

Repl

ace

exist

ing

24" U

rinal

Par

titio

n w

ith a

48"

Dee

p Pa

rtiti

on -

Com

plai

nts f

rom

staf

f, th

at w

hen

the

door

to th

e re

stro

om o

pens

, peo

ple

in th

e ha

llway

can

see

men

usin

g th

e ur

inal

. $

1,6

94

$

1

,694

10

0

163

FM-0

0633

66Fr

esno

B.F.

Sisk

Cou

rtho

use

10-O

12

Elec

tric

al -

Repl

ace

thre

e ex

istin

g de

fect

ive

VAV

cont

rolle

rs o

n th

e 5t

h Fl

oor:

VAV5

-3 fo

r Roo

m 5

11, V

AV5-

4 fo

r Ro

om 5

10 a

nd V

AV5-

5 fo

r Roo

m 5

21, i

nsta

ll ne

w ro

om te

mpe

ratu

re se

nsor

s, a

nd in

stal

l new

com

mun

icat

ions

ca

ble

from

VAV

con

trol

lers

to e

xist

ing

supe

rviso

ry c

ontr

olle

r - E

xist

ing

VAV

cont

rolle

rs h

ave

faile

d an

d ne

w

cont

rolle

rs n

eed

to b

e in

stal

led

and

adde

d to

the

BACn

et sy

stem

.

$

5

,304

$

5,3

04

100

Page

12

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




164

FM-0

0633

67Fr

esno

B.F.

Sisk

Cou

rtho

use

10-O

12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e tw

o ex

istin

g de

fect

ive

VAV

cont

rolle

rs o

n th

e 1s

t Flo

or: V

AV1-

36 a

nd V

AV1-

37 fo

r Roo

m 1

00 (J

ury

Asse

mbl

y Ro

om),

inst

all n

ew ro

om te

mpe

ratu

re se

nsor

, and

inst

all n

ew c

omm

unic

atio

ns c

able

from

VAV

co

ntro

llers

to e

xist

ing

supe

rviso

ry c

ontr

olle

r on

the

2nd

floor

- Ex

istin

g VA

V co

ntro

llers

hav

e fa

iled

and

new

co

ntro

llers

nee

d to

be

inst

alle

d an

d ad

ded

to th

e BA

Cnet

syst

em.

$

3

,878

$

3,8

78

100

165

FM-0

0633

68Lo

s Ang

eles

Mal

ibu

Cour

thou

se19

-AS1

2CO

UN

TY M

ANAG

ED -

Elec

tric

al -

Rest

ore

pow

er to

shar

ed c

ampu

s par

king

lot s

peci

fic to

the

empl

oyee

par

king

lot.

Hand

led

by C

ount

y as

an

Emer

genc

y du

e to

Pub

lic S

ecur

ity S

afet

y co

ncer

n $

1,9

86

$

1

,986

10

0

166

FM-0

0633

69Lo

s Ang

eles

Coun

ty R

ecor

ds

Cent

er19

-AV3

2Co

unty

Man

aged

- In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- In

stal

l nin

e (9

) str

ike

plat

e co

vers

at C

ount

y Re

cord

s Cen

ter (

arch

ives

). Cu

rren

t str

ike

plat

es a

re se

vere

ly w

orn

allo

win

g ac

cess

to d

oors

with

out k

ey. R

epla

cem

ent s

trik

e pl

ates

will

solid

ify

latc

hing

whe

n do

ors a

re c

lose

d.

$

1

,674

$

1,6

74

100

167

FM-0

0633

81Lo

s Ang

eles

Com

pton

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

G12

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e dr

inki

ng fo

unta

in in

pub

lic h

allw

ay. W

all m

ust b

e cu

t ope

n to

repl

ace

drai

n an

d ot

her p

lum

bing

lin

es. I

nsta

ll (1

) 24x

24 a

cces

s pan

el fo

r mai

nten

ance

repa

irs. E

nviro

nmen

tal o

vers

ight

Incl

uded

. Exi

stin

g fo

unta

in

does

not

func

tion

and

is ob

sole

te a

nd c

anno

t be

refu

rbish

ed.

$

14,

420

$

9

,536

66

.13

168

FM-0

0633

82Lo

s Ang

eles

Ingl

ewoo

d Co

urth

ouse

19-F

12

HVAC

- In

stal

l one

(1) n

ew E

Z Fl

oat S

tain

less

Ste

el E

xter

nal F

loat

Ass

embl

y fo

r Coo

ling

Tow

er #

1, to

incl

ude

all

appl

icab

le m

ater

ials.

Ree

nerg

ize th

e el

ectr

ical

for t

he C

oolin

g To

wer

, Sta

rt, t

est a

nd c

heck

floa

t ass

embl

y op

erat

ions

. Coo

ling

tow

er #

1 flo

at is

inop

erat

ive

due

to w

ear a

nd c

orro

sion

build

up.

Inop

erat

ive

inte

rnal

floa

ts a

re

lead

ing

to c

oolin

g to

wer

wat

er o

verf

low

.

$

8

,871

$

6,6

14

74.5

6

169

FM-0

0633

83O

rang

eCe

ntra

l Jus

tice

Cent

er30

-A1

2HV

AC -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

exist

ing

VAV

box

abov

e ch

ambe

rs o

f dep

artm

ent C

61.

The

hot w

ater

coi

l bro

ke a

nd

leak

ed, t

here

is n

o w

ay to

repa

ir th

e co

il its

elf s

o th

e VA

V bo

x ne

eds t

o be

repl

aced

. Re

mov

e 24

" X 3

0" a

rea

of

cont

amin

ated

pla

ster

cei

ling

in o

rder

to a

cces

s the

are

a an

d cl

ean

up a

ppro

xim

atel

y 10

squa

re fe

et o

f co

ntam

inat

ed d

ebris

fiel

d. T

here

is a

bsol

utel

y no

hea

ting

to th

e Ju

dges

Cha

mbe

rs, t

his n

eeds

to b

e ad

dres

sed

as

soon

as p

ossib

le.

$

23,

404

$

23,

404

100

170

FM-0

0633

84Ve

ntur

aJu

veni

le C

ourt

hous

e56

-F1

2El

ectr

ical

- Re

plac

e on

e (1

) ECM

mod

ule

for e

mer

genc

y ge

nera

tor.

Exi

stin

g m

odul

e is

faul

ty a

nd c

ausin

g th

e ge

nera

tor n

ot to

run

prop

erly

and

is c

reat

ing

a lo

t of s

mok

e w

hen

oper

atin

g. $

8,3

76

$

8

,376

10

0

171

FM-0

0633

85Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Cou

rtho

use

Wes

t19

-AX2

2Pl

umbi

ng -

Repl

ace

10ft

-2.5

cop

per p

ipe,

10f

t- 3

/4 c

oppe

r pip

e, b

all v

alve

, 2.5

bal

l val

ve, 2

.5 c

oupl

ing,

2.5

cop

per

T. W

ater

leak

ing

from

cei

ling

in 2

nd fl

oor p

ublic

are

a be

twee

n th

e pu

blic

ele

vato

rs a

nd w

indo

w's

#5 &

#6

caus

ing

trip

ping

haz

ard

to p

ublic

, dom

estic

wat

er 2

" cop

per 9

0 de

gree

pip

e le

akin

g. B

uild

ing

dom

estic

wat

er d

rain

ed a

nd

re-fi

lled

to c

ompl

ete

plum

bing

repl

acem

ent,

rem

edia

tion

and

envi

ronm

enta

l ove

rsig

ht in

clud

ed.

$

12,

020

$

9

,674

80

.48

172

FM-0

0633

86Lo

s Ang

eles

Torr

ance

Cou

rtho

use

19-C

12

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e 10

' of c

rack

ed 4

" col

d do

mes

tic w

ater

line

, cou

plin

gs, a

dd n

ew is

olat

ion

valv

e, a

nd 2

" cas

t iro

n fit

tings

due

to w

ater

leak

ing

abov

e th

e ba

sem

ent f

ile ro

om c

eilin

g. E

nviro

nmen

tal t

estin

g w

ill ta

ke p

lace

on

the

insu

latio

n co

verin

g th

e 4"

wat

er li

ne.

$

11,

199

$

9

,535

85

.14

173

FM-0

0633

90Ri

vers

ide

Sout

hwes

t Jus

tice

Cent

er33

-M1

2Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

Lot

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e fa

iled

coat

ing

and

seal

cra

cks w

ithin

the

dies

el g

ener

ator

seco

ndar

y co

ntai

nmen

t with

Sik

afle

x U

reth

ane

seal

ant (

conc

rete

cra

cks)

and

die

sel r

esist

ant U

reth

ane

mas

tic (b

asin

). W

ork

also

incl

udes

repl

acem

ent o

f fai

led

1' a

nti-s

ipho

n va

lve.

The

gen

erat

or fu

el sy

stem

faile

d le

akin

g 50

-60

gallo

ns o

f fu

el w

ithin

the

cont

ainm

ent h

owev

er th

e co

atin

g fa

iled,

with

fuel

seep

ing

into

con

cret

e cr

acks

and

into

nea

rby

stor

m b

asin

and

pum

p an

d w

as c

onta

ined

ther

e.

$

13,

653

$

10,

431

76.4

174

FM-0

0633

91Fr

esno

B.F.

Sisk

Cou

rtho

use

10-O

12

Grou

nds a

nd P

arki

ng L

ot -

Repl

ace

insid

e an

d ou

tsid

e gr

ound

loop

s, re

-loca

te th

e ga

te o

pene

r sev

eral

inch

es o

ut

and

repl

ace

the

crac

ked

driv

e be

lt fo

r the

Sou

th P

St.

secu

red

park

ing

gate

Exi

t gat

e is

not f

unct

ioni

ng d

ue to

ex

pose

d an

d sh

orte

d lo

op w

ires,

and

gui

de w

heel

bol

t has

bee

n sh

eare

d of

f fro

m h

ittin

g th

e ga

te o

pene

r.

$

4

,687

$

4,6

87

100

175

FM-0

0633

92Lo

s Ang

eles

Clar

a Sh

ortr

idge

Fol

tz

Crim

inal

Just

ice

Cent

er

19-L

12

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

ed d

efec

tive

com

bo to

ilet/

sink

whi

ch h

as a

leak

in th

e w

eld

allo

win

g w

ater

to le

ak d

own

to th

e pu

blic

hal

lway

cre

atin

g a

slip

haza

rd.

Wat

er h

as b

een

shut

off

to th

e un

it an

d th

e in

mat

es d

o no

t hav

e ac

cess

to

use

the

rest

room

if h

ouse

d in

the

cell

whi

ch b

ecom

es a

hea

lth is

sue.

$

9

,341

$

9,3

41

100

Page

13

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




176

FM-0

0633

96Lo

s Ang

eles

Alha

mbr

a Co

urth

ouse

19-I1

2Pl

umbi

ng-R

epla

ce 1

0 Lf

of 5

" dra

in li

ne c

omin

g fr

om ro

of.

Exist

ing

drai

n is

clog

ged

with

roof

ing

mat

eria

l and

doe

s no

t dra

in, c

ausin

g pu

ddlin

g an

d po

tent

ial l

eaki

ng o

n th

e ro

of. A

rea

know

n to

hav

e AC

M a

nd w

ill h

ave

cont

ainm

ent,

deco

n ch

ambe

rs, e

nviro

nmen

tal a

nd re

med

iatio

n. S

caffo

ld w

ill b

e re

quire

d.

$

15,

791

$

13,

580

86

177

FM-0

0633

97Lo

s Ang

eles

Clar

a Sh

ortr

idge

Fol

tz

Crim

inal

Just

ice

Cent

er

19-L

12

Elec

tric

al -

Repl

ace

burn

t out

mot

or o

n th

e in

ner c

ell d

oor o

f the

14t

h flo

or, H

oldi

ng C

ell #

7 th

at a

llow

s the

doo

r to

open

/clo

se.

$

3

,967

$

3,9

67

100

178

FM-0

0633

98Sa

n Di

ego

Juve

nile

Cou

rt37

-E1

2Pl

umbi

ng -

Repl

ace

40 L

F of

4" C

ast I

ron

pipe

and

fitt

ings

, and

repl

ace

20 L

F of

2" C

ast I

ron

pipe

and

fitt

ings

abo

ve

cour

troo

ms.

Exi

stin

g pi

pes a

re c

orro

ded

and

are

leak

ing.

$

5,5

29

$

4

,126

74

.62

179

FM-0

0633

99Sa

n Di

ego

East

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Ce

nter

37-I1

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

one

(1) 3

0 Hp

mot

or fo

r AHU

3 re

turn

. Ex

istin

g m

otor

shor

ted

out a

nd is

not

func

tioni

ng.

$

6

,966

$

4,7

17

67.7

1

180

FM-0

0634

01Lo

s Ang

eles

Nor

wal

k Co

urth

ouse

19-A

K12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Repl

ace

two

(2) p

anic

bar

s and

two

(2) l

ever

trim

s for

doo

rs in

jury

room

on

7th

floor

. Exi

stin

g do

or h

ardw

are

is w

orn

out a

nd n

o lo

nger

func

tioni

ng a

s des

igne

d ca

usin

g a

secu

rity

issue

. $

5,5

89

$

4

,752

85

.03

181

FM-0

0634

02Ca

lave

ras

Cala

vera

s Sup

erio

r Co

urt

05-C

12

Elec

tric

al -

Repl

ace

faile

d U

PS b

atte

ries a

nd in

stal

l new

bat

terie

s - U

PS b

atte

ries a

re in

fail.

UPS

serv

es C

ourt

and

JC

C eq

uipm

ent i

n fir

st fl

oor D

ata

Room

. $

7,3

59

$

7

,359

10

0

182

FM-0

0634

03Lo

s Ang

eles

East

Los

Ang

eles

Co

urth

ouse

19-V

12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e on

e (1

) 15

Hors

e po

wer

retu

rn fa

n m

otor

for A

ir ha

ndle

r uni

t #3.

Mot

or b

earin

gs h

ave

seize

d,

affe

ctin

g en

tire

2nd

floor

. $

4,7

95

$

3

,727

77

.72

183

FM-0

0634

04Tu

lare

Sout

h Co

unty

Just

ice

Cent

er54

-I12

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e Cr

acke

d Bu

rner

s and

Gas

kets

on

Both

dom

estic

hot

wat

er h

eate

rs (O

M37

244

& O

M37

245)

- U

nits

are

cur

rent

ly in

oper

able

and

no

dom

estic

hot

wat

er in

bui

ldin

g.

$

7

,125

$

7,1

25

100

184

FM-0

0634

05St

anisl

aus

Hall

of R

ecor

ds50

-A2

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

3 fa

iled

air p

urge

val

ves o

n cl

osed

boi

ler l

oop.

- Sy

stem

Cur

rent

ly lo

sing

250

gallo

ns a

day

in c

lose

d bo

iler l

oop

thro

ugh

faile

d Ho

ffman

air

blee

d va

lves

. $

4,2

98

$

3

,345

77

.82

185

FM-0

0634

07Co

ntra

Cos

taW

akef

ield

Tay

lor

Cour

thou

se07

-A2

2In

terio

r Fin

ish -

Rem

edia

te a

20

X 30

' sec

tion

of w

et c

arpe

t; Va

cuum

up

the

wat

er a

nd p

lace

3 d

ehum

idifi

ers a

nd 6

ai

r fan

s to

circ

ulat

e th

e ai

r - W

ater

cam

e in

to th

e bu

ildin

g th

roug

h an

out

side

door

dur

ing

heav

y ra

in.

$

8

,370

$

8,3

70

100

186

FM-0

0634

09Sa

nta

Clar

aSu

nnyv

ale

Cour

thou

se43

-F1

2Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n- F

ire In

spec

tion

corr

ectio

ns -

Repl

ace

(32)

Pai

nted

/cor

rode

d/ou

tdat

ed S

prin

kler

hea

ds a

t Ba

sem

ent:

(23)

bra

ss 1

65 u

prig

ht h

eads

; (5)

bra

ss 1

65 p

enda

nt h

eads

; (1)

bra

ss 2

12 u

prig

ht h

ead;

(3) b

rass

286

up

right

hea

ds: R

esto

ck S

prin

kler

cab

inet

with

: (4)

bra

ss 1

65 u

prig

ht h

eads

; (4)

bra

ss 1

65 p

enda

nt h

eads

; (2)

212

br

ass u

prig

ht h

eads

; (2)

bra

ss 2

86 u

prig

ht h

eads

; (1)

hea

d w

renc

h: In

stal

l (1)

sigh

t gla

ss a

nd p

ipe

at 2

" mai

n dr

ain

- Bu

ildin

g ou

t of c

ompl

ianc

e as

per

insp

ectio

n re

port

$

4

,271

$

4,2

71

100

187

FM-0

0634

10Ke

rnBa

kers

field

Sup

erio

r Co

urt

15-A

12

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e 1

LF o

f 1/2

" cop

per p

ipe,

3 L

F of

2" g

alva

nize

d pi

pe, a

nd tw

o (2

) 2" g

alva

nize

d 90

s. A

pin

hol

e le

ak o

n th

e ho

t wat

er m

ain

line

loca

ted

in th

e Fi

rst F

loor

Men

's Re

stro

om h

as b

een

disc

over

ed d

urin

g R&

Rs a

nd

need

s to

have

pip

e re

plac

ed.

$

3

,641

$

2,2

81

62.6

4

188

FM-0

0634

11Ve

ntur

aEa

st C

ount

y Co

urth

ouse

56-B

12

HVAC

- Co

rrod

ed c

onne

ctio

n co

uplin

g ca

usin

g a

pinh

ole

leak

whe

re th

e co

nnec

tion

coup

ling

mee

ts th

e st

raig

ht

pipe

, cur

rent

ly a

smal

l drip

. Rep

lace

10

LF o

f 2" p

ipe

and

conn

ecto

rs fo

r HVA

C pi

pe lo

cate

d in

the

ceili

ng in

the

Lobb

y of

56-

F1. R

e-in

sula

te p

ipe.

Pip

e is

leak

ing.

Env

ironm

enta

l ini

tial t

estin

g an

d sc

ope

of w

ork

incl

uded

. Co

rrod

ed, r

uste

d co

nnec

tion

coup

ling

pinh

ole

leak

whe

re th

e co

nnec

tion

coup

ling

mee

ts th

e st

raig

ht p

ipe,

cu

rren

tly a

drip

.

$

13,

022

$

8

,041

61

.75

189

FM-0

0634

12Sa

nta

Barb

ara

Figu

eroa

Div

ision

42-B

12

Inte

rior f

inish

es -

Rem

ove

30 S

F of

Ter

ra C

otta

floo

r tile

s in

Base

men

t wal

kway

nea

r dpt

B; l

evel

floo

ring,

repl

ace

tiles

& re

-gro

ut. E

xist

ing

tiles

are

com

ing

loos

e du

e to

hig

h tr

affic

& w

arpi

ng u

nder

laym

ent.

Envi

ronm

enta

l tes

ting

incl

uded

.

$

13,

089

$

13,

089

100

Page

14

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




190

FM-0

0634

13Lo

s Ang

eles

Met

ropo

litan

Co

urth

ouse

19-T

12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Erec

t (2)

5'x

5'x1

1' c

onta

inm

ent a

nd re

plac

e (1

2) 1

'x1'

loos

e ce

iling

tile

s in

Dept

801

B. C

eilin

g til

es w

ere

not s

ecur

e an

d co

uld

have

falle

n on

som

eone

cre

atin

g a

safe

ty is

sue

for t

he c

ourt

. Wor

k w

as c

ompl

eted

in

a k

now

n ho

t are

a. C

eilin

g til

es b

ecam

e lo

ose

due

to h

igh

HVAC

dam

per v

ibra

tions

.

$

4

,223

$

3,9

92

94.5

4

191

FM-0

0634

14Lo

s Ang

eles

Stan

ley

Mos

k Co

urth

ouse

19-K

12

Elev

ator

s, E

scal

ator

s, &

Hoi

sts -

Rem

ove

debr

is fr

om th

e to

p en

d of

the

esca

lato

rs a

nd c

lean

ed d

own.

Pre

limin

ary

Ord

er -

Regu

lato

ry C

ompl

ianc

e fo

r Cor

rect

ions

- SW

O#

2847

660

and

2847

665

$

13,

044

$

12,

687

97.2

6

192

FM-0

0634

15Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

San

Bern

ardi

no

Just

ice

Cent

er36

-R1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e on

e (1

) wal

king

bea

m p

ivot

for r

ight

doo

r of D

ept S

12. E

xist

ing

pivo

t is w

orn

and

very

lo

ud, d

istur

bing

the

cour

t whi

le in

sess

ion.

$

3

,923

$

3,9

23

100

193

FM-0

0634

18Lo

s Ang

eles

Chat

swor

th

Cour

thou

se19

-AY1

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

rust

ed a

nd d

eter

iora

ting

(4) s

uppo

rt b

race

s to

the

cool

ing

tow

er #

2 an

d al

l ins

talla

tion

hard

war

e th

at c

an le

ad to

stru

ctur

al in

tegr

ity fa

ilure

of t

he c

oolin

g to

wer

. $

1

1,80

6 $

9,8

93

83.8

194

FM-0

0634

19Al

amed

aFr

emon

t Hal

l of

Just

ice

01-H

12

Plum

bing

- Do

mes

tic h

ot w

ater

- Re

plac

e ap

prox

imat

ely

fifte

en fe

et o

f age

d, c

orro

ded,

faile

d an

d le

akin

g co

pper

re

turn

pip

e. $

2,5

44

$

2

,020

79

.4

195

FM-0

0634

22Al

amed

aBe

rkel

ey C

ourt

hous

e01

-G1

2El

ectr

ical

- Li

ghtin

g - R

epla

ce a

ppro

xim

atel

y se

ven

(7) l

amps

and

bal

last

s as n

eede

d to

repa

ir fa

iled

light

fixt

ures

- Ex

cess

ive

heig

ht o

f cei

ling

and

fixed

seat

ing

requ

ires s

caffo

ldin

g to

per

form

wor

k. $

3,2

35

$

3

,235

10

0

196

FM-0

0634

23Al

amed

aHa

ywar

d Ha

ll of

Ju

stic

e01

-D1

2Ex

terio

r She

ll - R

epla

ce fa

iled

door

hin

ge (c

ontin

uous

) on

mai

n ex

it do

or; r

equi

res a

dditi

onal

anc

hora

ge -

Door

will

no

t ope

rate

due

to b

roke

n hi

nge

$

3

,231

$

2,8

53

88.3

197

FM-0

0634

25Co

ntra

Cos

taBr

ay C

ourt

s07

-A3

2Gr

ound

s - S

afet

y - R

emov

e an

d di

scar

d 25

10

ft. o

verg

row

n Ju

nipe

r tre

es th

at b

orde

r the

180

ft p

ath

of tr

avel

from

th

e ja

il to

the

Cour

thou

se. T

his p

ath

is us

ed b

y de

putie

s esc

ortin

g in

-cus

todi

es to

and

from

the

cour

thou

se. T

he

tree

s pro

vide

full

cove

r for

an

ambu

sh o

r for

con

trab

and.

Con

trab

and

has b

een

foun

d hi

dden

in th

e tr

ees.

The

Sh

eriff

offi

ce a

nd JC

C ha

ve p

rovi

de w

ritte

n an

alys

es re

gard

ing

the

safe

ty ri

sk.

$

11,

400

$

9

,749

85

.52

198

FM-0

0634

27Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Cou

rtho

use

Wes

t19

-AX2

2Ex

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e (1

) 1/2

" cra

cked

cle

ar la

min

ated

gla

ss p

anel

app

rox

84" X

42"

in st

eel f

ram

e at

lobb

y ar

ea fo

r the

safe

ty o

f the

cou

rt st

aff a

nd v

isito

rs.

$

2

,536

$

2,0

42

80.5

2

199

FM-0

0634

28Sa

nta

Clar

aSu

nnyv

ale

Cour

thou

se43

-F1

2Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

lot -

Rem

ove

(1) F

alle

n tr

ee -

Rem

ove

all d

ebris

from

site

- Co

urt s

afet

y ha

zard

; win

d bl

ew

dow

n la

rge

sect

ion

of tr

ee $

2,4

67

$

2

,467

10

0

200

FM-0

0634

29Ke

rnBa

kers

field

Juve

nile

Ce

nter

15-C

12

Elev

ator

s, e

scal

ator

s, &

hoi

sts-

Repl

ace

phon

es in

ele

vato

rs 1

& 2

with

ADA

pho

nes t

o co

mpl

y w

ith c

urre

nt c

odes

. Ex

istin

g ph

ones

are

not

ADA

. $

3,5

62

$

2

,231

62

.64

201

FM-0

0634

30Ri

vers

ide

Lars

on Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

33-C

12

Plum

bing

- Do

mes

tic W

ater

Bac

kflo

w -

Inst

all n

ew 4

" mai

n do

mes

tic w

ater

bac

kflo

w d

evic

e ju

st a

fter

the

city

m

eter

feed

, per

the

Indi

o W

ater

Aut

horit

y by

way

of a

com

plia

nce

notic

e. W

ork

incl

udes

6 ft

dig

to h

ook

pipi

ng

behi

nd m

eter

.

$

19,

525

$

19,

015

97.3

9

202

FM-0

0634

31Lo

s Ang

eles

Ingl

ewoo

d Co

urth

ouse

19-F

12

HVAC

/ Dr

ain

hot l

oop,

rem

ove

pum

p an

d dr

op o

ff fo

r reb

uild

, pic

k up

new

ly re

built

pum

p an

d in

stal

l with

new

co

uplin

g, a

lign

pum

p an

d te

st o

pera

tion.

Hot

wat

er p

ump

seal

is le

akin

g at

the

coup

ling

and

has b

een

valv

ed o

ff to

pr

even

t a p

oten

tial c

eilin

g le

ak d

own

to th

e 6t

h flo

or. T

here

is o

nly

one

hot w

ater

pum

p cu

rren

tly ru

nnin

g. If

pum

p #5

wer

e to

go

dow

n th

ere

wou

ld b

e no

hea

ting

hot w

ater

supp

lied

to th

e bu

ildin

g.

$

9

,183

$

6,8

47

74.5

6

203

FM-0

0634

32Lo

s Ang

eles

Ingl

ewoo

d Co

urth

ouse

19-F

12

HVAC

- In

stal

l 1 w

ater

pre

ssur

e re

gula

tor o

n bo

iler m

ake

up w

ater

line

to m

aint

ain

wat

er p

ress

ure

belo

w th

e bo

iler

blee

d va

lve

activ

atio

n pr

essu

re o

f 70

psi.

Exce

ssiv

e in

com

ing

wat

er p

ress

ure

spik

ing

abov

e 80

psi a

nd tr

igge

ring

boile

r ble

ed v

alve

s whi

ch a

re a

ctiv

ated

at 7

0psi.

Thi

s cau

ses b

oile

rs to

beg

in d

umpi

ng w

ater

unt

il pr

essu

re d

rops

be

low

70

psi.

$

4

,751

$

3,5

42

74.5

6

204

FM-0

0634

33Sa

n Di

ego

East

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Ce

nter

37-I1

2Pl

umbi

ng-R

epla

ce 2

LF

of 2

" cop

per p

ipe,

fitt

ings

, and

shut

off

valv

e. V

alve

had

pin

hole

leak

. $

2,8

98

$

1

,962

67

.71

Page

15

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




205

FM-0

0634

34Sa

nta

Barb

ara

Sant

a M

aria

Cou

rts,

Bl

dg G

42-F

52

HVAC

- Th

e he

at e

xcha

nger

, ind

ucer

fan

asse

mbl

y, g

aske

ts, a

nd b

urne

rs fo

r thi

s uni

t are

dam

aged

to th

e po

int t

hat

they

are

no

long

er o

pera

ting

due

to a

ge. A

lso th

e bu

rner

s are

not

igni

ting

due

to fa

ilure

. Req

uire

s rep

lace

men

t of

the

heat

exc

hang

er, i

nduc

er fa

n as

sem

bly,

gas

kets

, and

bur

ners

to P

KU #

2. P

KU #

2 is

curr

ently

not

func

tioni

ng.

$

5

,603

$

5,6

03

100

206

FM-0

0634

37Tu

lare

Dinu

ba D

ivisi

on o

f th

e Tu

lare

Sup

erio

r Co

urt

54-E

12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

one

faile

d 8"

fire

sprin

kler

wat

er fl

ow sw

itch

and

repl

ace

two

12-v

olt f

ire a

larm

pan

el

batt

erie

s - T

o co

rrec

t def

icie

ncie

s not

ed d

urin

g an

nual

fire

ala

rm in

spec

tion.

$

1

,375

$

5

90

42.8

9

207

FM-0

0634

38Fr

esno

Fire

baug

h Co

urt

10-K

12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e fo

ur n

on-fu

nctio

ning

act

uato

rs -

Actu

ator

s hav

e fa

iled,

resu

lting

in la

ck o

f pro

per b

uild

ing

heat

for

occu

pant

s.

$

4

,824

$

2,7

99

58.0

2

208

FM-0

0634

39Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

Civi

c Ce

nter

Co

urth

ouse

38-A

12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

inst

all (

4) m

etal

edg

e gu

ards

ont

o 20

5 &

208

ent

ry d

oors

- ex

istin

g in

tern

al v

ertic

al ro

ds h

ave

crac

k do

ors -

cau

sing

door

s not

to c

lose

, sec

urity

issu

e - n

orm

al w

ear a

nd te

ar.

$

13,

717

$

13,

717

100

209

FM-0

0634

42Lo

s Ang

eles

Clar

a Sh

ortr

idge

Fol

tz

Crim

inal

Just

ice

Cent

er

19-L

12

Plum

bing

- Re

plac

e no

n-fu

nctio

ning

con

trol

boa

rd fo

r hea

t exc

hang

er #

1 du

e to

ele

ctric

al c

ompo

nent

s m

alfu

nctio

ning

, not

allo

win

g he

at e

xcha

nger

to h

elp

war

m w

ater

thro

ugho

ut th

e bu

ildin

g. $

4,3

65

$

3

,003

68

.79

210

FM-0

0616

60Sh

asta

Just

ice

Cent

er45

-A2

2CO

UN

TY M

ANAG

ED -

HVAC

- Re

plac

e th

e bu

ildin

gs g

as fi

red

boile

rs a

nd h

eat e

xcha

nger

s. T

he sy

stem

is b

eyon

d lif

e ex

pect

ancy

and

the

coils

are

faili

ng.

20,4

49$

20,4

49$

100

211

FM-0

0629

32O

rang

eCe

ntra

l Jus

tice

Cent

er30

-A1

2Pl

umbi

ng -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

two

sew

er p

ipes

, 10"

and

4",

bot

h 12

0' in

leng

th, i

n kn

own

ACM

env

ironm

ent.

Curr

ently

the

sew

er li

nes h

ave

crac

ks o

n to

p of

the

pipe

s and

leak

und

er p

ress

ure

from

bac

k up

. The

mai

n se

wer

lin

e ba

cked

up

and

leak

ed o

ver t

he b

reak

er c

ausin

g a

build

ing

pow

er sh

utdo

wn

and

cour

thou

se c

losu

re.

57,6

10$

52,5

23$

91.1

7

212

FM-0

0631

93Lo

s Ang

eles

Pom

ona

Cour

thou

se

Sout

h19

-W1

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

one

hund

red

fort

y-ei

ght (

148)

car

bon

stee

l boi

ler t

ubes

in b

oile

r num

ber 2

. Tu

bes a

re c

orro

ded

and

leak

ing.

34,5

80$

31,5

16$

91.1

4

213

FM-0

0632

68Ke

rnBa

kers

field

Sup

erio

r Co

urt

15-A

12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e PK

U w

ith 6

-ton

ene

rgy

effic

ient

uni

t tha

t inc

lude

s a fr

esh

air e

cono

mize

r. R

epla

ce c

onde

nsat

e lin

e an

d di

scon

nect

. Exi

stin

g un

it ha

s a fa

iled

com

pres

sor (

lock

ed u

p), a

nd b

ad c

oil (

leak

ing

oil).

19,3

63$

12,1

29$

62.6

4

214

FM-0

0632

72Lo

s Ang

eles

Pom

ona

Cour

thou

se

Sout

h19

-W1

2Fi

re p

rote

ctio

n - R

epla

ce m

ain

fire

pum

p. P

ump

is le

akin

g an

d co

rrod

ed a

nd fa

iled

unde

r a P

M.

21,5

07$

19,6

01$

91.1

4

215

FM-0

0633

30Co

ntra

Cos

taW

akef

ield

Tay

lor

Cour

thou

se07

-A2

2El

ectr

ical

- De

sign

- Pro

vide

des

ign

for r

epla

cem

ent o

f exi

stin

g em

erge

ncy

gene

rato

r. Ex

istin

g ge

nera

tor i

s at e

nd o

f lif

e; E

ffici

ency

is d

own

25%

, whi

ch is

bar

ely

enou

gh to

han

dle

the

load

; ele

vato

rs a

re o

n ge

nera

tor p

ower

; Uni

t re

quire

s fre

quen

t mai

nten

ance

; wat

er p

ump

is le

akin

g.

43,0

35$

43,0

35$

100

216

FM-0

0633

79N

apa

Crim

inal

Cou

rt

Build

ing

28-A

12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

Fai

led

Fire

Doo

rs a

nd S

mok

e Da

mpe

rs -

(2) T

wo

Coun

ter R

oll-U

p Fi

re D

oors

(phy

sical

ly

boun

d pr

even

ting

prop

er o

pera

tion)

and

(3) T

hree

Sm

oke

Dam

pers

(int

erna

l gea

r fai

lure

) fai

led

durin

g te

stin

g,

prio

r to

insp

ectio

n by

the

Fire

Dep

artm

ent,

and

they

requ

ire re

plac

emen

t.

44,3

96$

44,3

96$

100

217

FM-0

0633

93Sa

nta

Barb

ara

Sant

a M

aria

Cou

rts

Bldg

s C +

D42

-F1

2Pl

umbi

ng -

Repl

ace

80 L

F of

3" D

omes

tic w

ater

pip

e ex

terio

r loc

ated

in th

e La

ndsc

ape

area

. Tr

ench

thro

ugh

70 L

F of

law

n ar

ea a

nd sa

w c

ut/t

renc

h th

roug

h 10

LF

of c

oncr

ete

to e

xpos

e pi

pe. P

ipe

is de

terio

rate

d &

rust

ed d

ue to

ag

e. R

emed

iatio

n ve

ndor

to re

mov

e AC

M fr

om e

xist

ing

pipe

prio

r to

cutt

ing

out a

nd re

mov

al a

nd w

ill p

rope

rly

rem

ove

pipe

from

pre

mise

s. E

nviro

nmen

tal o

vers

ight

will

be

incl

uded

. Dom

estic

wat

er se

rvic

es e

ntire

Cou

rt

build

ing.

52,5

80$

28,7

61$

54.7

218

FM-0

0633

95Lo

s Ang

eles

Stan

ley

Mos

k Co

urth

ouse

19-K

12

Elev

ator

s, e

scal

ator

s, a

nd h

oist

s-Co

mpl

ianc

e - R

epla

ce e

ight

(8) d

oubl

e w

rapp

ed e

leva

tor c

able

s and

wed

ged

shac

kles

. Ro

pes t

o be

repl

aced

per

Dep

artm

ent o

f Ind

ustr

ial R

elat

ions

Ord

ers t

o co

rrec

t.24

,269

$

23

,604

$

97

.26

219

FM-0

0634

08Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

San

Bern

ardi

no

Just

ice

Cent

er36

-R1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e (1

) ext

erio

r win

dow

pan

e 61

-1/2

" X 6

9-3/

4" re

ctan

gle

1/4"

SB9

0 TP

/7/1

6" C

lr La

mi T

P on

the

11th

floo

r. Gl

ass i

s cra

cked

on

uppe

r cor

ner d

ue to

unk

now

n re

ason

that

is c

urre

ntly

bei

ng in

vest

igat

ed. A

sp

ecia

l boo

m lo

ng e

noug

h to

reac

h th

e 11

th fl

oor m

ust b

e us

ed a

fter

-hou

rs to

repl

ace

the

glas

s. W

indo

w c

urre

ntly

le

aks w

hen

it ra

ins.

15,5

98$

15,5

98$

100

Page

16

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




220

FM-0

0634

44Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

Juve

nile

Dep

ende

ncy

Cour

thou

se36

-P1

2HV

AC -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

indo

or c

oil w

hich

is c

logg

ed a

nd T

XV o

n ai

r con

ditio

ner (

PKU

18).

AC u

nit n

ot p

rovi

ding

ad

equa

te c

oolin

g to

affe

cted

are

a cr

eatin

g un

conf

orta

ble

tem

pera

ture

s for

the

staf

f.10

,125

$

5,

521

$

54

.53

221

FM-0

0634

45Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

San

Bern

ardi

no

Just

ice

Cent

er36

-R1

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

Boile

r Blo

wer

Ass

embl

y. B

low

er fa

iled,

uni

t shu

t dow

n an

d is

not p

rovi

ding

com

fort

hea

ting

to

occu

pied

spac

es.

4,19

0$

4,19

0$

100

222

FM-0

0634

53Lo

s Ang

eles

San

Fern

ando

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

C12

Elev

ator

s, E

scal

ator

s, &

Hoi

sts -

Rep

lace

non

-func

tioni

ng fa

ns in

the

cab

of C

usto

dy E

leva

tors

#2

& #

3. F

an h

as

faile

d ca

usin

g th

e el

evat

or to

get

ext

rem

ely

hot f

or p

asse

nger

s.5,

361

$

5,

361

$

10

0

223

FM-0

0634

62Lo

s Ang

eles

Edm

und

D. E

delm

an

Child

ren'

s Cou

rt19

-Q1

2Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n - R

epla

ce o

ne (1

) 8 a

mp

fuse

on

pow

er su

pply

for F

ire A

larm

pan

el. S

peak

ers d

id n

ot m

eet r

equi

red

deci

bels

for e

mer

genc

y th

e al

arm

s to

be h

eard

, disc

over

ed d

urin

g th

e An

nual

Fire

Ala

rm P

anel

PM

- 27

7274

5.17

3$

121

$

69

.99

224

FM-0

0634

63Lo

s Ang

eles

Mon

rovi

a Tr

aini

ng

Cent

er19

-N1

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- SF

M C

orre

ctio

n-Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ap

prox

. 10

squa

re fe

et o

f flo

or ti

les t

hat h

ave

raise

d th

roug

h se

ttlin

g, g

rind

dow

n co

ncre

te fl

oorin

g, a

nd re

plac

e til

es. E

nviro

nmen

tal t

estin

g w

ork

to b

e pe

rfor

med

un

der k

now

n AC

M e

nviro

nmen

t. Fl

oor h

as ra

ised

thro

ugh

time

& o

bstr

uctin

g Fi

re ra

ted

doub

le d

oors

from

clo

sing,

m

ain

hallw

ay.

10,1

15$

7,11

0$

70.2

9

225

FM-0

0634

64Lo

s Ang

eles

Com

pton

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

G12

Elec

tric

al -

400

AMP

Brea

kers

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e fo

ur 4

00 A

MP/

600

Volt

Brea

kers

and

ass

ocia

ted

wiri

ng to

the

Chill

er P

umps

and

VFD

's. T

herm

al im

agin

g re

ques

ted

by JC

C In

spec

tor,

the

tem

pera

ture

s wer

e at

90

degr

ees,

wel

l ab

ove

norm

al o

pera

tiona

l tem

pera

ture

s.

10,0

00$

6,61

3$

66.1

3

226

FM-0

0634

71Lo

s Ang

eles

Nor

wal

k Co

urth

ouse

19-A

K12

HVAC

-Rep

lace

one

(1) 4

60 V

70

A 3

Ph se

cond

ary

com

pres

sor f

or p

acka

ge u

nit 1

. Hig

h pr

essu

re li

ne fa

iled

on

exist

ing

com

pres

sor,

whi

ch is

now

non

-func

tiona

l and

cau

sing

high

tem

pret

ures

in e

leva

tor m

achi

ne ro

om.

3,41

1$

2,90

0$

85.0

3

227

FM-0

0634

73Sa

n Be

nito

New

Hol

liste

r Co

urth

ouse

35-C

12

Exte

rior S

hell

- Cor

rect

faile

d Ex

it do

or A

DA o

pene

r; re

plac

e (1

) doo

r ope

rato

r and

(1) o

pera

tor c

ontr

ol b

oard

; pr

ogra

m o

pera

tor c

ontr

ols a

nd te

st fo

r ope

ratio

n - A

DA d

oor o

pene

r fai

led

caus

ing

acce

ss is

sues

to fa

cilit

y; o

nly

avai

labl

e un

it at

faci

lity.

6,85

1$

6,85

1$

100

228

FM-0

0634

77Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

Cent

ral C

ourt

hous

e36

-A1

2El

evat

ors,

esc

alat

ors,

& h

oist

s-Re

plac

e on

e (1

) rop

e gr

ippe

r cyl

inde

r for

ele

vato

r #2.

Ele

vato

r rop

e gr

ippe

r is f

aulty

, ca

usin

g th

e el

evat

or to

stal

l/fai

l.

3,

160

$

3,

022

$

95

.64

229

FM-0

0634

78La

ke

Sout

h Ci

vic

Cent

er17

-B1

2Pl

umbi

ng -

Repl

ace

copp

er e

lbow

- Re

pair

leak

ing

2 1/

2" w

ater

line

abo

ve c

eilin

g. Is

olat

e do

mes

tic w

ater

sour

ce

and

repa

ir.4,

224

$

4,

224

$

10

0

230

FM-0

0634

81Sa

n M

ateo

Nor

ther

n Br

anch

Co

urth

ouse

41-C

12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e (1

) fai

led

supp

ly fa

n VF

D to

AHU

1 - V

FD w

ill n

ot o

pera

te o

n "a

uto"

man

ual o

ver-

ride

"on-

hand

" to

supp

ly a

ir - O

rigin

al (1

8yr)

VFD

has

faile

d ca

usin

g lo

ss o

f sup

ply

air t

o 3

Cour

troo

ms,

pub

lic &

secu

re a

reas

.16

,292

$

13

,557

$

83

.21

231

FM-0

0634

83Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Cou

rtho

use

Wes

t19

-AX2

2El

evat

ors,

Esc

alat

ors,

& H

oist

s - R

esur

face

bre

ak d

rum

, rep

lace

bra

ke sh

oes,

piv

ot a

rms,

and

bra

ke p

ins,

and

pr

ovid

e fu

ll lo

ad te

st fo

r Em

ploy

ee E

leva

tor #

5. E

leva

tor b

reak

s are

wor

n an

d ou

t of a

djus

tmen

t due

to u

sage

&

wea

r/te

ar, c

reat

ing

a sa

fety

situ

atio

n. E

leva

tor i

s out

of s

ervi

ce o

n gr

ound

leve

l & L

ocke

d O

ut/T

agge

d O

ut (s

hut-

dow

n).

27,0

57$

24,2

81$

89.7

4

232

FM-0

0634

86La

ssen

Hall

of Ju

stic

e18

-C1

2HV

AC -

Mai

n BA

S co

ntro

ller h

as fa

iled.

Inst

all u

sed

tem

pora

ry F

X70

cont

rolle

r to

get b

y un

til n

ew F

X 80

con

trol

ler i

s in

stal

led

to g

et B

AS sy

stem

bac

k on

line.

10

,944

$

10

,944

$

10

0

233

FM-0

0634

88Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Cou

rtho

use

Wes

t19

-AX2

2In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Re

stor

e pl

aste

r cei

ling

arou

nd 1

50 sp

rinkl

er h

eads

in L

ock

up a

reas

. Gap

s aro

und

the

sprin

kler

he

ads a

re a

poi

nt p

enet

ratio

n an

d no

ted

in th

e st

ate

fire

mar

shal

repo

rt.

12,3

63$

12,3

63$

100

234

FM-0

0634

90Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Cou

rtho

use

Wes

t19

-AX2

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

(1) b

oard

and

rela

ys fo

r Boi

ler #

3. T

he m

ain

boar

d ha

s fai

led

and

boile

r is n

on-o

pera

tiona

l and

af

fect

ing

hot w

ater

supp

ly.

3,74

3$

3,35

9$

89.7

4

235

FM-0

0634

94Sa

n Di

ego

Cent

ral C

ourt

hous

e37

-L1

2Va

ndal

ism -

Rest

ore

stai

nles

s ste

el su

rfac

e on

pub

lic e

leva

tor #

1. T

he in

terio

r cab

was

mar

red

with

gan

g re

late

d gr

affit

i.3,

199

$

3,

199

$

10

0

236

FM-0

0634

97Sa

nta

Clar

aHa

ll of

Just

ice

(Wes

t)43

-A2

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

faile

d (1

) HHW

pum

p; In

stal

l new

(1) c

ontr

ol v

alve

, (2)

new

fitt

ings

w/s

eals;

che

ck o

pera

tion

- 25

yr. o

ld, h

eatin

g ho

t wat

er p

ump

faile

d ca

usin

g lo

ss o

f hea

t in

build

ing.

5,50

9$

5,50

9$

100

Page

17

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




237

FM-0

0635

01Sa

n Di

ego

East

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Ce

nter

37-I1

2In

terio

r fin

ishes

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e be

ddin

g fo

r 65

SF o

f buc

klin

g flo

or ti

les p

rese

ntin

g a

Safe

ty a

nd tr

ippi

ng

haza

rd -

1st f

loor

pub

lic h

allw

ay a

nd g

roun

d flo

or e

leva

tor l

obby

- ex

istin

g flo

or ti

les t

o be

rem

oved

, pre

pare

su

bflo

or, i

nsta

llatio

n of

new

bed

ding

and

rein

stal

latio

n of

exi

stin

g flo

or ti

les.

App

ly a

dhes

ive

to a

noth

er 1

00 S

F of

lo

ose

tiles

. En

viro

nmen

tal o

vers

ight

requ

ired

for r

emov

al o

f tile

s.

12,9

23$

8,75

0$

67.7

1

238

FM-0

0635

04Su

tter

Sutt

er C

ount

y Su

perio

r Cou

rtho

use

51-C

12

HVAC

- Tw

o te

chni

cian

s Rem

oved

50h

p w

eigh

t app

rox.

350

lb. m

otor

- di

sass

embl

e m

otor

rem

ove

rear

bea

ring

and

inst

all n

ew. F

ront

bea

ring

wou

ld n

ot c

ome

off w

ith p

ulle

r, ha

d to

cut

fron

t bea

ring

from

mot

or sh

aft,

clea

n an

d dr

ess s

haft

, ins

tall

new

fron

t bea

ring.

Rei

nsta

ll m

otor

bac

k in

pla

ce, i

nsta

ll te

nsio

n be

lts, t

est r

un m

otor

.

3,55

1$

3,55

1$

100

239

FM-0

0635

05Sa

n Di

ego

Nor

th C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r -

Nor

th

37-F

22

Plum

bing

Re

plac

ed o

ne (1

) uni

on a

nd o

ne (1

) 90

degr

ee a

ngle

con

nect

or o

n th

e do

mes

tic h

ot w

ater

loop

, one

(1)

inle

t die

lect

ric fi

ttin

g fo

r col

d w

ater

loop

, and

one

(1) d

iele

ctric

fitt

ing

and

nipp

le a

t val

ve o

n ho

t wat

er ta

nk in

ce

iling

ple

num

due

to le

aks c

ause

d by

oxi

datio

n an

d co

rros

ion

at so

lder

and

die

lect

ric c

onne

ctio

ns.

Leak

satu

rate

d ce

iling

tile

s and

impa

cted

D9

thru

D12

pub

lic c

orrid

or re

sulti

ng in

a P

1.

14,7

54$

14,7

54$

100

240

FM-0

0635

12Lo

s Ang

eles

Dow

ney

Cour

thou

se19

-AM

12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

cor

rode

d 4"

nip

ple

at ri

ser a

nd re

plac

e ai

r com

pres

sor t

hat i

s con

tinua

lly c

yclin

g &

st

rugg

ling

to c

ompr

ess a

ir. T

hese

are

def

ects

foun

d du

ring

the

LEVE

L IV

PM

- PR

E-AC

TIO

N F

IRE

SYST

EM (P

RE) -

27

8824

5.

5,53

3$

4,63

1$

83.7

241

FM-0

0635

13Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Cou

rtho

use

Wes

t19

-AX2

2El

ectr

ical

- Re

plac

e (1

) 1 H

P m

otor

for l

oadi

ng d

ock

gate

that

has

bur

ned

out

Mot

or h

as fa

iled

not a

llow

ing

the

gate

to b

e ra

ised

or lo

wer

ed w

hich

is c

ausin

g pr

oble

ms f

or d

eliv

erie

s for

the

cour

thou

se.

4,01

1$

3,22

8$

80.4

8

242

FM-0

0635

16Lo

s Ang

eles

Mic

hael

D.

Anto

novi

ch A

ntel

ope

Valle

y Co

urth

ouse

19-A

Z12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e (1

)15

HP V

FD, (

1) 1

5HP

Mot

or a

ir ha

ndle

r uni

t tha

t ser

ves t

he c

afet

eria

and

judg

e's l

oung

e. V

FD

has f

aile

d an

d m

otor

bea

ring

are

faili

ng re

sulti

ng in

no

air.

13,3

93$

9,84

5$

73.5

1

243

FM-0

0635

24O

rang

eN

orth

Just

ice

Cent

er30

-C1

2Pl

umbi

ng -

Wat

er H

eate

r - R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e fa

iled

100

gallo

n w

ater

hea

ter l

ocat

ed in

the

bus b

ay o

f the

co

urth

ouse

. The

cur

rent

uni

t is a

ctiv

ely

leak

ing

and

serv

ices

two-

third

s of t

he b

uild

ing

(pha

ses 1

and

2).

Wor

k in

clud

es ti

e in

to e

xist

ing

cold

and

hot

wat

er a

t shu

t off

valv

es, g

as ti

e in

, ven

ting,

stra

ppin

g an

d su

ppor

ts.

9,65

6$

8,72

0$

90.3

1

244

FM-0

0635

25Sa

nta

Clar

aHa

ll of

Just

ice

(Eas

t)43

-A1

2Va

ndal

ism -

Repl

ace

(1) c

rack

ed w

indo

w a

t hol

ding

cel

l (ap

prox

. 20

x 32

x 1

3/16

) - In

-Cus

tody

smas

hed

hold

ing

cell

win

dow

; cur

rent

ly c

ompr

omisi

ng th

e co

urt h

oldi

ng c

ell c

apab

ility

.4,

449

$

4,

449

$

10

0

245

FM-0

0635

30Sa

nta

Clar

aSu

nnyv

ale

Cour

thou

se43

-F1

2Gr

ound

s and

Par

king

Lot

- Re

mov

e (4

) fal

len

tree

s fro

m si

te -

Safe

ty h

azar

d at

pub

lic w

alkw

ays a

nd p

arki

ng a

rea

- Tr

ees h

ave

falle

n du

e to

hig

h w

inds

.6,

303

$

6,

303

$

10

0

246

FM-0

0635

32Fr

esno

Fire

baug

h Co

urt

10-K

12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Pro

vide

labo

r, ba

ckho

e, a

nd a

ll m

ater

ials

to d

ig u

p co

rrod

ed e

xist

ing

fire

sprin

kler

pip

e an

d re

plac

e w

ith n

ew, a

nd p

rovi

de la

bor a

nd m

ater

ials

to in

stal

l new

con

cret

e ki

cker

/thr

ust b

lock

beh

ind

the

riser

90

degr

ee

pipe

. Fire

sprin

kler

pip

e se

rvin

g va

cant

hol

ding

are

a ha

s rup

ture

d, c

ausin

g flo

odin

g an

d sh

uttin

g do

wn

the

fire

sprin

kler

syst

em. C

ity o

f Fire

baug

h Fi

re C

hief

to in

spec

t.

8,33

3$

8,33

3$

100

247

FM-0

0635

38Fr

esno

Fres

no C

ount

y Co

urth

ouse

10-A

12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e fo

ur n

on-fu

nctio

ning

, obs

olet

e fir

e da

mpe

r act

uato

rs lo

cate

d in

the

B-2

attic

spac

e w

ith n

ew fi

re-

rate

d ac

tuat

ors w

ith d

ampe

r arm

kits

- Da

mpe

r act

uato

rs a

re n

ot fu

nctio

ning

pro

perly

and

nee

d to

be

repl

aced

.3,

291

$

3,

291

$

10

0

248

FM-0

0635

39Sa

n Di

ego

Sout

h Co

unty

Re

gion

al C

ente

r37

-H1

2In

terio

r fin

ishes

- Re

plac

e (3

) Doo

r Lev

erse

t Clu

tch

Hous

ings

at p

ublic

ent

ranc

e to

Dep

t 12,

14

and

16. T

he e

xist

ing

units

mal

-func

tione

d re

sulti

ng in

failu

re to

ope

n or

lock

the

door

s con

siste

ntly

. The

inte

rnal

hou

sings

are

mad

e of

pl

astic

and

sprin

gs a

nd h

ave

faile

d ov

er ti

me

due

to th

e ag

e an

d us

e.

5,39

4$

5,39

4$

100

Page

18

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




249

FM-0

0635

43Lo

s Ang

eles

Stan

ley

Mos

k Co

urth

ouse

19-K

12

Elev

ator

s, E

scal

ator

s, h

oist

s - R

epla

ce b

roke

n st

ep tr

eads

on

esca

lato

rs 8

-7 W

& 7

-6 W

and

rem

ove

debr

is fr

om

top

end

of e

scal

ator

s, c

lean

dow

n ex

cess

ive

grea

se. T

his w

ork

is fo

r exi

stin

g es

cala

tor R

egul

ator

y Co

mpl

ianc

e Co

rrec

tions

. All

com

plia

nce

wor

k re

quire

d is

outs

ide

of th

e re

nova

tion

proj

ect i

nvol

ving

com

plet

ely

diffe

rent

scop

e of

wor

k.

29,1

70$

28,3

71$

97.2

6

250

FM-0

0635

44Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Cou

rtho

use

Wes

t19

-AX2

2Pl

umbi

ng -

Repl

ace

(1) t

oile

t sin

k co

mbo

in th

e 5t

h flo

or h

oldi

ng c

ell.

Toi

let a

nd si

nk c

ombo

has

faile

d an

d is

non-

oper

atio

nal,

inte

rnal

par

ts h

ave

been

leak

ing

and

corr

oded

the

plum

bing

fixt

ure.

Hol

ding

cel

l can

't be

use

d an

d is

disr

uptin

g co

urt o

pera

tions

.

7,19

2$

7,19

2$

100

251

FM-0

0635

53Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Cou

rtho

use

Wes

t19

-AX2

2Ex

terio

r - R

e-se

al (2

) tile

pat

io d

ecks

(app

roxi

mat

ely

300

sq. f

t.) o

n th

e 10

th fl

oor w

ith 2

coa

ts o

f epo

xy c

omm

erci

al

grad

e se

aler

. Exi

stin

g de

ckin

g ha

s cra

cks a

nd jo

ints

allo

win

g w

ater

to le

ak d

own

to th

e 9t

h flo

or.

11,0

12$

8,86

2$

80.4

8

252

FM-0

0635

56M

onte

rey

Mar

ina

Cour

thou

se27

-B1

2Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n - R

epla

ce 1

" x 1

-0 N

ippl

e an

d 1

x 1/

2 RC

on

the

ITV

- Rep

lace

(2) O

S&Y

tam

per s

witc

hes o

n ba

ck-

flow

that

are

show

ing

signs

of c

orro

sion

- Add

(2) F

DC a

nd C

ontr

ol w

ith a

ddre

sses

- Re

pair

defic

ienc

ies n

oted

on

5 yr

insp

ectio

n - R

egul

ator

y co

mpl

ianc

e.

6,69

4$

6,69

4$

100

253

FM-0

0635

58Sa

n Di

ego

Nor

th C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r -

Nor

th

37-F

22

Inte

rior f

inish

es -

Repl

ace

100

SF o

f cei

ling

tiles

and

splin

e in

con

fere

nce

room

B. C

eilin

g w

as d

amag

ed fr

om w

ater

le

akin

g fr

om ro

of, d

ue to

faul

ty ro

of d

rain

. Not

with

in o

rigin

al sc

ope

of ro

of w

ork.

7,26

5$

7,26

5$

100

254

FM-0

0635

59Al

amed

aW

iley

W. M

anue

l Co

urth

ouse

01-B

32

Exte

rior S

hell

- Rem

ove

exist

ing

stor

efro

nt d

oor (

1) a

nd o

pera

tor;

rem

ove

floor

clo

ser;

inst

all n

ew a

lum

inum

/gla

ss

door

(1) t

o m

atch

adj

acen

t doo

rs; i

nsta

ll ne

w to

uch-

bar e

lect

ric p

anic

dev

ice

(com

plia

nce)

; rep

lace

exi

stin

g hi

nges

w

/new

full

heig

ht, h

eavy

-dut

y, m

ortis

e ge

ared

hin

ge; i

nsta

ll (1

) new

com

mer

cial

ADA

ope

rato

r; re

-use

exi

stin

g el

ectr

ical

supp

ly, a

cces

s con

trol

s and

bra

ss d

oor h

andl

e –

Mai

n en

try/

exit

door

is n

ot o

pera

ting

due

to c

onst

ant

use

caus

ing

hing

es a

nd d

oor o

pene

r to

fail.

11,5

99$

9,72

0$

83.8

255

FM-0

0635

60Lo

s Ang

eles

Clar

a Sh

ortr

idge

Fol

tz

Crim

inal

Just

ice

Cent

er

19-L

12

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

Prov

ide

envi

ronm

enta

l tes

ting,

inst

all c

onta

inm

ent a

ppro

xim

atel

y 5'

x5'x

8', r

emov

e da

mag

ed

ceili

ng a

ppro

xim

atel

y 46

sq ft

, per

form

hep

a-va

cuum

ing

& w

ipe

dow

n al

l sur

face

s in

rest

room

, ins

tall

5/8"

dry

wal

l, pr

imer

& p

aint

to re

stor

e ba

thro

om b

ack

to u

sabl

e co

nditi

ons.

Res

troo

m lo

cate

d in

sub

leve

l P. C

eilin

g no

w

show

ing

efflo

resc

ence

and

is d

eter

iora

ting

due

to p

revi

ously

repa

ired

leak

s.

14,0

23$

9,64

7$

68.7

9

256

FM-0

0635

61Lo

s Ang

eles

Clar

a Sh

ortr

idge

Fol

tz

Crim

inal

Just

ice

Cent

er

19-L

12

Exte

rior S

hell

- Rem

ove

exist

ing

lett

ers o

n bu

ildin

g na

me

mon

umen

t, pa

int m

atte

bla

ck, f

abric

ate

new

lett

ers t

o re

plac

e co

ntin

uous

ly v

anda

lized

mon

umen

t, se

cure

lett

ers t

o 2.

5" st

ainl

ess s

teel

met

al to

secu

re to

bui

ldin

g to

pr

even

t fur

ther

van

dalis

m to

mon

umen

t.

14,1

60$

9,74

1$

68.7

9

257

FM-0

0635

63Al

amed

aHa

ywar

d Ha

ll of

Ju

stic

e01

-D1

2HV

AC -

Repl

ace

Faile

d an

d le

akin

g Ho

t wat

er c

oil -

Inst

all (

1) n

ew c

ircui

t set

ter a

nd (1

) new

die

-ele

ctric

uni

on o

n HH

W p

ipin

g at

rehe

at c

oil -

Cur

rent

ly c

oil i

s shu

tdow

n an

d ef

fect

ing

cour

t hea

ting

capa

city

2,77

9$

2,45

4$

88.3

258

FM-0

0635

64Ri

vers

ide

Lars

on Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

33-C

12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Mai

n Fi

re P

anel

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e fa

iled

fire

alar

m p

ower

supp

ly/m

aste

r mon

itor c

ard.

The

fir

e pa

nel i

s cur

rent

ly sh

owin

g 7

false

trou

bles

thro

ugho

ut th

e bu

ildin

g th

at c

anno

t be

reso

lved

or c

lear

ed w

ithou

t th

e ca

rd re

plac

emen

t. W

ork

incl

udes

full

rete

stin

g of

the

entir

e fir

e al

arm

syst

em d

ue to

rem

oval

of p

ower

car

d.

The

elec

tric

al p

anel

serv

ing

the

fire

pane

l will

be

take

n do

wn

to p

erfo

rm th

e w

ork

and

lock

ed o

ut.

6,43

2$

5,19

8$

80.8

1

259

FM-0

0635

65Sa

n Di

ego

East

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Ce

nter

37-I1

2Pl

umbi

ng-R

epla

ce o

ne (1

) Bea

ring

asse

mbl

y an

d se

al fo

r dom

estic

hot

wat

er p

ump

and

uncl

og d

rain

. Pu

mp

was

le

akin

g.2,

800

$

1,

896

$

67

.71

260

FM-0

0635

68Lo

s Ang

eles

Com

pton

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

G12

Plum

bing

-Rep

lace

40

Lf o

f 6" d

rain

pip

e in

par

king

gar

age.

Pip

e is

crac

ked

in v

ario

us p

lace

s, c

ausin

g a

leak

and

slip

ha

zard

to p

edes

tria

ns in

the

park

ing

gara

ge.

11,0

22$

7,28

9$

66.1

3

261

FM-0

0635

70Lo

s Ang

eles

Com

pton

Cou

rtho

use

19-A

G12

HVAC

- Re

plac

e 40

Lf o

f 1 1

/2" c

oppe

r pip

e an

d fiv

e (5

) 1 1

/2" v

alve

s on

heat

exc

hang

er #

3. In

sula

te n

ew p

ipin

g.

Exch

ange

r sup

ply

and

retu

rn li

nes h

ave

smal

l lea

ks a

nd th

e iso

latio

n va

lves

do

not h

old.

14,4

50$

9,55

6$

66.1

3

262

FM-0

0632

01Ri

vers

ide

Rive

rsid

e Ju

veni

le C

ou33

-N1

2Ro

of -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

exist

ing

roof

with

new

80

mil

PVC

singl

e-pl

y ro

of sy

stem

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ap

prox

im

92

0,00

0$

45

3,92

8$

49

.34

Page

19

of 2

0

Atta

chm

ent A

TCFM

AC-F

unde

d Pr

ojec

t Lis

tQ

uart

er 3

, Fis

cal Y

ear 2

018-

19#

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHO

RT T

ITLE




263

FM-0

0629

70Sa

n Lu

is O

bisp

oCo

urth

ouse

Ann

ex40

-A1

2Co

unty

Man

aged

- Ex

terio

r She

ll - S

eal 1

20ft

x 4

stor

ies o

f win

dow

s/sli

ding

doo

rs a

t wes

t ent

ranc

e. R

emov

e ca

ulki

ng, g

rind

conc

rete

, ins

tall

new

pan

s, in

stal

l sill

pan

in c

oncr

ete

pit t

o ad

dres

s dra

inag

e iss

ues.

Inst

all n

ew

seal

ant a

nd c

aulk

ing,

pai

nt. -

The

ext

erio

r she

ll is

show

ing

seve

re si

gns o

f deg

rada

tion,

leak

s, a

nd in

adeq

uate

dr

aina

ge a

t bas

emen

t lev

el, c

urre

nt in

stal

latio

n w

ell b

eyon

d eo

l. Si

gns o

f pos

sible

indo

or b

iolo

gic

grow

th

prev

entio

n; in

stal

l is m

eant

to b

e a

5 ye

ar in

stal

latio

n pe

ndin

g la

rger

pro

ject

.

101,

469

$

101,

469

$

100.

00

7,65

4,27

3$

5,91

8,27

6$

Page

20

of 2

0

Attachmen

t BCo

urt‐Fu

nded

Facilitie

s Req

uests (CF

Rs)

Qua

rter 3, Fiscal Y

ear 2

018‐19

ITEM #

CFR NUMBER

COUNTY

BUILDING ID

FACILITY NAME

LEASE, LICENSE, OR FM

CFR DESCR

IPTION

CFR TERM

FUND SOURCE

TOTAL ESTIMATED CFR COMMITMENT(CFR Term)

107

‐CFR

007

Contra Costa

07‐A14

Family Law

Cen

ter

Facility

Mod

ificatio

nCo

nvert a

n existing worksho

p room

with

in th

e Family Law

Cen

ter into a Ch

ildren's W

aitin

g Ro

om

which in

clud

es in

stallatio

n of a new

restroom

with

in th

e child

ren's w

aitin

g room

.One

‐Tim

eSp

ecial

Revenu

e Non

‐Grant

$80,00

0

224

‐CFR

021

Merced

24‐A1

Old Cou

rtFacility

Mod

ificatio

nOther fa

cility im

prov

emen

ts th

at are not allo

wab

le cou

rt ope

ratio

ns expen

ditures u

nder ru

le

10.810

: One

‐tim

e bu

dget expen

se in

the am

ount of $

43,600

to paint th

e exterio

r of the

building.

One

‐Tim

eTC

TF$4

3,60

0

324

‐CFR

022

Merced

24‐F2

810 West M

ain

Street

Lease

Rene

wal of lea

se fo

r records storage at M

cAuley Prope

rties. This location is used

to store the

court's civil, crim

inal, and

Fam

ily Law

cases in

clud

ing system

furnitu

re equ

ipmen

tOng

oing

TCTF

$74,16

0

430

‐CFR

029

Orang

e30

‐E3

HJC New

port Bea

ch

Parking License

Lease

One

yea

r lea

se re

newal fo

r 50 pa

rking spaces on a mon

th to

mon

th basis at 519

0 Ca

mpu

s/46

99

Jambo

ree, New

port Bea

ch, C

A 92

660 from

WPI‐New

port, LLC fo

r employ

ee parking

.One

‐Tim

eTC

TF$3

9,40

4

534

‐CFR

009

Sacram

ento

34‐A1

Gordo

n Scha

ber

Sacram

ento

Supe

rior C

ourt

Facility

Mod

ificatio

nCo

nvert v

acan

t office sp

ace into a large conferen

ce/training room

. Th

e scop

e of th

e work includ

es

demo of in

terio

r office walls, patch and

paint, rem

ove electrical outlets and

ligh

t switc

hes from

interio

r office walls, re

route the HV

AC con

trol th

ermostat, an

d install n

ew carpe

t.

One

‐Tim

eTC

TF$1

8,56

8

634

‐CFR

010

Sacram

ento

34‐J1

813 6th Street

Lease

This requ

est relocates cou

rt fu

nctio

ns from

two sepe

rate leased

buildings, and

con

solid

ates

functio

ns with

in th

e fourth floo

r of the

Hall o

f Justic

e bu

ilding. Terminating the tw

o leases at 9

01 H

Street and

800

H Stree

t results in

a net sa

ving

s in rent and

utilities of o

ver $

96,000

a yea

r.

One

‐Tim

eTC

TF$7

1,43

3

736

‐CFR

054

San Be

rnardino

36‐F1

Rancho

Cucam

onga

Courthou

seFacility

Mod

ificatio

nTh

e $1

00,000

will cov

er th

e de

sign an

d en

gine

ering cost re

quire

d to expan

d the room

into adjacen

t court o

ccup

ied space. This e

xpan

sion crea

tes a

new

entry in

the lobb

y, m

ore seating, and

larger

room

.

One

‐Tim

eNon

‐TCT

F$1

00,000

836

‐CFR

055

San Be

rnardino

36‐L1

Victorville

Courthou

seFacility

Mod

ificatio

nRe

locatio

n of th

e family law cou

rtroom

s, in

clud

ing, Self H

elp Re

source Cen

ter a

nd Fam

ily Cou

rt

from

Victorville to Barstow

. Plus th

e op

ening of a children's w

aitin

g room

in Barstow

. Also

reprog

ramming the Victorville fo

otprint to ad

d courtroo

m, expan

sion of ju

ry ro

om and

Self H

elp

Resource Cen

ter, an

d child

ren's w

aitin

g room

with

in existing bu

ilding footprint

One

‐Tim

eNon

‐TCT

F$2

25,000

942

‐CFR

012

Santa Ba

rbara

42‐A1

Santa Ba

rbara

Coun

ty Cou

rtho

use

Facility

Mod

ificatio

nInstallin

g security an

ti‐ba

llistic glazin

g in building for improv

ed se

curity in clerk's office.

One

‐Tim

eTC

TF$1

35,885

1042

‐CFR

013

Santa Ba

rbara

42‐F1

Santa Maria Cou

rts

Bldg

s C + D

Facility

Mod

ificatio

nIn order to

take adv

antage of the

con

tractor's presence on

site th

e court w

ishes to

add

the

bathroom

to th

e cham

bers in

con

junctio

n with

the restoration .

One

‐Tim

eTC

TF$5

0,00

0

1143

‐CFR

014

Santa Clara

43‐B6

64 N. M

arket S

tree

tLease

Lease extension to con

tinue

to provide

parking

for jurors.

Ong

oing

TCTF

$120

,000

1248

‐CFR

007

Solano

48‐A1

Hall of Ju

stice

Lease

Office sp

ace for the

Cou

rt Executiv

e Office (A

dministratio

n, HR, Fisc

al, IT Director, Facilitie

s and

Jury

Man

ager, C

ollabo

rativ

e Co

urts M

anager)

The lease is for 4

,437

squa

re fe

et at 5

50‐600

Union

Avenu

e, 3rd Floor, Fairfield. Th

e mon

thly re

nt is

$8,075

.34 or ann

ually $96

,904

.08 exclud

ing janitoria

l services. The

startin

g rate of $

1.82

has ann

ual

nickel in

crea

ses.

Ong

oing

TCTF

$657

,260

1322

‐CFR

020

Mariposa

22‐C1 &

22‐C2

Court

Administratio

n &

Self He

lp Cen

ter

Lease

Lease rene

wals for Cou

rt Adm

inistratio

n an

d Self He

lp Cen

ter

Ong

oing

TCTF

$ 80,60

4

1437

‐CFR

028

San Diego

37‐K1

Bank

s Stree

t Storage

Lease

New

three year lease am

endm

ent for th

e bu

ilding

Ong

oing

TCTF

$ 33,62

4

1531

‐CFR

010

Placer

31‐H1

Howard Gibson

Courthou

seFacility

Mod

ificatio

nFabrication an

d installatio

n of ta

bles in

the courthou

se lo

bby to provide

litig

ants and

attorne

ys work

surfaces and

mee

ting space be

twee

n he

arings.

One

‐Tim

eTC

TF $ 11,75

2

1631

‐CFR

011

Placer

31‐H1

Howard Gibson

Courthou

seFacility

Mod

ificatio

nFu

nding to provide

for the

fabrication an

d installatio

n of eight ju

dges' ben

ch and

nine clerks'

desktops in

the Gibson Co

urtroo

ms. Existing be

nch/de

sktops do no

t provide

sufficien

t spa

ce fo

r curren

t techn

olog

y ne

eds a

nd/or a

re chipp

ing an

d splin

terin

g

One

‐Tim

eTC

TF $ 48,00

0

1704

‐CFR

008

Butte

04‐A1

Butte Co

unty

Courthou

seFacility

Mod

ificatio

nUpg

rade

a portio

n of th

e court's AV system

that re

lates to the pu

blic add

ress sy

stem

.One

‐Tim

eTC

TF $ 24,40

1

1,81

3,69

1$

Total:

Page 1 of 1


Action Item 7 – Reallocation of Funds Summary: Review and approve reallocation of $1,000,000 from FMs Less than $100K Allocation to Priority 1 FM Allocation, and $750,000 from Unplanned FMs over $100K Allocation to Priority 1 FM Allocation. Supporting Documentation:

• See Presentation


Action Item 8 – FY 20-21 Budget Change Proposal (BCP) Initial Funding Requests (IFRs)

Summary: Review, prioritize and approve the two FY 20-21 BCP IFRs for submittal in May to the Judicial Branch Budget Committee.

Supporting Documentation:

• 2020-21 Initial Funding Request - Trial Court Facility Operations and Maintenance Funding

• 2020-21 Initial Funding Request - Trial and Appellate Court Deferred Maintenance Funding

Action Requested: Review, prioritize and approve the FY 2020-21 Budget Change Proposal Initial Funding Requests.

2020-21 Initial Funding Request

Page 1 of 2

Requesting Entity: Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory CommitteeContact: Karen Baker Date Prepared: 02/19/2019Budget Services Liaison: Mike Sun Document Tracking Number: IFR-20-08

A. Working Title: Trial Court Facility Operations and Maintenance Funding (A contingency submittal)

B. Description of Funding Request:

The Judicial Council requests 25.0 positions and $51.5 million General Fund in 2020-21 and ongoingto provide funding for underfunded trial court facility operations and maintenance costs (O&M).Funding is required to provide operations and maintenance services at an industry standard level ofservice for the entire portfolio.Maintenance is crucial to efficient facility management, resulting in fewer emergency repairs andincreased asset longevity. In order to provide oversight to ensure that maintenance is being done, wepropose the creation of 25 new field positions to help provide portfolio oversight. These positions arefunded at an average of $120,000 each, including benefits, for a total of $3 million. That amount, withthe increased funding of $48.5 million needed to bring the original portfolio’s funding up to theInternational Facility Management Association (IFMA) standards, brings our request to $51.5 millionin ongoing resources. These resources are requested to bring our level of expenditure up to industrystandards for the remainder of the portfolio.

C. Estimated Costs: One Time OngoingThe estimated cost for this request is $51.5 million which includes $3 million for additional staffingand $48.5 million to bring the O&M up to the IFMA standard. The calculation is based on theindustry-standard funding level of $6.90 per square foot times the square footage of the entireportfolio ($141.81 mil) and subtracting the existing funding of $73.2 million for the original portfolioand the proposed funding of $20.15 million in 2019-20 Governor’s Budget for the new squarefootage. The portfolio includes 17.63 million square feet that are funded at only $4.15 per square footrather than at $6.90 per square foot.

IFMA 2017 Average Cost per

Square Foot

Total Current JCC Facilities

Square Footage (net)[1]

Portfolio Funding Level

Recommended by IFMA

New JCC Facilities Square

Footage (net)

IFMA Level funding for new space

(19-20 Governor's

Budget)

Current Available

Funding for 17.63 million square feet

Operations & Maintenance Funding Gap

a. b. c. d. e. f. = c - e - f

Maintenance $3.81 20.55 million $78.3 million 2.92 million $11.13 million $39.8 million $27.37 million

Utilities $3.09 20.55 million $63.5 million 2.92 million $9.02 million $33.4 million $21.08 million

TOTALS: $6.90 $141.8 million $20.15 million $73.2 million $48.45 million [1] The JCC Portfolio may fluctuate from year to year as properties become inactive due to termination of leases, transfers and sales, etc.

$51,500,000$


Page 2 of 2

FTE Annual Cost [3] Total

Staff Oversight [2] 25 $120,000 $3,000,000

[2] Inclusive of proportionate Facilities Services staff in support of additional maintenance funds, to ensure quality assurance and fiscal oversight.Positions would include Facilities Operations Supervisors and Facilities Administrators[3] Average cost per year, per employee, inclusive of salary, health, and benefits

D. Relevance to the Judicial Branch Budget and Other Funding Requests:

The Governor’s Budget for 2019-20 proposes an augmentation to the operations and maintenancefunding. The increase is specifically for the additional 2.9 million square feet of space for newconstruction projects authorized by SB 1732 and SB 1407. This augmentation of $20.15 million isbased on IFMA’s 2017 rate of $6.90 per square foot for maintenance and utilities. Trial courtfacilities from the original portfolio comprise 17.63 million square feet and are funded at $4.15 persquare foot; just above 60% of the IFMA industry standard. This underfunding combined with risingutility costs, results in fewer resources available for repairs and preventive maintenance tasks. Thiswork is foundational to the work of the Judicial Branch. Our mission is to ensure that everycourthouse be as uniformly well-constructed and maintained as possible with respect to the essentialcomponents which make a building inhabitable. Without a fully functional court facility, there is noequal access to justice. This funding request will help us comply with the originating legislativedirectives that resulted in the creation of the Facilities Services office and to ensure that the manycourthouse occupants are safe and comfortable during the course of their time in the buildings.

E. Required Review/Approvals:

Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee has reviewed and approved this request. Noadditional advisory body approvals required.

F. Proposed Lead Advisory Committee:

Budget Services proposes that Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee take the leadadvisory role as this committee provides ongoing oversight of the judicial branch programs thatmanage renovations, facilities operations, maintenance, and real estate for trial courts throughout thestate.


Page 1 of 2

Requesting Entity: Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory CommitteeContact: Karen Baker Date Prepared: 2/22/2019Budget Services Liaison: Mike Sun Document Tracking Number: IFR-20-07

A. Working Title: Trial and Appellate Court Deferred Maintenance Funding

B. Description of Funding Request:

The Judicial Council (JCC) requests $100 million General Fund in 2020-21 to provide funding toaddress deferred maintenance in trial and appellate courts. The request supports the JCC’s strategicgoals by means of sustaining court facilities at an industry level of service; thus, mitigatingdisruptions that could negatively affect trial and appellate courts from discharging their duties asrequired by statute.

The JCC’s existing $2.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog includes building system repairs (i.e.elevators, roofs, fire/life/safety), retrofits, upgrades and other deferred maintenance activities that havebeen postponed due to funding priorities, but do not represent an imminent threat to the facility or itsoccupants; however, this insufficient funding has continued to cause the JCC to operate facilities on a“run to failure” basis. The requested funding is necessary to ensure that proper facility maintenanceoccurs in order to avoid costlier (and earlier than expected) system replacements which contribute tothe increased degradation of the state-owned assets.

C. Estimated Costs: One Time Ongoing

The one-time General Fund augmentation of $100 million would be exclusively used towardsaddressing the most urgent deferred maintenance activities. This effort will minimize the rate ofdecay of state-owned facilities and avoids costly system failures.

D. Relevance to the Judicial Branch Budget and Other Funding Requests:

The JCC developed a facility master plan for its trial courts, conducting an assessment of the State’scourthouses and prioritizing the need for upgrades or new construction under legislation AB 233which restructured California’s court system to a state-funded system and created a Task Force onCourt Facilities. The Task Force conducted a needs assessment of state’s facilities and reported to theLegislature the need for equality in funding service to trial courts.

Additionally, our programs’ ongoing budget has remained relatively flat over the past five years;however, in the same period an additional 3 million square feet of new courthouse space has beenabsorbed into the maintenance program. The JCC received one-time funding for deferredmaintenance in 2016-17 ($45 million) and 2018-19 ($50 million) to address the failures of roofs,elevators, and HVAC systems. The 2019-20 Governor’s budget proposes $40 million to addressfire/life/safety systems. Funding of $100 million for deferred maintenance allows for continued

$100,000,000


Page 2 of 2

efforts to address deferred maintenance in court facilities to improve the life-expectancy of state assets. The California’s courts are aging and the continued lack of re-investment in facilities can lead to early deterioration of buildings and exponentially higher repair or replacement costs.

E. Required Review/Approvals:

Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee reviewed and approved this request. Noadditional advisory body approvals required.

F. Proposed Lead Advisory Committee:

Budget Services proposes that Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee take the leadadvisory role as this committee provides ongoing oversight of the Judicial Branch program thatmanages renovations, facilities operations, maintenance, and real estate for trial courts throughout thestate.

Meeting Date: 04/08/2019 Action Item 9 – DMF Funding Cost Increase Summary: Review and approve total cost increase of $1,247,895 for two DMF-I projects. Supporting Documentation:

• DMF Contingency Status Report • DMF Cost Increase Requested

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

DM

F Co

ntinge

ncy

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DUCT

- La

st U

pdat

ed 4

/2/2

019

at 1

1:53

AM

1 o

f 2

DMF #

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

FM NUMBER

SHORT TITLE

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS


Reason for Cost Increase

ADDITIONAL COST

JUDICIAL COUNCIL SHARE FUNDED FROM FM FUNDS

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM BUDGET % OF

COST

1Al

amed

aHa

ywar

d Ha

ll of

Ju

stic

e01

-D1

FM-0

0605

34DM

F - R

oof -

Rep

lace

exi

stin

g ro

of sy

stem

and

co

mpo

nent

s (ap

prox

imat

ely

34,7

00 S

F) w

ith n

ew 8

0 m

il PV

C ro

ofin

g sy

stem

as s

peci

fied.

4,10

8,76

7$

3,62

8,04

1$

A

dditi

onal

cos

ts fo

r unp

lugg

ing

exist

ing

roof

dra

ins

and

adde

d ar

ea to

the

proj

ect s

cope

. 42

,969

$

37,9

42$

88

.30

2Ke

rnBa

kers

field

Su

perio

r Co

urth

ouse

15-A

1FM

-006

0510

DMF

- Roo

f - T

ear o

ff an

d re

-roo

f with

Cla

ss-A

fire

-rat

ed

80 m

il PV

C sin

gle

ply

as sp

ecifi

ed2,

080,

436

$

1,

300,

273

$

Addi

tiona

l cos

ts fo

r ACM

cos

ts th

at w

ere

not

disc

over

ed u

ntil

roof

was

dem

olish

ed a

nd th

e ad

ding

of

war

ning

strip

s as r

equi

red

by b

uild

ing

insp

ecto

r.

98,7

89$

61

,743

$

62.5

0

3Ke

rnBa

kers

field

Ju

veni

le

Cour

thou

se

15-C

1FM

-006

0509

DMF

- Roo

f - T

ear o

ff an

d re

-roo

f with

Cla

ss-A

fire

-rat

ed

80 m

il PV

C sin

gle

ply

as sp

ecifi

ed1,

248,

053

$

83

3,20

0$

Addi

tiona

l cos

t for

add

ing

wat

erpr

oofin

g ov

er e

xist

ing

deck

s and

war

ning

strip

s on

the

edge

of t

he ro

of p

er

build

ing

insp

ecto

r.

44,7

64$

29

,884

$

66.7

6

4Ke

rnDe

lano

/Nor

th

Kern

Co

urth

ouse

15-D

1FM

-006

0508

DMF

- Roo

f - R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e th

e ex

istin

g ro

of a

nd

all c

ompo

nent

s (Ap

prox

imat

ely

17,0

00 S

F) w

ith 8

0 m

il PV

C ro

of sy

stem

per

the

spec

ifica

tion.

Sea

l all

wal

l pa

rape

ts a

nd p

rovi

de 2

0 ye

ars w

arra

nty.

478,

856

$

386,

149

$

Ad

ditio

nal C

ost f

or re

plac

ing

rott

ed w

oode

n po

sts t

hat

wer

e su

ppor

ting

the

para

pet a

nd w

ere

disc

over

ed

whe

n de

mol

ition

occ

urre

d.

23,1

67$

18

,682

$

80.6

4

5Ke

rnSh

afte

r/W

asco

Co

urts

Bui

ldin

g15

-E1

FM-0

0605

11DM

F - R

oof -

Tea

r off

and

re-r

oof w

ith C

lass

-A fi

re-r

ated

80

mil

PVC

singl

e pl

y as

spec

ified

511,

208

$

459,

832

$

Ad

ditio

nal c

ost t

o re

plac

e ex

istin

g ro

tted

and

da

mag

ed w

all s

ectio

ns o

n ro

of d

ue to

pre

viou

s wat

er

leak

s.

15,1

48$

13

,626

$

89.9

5

6O

rang

eN

orth

Just

ice

Cent

er30

-C1

FM-0

0605

18DM

F - R

oof -

Rep

air e

xist

ing

roof

and

app

ly

Poly

uret

hane

coa

ting

to e

ntire

roof

. 2,

456,

720

$

2,

218,

664

$

Addi

tiona

l cos

t for

cap

ture

and

recy

lce

of th

e co

nstr

uctio

n w

ater

offs

ite in

stea

d of

send

ing

it to

the

city

stor

m d

rain

syst

em a

s req

uire

d by

City

of

Fulle

rton

and

war

ning

strip

s at t

he ro

of e

dge.

34,0

93$

30

,789

$

90.3

1

7Sa

n Di

ego

Nor

th C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r -

NO

RTH

37-F

2FM

-006

0515

DMF

- Roo

f - T

ear o

ff an

d re

-roo

f with

Cla

ss-A

fire

-rat

ed

80 m

il PV

C sin

gle

ply

as sp

ecifi

ed2,

687,

806

$

2,

687,

806

$

Addi

tiona

l cos

t due

to th

e fa

lling

deb

ris a

nd d

ust f

rom

th

e ro

of d

urin

g de

mol

ition

, res

ched

ulin

g of

wor

k du

e to

noi

se im

pact

to C

ourt

, lea

ks c

ause

d to

bui

ldin

g du

e to

faul

ty ro

of d

rain

s whi

ch w

ere

not p

art o

f pro

ject

.

410,

883

$

410,

883

$

100.

00

8Sa

nta

Clar

aHa

ll of

Just

ice-

East

43-A

1FM

-006

0531

DMF

- Roo

f - T

ear o

ff an

d re

-roo

f with

Cla

ss-A

fire

-rat

ed

80 m

il PV

C sin

gle

ply

as sp

ecifi

ed1,

411,

686

$

1,

411,

686

$

Addi

tiona

l cos

t for

faill

ing

fire

proo

fing

mat

eria

l in

mec

hani

cal r

oom

that

dro

pped

dur

ing

cons

truc

tion

and

plum

bing

wor

k re

quire

d to

div

ert e

xist

ing

HVAC

eq

uipm

ent.

33,2

81$

33

,281

$

100.

00

9Sa

nta

Clar

aHi

stor

ic

Cour

thou

se43

-B2

FM-0

0605

32DM

F - R

oof -

Tea

r off

and

re-r

oof w

ith C

lass

-A fi

re-r

ated

80

mil

PVC

singl

e pl

y as

spec

ified

963,

075

$

963,

075

$

Ad

ditio

nal c

ost f

or c

lean

ing

gutt

ers a

nd d

owns

pout

s as

requ

ired

by S

HPA

prio

r to

gett

ing

appr

oval

17,3

00$

17

,300

$

100.

00

10Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Co

urth

ouse

Eas

t19

-AX1

FM-0

0614

49DM

F - E

leva

tors

- Th

e pr

ojec

t inc

lude

s ref

urbi

shm

ent

and

mod

erni

zatio

n of

ele

vato

rs w

ithin

the

faci

lity

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e as

sess

men

t rep

ort

3,58

7,76

9$

3,21

9,66

3$

Ad

ditio

nal c

ost f

or e

lect

rical

and

mec

hani

cal p

lan

revi

ews t

hat w

ere

requ

ired

for t

he p

roje

ct.

10,7

55$

9,

652

$

89

.74

11Lo

s Ang

eles

Ingl

ewoo

d Ju

veni

le19

-E1

FM-0

0614

68DM

F - E

leva

tors

- Th

e pr

ojec

t inc

lude

s ref

urbi

shm

ent

and

mod

erni

zatio

n of

ele

vato

rs w

ithin

the

faci

lity

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e as

sess

men

t rep

ort

314,

365

$

253,

944

$

Ad

ditio

nal c

ost f

or e

lect

rical

and

mec

hani

cal p

lan

revi

ews t

hat w

ere

requ

ired

for t

he p

roje

ct.

14,6

05$

11

,798

$

80.7

8

12Lo

s Ang

eles

Ingl

ewoo

d Co

urth

ouse

19-F

1FM

-006

1448

DMF

- Ele

vato

rs -

The

proj

ect i

nclu

des r

efur

bish

men

t an

d m

oder

niza

tion

of e

leva

tors

with

in th

e fa

cilit

y in

ac

cord

ance

with

the

asse

ssm

ent r

epor

t

3,50

5,71

0$

2,61

3,85

7$

Ad

ditio

nal c

ost f

or A

CM m

onito

ring

and

air s

ampl

es;

elec

tric

al a

nd m

echa

nica

l pla

n re

view

s tha

t wer

e re

quire

d fo

r the

pro

ject

.

32,1

65$

23

,982

$

74.5

6

DRAF

TTr

ial C

ourt

Fac

ility

Mod

ifica

tion

DM

F Co

st In

crea

ses

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DUCT

- La

st U

pdat

ed 4

/2/2

019

at 1

1:53

AM

2 o

f 2

DMF #

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

FM NUMBER

SHORT TITLE

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



ADDITIONAL COST



COST

13Lo

s Ang

eles

Alha

mbr

a Co

urth

ouse

19-J1

FM-0

0614

46DM

F - E

leva

tors

- Th

e pr

ojec

t inc

lude

s ref

urbi

shm

ent

and

mod

erni

zatio

n of

ele

vato

rs w

ithin

the

faci

lity

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e as

sess

men

t rep

ort

2,66

9,80

5$

2,29

6,03

2$

A

dditi

onal

cos

t for

upg

radi

ng th

e el

evat

or c

ontr

olle

rs,

acce

lera

te th

e tw

o el

evat

ors a

nd u

pgra

de to

van

dal

resis

tant

fini

shes

.

71,5

79$

61

,558

$

86.0

0

14Lo

s Ang

eles

Stan

ley

Mos

k Es

cala

tors

19-A

X1FM

-006

1568

DMF

- Esc

alat

ors -

The

pro

ject

incl

udes

refu

rbish

men

t an

d m

oder

niza

tion

of 2

6 es

cala

tors

with

in th

e fa

cilit

y.8,

820,

156

$

8,

578,

484

$

Addi

tiona

l cos

t for

fixi

ng c

arrie

r rai

l bet

wee

n 5t

h an

d 6t

h flo

or th

at m

oves

the

stai

r tre

ads d

own

is be

nt

caus

ing

the

step

s to

hit o

n th

e 5t

h flo

or la

ndin

g co

mbi

-pl

ate.

5,11

5$

4,97

5$

97.2

6

15Lo

s Ang

eles

Edm

und

D.

Edel

man

Ch

ildre

n's C

ourt

19-Q

1FM

-006

1642

DMF-

Elev

ator

s- T

he p

roje

ct in

clud

es re

furb

ishm

ent a

nd

mod

erni

zatio

n of

ele

vato

rs w

ithin

the

faci

lity

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e as

sess

men

t rep

ort

4,53

3,07

8$

3,17

2,70

1$

A

dditi

onal

cos

t for

upg

radi

ng to

van

dal r

esist

ant

finish

es

73,0

30$

51

,114

$

69.9

9

16So

lano

Hall

of Ju

stic

e-Ea

st48

-A1

FM-0

0616

36DM

F - E

leva

tors

- The

pro

ject

incl

udes

insp

ectio

n an

d as

sess

men

t of e

leva

tors

with

in th

e fa

cilit

y an

d pr

ofes

siona

l ser

vice

s to

prep

are

site

inve

stig

atio

n an

d re

com

men

datio

ns re

port

s, d

evel

opm

ent o

f sco

ping

do

cum

ents

and

per

form

ance

crit

eria

to re

furb

ish a

nd

mod

erni

ze th

e el

evat

ors.

31,1

09$

22

,654

$

Add

ition

al c

ost f

or si

te a

cces

s dur

ing

asse

ssm

ent

1,98

7$

1,44

7$

72.8

2

17Co

ntra

Co

sta

Jail

Anne

x07

-A4

FM-0

0617

68DM

F - R

oofin

g - C

OU

NTY

MAN

AGED

- Co

rrec

t fai

led

roof

ing

syst

em o

n bu

ildin

g - R

oof l

eaks

in se

vera

l are

as

requ

ires n

ew ro

ofin

g sy

stem

138,

286

$

138,

286

$

A

dditi

onal

Cos

t ove

rrun

from

the

Coun

ty p

rovi

ded

by

the

shar

ed c

ost l

ette

r 35

9$

35

9$

10

0.00

18N

apa

Crim

inal

Cou

rt

Build

ing

28-A

1FM

-006

1895

DMF-

ROO

F Re

mov

e an

d Re

plac

e ap

prox

imat

ely

16,0

00

squa

re fe

et o

f BU

R (b

uilt

up ro

ofin

g) w

ith n

ew 8

0 m

il PV

C. W

ork

to in

clud

e al

l wor

k ne

cess

ary

for a

com

plet

e te

ar o

ff an

d re

plac

emen

t.

454,

755

$

454,

755

$

A

dditi

onal

cos

t for

add

ition

al p

lan

revi

ew o

n th

e pr

ojec

t 2,

750

$

2,

750

$

10

0.00

932,

739

$

821,

764

$

Tota

l DM

F Co

ntin

genc

y re

mai

ning

178,

236

$

DRAF

TTrial C

ourt Facility M

odificatio

n DM

F Co

st In

crea

ses R

eque

sted

from

FM

Bud

get

Mee

ting Da

te 04/08

/201

9DMF #

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

FM NUMBER

SHORT TITLE

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



ADDITIONAL COST



COST

1Orang

eNorth Ju

stice

Center

30‐C1

FM‐006

0518

DMF ‐ R

oof ‐ Rep

air e

xisting roof and

app

ly

Polyuretha

ne coa

ting to entire

roof.

4,05

6,72

0$

3,66

3,62

4$

Additio

nal costs fo

r fire

safin

g remov

al, accessib

ility

requ

iremen

ts, p

ermits and

ACM

mon

itorin

g. Total

cost in

crease of $

1.6M

will be split $1.1M

for D

MF 1

and $0

.5M fo

r BMS Project in DM

F 2. The

requ

est is

for u

sing FM

fund

s to cover the

cost increase on

DM

F 1 project.

1,10

0,00

0$

993,41

0$

90.31

2San

Bernardino

SB Cou

rtho

use

Anne

x36

‐A2

FM‐006

0517

DMF ‐ R

oof ‐ Tear o

ff an

d re‐roo

f with

Class‐A fire‐

rated 80

mil PV

C sin

gle ply as sp

ecified

560,14

7$

535,72

5$

Additio

nal cost left for th

e po

rtion of th

e roof area,

ACM aba

temen

t was add

ed to

the bu

ilding

266,08

6$

254,48

5$

95.64

1,36

6,08

6$

1,24

7,89

5$

TCFM

AC W

ORK

PRO

DUCT

‐ Last Upd

ated

4/2/201

9 at 11:40

AM

1 of 1


Discussion Item 1 – Court Facilities Trust Fund (CFTF) Fund Status

Summary: Update on the status of the Court Facilities Trust Fund.

Supporting Documentation:

• See Presentation


Discussion Item 2 - List E - Approved Court Funded Requests (CFRs)

Summary:Review approved List E - Court-Funded Facilities Requests (Facility Modification and Leases).

Supporting Documentation: • List E - Approved Court-Funded Facilities Requests

Total CFRs:

Small Project CFRs:

Lease CFRs:

Facility Modification CFRs:

32

2

4

26

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIATRIAL COURT FACILITY MODIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

TCFM

AC W

ork P

rodu

ct -

Last

Upda

ted

4/2/

2019

10:2

6 AM

Open

Page

2 o

f 9

Trial

Cou

rt Fa

cility

Mod

ifica

tion

App

rove

d Co

urt-

Fund

ed F

acili

ties

Req

uest

s (C

FR) (

List

E)

Open

Mee

ting

Item

sM

eetin

g Da

te: 4

/8/2

019

JUDI

CIAL

CO

UNCI

L O

F CAL

IFORN

IATR

IAL C

OUR

T FA

CILIT

Y M

ODI

FICAT

ION

ADVI

SORY

CO

MM

ITTEE

Item #

CFR Number

County

Building ID

Facility Name

Lease, License, or FM

CF

R D

escr

ipti

on

Lessor

Lessee

CFR Term

Fund Source

Total CFR Committment(CFR Term)

Status

Date Approved

104

-CFR

006

Butte

04-A

1B

utte

Cou

nty

Cou

rtho

use

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nIn

stal

l a g

lass

pan

el s

yste

m a

t the

pu

blic

cou

nter

s in

the

mai

n an

d si

de lo

bbie

s at

the

But

te C

ount

y C

ourt

hous

e.

The

cos

t of t

his

proj

ect i

nclu

des

labo

r, g

lass

, met

al

trim

, pan

elin

g, s

truc

tura

l sup

port

, an

d w

indo

w n

umbe

ring.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$27,

390

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

204

-CFR

007

Butte

04-A

1B

utte

Cou

nty

Cou

rtho

use

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nU

pgra

de a

por

tion

of th

e co

urt's

A/V

sy

stem

. The

cou

rt is

als

o re

ques

ting

proj

ect m

anag

emen

t su

ppor

t and

sub

ject

mat

ter

expe

rtis

e fr

om th

e Ju

dici

al C

ounc

il as

teh

cour

t doe

s no

t hav

e th

e re

quis

ite in

tern

al r

esou

rces

to fu

lly

and

succ

essf

ully

faci

litat

e th

is

proj

ect.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$120

,000

Acc

epte

d03

/07/

19

304

-CFR

009

Butte

04-A

1B

utte

Cou

nty

Cou

rtho

use

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nT

he p

urpo

se o

f thi

s re

ques

t is

to

impr

ove

the

cond

ition

of a

his

toric

co

urtr

oom

at t

he B

utte

Cou

nty

Cou

rtho

use

in O

rovi

lle. T

his

requ

est i

nvol

ves

refin

ishi

ng a

nd r

e-st

aini

ng w

ood

galle

ry s

eatin

g (7

6 ch

airs

), r

euph

olst

erin

g ju

ry b

ox

seat

ing

(14

chai

rs),

and

pai

ntin

g in

terio

r w

alls

. Har

dwar

e w

ill a

lso

be

repl

aced

as

nece

ssar

y fo

r bo

th th

e ju

ry a

nd g

alle

ry s

eats

. The

se

upda

tes

will

pro

vide

muc

h ne

eded

im

prov

emen

ts to

the

cour

troo

m

whi

le a

lso

allo

win

g th

is r

oom

to

reta

in it

s hi

stor

ic a

esth

etic

.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$30,

000

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

415

-CFR

007

Kern

15-H

1A

rvin

/ Lam

ont

Bra

nch

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nD

esig

n C

osts

for

secu

re p

arki

ng fo

r ju

dici

al o

ffice

rs.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$22,

000

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

515

-CFR

008

Kern

15-I

1M

ojav

e-M

ain

Cou

rt

Fac

ility

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nD

esig

n C

osts

for

secu

re p

arki

ng fo

r ju

dici

al o

ffice

rsN

AN

AO

ne-

Tim

eT

CT

F$2

2,00

0A

ccep

ted

03/0

8/19

615

-CFR

009

Kern

15-E

1S

hafte

r/W

asco

C

ourt

s B

ldg.

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nD

esig

n C

osts

for

secu

re p

arki

ng fo

r ju

dici

al o

ffice

rs.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$22,

000

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

715

-CFR

010

Kern

15-A

1B

aker

sfie

ld

Sup

erio

r C

ourt

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nT

he c

ourt

s fu

ndin

g w

ill c

over

all

cost

s as

soci

ated

with

des

ign,

ab

atem

ent,

dem

oliti

on, a

nd th

e co

nstr

uctio

n of

a n

ew c

ourt

room

an

d su

rrou

ndin

g of

fice

area

s.

N/A

N/A

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$4,2

00,0

00A

ccep

ted

03/0

8/19

TCFM

AC W

ork P

rodu

ct -

Last

Upda

ted

4/2/

2019

10:2

6 AM

Open

Page

3 o

f 9

Trial

Cou

rt Fa

cility

Mod

ifica

tion

App

rove

d Co

urt-

Fund

ed F

acili

ties

Req

uest

s (C

FR) (

List

E)

Open

Mee

ting

Item

sM

eetin

g Da

te: 4

/8/2

019

JUDI

CIAL

CO

UNCI

L O

F CAL

IFORN

IATR

IAL C

OUR

T FA

CILIT

Y M

ODI

FICAT

ION

ADVI

SORY

CO

MM

ITTEE

Item #

CFR Number

County

Building ID

Facility Name


CF

R D

escr

ipti

on

Lessor

Lessee

CFR Term

Fund Source


Status

Date Approved

819

-CFR

063

Los A

ngele

s19

-M1

Cen

tral

Civ

il W

est

Cou

rtLe

ase

CF

R, i

n th

e am

ount

of $

356,

753.

70,

wou

ld fu

nd r

ent f

or th

e 3r

d, 1

4th,

16

th a

nd p

artia

l 4th

floo

r re

nt: r

ent

for

June

, Jul

y an

d A

ugus

t 201

9.

Cou

nty

of L

os

Ang

eles

Judi

cial

C

ounc

il3 M

onth

sT

CT

F$3

56,7

54A

ccep

ted

03/0

1/19

919

-CFR

064

Los A

ngele

s19

-L1

Cla

ra S

hort

ridge

F

oltz

Crim

inal

Ju

stic

e C

ente

r

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nC

osts

in th

e am

ount

of $

250,

000.

00

wou

ld fu

nd th

e de

mol

ition

of

exis

ting

A/V

equ

ipm

ent,

cage

s an

d al

l ext

erio

r sa

telli

te a

nd r

elat

ed

equi

pmen

t, re

nova

tion

and

inst

alla

tion

of r

equi

red

elec

tric

al,

A/V

and

dat

a ou

tlets

and

whi

p co

nnec

tions

to n

ewly

pur

chas

ed

and

inst

alle

d sm

art d

esks

(N

IC)

per

atta

ched

sup

plem

enta

l dra

win

g. In

ad

ditio

n, n

ew c

arpe

ting,

pai

nt o

n w

alls

and

cei

ling.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$250

,000

Acc

epte

d03

/07/

19

1019

-CFR

065

Los A

ngele

s19

-AE

1A

lfred

J.

McC

ourt

ney

Juve

nile

Jus

tice

Cen

ter

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nC

FR

in th

e am

ount

of

$2,1

00,0

00.0

0 to

fund

tena

nt

alte

ratio

ns a

nd r

e-co

nfig

urat

ion

wor

k du

e to

ope

ratio

nal n

eeds

at

the

faci

lity.

CF

R w

ill in

clud

e th

e co

mpl

etio

n of

the

rem

aini

ng

bala

nce

of b

ase

agre

emen

t #1

0229

47 ta

sk o

rder

for

the

gene

ral

cont

ract

or.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$2,1

00,0

00A

ccep

ted

03/0

7/19

1119

-CFR

066

Los A

ngele

s19

-K1

Sta

nley

Mos

k C

ourt

hous

eF

acili

ty

Mod

ifica

tion

Cos

t in

the

amou

nt o

f $12

8,00

0.00

w

ould

fund

the

dem

oliti

on a

nd

rem

oval

of e

xist

ing

kitc

hen

equi

pmen

t. E

nviro

nmen

tal t

estin

g of

exi

stin

g flo

or a

nd in

stal

latio

n of

ne

w o

vens

, grid

dles

, ste

amer

and

fr

yer

with

ass

ocia

ted

elec

tric

al a

nd

plum

bing

req

uire

men

ts.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$128

,000

Acc

epte

d03

/07/

19

1219

-CFR

067

Los A

ngele

s19

-00

Mul

tiple

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nC

osts

in th

e am

ount

of $

245,

000

wou

ld b

e in

tend

ed to

rep

air

and/

or

repl

ace

asph

alt i

n th

e pa

rkin

g lo

ts

of S

anta

Cla

rita,

Tor

ranc

e an

d th

e P

asad

ena

Judg

es S

ecur

ed P

arki

ng

Lot t

o m

itiga

te li

fe a

nd s

afel

y ha

zard

s an

d to

add

ress

cla

ims

that

ha

ve b

een

reco

rded

.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$245

,000

Acc

epte

d03

/07/

19

TCFM

AC W

ork P

rodu

ct -

Last

Upda

ted

4/2/

2019

10:2

6 AM

Open

Page

4 o

f 9

Trial

Cou

rt Fa

cility

Mod

ifica

tion

App

rove

d Co

urt-

Fund

ed F

acili

ties

Req

uest

s (C

FR) (

List

E)

Open

Mee

ting

Item

sM

eetin

g Da

te: 4

/8/2

019

JUDI

CIAL

CO

UNCI

L O

F CAL

IFORN

IATR

IAL C

OUR

T FA

CILIT

Y M

ODI

FICAT

ION

ADVI

SORY

CO

MM

ITTEE

Item #

CFR Number

County

Building ID

Facility Name


CF

R D

escr

ipti

on

Lessor

Lessee

CFR Term

Fund Source


Status

Date Approved

1319

-CFR

068

Los A

ngele

s19

-00

Mul

tiple

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nC

ost i

n th

e am

ount

of $

581,

580

wou

ld b

e in

tend

ed to

inst

all,

upgr

ade,

and

mod

ify s

ecur

ity

feat

ures

acc

ordi

ng to

the

atta

ched

lis

t of i

dent

ified

pro

ject

s an

d lo

catio

ns.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$581

,580

Acc

epte

d03

/07/

19

1419

-CFR

069

Los A

ngele

s19

-AX

1V

an N

uys

Cou

rtho

use

Eas

tF

acili

ty

Mod

ifica

tion

Pro

pose

d fu

ndin

g co

ntrib

utio

n fr

om

the

cour

t in

the

amou

nt o

f $29

0,00

0 w

ould

cov

er th

e co

sts

asso

ciat

ed

with

a te

nant

alte

ratio

n pr

ojec

t to

deve

lop

a tr

aini

ng r

oom

, co

nfer

ence

roo

m, a

nd s

taff

brea

k sp

ace

in th

e V

an N

uys

Eas

t C

ourt

hous

e. (

Add

ition

al d

etai

ls o

n sc

ope

of w

ork

is a

ttach

ed)

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$290

,000

Acc

epte

d03

/07/

19

1524

-CFR

023

Mer

ced

24-A

8M

ain

Mer

ced

Cou

rtho

use

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nC

ourt

fund

ing

will

be

used

to

cons

truc

t an

offic

e to

be

used

by

seve

n C

ourt

Rep

orte

rs. T

he O

Ffic

e w

ill b

e bu

ilt in

spa

ce th

at w

as

rece

lty m

ade

avai

labl

e du

e to

the

rem

oval

of a

larg

e po

wer

file

sh

elvi

ng u

nit.

The

Vac

ant s

pace

is

loca

ted

in th

e C

rimm

inal

Div

isio

n.

Due

to s

pace

lim

imita

tions

in th

e co

urth

ouse

s ut

ilizi

ng th

is s

pace

for

an o

ffice

is th

e m

ost e

ffect

ive

mea

ns.

NA

NA

One

-tim

eT

CT

F$1

62,7

90A

ccep

ted

03/0

8/19

1627

-CFR

004

Mon

tere

y27

-A1

Sal

inas

C

ourt

hous

e- N

orth

W

ing

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

n1)

Jud

icia

l offi

cer

cham

bers

on

the

first

and

sec

ond

floor

s w

indo

ws

need

to b

e fit

ted

with

Lev

el II

I ba

llist

ic g

lass

, and

2)

fenc

ed o

ff ut

ilite

s on

the

nort

h si

de o

f the

co

urth

ouse

; the

y co

ntro

l the

HV

AC

sy

stem

s an

d ut

ilite

s fo

r cr

itica

l ar

eas,

suc

h as

the

MD

F r

oom

.

NA

NA

One

-tim

eT

CT

F$8

5,25

0A

ccep

ted

03/0

8/19

1727

-CFR

005

Mon

tere

y27

-B1

Mar

ina

Cou

rtho

use

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nE

rect

per

imet

er fe

ncin

g to

sur

roun

d th

e si

des

and

back

of t

he c

ourt

fa

cilit

y, a

nd 2

) Ju

dici

al o

ffice

r ch

ambe

rs o

n th

e fir

st fl

oor

win

dwos

ne

ed to

be

fitte

d w

ith L

Eve

l III

balli

sct g

lass

.

NA

NA

One

T

ime

TC

TF

$96,

650

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

TCFM

AC W

ork P

rodu

ct -

Last

Upda

ted

4/2/

2019

10:2

6 AM

Open

Page

5 o

f 9

Trial

Cou

rt Fa

cility

Mod

ifica

tion

App

rove

d Co

urt-

Fund

ed F

acili

ties

Req

uest

s (C

FR) (

List

E)

Open

Mee

ting

Item

sM

eetin

g Da

te: 4

/8/2

019

JUDI

CIAL

CO

UNCI

L O

F CAL

IFORN

IATR

IAL C

OUR

T FA

CILIT

Y M

ODI

FICAT

ION

ADVI

SORY

CO

MM

ITTEE

Item #

CFR Number

County

Building ID

Facility Name


CF

R D

escr

ipti

on

Lessor

Lessee

CFR Term

Fund Source


Status

Date Approved

1830

-CFR

030

Oran

ge30

-A1

Cen

tral

Jus

tice

Cen

ter

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nT

he c

ourt

is r

epla

cing

the

Uni

nter

rupt

ed P

ower

Sup

ply

(UP

S)

in th

eir

mai

n se

rver

roo

m. T

hey

wou

ld li

ke to

incl

ude

a T

empo

rary

P

ower

sup

ply

to k

eep

criti

cal

syst

ems

onlin

e du

ring

the

2-3

day

inst

all.

N/A

N/A

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$10,

451

Acc

epte

d01

/28/

19

1931

-CFR

012

Plac

er31

-H1

Hon

. How

ard

G.

Gib

son

Cou

rtho

use

Sm

all P

roje

ctT

he G

ibso

n C

ourt

hous

e se

curit

y co

ntro

ls a

re e

xper

ienc

ing

a se

ries

of fa

ilure

s, c

reat

ing

grea

ter

risk

of

inci

dent

. The

IBA

is n

eede

d to

en

sure

bet

ter

coor

dina

tion

of

serv

ice

repa

irs to

avo

id c

asca

ding

fa

ilure

s an

d in

effic

ient

use

of p

ublic

fu

nds.

See

atta

ched

- S

ecur

ity C

ontr

ol

Intr

a-B

ranc

h A

gree

men

t.

NA

NA

3 ye

ars

TC

TF

$60,

000

Acc

epte

d03

/18/

19

2031

-CFR

013

Plac

er31

-H1

Hon

. How

ard

G.

Gib

son

Cou

rtho

use

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nF

abric

atio

n an

d in

stal

latio

n of

ta

bles

in th

e co

urth

ouse

lobb

y to

pr

ovid

e lit

igan

ts a

nd a

ttorn

eys

wor

k su

rfac

es a

nd m

eetin

g sp

ace

betw

een

hear

ings

. See

atta

ched

S

WO

#159

1319

with

tota

l cos

t of

$11,

752.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$11,

800

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

2131

-CFR

014

Plac

er31

-00

Mul

tiple

Sm

all P

roje

ctF

undi

ng w

ould

cov

er r

emed

iatio

n co

sts

for

the

new

Dep

artm

ent 2

0.

The

atta

ched

sco

pe is

rou

ghly

es

timat

ed b

etw

een

$25,

000

and

$50,

000.

The

cou

rt s

eeks

to h

ave

$50,

000

tied

to th

is C

FR

and

re

duce

d fo

rm th

e co

urt's

FY

18/

19

allo

catio

n. If

fina

l cos

ts a

re lo

wer

th

an $

50,0

00, a

ny e

xces

s w

ould

be

used

for

smal

l pro

ject

s at

the

cour

t's o

ther

faci

litie

s.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$50,

000

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

TCFM

AC W

ork P

rodu

ct -

Last

Upda

ted

4/2/

2019

10:2

6 AM

Open

Page

6 o

f 9

Trial

Cou

rt Fa

cility

Mod

ifica

tion

App

rove

d Co

urt-

Fund

ed F

acili

ties

Req

uest

s (C

FR) (

List

E)

Open

Mee

ting

Item

sM

eetin

g Da

te: 4

/8/2

019

JUDI

CIAL

CO

UNCI

L O

F CAL

IFORN

IATR

IAL C

OUR

T FA

CILIT

Y M

ODI

FICAT

ION

ADVI

SORY

CO

MM

ITTEE

Item #

CFR Number

County

Building ID

Facility Name


CF

R D

escr

ipti

on

Lessor

Lessee

CFR Term

Fund Source


Status

Date Approved

2233

-CFR

024

Rive

rside

33-A

3H

all o

f Jus

tice

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nA

DA

Bar

rier

Rem

oval

Pro

ejct

-

Pub

lic R

estr

oom

s -

Hal

l of J

ustic

e -

Sec

ond

Flo

or: P

lann

ing

and

desi

gn

wor

k in

clud

ing

AC

M s

urve

y, p

lan

chec

k an

d pe

rmitt

ing.

Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es to

incl

ude:

AC

M

abat

emen

t, if

requ

ired.

Agg

ress

vie

clea

ning

of f

loor

and

wal

l tile

in

lcud

ing

grou

t rep

lacm

ent,

if re

quire

d. R

Epl

acm

ent o

f toi

lets

, ur

inal

s, s

inks

, cou

nter

tops

, mirr

ors

and

stal

l par

titio

ns. A

nd a

co

nstr

uctio

n co

ntin

genc

y of

ap

prox

imat

ely

10%

NA

NA

One

-tim

eT

CT

F$1

00,0

00A

ccep

ted

03/0

8/19

2336

-CFR

057

San

Bern

ardi

no36

-E1

Josh

ua T

ree

Cou

rtho

use

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nT

his

Cou

rt F

undi

ng R

eque

st fo

r $6

0,00

0 w

ill c

over

the

arch

itect

ural

de

sign

, eng

inee

ring

cost

s re

quire

d to

rem

odel

the

exis

ting

fire

rate

d tr

ansa

ctio

n co

unte

r w

all i

n th

e m

ain

lobb

y of

the

Josh

ua T

ree

Cou

rtho

use.

The

cur

rent

pub

lic

tran

sact

ion

coun

ter

are

stan

d-up

st

yle

coun

ters

, and

no

long

er

serv

es th

e cu

rren

t bus

ines

s ne

eds

of th

e co

urt.

Thi

s st

yle

of

tran

sact

ion

coun

ter

has

pres

ente

d m

any

ergo

nom

ic c

halle

nges

for

staf

f, in

clud

ing

very

lim

ited

wor

k su

rfac

es, s

taff

havi

ng to

sit

on ta

ll st

ools

inst

ead

a m

ore

ergo

nom

ic

task

cha

ir an

d th

e la

ck o

f spa

ce

nece

ssita

ting

equi

pmen

t pla

cem

ent

that

res

ults

in s

igni

fican

t rea

ch

prob

lem

s. T

he r

emod

el w

ould

co

nsis

t of d

emo

of e

xist

ing

coun

ter,

co

nstr

uctio

n of

low

er s

it-do

wn

heig

ht c

ount

er w

indo

ws,

furn

iture

, el

ectr

ical

and

dat

a.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$60,

000

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

2436

-CFR

059

San

Bern

ardi

no36

-J1

Bar

stow

C

ourt

hous

eF

acili

ty

Mod

ifica

tion

Con

stru

ctio

n co

st a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith

the

inst

alla

tion

of a

new

per

imet

er

secu

rity

fenc

e, r

ollin

g dr

ive

gate

s,

barr

ier

arm

s, p

edes

tria

n ga

tes

and

asso

cate

d co

ntro

ls fo

r th

e ju

dici

al

and

staf

f par

king

are

a. O

ne-t

ime

proj

ect c

ost t

otal

ling

$248

,900

.

N/A

N/A

One

-T

ime

Non

-T

CT

F$2

48,9

00A

ccep

ted

03/1

8/19

TCFM

AC W

ork P

rodu

ct -

Last

Upda

ted

4/2/

2019

10:2

6 AM

Open

Page

7 o

f 9

Trial

Cou

rt Fa

cility

Mod

ifica

tion

App

rove

d Co

urt-

Fund

ed F

acili

ties

Req

uest

s (C

FR) (

List

E)

Open

Mee

ting

Item

sM

eetin

g Da

te: 4

/8/2

019

JUDI

CIAL

CO

UNCI

L O

F CAL

IFORN

IATR

IAL C

OUR

T FA

CILIT

Y M

ODI

FICAT

ION

ADVI

SORY

CO

MM

ITTEE

Item #

CFR Number

County

Building ID

Facility Name


CF

R D

escr

ipti

on

Lessor

Lessee

CFR Term

Fund Source


Status

Date Approved

2537

-CFR

029

San

Dieg

o37

-H1

Sou

th C

ount

y R

egio

nal C

ente

rF

acili

ty

Mod

ifica

tion

San

Die

go S

uper

ior

Cou

rt is

re

ques

ting

the

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

appr

ove

a C

FR

fund

ed p

roje

ct fo

r te

nant

impr

ovem

ents

(T

I) to

the

2nd

floor

Bai

l Offi

ce o

f the

Sou

th C

ount

y R

egio

nal C

ente

r (S

CR

C).

Thi

s T

I w

ill c

reat

e an

ele

vate

d pl

atfo

rm fo

r st

aff t

o si

t on

whi

le h

elpi

ng

cust

omer

s at

the

busi

ness

cen

ter.

C

urre

ntly

Bai

l Offi

ce S

taff

stan

d or

si

t on

high

sto

ols.

Thi

s no

ne

ergo

nom

ic c

ondi

tion

has

resu

lted

in

staf

f cla

ims.

The

tota

l TI c

ost w

ould

no

t exc

eed

$200

,000

.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$200

,000

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

2637

-CFR

030

San

Dieg

o37

-F2

Nor

th C

ount

y R

egio

nal C

ente

r -

Nor

th

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nS

an D

iego

Sup

erio

r C

ourt

is

requ

estin

g th

e Ju

dici

al C

ounc

il ap

prov

e a

CF

R fu

nded

pro

ject

for

tena

nt im

prov

emen

ts (

TI)

to th

e C

rimin

al B

usin

ess

Offi

ce o

f the

N

orth

Cou

nty

Reg

iona

l Cen

ter

(NC

RC

). T

his

TI w

ill c

reat

e an

el

evat

ed p

latfo

rm fo

r st

aff t

o si

t on

whi

le h

elpi

ng c

usto

mer

s at

the

busi

ness

cen

ter.

Cur

rent

ly B

ail

Offi

ce S

taff

stan

d or

sit

on h

igh

stoo

ls. T

his

none

erg

onom

ic

cond

ition

has

res

ulte

d in

inju

ries

and

staf

f cla

ims.

The

tota

l TI c

ost

wou

ld n

ot e

xcee

d $2

50,0

00.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$250

,000

Acc

epte

d03

/08/

19

2742

-CFR

014

Sant

a Bar

bara

42-B

310

19 G

arde

n S

tree

tLe

ase

Cou

rt w

ill c

over

the

cost

of h

te

Cou

nty'

s yu

se o

f 20

park

ing

spac

es

in te

h C

ity o

wnd

ed G

rana

da

Par

king

str

uctu

re in

exh

chan

ge fo

r pr

ovid

ing

the

Cou

rt 4

0 oa

rkin

g sp

aces

in th

e G

arde

n S

t. pa

rkin

g lo

t de

scrib

ed in

the

atta

ched

leas

e ag

gree

men

t.

Cou

nty

of S

anta

B

arba

ra

Judi

cial

C

ounc

il O

ne

Yea

rT

CT

F$7

2,00

0A

ccep

ted

02/2

7/19

2842

-CFR

015

Sant

a Bar

bara

42-A

1S

anta

Bar

bara

C

ount

y C

ourt

hous

e

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nR

eque

st to

mod

ify c

ourt

spa

ce to

fu

nctio

n as

a c

onso

lidat

ed s

elf-

help

ce

nter

. P

endi

ng a

ppro

val o

f MO

U.

N/A

N/A

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$175

,000

Acc

epte

d03

/12/

19

TCFM

AC W

ork P

rodu

ct -

Last

Upda

ted

4/2/

2019

10:2

6 AM

Open

Page

8 o

f 9

Trial

Cou

rt Fa

cility

Mod

ifica

tion

App

rove

d Co

urt-

Fund

ed F

acili

ties

Req

uest

s (C

FR) (

List

E)

Open

Mee

ting

Item

sM

eetin

g Da

te: 4

/8/2

019

JUDI

CIAL

CO

UNCI

L O

F CAL

IFORN

IATR

IAL C

OUR

T FA

CILIT

Y M

ODI

FICAT

ION

ADVI

SORY

CO

MM

ITTEE

Item #

CFR Number

County

Building ID

Facility Name


CF

R D

escr

ipti

on

Lessor

Lessee

CFR Term

Fund Source


Status

Date Approved

2943

-CFR

015

Sant

a Clar

a43

-G1

San

ta C

lara

C

ourt

hous

eF

acili

ty

Mod

ifica

tion

At t

he M

arch

201

9 T

CF

MA

C

mee

ting

it w

as d

ecid

ed th

at S

anta

C

lara

Cou

rt a

nd th

e JC

C w

ould

sh

are

50/5

0 of

the

tota

l cos

t to

repl

ace

a fa

iled

secu

rity

pane

l.

N/A

N/A

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$18,

828

Acc

epte

d03

/28/

19

3049

-CFR

005

Sono

ma

49-B

1E

mpi

re A

nnex

Leas

eO

ne y

ear

of le

ase

from

2/1

/201

9 th

roug

h 1/

31/2

020

for

50%

of t

he

leas

e co

st.

The

Jud

icia

l Cou

ncil

took

tran

sfer

of t

his

faci

lity

from

S

onom

a co

unty

and

will

fund

the

rem

aini

ng 5

0% o

f the

tota

l ann

ual

leas

e ex

pens

e (C

ourt

Fac

ility

Tru

st

Fun

d).

Em

pire

C

olle

geJu

dici

al

Cou

ncil

One

Y

ear

TC

TF

$148

,017

Acc

epte

d01

/30/

19

3149

-CFR

006

Sono

ma

49-B

230

55 C

leve

land

A

venu

eLe

ase

Fiv

e Y

ear

leas

e fr

om A

pril

1, 2

019

thro

ugh

Mar

ch 3

0, 2

024

for

40%

of

the

leas

e co

sts.

The

Jud

icia

l C

ounc

il as

sum

ed r

espo

nsib

ility

for

this

faci

lity

from

Son

oma

Cou

nty

and

fund

s th

e re

mai

ning

bal

ance

of

the

tota

l ann

ual l

ease

exp

ense

.

Vim

ark,

In

c.Ju

dici

al

Cou

ncil

5 Y

ear

TC

TF

$4,2

95,1

23A

ccep

ted

03/0

8/19

3254

-CFR

013

Tular

e54

-A1

Vis

alia

Sup

erio

r C

ourt

Fac

ility

M

odifi

catio

nP

rovi

de a

rchi

tect

ural

ser

vice

s fo

r sc

hem

atic

des

ign,

per

mitt

ing,

co

nstr

uctio

n co

nsul

tatio

n an

d pr

ojec

t clo

seou

t.

NA

NA

One

-T

ime

TC

TF

$23,

880

Acc

epte

d03

/07/

19

$14,

463,

413

TCFM

AC W

ork P

rodu

ct -

Last

Upda

ted

4/2/

2019

10:2

6 AM

Open

Page

9 o

f 9

Trial

Cou

rt Fa

cility

Mod

ifica

tion

App

rove

d Co

urt-

Fund

ed F

acili

ties

Req

uest

s (C

FR) (

List

E)

Open

Mee

ting

Item

sM

eetin

g Da

te: 4

/8/2

019

JUDI

CIAL

CO

UNCI

L O

F CAL

IFORN

IATR

IAL C

OUR

T FA

CILIT

Y M

ODI

FICAT

ION

ADVI

SORY

CO

MM

ITTEE


Discussion Item 3 – List F – Funded Facility Modifications on Hold Summary: Review and discuss List F – Funded Facility Modifications on Hold. Supporting Documentation:

• List F – Funded Facility Modifications on Hold

Total Project – Count: 8 Total FM Budget Share: $8,471,897

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

List

F -

Fund

ed F

Ms o

n Ho

ld6/

1/20

05 to

03/

11/2

019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

*Day

s Pen

ding

, as o

f Mar

ch 2

6, 2

019

1 of

2

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM SHARE OF COST


TCFMAC APPROVAL DATE

DAYS PENDING*

ON HOLD FOR SHARED COST?

PROJECT MANAGER ASSIGNED?

COMMENTS

1FM

-004

0733

Sola

noHa

ll of

Just

ice

48-A

12

EXEC

UTI

ON

-- C

onst

ruct

1,0

70 lf

of r

etai

ning

wal

l, 52

5 lf

of

eart

hen

berm

s, 5

75 lf

of a

cces

s ram

ps; i

nsta

ll dr

aina

ge p

ipe

and

2 pu

mps

to e

xtra

ct w

ater

trap

ped

with

in th

e pr

even

tion

area

. $1.

7M w

as sp

ent i

n 20

05 fo

r flo

od d

amag

e an

d $1

46K

was

spen

t in

FY 1

0/11

on

flood

pre

vent

ion

mea

sure

s.

Emer

genc

y ex

iting

mus

t be

seal

ed d

urin

g flo

od c

ondi

tions

.

$

1,2

11,2

41

$

8

82,0

26

72.

82

1/30

/201

226

13Ye

sHo

ldSh

ared

Cos

t for

de

sign

phas

e ap

prov

ed.

Desig

n ef

fort

is

in w

ork.

2FM

-006

1091

Del N

orte

Del N

orte

Co

unty

Sup

erio

r Co

urt

08-A

13

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ext

erio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

643

fix

ture

s)

$

38,

368

$

23,5

08

61.

27

8/28

/201

757

6Ye

sHo

ldHo

ld fo

r Sha

red

Cost

3FM

-006

1181

Kern

Bake

rsfie

ld

Supe

rior C

ourt

15-A

13

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ext

erio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

371

4 fix

ture

s)

$

2

44,4

37

$

1

52,7

73

62.

50

8/28

/201

757

6Ye

sHo

ldHo

ld fo

r Sha

red

Cost

4FM

-006

1130

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r37

-I13

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ext

erio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

636

2 fix

ture

s)

$

4

53,6

00

$

3

07,1

33

67.

71

8/28

/201

757

6Ye

sHo

ldHo

ld fo

r Sha

red

Cost

5FM

-001

1923

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r37

-I12

Elev

ator

- El

evat

or R

enov

atio

n - C

ompl

ete

reno

vatio

n of

nin

e (9

) gea

rless

trac

tion

elev

ator

s. W

ork

will

incl

ude

but n

ot b

e lim

ited

to, c

ar fr

ames

and

pla

tform

s, b

uffe

rs a

nd sa

fetie

s,

hoist

way

ent

ranc

e fr

ames

, doo

rs a

nd p

it eq

uip.

, new

AC

gear

less

mac

hine

s, m

icro

-pro

cess

or c

ontr

ol sy

stem

s,

rege

nera

tive

VVVF

AC

driv

es, g

over

nors

(ele

vato

rs 1

,2&

3 on

ly),

clos

ed lo

op h

eavy

dut

y hi

gh sp

eed

oper

ator

s, c

urre

nt

code

requ

ired

wiri

ng, i

nter

ior a

nd lo

bby

cont

rol p

anel

s,

coun

terw

eigh

ts a

nd ro

ller g

uide

s (E

leva

tors

7&

9 on

ly),

hoist

an

d go

vern

or ro

pes,

cab

cei

lings

with

LED

dow

n lig

hts,

rope

co

mpe

nsat

ion

and

seism

ic p

rovi

sions

.

$

6,6

33,5

19

$

5,2

05,5

43

78.

47

4/13

/201

834

8Ye

sHo

ldN

TP is

sued

on

100%

Judi

cial

Co

unci

l Cos

t.

6FM

-001

7040

Los

Ange

les

Com

pton

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

G12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Pha

se 2

-Ins

talla

tion

of a

new

Fire

Det

ectio

n an

d N

otifi

catio

n Al

arm

syst

em.

$

9

78,0

25

$

6

46,7

68

66.

13

12/3

/201

811

4Ye

sHo

ldHo

ld fo

r Sha

red

Cost

7FM

-006

3503

Los

Ange

les

Com

pton

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

G12

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Fire

/Life

/Saf

ety

- Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

the

exisi

tng

singl

e w

all f

uel l

ines

(two

each

) with

a ri

gid

dual

wal

l sy

stem

from

the

mai

n st

orag

e ta

nk, t

o th

e fu

el p

umps

in th

e ba

sem

ent a

nd u

p to

the

two

(2) F

ire P

ump

Day

Tank

s in

the

Pent

hous

e on

the

13th

Flo

or (A

ppro

xim

atel

y 1,

800

LF o

f pip

e).

This

wor

k w

ill re

quire

hig

h re

ach

equi

pmen

t, AC

M/H

az M

at

wor

k, a

fter h

ours

sche

dule

and

pla

n re

view

and

insp

ectio

ns b

y th

e St

ate

Fire

Mar

shal

s offi

ce.

$

6

40,0

00

$

4

23,2

32

66.

13

1/28

/201

958

Yes

Hold

Hold

for S

hare

d Co

st a

nd D

MF

2 au

thor

izatio

n

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

List

F -

Fund

ed F

Ms o

n Ho

ld6/

1/20

05 to

03/

11/2

019

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

*Day

s Pen

ding

, as o

f Mar

ch 2

6, 2

019

2 of

2

FM NUMBER

LOCATION

FACILITY NAME

BUILDING ID

PRIORITY

SHORT TITLE

TCFMAC FUNDED COST

FACILITY MODIFICATION PROGRAM SHARE OF COST


TCFMAC APPROVAL DATE

DAYS PENDING*

ON HOLD FOR SHARED COST?

PROJECT MANAGER ASSIGNED?

COMMENTS

8FM

-006

1966

Los

Ange

les

Com

pton

Co

urth

ouse

19-A

G12

HVAC

- Rep

lace

(13)

coi

ls an

d dr

ain

pans

for a

ir ha

ndlin

g un

its

thro

ugho

ut th

e bu

ildin

g. E

ach

unit

will

requ

ire (4

) th

erm

omet

ers,

(4) p

ress

ure

gaug

es, (

4) is

olat

ion

valv

es,

repl

ace

150

LF o

f 4" p

ipin

g/in

sula

tion,

and

25

LF o

f 1" p

ipe

for

cond

ensa

te sy

stem

. ACM

test

ing

will

be

perf

orm

ed o

n ex

istin

g in

sula

tion,

and

if p

ositi

ve, t

he c

ost w

ill v

astly

incr

ease

for

rem

oval

of i

nsul

atio

n. D

rain

pan

s, c

oils,

and

pip

ing

is ru

sted

an

d de

terio

ratin

g.

$

1,2

56,4

86

$

8

30,9

14

66.

13

1/28

/201

958

Yes

Hold

Hold

for S

hare

d Co

st a

nd D

MF

2 au

thor

izatio

n

$ 1

1,45

5,67

7 $

8

,471

,897

MeetinDate: 04/08/2019

Information Only Item 1 – DMF-I Project List Status

Summary: Update on the DMF-I projects

Supporting Documentation: • DMF-I Project Progress Report

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee

Judicial Council Deferred Maintenance Projects Monthly Report No. 13 March 28, 2019

Project Management Judicial Council of California ‐ Facilities Services ‐ Administrative Division Construction Management Kitchell CEM Architect Development One, Inc. Contractors MTM Construction, Mark Scott Construction, Mackone Development,

Enovity, Vincor, ABM, MIK Construction Inc. Deferred Maintenance Fund Projects Status: For all work associated with roof repairs or replacement; skylights, elevators, escalators, and wheel chair lifts refurbishment or replacement:

Project StatusNumber of Projects

Original Estimate Current Amount

Roof ProjectsDesign Phase 1 139,000$ 50,317$ Plan Check Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Bidding Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Awaiting Shared Cost Letter ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Construction Phase 5 1,602,000$ 6,029,594$ On Hold ‐ County owned and managed facility. 4 487,000$ 487,000$ Funded by FM Fund ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Future Funding 4 2,245,000$ 7,798,727$ Completed 20 6,898,000$ 17,650,144$ Cancelled 7 2,240,000$ 156,182$

Subtotal 41 13,611,000$ 32,171,964$

Elevator ProjectsDesign Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Plan Check Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Bidding Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Awaiting Shared Cost Letter ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Construction Phase 8 19,355,000$ 23,446,726$ On Hold ‐ County owned and managed facility. 6 3,016,000$ 1,147,473$ Funded by FM Fund 2 275,000$ 275,000$ Future Funding 21 7,318,000$ 17,828,260$ Completed ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Cancelled 8 2,426,000$ ‐$

Subtotal 45 32,390,000 42,697,458

Grand Total 86 46,001,000$ 74,869,422$

Page 1 of 10



Page 2 of 10

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee Judicial Council Deferred Maintenance Projects Monthly Report No. 13 March 28, 2019

Design Phase:

# County Facility Location Project Title Estimated Cost

Updated Cost

11 Humboldt Humboldt County Courthouse (Eureka) Roof Replacement 139,000$ 50,317$

$45,000,000

Page 3 of 10


Construction Phase:

On Hold ‐ County owned and managed facility. Working with county to initiate the project:

Funded by FM Fund:


Updated Cost

5 San Bernardino Annex Courthouse Roof Replacement 157,000$ 479,200$

12 Kern Bakersfield Superior Court Roof Replacement 529,000$ $ 1,687,180 15 Kern Delano/North Kern Court Roof Replacement 145,000$ 431,996$

27 Orange North Justice Center Roof Replacement 534,000$ 2,430,336$

35 Santa Clara Historic Courthouse Roof Replacement 237,000$ $ 870,349 54 Kern Bakersfield Superior Court Elevator Replacement 540,000$ 541,183$

61 Los Angeles Van Nuys Courthouse East Elevator Replacement 2,143,000$ 3,408,802$

64 Los Angeles Inglewood Juvenile Court Elevator Replacement 72,000$ 398,644$

65 Los Angeles Inglewood Courthouse Elevator Replacement 1,872,000$ 3,303,653$

67 Los Angeles Alhambra Courthouse Elevator Replacement 919,000$ 2,430,336$

68 Los Angeles Stanley Mosk Courthouse Escalator Renovation 10,300,000$ 8,646,341$

70 Los Angeles Edmund D. Edelman Children's Court Elevator Replacement 3,330,000$ 3,983,044$

72 Los Angeles West Covina Courthouse Elevator Replacement 179,000$ 622,575$


Updated Cost

8 Solano Solano Justice Building Skylight Replacement 33,000$ 33,000$

28 Placer Historic Courthouse Roof Replacement 55,000$ 55,000$

29 San Diego Hall of Justice Roof Replacement 59,000$ 59,000$

39 San Luis Obispo Courthouse Annex Skylights Replacement 340,000$ 340,000$

43 Riverside Corona Elevator Replacement 55,000$ 55,000$

46 Solano Solano Justice Building Elevator Replacement 72,000$ 72,000$

55 Kern Bakersfield Justice Bldg. Elevator Replacement 423,000$ 423,000$

80 San Diego South County Regional Center Elevator Replacement 401,000$ 401,000$

81 San Mateo Hall of Justice Wheelchair Lift Replace 16,000$ 16,000$

86 Ventura Hall of Justice Elevator Replacement 2,049,000$ 150,000$


Updated Cost

78 San Diego North County Regional Center ‐ South Elevator Replacement 232,000$ 232,000$

83 Santa Clara Historic Courthouse Elevator Replacement 43,000$ 43,000$

Page 4 of 10



Future Funding:


Updated Cost

6 Santa Barbara Santa Maria Courts Bldgs C + D Roof Replacement 577,000$ 2,000,000$

26 Orange Betty Lou Lamoreaux Justice Center Skylights Replacement 209,000$ 209,000$

33 San Diego East County Regional Center Roof Replacement 1,131,000$ 3,643,501$

38 Ventura East County Courthouse Roof Replacement 328,000$ 1,930,805$

42 Santa Barbara Santa Maria Courts Bldgs C + D Elevator Replacement 234,000$ 274,320$

44 Solano Hall of Justice Elevator Replacement 418,000$ 418,000$

48 Alameda Hayward Hall of Justice Elevator Replacement 892,000$ 2,788,802$

49 Alameda Fremont Hall of Justice Elevator Replacement 634,000$ 926,800$

50 Contra Costa Wakefield Taylor Courthouse Elevator Replacement 485,000$ 1,104,000$

51 Contra Costa Danville District Courthouse (Walnut Cree Elevator Replacement 96,000$ 511,985$

52 Contra Costa George D. Carroll Courthouse Elevator Replacement 231,000$ 326,000$

53 San Bernardino Barstow Courthouse Elevator Replacement 75,000$ 167,760$

57 Los Angeles Bellflower Courthouse Wheelchair Lift Replace 50,000$ 50,000$

58 Los Angeles Downey Courthouse Wheelchair Lift Replace 140,000$ 140,000$

59 Los Angeles Beverly Hills Courthouse Elevator Replacement 777,000$ 2,688,288$

62 Los Angeles Van Nuys Courthouse West Elevator Controls Repla 205,000$ 205,000$

63 Los Angeles Torrance Courthouse Elevator Replacement 1,321,000$ 2,929,621$

66 Los Angeles Burbank Courthouse Elevator Replacement 119,000$ 616,238$

69 Los Angeles El Monte Courthouse Elevator Replacement 536,000$ 2,040,000$

74 Orange North Justice Center Elevator Replacement 553,000$ 1,260,000$

76 San Diego Kearny Mesa Court Dumbwaiter Replaceme 60,000$ 60,000$

77 San Diego Juvenile Court Elevator Replacement 88,000$ 262,813$

79 San Diego North County Regional Center ‐ North Elevator Replacement 95,000$ 241,000$

82 San Mateo Northern Branch Courthouse Elevator Replacement 84,000$ 279,000$

84 Santa Clara Santa Clara Courthouse Elevator Replacement a 225,000$ 254,000$

Page 5 of 10


Completed:

Cancelled:


Updated Cost

1 Alameda Hayward Hall of Justice Roof Replacement 627,000$ $ 3,879,313 2 Los Angeles Airport Courthouse Roof Replacement 555,000$ 622,796$ 3 Santa Barbara Santa Maria Bldg G Roof Replacement 255,000$ 1,200,000$

4 Riverside Riverside Juvenile Justice Trailer Roof Replacement 24,000$ 7,575$

7 Santa Barbara Santa Maria Courts, Bldg F GuttersReplacement 11,000$ 350,000$

10 Contra Costa Jail Annex Roof Replacement 11,000$ 11,000$

14 Kern Bakersfield Juvenile Center Roof Replacement 119,000$ $ 1,125,458 16 Kern Shafter/Wasco Courts Bldg. Roof Replacement 203,000$ $ 472,218 17 Kern Taft Courts Bldg. Roof Replacement 75,000$ $ 239,710 18 Los Angeles Sylmar Juvenile Court Roof Replacement 52,000$ 231,000$

19 Los Angeles Beverly Hills Courthouse Roof Replacement 241,000$ 674,936$ 21 Los Angeles Chatsworth Courthouse Roof Replacement 864,000$ 976,361$

25 Napa Criminal Court Building Roof Replacement 232,000$ 452,185$

30 San Diego Department 9 Trailer Roof Replacement 23,000$ 7,206$

31 San Diego Department 10 Trailer Roof Replacement 23,000$ 7,053$

32 San Diego North County Regional Center ‐ North Roof Replacement 1,831,000$ 2,100,428$

34 Santa Clara Hall of Justice ‐ East Roof Replacement 353,000$ $ 1,278,789 37 Ventura Hall of Justice Roof Replacement 837,000$ 1,005,285$

40 Riverside Blythe Courthouse ‐ Superior Court Roof Replacement 163,000$ 163,791$

41 San Francisco Civic Center Courthouse Roof Replacement 399,000$ $ 2,326,404

# County Facility Location Project Title Estimated Cost Updated Cost Devo One Costs

9 Alameda Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse Roof Replacement 283,000$ -$ 102,690$

13 Kern Bakersfield Justice Bldg. Roof Replacement 195,000$ -$ -$

20 Los Angeles Hall of Records Roof Replacement 6,000$ -$ -$

22 Los Angeles Mental Health Court Roof Replacement 234,000$ -$ -$

23 Los Angeles West Covina Courthouse Roof Replacement 1,283,000$ -$ -$

24 Madera Sierra Courthouse Roof Replacement 41,000$ 26,746$ 26,746$

36 Tulare Visalia Superior Court Roof Replacement 198,000$ -$ -$

45 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse Elevator Replacement 361,000$ -$ -$

47 Alameda Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse Elevator Replacement 934,000$ -$ -$

56 Los Angeles Santa Clarita Courthouse Lift Replacement 10,000$ -$ -$

60 Los Angeles Hall of Records Elevator Replacement 16,000$ -$ -$

71 Los Angeles Central Arraignment Courts Elevator Replacement 533,000$ -$ -$

73 Nevada Nevada City Courthouse Elevator Replacement 151,000$ -$ -$

75 Placer Historic Courthouse Elevator Replacement 72,000$ -$ -$

85 Tulare Visalia Superior Court Elevator Replacement 349,000$ -$ -$

Page 6 of 10



Project Progress Pictures:

North Justice Center ‐ Fullerton ‐ Roof North Justice Center ‐ Fullerton ‐ Roof

Delano Courthouse – Kern ‐ Roof Delano Courthouse – Kern ‐ Roof

Bakersfield Superior Court ‐ Kern ‐ Roof Bakersfield Superior Court ‐ Kern ‐ Roof

Page 7 of 10


Alhambra Courthouse ‐ LA ‐ Elevator Alhambra Courthouse ‐ LA ‐ Elevator

Edelman Children’s Court ‐ LA ‐ Elevator Edelman Children’s Court ‐ LA ‐ Elevator

Stanley Mosk Courthouse ‐ LA ‐ Escalators Phase 5 Stanley Mosk Courthouse ‐ LA ‐ Escalators Phase 5

Page 8 of 10

Judicial Cou

ncil Deferred Mainten

ance (D

MF I)

Project S

ched

ule

March 201

9

#C

ou

nty

Fac

ilit

y L

oca

tio

nP

roje

ct

Tit

le

1Alam

eda

Hayw

ard Ha

ll of Ju

stice

Roof

2Los A

ngeles

Airport C

ourtho

use

Roof

3Santa Ba

rbara

Santa Maria Bldg G

Roof

4Riverside

Riverside Juvenile Ju

stice Trailer

Roof

5San Be

rnardino

San Be

rnardino

Cou

rtho

use

Roof

6Santa Ba

rbara

Santa Maria Cou

rts B

ldgs C + D

Roof

7Santa Ba

rbara

Santa Maria Cou

rts, Bldg

FGutters

8Solano

Solano

Justice Bu

ilding

Skylights

9Alam

eda

Wile

y W. M

anue

l Cou

rtho

use

Roof

10Co

ntra Costa

Jail An

nex

Roof

11Hu

mbo

ldt

Humbo

ldt C

ounty Co

urthou

se (E

ureka)

Roof

12Ke

rnBa

kersfie

ld Sup

erior C

ourt

Roof

13Ke

rnBa

kersfie

ld Ju

stice Bldg

.Ro

of

14Ke

rnBa

kersfie

ld Ju

venile Cen

ter

Roof

15Ke

rnDe

lano

/North Kern Co

urt

Roof

16Ke

rnShafter/Wasco Cou

rts B

ldg.

Roof

17Ke

rnTaft Cou

rts B

ldg.

Roof

18Los A

ngeles

Sylm

ar Ju

venile Cou

rtRo

of

19Los A

ngeles

Beverly

Hills C

ourtho

use

Roof

20Los A

ngeles

Hall of Records

Roof

21Los A

ngeles

Chatsw

orth Cou

rtho

use

Roof

22Los A

ngeles

Men

tal H

ealth

Cou

rtRo

of

23Los A

ngeles

West C

ovina Co

urthou

seRo

of

24Mad

era

Sierra Cou

rtho

use

Roof

25Nap

aCrim

inal Cou

rt Building

Roof

26Orang

eBe

tty Lou Lamorea

ux Ju

stice Ce

nter

Skylights

27Orang

eNorth Ju

stice Ce

nter

Roof

28Placer

Historic Cou

rtho

use

Roof

29San Dieg

oHa

ll of Ju

stice

Roof

30San Diego

Depa

rtmen

t 9 Trailer

Roof

31San Diego

Depa

rtmen

t 10 Trailer

Roof

32San Dieg

oNorth Cou

nty Re

gion

al Cen

ter ‐ North

Roof

33San Diego

East Cou

nty Re

gion

al Cen

ter

Roof

34Santa Clara

Hall of Ju

stice (East)

Roof

35Santa Clara

Historic Cou

rtho

use

Roof

36Tu

lare

Visalia Sup

erior C

ourt

Roof

37Ve

ntura

Hall of Ju

stice

Roof

38Ve

ntura

East Cou

nty Co

urthou

seRo

of

39San Luis Obispo

Courthou

se Ann

exSkylights

40Riverside

Blythe

Cou

rtho

use ‐ S

uperior C

ourt

Roof

41San Fran

cisco

Civic Ce

nter Cou

rtho

use

Roof

Jun

Jul

2020

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

Dec

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Nov

2017

2018

Dec

2019

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

April

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Assessmen

tDe

sign

Procurem

ent

Constructio

nProp

osal

Perm

itClose Out

Completed

Page

9 o

f 10

Judicial Cou


ance (D

MF I)

Project S

ched

ule

March 201

9

#C

ou

nty

Fac

ilit

y L

oca

tio

nP

roje

ct

Tit

le

Jun

Jul

2020

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

Dec

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Nov

2017

2018

Dec

2019

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

April

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Assessmen

tDe

sign

Procurem

ent

Constructio

nProp

osal

Perm

itClose Out

Completed

42Santa Ba

rbara

Santa Maria Cou

rts B

ldgs C + D

Elevator

43Riverside

Corona

Elevator

44Solano

Hall of Ju

stice

Elevator

45San Be

rnardino

Rancho

Cucam

onga Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

46Solano

Solano

Justice Bu

ilding

Elevator

47Alam

eda

Wile

y W. M

anue

l Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

48Alam

eda

Hayw

ard Ha

ll of Ju

stice

Elevator

49Alam

eda

Frem

ont H

all o

f Justic

eElevator

50Co

ntra Costa

Wakefield Taylor C

ourtho

use

Elevator

51Co

ntra Costa

Danville Distric

t Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

52Co

ntra Costa

Geo

rge D. Carroll Co

urthou

seElevator

53San Be

rnardino

Barstow Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

54Ke

rnBa

kersfie

ld Sup

erior C

ourt

Elevator

55Ke

rnBa

kersfie

ld Ju

stice Bldg

.Elevator

56Los A

ngeles

Santa Clarita

Cou

rtho

use

Chair L

ift

57Los A

ngeles

Bellflower Cou

rtho

use

Chair L

ift

58Los A

ngeles

Downe

y Co

urthou

seCh

air L

ift

59Los A

ngeles

Beverly

Hills C

ourtho

use

Elevator

60Los A

ngeles

Hall of Records

Elevator

61Los A

ngeles

Van Nuys C

ourtho

use East

Elevator

62Los A

ngeles

Van Nuys C

ourtho

use West

Controls

63Los A

ngeles

Torran

ce Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

64Los A

ngeles

Inglew

ood Juvenile Cou

rtElevator

65Los A

ngeles

Inglew

ood Co

urthou

seElevator

66Los A

ngeles

Burban

k Co

urthou

seElevator

67Los A

ngeles

Alha

mbra Co

urthou

seElevator

68Los A

ngeles

Stan

ley Mosk Co

urthou

seEscalator

69Los A

ngeles

El M

onte Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

70Los A

ngeles

Edmun

d D. Ede

lman

Children's C

ourt

Escalator

71Los A

ngeles

Central A

rraign

men

t Cou

rts

Elevator

72Los A

ngeles

West C

ovina Co

urthou

seElevator

73Nevad

aNevad

a City Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

74Orang

eNorth Ju

stice Ce

nter

Elevator

75Placer

Historic Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

76San Dieg

oKe

arny M

esa Co

urt

D.waiter

77San Diego

Juvenile Cou

rtElevator

78San Diego

North Cou

nty Re

gion

al Cen

ter ‐ Sou

thElevator

79San Dieg

oNorth Cou

nty Re

gion

al Cen

ter ‐ North

Elevator

80San Diego

South Co

unty Reg

iona

l Cen

ter

Elevator

81San Mateo

Hall of Ju

stice

Chair L

ift

82San Mateo

Northern Bran

ch Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

83Santa Clara

Historic Cou

rtho

use

Elevator

84Santa Clara

Santa Clara Co

urthou

seElevator

85Tu

lare

Visalia Sup

erior C

ourt

Elevator

86Ve

ntura

Hall of Ju

stice

Elevator

Page

10

of 1

0


Information Only Item 2 – DMF-II Project List Status

Summary: Update on the DMF-II projects

Supporting Documentation: • DMF-II Project Progress Report


Judicial Council Deferred Maintenance Projects - II Monthly Report No. 3 March 28, 2019

Project Management Judicial Council of California ‐ Facilities Services ‐ Administrative Division Construction Management Kitchell CEM Architect Development One, Inc. Contractors MTM Construction, Mark Scott Construction, Mackone Development,

Enovity, Vincor. Deferred Maintenance Fund Projects Status: For all work associated with roofs, elevators, wheel chair lifts, and Building Automation Systems repairs, refurbishment, or replacement.

Project StatusNumber of Projects

Original Estimate Current Amount

Roof ProjectsAwaiting for Shared Cost Letter 3 7,801,975$ 7,801,975$ Consultant Procurement Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Design Phase 3 872,000$ 872,000$ Contractor Procurement Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Bidding Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Construction Phase 1 556,857$ 556,857$ Completed ‐ ‐$ ‐$

Subtotal 7 9,230,832$ 9,230,832$

Elevator ProjectsAwaiting for Shared Cost Letter 3 6,333,162$ 6,333,162$ Consultant Procurement Phase 2 190,000$ 190,000$ Contractor Procurement Phase 2 436,180$ 436,180$ Bidding Phase 11 13,450,886$ 13,450,886$ Design Phase 1 205,000$ 205,000$ Construction Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Completed ‐ ‐$ ‐$

Subtotal 19 20,615,227 20,615,227

Building Autmation System (BAS)Consultant Procurement Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Contractor Procurement Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Bidding Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Construction Phase ‐ ‐$ ‐$ Completed ‐ ‐$ ‐$

Subtotal 29 31,250,636 31,250,636

Grand Total 55 61,096,695$ 61,096,695$

Page 1 of 6



Page 2 of 6



Awaiting For Shared Cost Letter

Consultant Procurement Phase

# County Facility Location Project Title Original Project Cost

Current Project Cost

1 Santa Barbara Santa Maria Courts Bldgs C + D Roof Replacement 2,015,421$ 2,015,421$

2 San Diego East County Regional Center Roof Replacement 3,855,749$ 3,855,749$

3 Ventura East County Courthouse Roof Replacement 1,930,805$ 1,930,805$

13 Los Angeles Beverly Hills Courthouse Elevator Replacement 2,688,288$ 2,688,288$

18 Los Angeles Edmund D. Edelman Children's Court Elevator Replacement 3,368,223$ 3,368,223$

20 San Diego Juvenile Court Elevator Replacement 276,651$ 276,651$



11 Los Angeles Bellflower Courthouse Wheelchair Lift Replacement 50,000$ 50,000$

12 Los Angeles Downey Courthouse Wheelchair Lift Replacement 140,000$ 140,000$

Page 3 of 6

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA Trial Court Facility Modification Advisory Committee Judicial Council Deferred Maintenance Projects - II Monthly Report No. 3 March 28, 2019

Contractor Procurement Phase

Bidding Phase

Construction Phase

Design Phase



10 San Bernardino Barstow Courthouse Elevator Replacement 181,343$ 181,343$

21 San Diego North County Regional Center ‐ North Elevator Replacement 254,838$ 254,838$



4 Solano Hall of Justice Elevator Replacement 443,553$ 443,553$

5 Alameda Hayward Hall of Justice Elevator Replacement 2,814,355$ 2,814,355$

6 Alameda Fremont Hall of Justice Elevator Replacement 947,163$ 947,163$

7 Contra Costa Wakefield Taylor Courthouse Elevator Replacement 1,118,468$ 1,118,468$

8 Contra Costa Walnut Creek Courthouse Elevator Replacement 524,983$ 524,983$

9 Contra Costa George D. Carroll Courthouse Elevator Replacement 338,998$ 338,998$

15 Los Angeles Torrance Courthouse Elevator Replacement 2,953,248$ 2,953,248$

16 Los Angeles Burbank Courthouse Elevator Replacement 679,558$ 679,558$

17 Los Angeles El Monte Courthouse Elevator Replacement 2,060,363$ 2,060,363$

19 Orange North Justice Center Elevator Replacement 1,278,203$ 1,278,203$

22 San Mateo Northern Branch Courthouse Elevator Replacement 291,998$ 291,998$



24 Los Angeles Santa Clarita Courthouse Roof Replacement 556,857$ 556,857$



14 Los Angeles Van Nuys Courthouse West Elevator Replacement 205,000$ 205,000$

23 Santa Clara Santa Clara Courthouse Roof Replacement 196,000$ 196,000$

26 Orange Central Justice Center Roof Replacement 234,000$ 234,000$

25 San Diego Kearny Mesa Court Roof Replacement 442,000$ 442,000$

Page 4 of 6



Not Started # County Facility Location Project Title Original Project

Cost Current Project

Cost

27 Los Angeles Van Nuys Courthouse West BAS Upgrades 537,636$ 537,636$

28 Los Angeles Compton Courthouse BAS Upgrades 1,945,000$ 1,945,000$

29 Los Angeles San Fernando Courthouse BAS Upgrades 1,116,000$ 1,116,000$

30 Los Angeles Norwalk Courthouse BAS Upgrades 2,254,000$ 2,254,000$

31 Los Angeles Bellflower Courthouse BAS Upgrades 150,000$ 150,000$

32 Los Angeles Airport Courthouse BAS Upgrades 472,000$ 472,000$

33 Los Angeles Van Nuys Courthouse East BAS Upgrades 1,432,000$ 1,432,000$

34 Los Angeles Van Nuys Courthouse West BAS Upgrades 2,060,000$ 2,060,000$

35 Los Angeles Glendale Courthouse BAS Upgrades 399,000$ 399,000$

36 Los Angeles Alhambra Courthouse BAS Upgrades 990,000$ 990,000$

37 Los Angeles Pasadena Courthouse BAS Upgrades 1,347,000$ 1,347,000$

38 Los Angeles Metropolitan Courthouse BAS Upgrades 1,624,000$ 1,624,000$

39 Los Angeles Pomona Courthouse South BAS Upgrades 1,372,000$ 1,372,000$

40 Orange Civil Complex Center ("CXC") BAS Upgrades 77,000$ 77,000$

41 Alameda George E. McDonald Hall of Justice BAS Upgrades 124,000$ 124,000$

42 Napa Criminal Court Building BAS Upgrades 181,000$ 181,000$

43 San Diego North County Regional Center ‐ North BAS Upgrades 750,000$ 750,000$

44 Los Angeles Inglewood Juvenile Court BAS Upgrades 129,000$ 129,000$

45 San Bernardino Barstow Courthouse BAS Upgrades 120,000$ 120,000$

46 Orange West Justice Center BAS Upgrades 722,000$ 722,000$

47 Riverside Riverside Juvenile Court BAS Upgrades 177,000$ 177,000$

48 Orange North Justice Center BAS Upgrades 972,000$ 972,000$

49 Riverside Larson Justice Center BAS Upgrades 909,000$ 909,000$

50 Alameda Hayward Hall of Justice BAS Upgrades 1,608,000$ 1,608,000$

51 Kern Bakersfield Juvenile Center BAS Upgrades 594,000$ 594,000$

52 Los Angeles East Los Angeles Courthouse BAS Upgrades 1,124,000$ 1,124,000$

53 Alameda Fremont Hall of Justice BAS Upgrades 1,571,000$ 1,571,000$

54 San Diego East County Regional Center BAS Upgrades 1,494,000$ 1,494,000$

55 Statewide Statewide Assessment 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$

Page 5 of 6

Judicial Cou


ance (D

MF I)

Project S

ched

ule

March 201

9

#C

ou

nty

Fa

cili

ty L

oc

ati

on

Nu

mb

er

of

Car

sP

roje

ct

Tit

le

1Santa Ba

rbara

Santa Maria Cou

rts B

ldgs C + D

Roof Rep

lacemen

t

2San Diego

East Cou

nty Re

gion

al Cen

ter

Roof Rep

lacemen

t

3Ve

ntura

East Cou

nty Co

urthou

seRo

of Rep

lacemen

t

4Solano

Hall of Ju

stice

5Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

5Alam

eda

Hayw

ard Ha

ll of Ju

stice

5Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

6Alam

eda

Frem

ont H

all of Justice

4Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

7Co

ntra Costa

Wakefield Taylor C

ourtho

use

2Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

8Co

ntra Costa

Walnu

t Creek Cou

rtho

use

1Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

9Co

ntra Costa

Geo

rge D. Carroll Co

urthou

se1

Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

10San Be

rnardino

Barstow Cou

rtho

use

1Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

11Los A

ngeles

Bellflower Cou

rtho

use

6Whe

elchair L

ift Rep

lacemen

t

12Los A

ngeles

Downe

y Co

urthou

se7

Whe

elchair L

ift Rep

lacemen

t

13Los A

ngeles

Beverly

Hills C

ourtho

use

4Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

14Los A

ngeles

Van Nuys C

ourtho

use West

1 (9)

Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

15Los A

ngeles

Torran

ce Cou

rtho

use

5Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

16Los A

ngeles

Burban

k Co

urthou

se3

Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

17Los A

ngeles

El M

onte Cou

rtho

use

5Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

18Los A

ngeles

Edmun

d D. Ede

lman

Children's C

ourt

7 (14)

Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

19Orang

eNorth Ju

stice Ce

nter

4Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

20San Diego

Juvenile Cou

rt1

Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

21San Diego

North Cou

nty Re

gion

al Cen

ter ‐ North

1Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

22San Mateo

Northern Bran

ch Cou

rtho

use

1Elevator Rep

lacemen

t

23Santa Clara

Santa Clara Co

urthou

seRo

of Rep

lacemen

t

24Los A

ngeles

Santa Clarita

Cou

rtho

use

Roof Rep

lacemen

t

25Orang

eCe

ntral Justice Ce

nter

Roof Rep

lacemen

t

26San Diego

Kearny M

esa Co

urt

Roof Rep

lacemen

t

April

Jan

Feb

Mar

Nov

20

19

Dec

20

20

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Dec

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Jun

Jul

20

21

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

Shared

Cost L

etter

Desig

nBidd

ing Ph

ase

Constructio

nProp

osal

Perm

itClose Out

Completed

Page

6 o

f 6


Information Only Item 3 – Architectural Revolving Fund (ARF) Projects Update

Summary: Receive the latest update on the status of facility modification projects in the ARF.

Supporting Documentation: • Report – CFARF Funds Update – Open Projects

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 1

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

AOC-

10-0

18FM

-002

3340

Sant

a Ba

rbar

aSa

nta

Mar

ia

Cour

t, Bu

ildin

g G

Secu

rity

- Rep

air/

reco

nfig

ure

exte

rior a

nd in

terio

r sec

urity

doo

rs a

nd sc

reen

ing

equi

pmen

t - u

pgra

de n

eede

d to

cor

rect

secu

rity

defic

ienc

ies.

Ext

erio

r and

Inte

rior

Secu

rity

Door

s and

new

secu

rity

vest

ibul

e ne

eded

. In

clud

es se

curin

g al

l oth

er d

oors

in

to th

e se

cure

d bu

ildin

g, H

VAC,

ligh

ting,

ele

ctric

al a

nd fi

re a

larm

syst

ems.

148,

744

$

$

148

,744

8/

23/2

010

Com

plet

ed (c

lose

d ta

sk)

AOC-

11-0

27FM

-003

1644

Sant

a Ba

rbar

aSa

nta

Mar

ia

Cour

tSi

te -

Park

ing

lot s

afet

y iss

ues -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

exist

ing

cam

pus p

arki

ng lo

t are

as

whe

re si

nk h

oles

hav

e de

velo

ped,

com

pact

ion

arou

nd u

nder

gro

und

pipe

s is f

ailin

g an

d as

phal

t det

erio

ratio

n ha

s cre

ated

trip

haz

ards

. Rec

ompa

ct, R

epav

e &

Res

trip

e to

co

mpl

y w

ith A

DA st

anda

rds;

Sin

khol

e/Su

rfac

e Da

mag

e. T

he n

ew p

avem

ent a

reas

will

be

a c

ombi

natio

n of

bot

h ne

w a

spha

lt an

d co

ncre

te to

mee

t the

pro

per t

raffi

c in

dex

requ

ired.

App

roxi

mat

e ar

ea o

f ren

ovat

ion

is 82

,300

S.F

. whi

ch in

clud

es g

ener

al

park

ing

as w

ell a

s a se

cure

d pa

rkin

g ar

ea w

ith a

ppro

xim

atel

y 30

0 lf

of fe

ncin

g, o

ne

auto

mat

ic g

ate

with

car

d re

ader

and

ele

ctric

al p

ower

for t

he g

ate

as w

ell a

s lig

htin

g an

d ca

mer

as.

355,

968

$

35

5,96

8$

4/

20/2

012

Com

plet

ed (c

lose

d ta

sk)

FM-0

0407

33So

lano

Hall

of Ju

stic

eCo

nstr

uct 1

,070

lf o

f con

cret

e re

tain

ing

wal

l, 52

5 lf

of e

arth

en b

erm

s, 5

75 lf

of a

cces

s ra

mps

; ins

tall

drai

nage

pip

e an

d 2

pum

ps to

ext

ract

wat

er tr

appe

d w

ithin

the

prev

entio

n ar

ea. R

eloc

ate

exist

ing

utili

ties i

nfra

stru

ctur

e w

here

the

foot

ings

will

be

exca

vate

d fo

r the

reta

inin

g w

alls.

New

asp

halt

will

be

inst

alle

d al

ong

the

reta

inin

g w

all i

n th

e pa

rkin

g ar

eas.

New

fenc

ing

and

gate

will

be

inst

alle

d af

ter e

xcav

atio

n is

com

plet

e.$1

.7M

was

spen

t in

2005

for f

lood

dam

age

and

$146

K w

as sp

ent i

n FY

10

/11

on fl

ood

prev

entio

n m

easu

res.

Em

erge

ncy

exiti

ng m

ust b

e se

aled

dur

ing

flood

co

nditi

ons.

1,11

4,87

4$

12

8,10

2$

1/

30/2

012

In P

rogr

ess (

Desig

n / A

sses

smen

t) &

De

ferr

ed fo

r Co

nstr

uctio

n

AOC-

11-0

33FM

-004

4237

San

Fran

cisc

o Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

Hall

of Ju

stic

eEl

evat

or -

(Pha

se 1

)Ref

urbi

sh C

ourt

Exc

lusiv

e El

evat

ors (

4) -

50+

yr o

ld, 3

50 d

aily

in-

cust

ody

tran

sfer

s per

car

, in

imm

edia

te n

eed

of re

furb

ishm

ent d

ue to

incr

ease

d hi

gh

num

bers

of e

ntra

pmen

ts, f

ailu

res,

and

no

conn

ectio

n to

bui

ldin

g fir

e sy

stem

as

requ

ired

400,

000

$

40

0,00

0$

5/

25/2

012

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 2

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

AOC-

12-0

04FM

-004

4214

Los A

ngel

esEd

elm

an

Child

ren'

s Cou

rt

HVAC

- Re

plac

e BA

S an

d Re

frig

eran

t Mon

itorin

g sy

stem

s - R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e th

e fa

iled

cont

rols

with

new

DDC

con

trol

s to

cont

rol t

he e

xist

ing

heat

ing

and

boile

r pla

nt,

chill

ers,

coo

ling

tow

ers a

nd p

umps

, air

hand

ing

syst

em a

nd V

AV c

ontr

olle

rs. I

nsta

ll lo

uver

s ove

r the

exi

stin

g ou

tdoo

r air

inta

ke a

nd e

xhau

st a

ir ou

tlet o

n th

e ro

of. I

nsta

ll a

bala

ncin

g da

mpe

r set

serv

ing

the

sixth

floo

r. Pr

ovid

e ai

r bal

ance

and

co

mm

issio

ning

. Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

the

faile

d re

frig

erat

ion

mon

itorin

g se

nsor

s and

al

arm

, ala

rm to

incl

ude

both

visu

al a

nd a

udib

le in

side

and

outs

ide

of th

e ro

om. B

AS

(Bui

ldin

g Au

tom

atio

n Sy

stem

) has

faile

d an

d do

es n

ot fu

nctio

n as

des

igne

d. T

he

Refr

iger

ant M

onito

ring

Syst

em is

not

func

tioni

ng a

nd d

oes n

ot c

ompl

y w

ith A

QM

D re

quire

men

ts.

1,64

4,76

5$

1,

644,

765

$

7/

20/2

012

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0461

36Lo

s Ang

eles

Edel

man

Ch

ildre

n's C

ourt

Ex

terio

r She

ll - R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e ap

prox

imat

ely

118,

600

SF o

f the

exi

stin

g ex

terio

r in

sula

tion

finish

ing

syst

em (E

IFS)

cov

ered

wal

ls. T

he E

IFS

wal

l cov

erin

g is

crac

ked,

di

sinte

grat

ing

and

dete

riora

ting,

whi

ch c

ould

cau

se ra

in w

ater

to le

ak in

to th

e w

all

stru

ctur

es a

nd d

o da

mag

e of

sign

ifica

nt m

agni

tude

. Sco

pe o

f wor

k w

ill in

clud

e m

isc.

light

stee

l fra

min

g, R

egle

t mol

ding

s, h

igh

reac

h eq

uipm

ent a

nd m

ajor

scaf

fold

ing

effo

rts.

3,42

0,64

6$

3,

834,

505

$

7/

20/2

012

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0496

57b

Impe

rial

Impe

rial C

ount

y Co

urth

ouse

HVAC

- Re

plac

e ei

ght (

8) a

ir ha

ndlin

g un

its, t

herm

osta

ts, a

nd c

ontr

ol v

alve

s. R

epla

ce

thirt

y (3

0) fa

n co

il un

its, t

herm

osta

ts, a

nd c

ontr

ol v

alve

s. I

nteg

rate

BAS

. M

ajor

ity o

f m

echa

nica

l equ

ipm

ent i

s old

, has

leak

age

and

wiri

ng is

sues

, and

is n

ot c

ontr

olle

d pr

oper

ly.

Due

to p

oor c

ontr

ol sy

stem

and

inef

ficie

nt e

quip

men

t, th

e co

sts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

eir o

pera

tion

and

mai

nten

ance

are

hig

h w

hen

the

cost

s are

com

pare

d to

ot

her c

ourt

hous

e pr

oper

ties.

1,36

9,20

0$

14

9,09

2$

10

/26/

2012

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0442

37b

San

Fran

cisc

o Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

Hall

of Ju

stic

eEl

evat

or -

Phas

e 2

- Ref

urbi

sh fo

ur (4

) cou

rt-e

xclu

sive

elev

ator

s - 5

0+ y

rs o

ld, 3

50

daily

in-c

usto

dy tr

ansf

ers p

er c

ar, i

n im

med

iate

nee

d of

refu

rbish

men

t due

to

incr

easin

gly

high

num

bers

of t

rapp

ed p

asse

nger

s, fa

ilure

s, a

nd n

o co

nnec

tion

to

build

ing

fire

syst

em a

s req

uire

d.

450,

000

$

45

0,00

0$

7/

20/2

012

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

AOC-

13-0

17FM

-004

3878

Alam

eda

Wile

y W

. M

anue

l Co

urth

ouse

Elev

ator

s (5E

A) -

Com

plet

ely

inst

all n

ew e

leva

tors

with

new

con

trol

s - In

clud

es

desig

n, m

echa

nica

l and

ele

ctric

al u

pgra

des t

o br

ing

syst

ems t

o cu

rren

t cod

e. F

A in

terf

ace

on e

xist

ing

Not

ifier

303

0 fir

e al

arm

syst

em fo

r the

201

0 Ed

ition

s of C

BC, C

FC

and

NFP

A-72

. Not

e: In

mat

e El

evat

or d

own-

time

requ

ires t

unne

l wal

kway

s to

be

oper

atio

nal b

etw

een

cour

ts a

nd a

djac

ent C

ount

y Ja

il or

an

alte

rnat

e m

eans

of

tran

spor

t of i

nmat

es b

etw

een

thes

e fa

cilit

ies,

cur

rent

ly in

mat

e st

airs

may

not

be

used

as p

rimar

y

2,53

1,34

6$

2,

800,

164

$

3/

10/2

014

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 3

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0520

04Lo

s Ang

eles

Stan

ley

Mos

k Co

urth

ouse

HVAC

- Bu

ildin

g Au

tom

atio

n Sy

stem

(BAS

) and

Air

Hand

ling

Uni

t (AH

U) R

enov

atio

n -

Inst

all n

ew e

nerg

y ef

ficie

nt A

HU m

otor

s and

Var

iabl

e Fr

eque

ncy

Driv

es to

repl

ace

aged

and

faili

ng m

otor

s. C

onve

rt A

HU c

ontr

ols s

yste

m to

Dire

ct D

igita

l Con

trol

and

re

plac

e ob

sole

te B

AS sy

stem

with

mod

ern

syst

em to

mon

itor a

nd c

ontr

ol b

uild

ing

func

tiona

lity.

Rep

lace

faile

d ai

r filt

er b

affle

s and

leak

ing

duct

wor

k. C

lean

oil

and

wat

er c

onta

min

atio

n fr

om fl

oor l

evel

pne

umat

ic c

ontr

ol sy

stem

.

2,07

4,27

1$

2,

113,

345

$

4/

11/2

014

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

FM-0

0498

49Al

amed

aW

iley

W.

Man

uel

Cour

thou

se

HVAC

- Co

ntro

ls an

d Co

mpo

nent

s - R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e (1

6) V

AV b

oxes

and

con

trol

s w

ith re

heat

coi

ls in

clud

ing

(64)

val

ves -

Rep

lace

as c

urre

nt c

oils

are

plug

ged

and

non

oper

atio

nal -

Inst

all (

1) F

low

met

er f

or in

stal

led

VAVs

to m

onito

r usa

ge -

Inst

all (

1)

Para

gon

cont

rolle

r and

Rec

onfig

ure

para

gon

cont

rols

on S

F-1

and

SF-2

for p

rope

r op

erat

ion

- Ins

tall

new

hot

and

chi

lled

wat

er B

TU m

eter

s - P

rovi

de a

nd in

stal

l a w

eb

base

d in

terf

ace

for t

he e

xist

ing

Schn

eide

r Ele

ctric

Inet

BAS

- Th

is ne

w w

eb b

ase

syst

em w

ill a

llow

thre

e co

ncur

rent

use

rs. P

oor a

ir ve

loci

ty c

ontr

ol c

apab

ility

cre

ates

ne

gativ

e pr

essu

re w

ithin

cou

rtro

oms w

hich

impa

irs p

rope

r clim

ate

cont

rol -

Pro

ject

in

volv

es A

CM a

bate

men

t

820,

187

$

83

4,70

2$

1/

17/2

014

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0504

86a

Alam

eda

Geor

ge E

. M

cDon

ald

Hall

of Ju

stic

e

HVAC

- Re

mov

e Pn

eum

atic

bui

ldin

g co

ntro

l Boa

rd(1

) - In

stal

l VAV

s (3

)- In

stal

l DD

C co

ntro

ls(60

sens

ors )

-Inst

all V

FDs S

uppl

y an

d Re

turn

fans

(4)-

Inst

all B

uild

ing

Cont

rol

Inte

rfac

e (1

)Inst

all a

utom

ated

con

trol

val

ves w

ith fe

edba

ck si

gnal

(60)

- Ins

tall

VFD

15hp

(480

Vol

t Var

iabl

e Fr

eque

ncy

Driv

e W

all m

ount

ed Q

ty. 9

)Inst

all V

FD 2

5hp

(480

Vo

lt Va

riabl

e Fr

eque

ncy

Driv

e W

all m

ount

ed Q

ty.1

5) C

ourt

BAS

syst

em is

def

unct

and

re

quire

s con

trol

of a

ll eq

uipm

ent s

uppo

rtin

g cr

itica

l util

ities

for t

he c

ourt

for h

eatin

g,

cool

ing

and

light

ing.

605,

045

$

25

6,82

5$

7/

12/2

013

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

AOC-

13-0

18FM

-003

4865

Los A

ngel

esM

etro

polit

an

Cour

thou

seEl

evat

ors -

Ren

ovat

e th

irtee

n (1

3) E

leva

tors

- Co

mpl

ete

reno

vatio

n of

the

cour

ts

thirt

een

elev

ator

s; n

ine

Pass

enge

r, tw

o In

- Cu

stod

y, o

ne d

edic

ated

Judg

es a

nd o

ne

shut

tle. W

hile

reta

inin

g th

e ca

rs th

emse

lves

, the

reno

vatio

ns w

ill in

clud

e ne

w

cont

rols,

new

cab

les,

upd

ated

ele

ctric

al, n

ew d

oors

and

ope

rato

rs, n

ew ro

ller g

uide

s,

new

em

erge

ncy

light

ing

syst

em a

nd a

dd p

rope

r ven

tilat

ion

and

light

ing

in th

e m

achi

ne ro

om.

3,13

8,88

7$

3,

138,

887

$

4/

11/2

014

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 4

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

JCC-

14-0

19FM

-001

1923

San

Dieg

o Ea

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

r El

evat

or -

Elev

ator

Ren

ovat

ion

- Com

plet

e re

nova

tion

of n

ine

(9) g

earle

ss tr

actio

n el

evat

ors.

Wor

k w

ill in

clud

e bu

t not

be

limite

d to

, car

fram

es a

nd p

latf

orm

s, b

uffe

rs

and

safe

ties,

hoi

stw

ay e

ntra

nce

fram

es, d

oors

and

pit

equi

p., n

ew A

C ge

arle

ss

mac

hine

s, m

icro

-pro

cess

or c

ontr

ol sy

stem

s, re

gene

rativ

e VV

VF A

C dr

ives

, gov

erno

rs

(ele

vato

rs 1

,2&

3 on

ly),

clos

ed lo

op h

eavy

dut

y hi

gh sp

eed

oper

ator

s, c

urre

nt c

ode

requ

ired

wiri

ng, i

nter

ior a

nd lo

bby

cont

rol p

anel

s, c

ount

erw

eigh

ts a

nd ro

ller g

uide

s (E

leva

tors

7&

9 on

ly),

hoist

and

gov

erno

r rop

es, c

ab c

eilin

gs w

ith L

ED d

own

light

s,

rope

com

pens

atio

n an

d se

ismic

pro

visio

ns.

2,74

2,06

2$

2,

628,

225

$

12

/15/

2014

Shar

ed E

leva

tors

(O

n Ho

ld fo

r Sha

red

Cost

Let

ter)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

elev

ator

s (In

Co

nstr

uctio

n)

FM-0

0170

40Lo

s Ang

eles

Com

pton

Co

urth

ouse

Fire

Ala

rm S

yste

m -

Phas

e 1

- Ins

talla

tion

of a

new

Fire

Det

ectio

n an

d N

otifi

catio

n Al

arm

syst

em, b

uild

ing

alar

m sy

stem

is n

ot c

ode

com

plia

nt a

nd m

ust b

e re

plac

ed to

co

mpl

y w

ith S

tate

Fire

Mar

shal

not

ice

to c

ompl

y. W

ork

incl

udes

des

ign

and

ACM

ab

atem

ent a

s nee

ded.

540,

943

$

54

0,94

3$

4/

13/2

015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0283

22O

rang

e Ce

ntra

l Jus

tice

Cent

erFi

re A

larm

Sys

tem

- Ph

ase

1 -R

epla

ce/R

enov

ate/

Upg

rade

the

exist

ing

Fire

Ala

rm

Syst

em -

The

exist

ing

build

ing

alar

m sy

stem

is n

ot c

ode

com

plia

nt a

nd m

ust b

e br

ough

t to

com

plia

nce

per t

he S

tate

Fire

Mar

shal

s not

ice

to c

ompl

y. W

ork

incl

udes

de

sign

and

ACM

aba

tem

ent a

s nee

ded.

833,

269

$

98

,181

$

4/13

/201

5In

Pro

gres

s (C

onst

ruct

ion

Proc

urem

ent)

FM-0

0355

37Lo

s Ang

eles

Pasa

dena

Co

urth

ouse

Elev

ator

- El

evat

or R

enov

atio

n - C

ompl

ete

reno

vatio

n of

five

(5) t

ract

ion

and

two

(2)

hydr

aulic

ele

vato

rs. W

ork

will

incl

ude

but n

ot b

e lim

ited

to, c

ar fr

ames

and

pl

atfo

rms,

buf

fers

and

safe

ties,

hoi

stw

ay e

ntra

nce

fram

es, d

oors

and

pit

equi

pt.,

new

AC

gea

rless

mac

hine

s, m

icro

-pro

cess

or c

ontr

ol sy

stem

s, re

gene

rativ

e VV

VF A

C dr

ives

, fly

bal

l gov

erno

rs, c

lose

d lo

op h

eavy

dut

y hi

gh sp

eed

oper

ator

s, c

urre

nt c

ode

requ

ired

wiri

ng, i

nter

ior a

nd lo

bby

cont

rol p

anel

s, c

ount

erw

eigh

ts a

nd ro

ller g

uide

s,

hoist

and

gov

erno

r rop

es, c

ab c

eilin

gs w

ith L

ED d

own

light

s, ro

pe c

ompe

nsat

ion,

new

su

bmer

sible

pum

p un

its a

nd u

nder

grou

nd c

ylin

ders

enc

ased

in P

VC fo

r hyd

raul

ic

elev

ator

s, a

nd se

ismic

pro

visio

ns. P

rovi

de n

ew a

ir co

nditi

onin

g to

the

mac

hine

ro

oms.

3,18

2,11

2$

1,

111,

200

$

12

/15/

2014

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0491

06Lo

s Ang

eles

Stan

ley

Mos

k Co

urth

ouse

Elev

ator

- El

evat

or R

enov

atio

n - C

ompl

ete

reno

vatio

n of

eig

ht (8

) gea

rless

trac

tion

elev

ator

s, si

x 3,

000

lb c

apac

ity a

nd tw

o 8,

000

lb c

apac

ity. W

ork

will

incl

ude

but n

ot

be li

mite

d to

, car

fram

es a

nd p

latf

orm

s, b

uffe

rs a

nd sa

fetie

s, h

oist

way

ent

ranc

e fr

ames

, doo

rs a

nd p

it eq

uipt

., ne

w A

C ge

arle

ss m

achi

nes,

mic

ro-p

roce

ssor

con

trol

sy

stem

s, re

gene

rativ

e VV

VF A

C dr

ives

, fly

bal

l gov

erno

rs, c

lose

d lo

op h

eavy

dut

y hi

gh

spee

d op

erat

ors,

cur

rent

cod

e re

quire

d w

iring

, int

erio

r and

lobb

y co

ntro

l pan

els,

co

unte

rwei

ghts

and

rolle

r gui

des,

hoi

st a

nd g

over

nor r

opes

, cab

cei

lings

with

LED

do

wn

light

s, ro

pe c

ompe

nsat

ion

and

seism

ic p

rovi

sions

.

3,74

5,48

3$

70

3,02

9$

12

/15/

2014

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0521

29a

Los A

ngel

esFo

ltz C

ourt

hous

eHV

AC -

Reno

vate

the

BAS

- Con

vert

the

exist

ing

pneu

mat

ic c

ontr

ols t

o DD

C, re

plac

e th

e fr

ont e

nd c

ontr

ol to

the

syst

em, i

nsta

ll VF

D's o

n al

l AHU

supp

ly fa

ns, I

sola

te a

nd

elim

inat

e al

l lea

ks th

roug

hout

the

syst

em, r

epla

ce th

e w

orn

bear

ings

on

AH 1

9-1

AHU

fa

n, re

plac

e th

e fa

iled

retu

rn a

ir se

nsor

on

AHU

1-9

and

insu

late

the

chill

ed a

nd h

ot

wat

er p

ipin

g at

thirt

y-on

e (3

1) lo

catio

ns.

1,13

3,21

0$

1,

137,

318

$

7/

11/2

014

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 5

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0522

43Lo

s Ang

eles

Alha

mbr

a Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

Pro

ject

-19I

1_02

2820

13LV

1 - L

ight

ing

and

cont

rols

upgr

ade

- Re

trof

it (1

,533

) F32

T8 fl

uore

scen

t fix

ture

s with

new

28-

wat

t lam

ps a

nd n

ew b

alla

st,

(249

) 3-la

mp

and

4-la

mp

fluor

esce

nt fi

xtur

es w

ith n

ew re

flect

or, 2

8-w

att l

amps

and

ne

w b

alla

st, a

nd (1

) 2x2

fluo

resc

ent f

ixtu

res w

ith n

ew re

flect

or, 1

7-w

att l

amps

and

ne

w b

alla

st. I

nsta

ll (2

) Ven

ding

Mise

r sen

sors

to c

ontr

ol v

endi

ng m

achi

nes.

Rep

lace

(3

2) E

xter

ior H

ID fi

xtur

es o

n th

e w

ith n

ew lo

wer

wat

tage

LED

fixt

ures

.

190,

970

$

19

4,68

1$

1/

16/2

015

Com

plet

ed C

lose

d Ta

sk

FM-0

0530

08Lo

s Ang

eles

Com

pton

Co

urth

ouse

Roof

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e th

e up

per r

oof,

mai

n ro

of d

eck

and

stan

d al

one

rest

room

ro

ofs (

appr

oxim

atel

y 34

,000

SF)

with

a 3

ply

roof

ing

syst

em, r

oofin

g sy

stem

is fa

iling

. W

ork

incl

udes

new

flas

hing

s, a

nd re

glet

met

al w

here

nee

ded.

494,

134

$

49

4,13

4$

3/

6/20

15Co

mpl

eted

(a

wai

ting

Invo

ice)

FM-0

0540

53Sa

nta

Barb

ara

Sant

a Ba

rbar

a Ju

ry

Asse

mbl

y Bu

ildin

g In

terio

r Fin

ishes

- Co

nstr

uct t

hree

(3) A

ttor

ney/

Clie

nt M

eetin

g Ro

oms -

Req

uire

d to

Fa

cilit

ate

mov

e of

juve

nile

pro

ceed

ings

to th

is lo

catio

n.75

,654

$

125,

653

$

5/22

/201

5Co

mpl

eted

(clo

sed

task

)

FM-0

0542

70Lo

s Ang

eles

Park

ing

Stru

ctur

e Ed

elm

an

Cour

thou

se

Elev

ator

- El

evat

or R

enov

atio

n - C

ompl

ete

reno

vatio

n of

two

(2) t

ract

ion

and

one

(1)

hydr

aulic

ele

vato

rs. W

ork

will

incl

ude

but n

ot b

e lim

ited

to, c

ar fr

ames

and

pl

atfo

rms,

buf

fers

and

safe

ties,

hoi

stw

ay e

ntra

nce

fram

es, d

oors

and

pit

equi

pt.,

new

AC

gea

rless

mac

hine

s, m

icro

-pro

cess

or c

ontr

ol sy

stem

s, re

gene

rativ

e VV

VF A

C dr

ives

, fly

bal

l gov

erno

rs,

curr

ent c

ode

requ

ired

wiri

ng, i

nter

ior a

nd lo

bby

cont

rol p

anel

s,

car a

nd h

all d

oor p

anel

s with

new

doo

rs, c

ount

erw

eigh

ts a

nd ro

ller g

uide

s, h

oist

and

go

vern

or ro

pes,

cab

cei

lings

with

LED

dow

n lig

hts,

rope

com

pens

atio

n, n

ew

subm

ersib

le p

ump

units

and

und

ergr

ound

cyl

inde

rs e

ncas

ed in

PVC

for h

ydra

ulic

el

evat

ors,

and

seism

ic p

rovi

sions

. Ins

tall

new

mac

hine

room

air

cond

ition

ing.

739,

271

$

73

9,27

1$

12

/15/

2014

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0442

28Pl

acer

Bill

Sant

ucci

Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

Inte

rior F

inish

es -

New

Arr

aign

men

t Cou

rtro

om -

Com

plet

e th

e in

terio

r bui

ldou

t of

the

Sout

h Pl

acer

Jail

Arra

ignm

ent C

ourt

room

- Th

e sh

ell o

f the

cou

rtro

om w

as

com

plet

ed a

t Cou

nty

of P

lace

r exp

ense

.

2,03

0,00

0$

2,

067,

366

$

1/

16/2

015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0529

82Lo

s Ang

eles

Met

ropo

litan

Co

urth

ouse

Roof

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ex

istin

g m

ain

deck

, pen

thou

se &

stai

rwel

l dec

k ro

ofs

(27,

000

SF) w

ith n

ew 3

ply

roof

syst

ems.

Roo

fing

syst

em is

faili

ng. W

ork

incl

udes

new

fla

shin

gs a

nd re

glet

met

al w

here

nee

ded,

met

al e

tchi

ng a

nd re

pain

ting

of th

e de

terio

ratin

g st

andi

ng se

am m

etal

roof

(2,5

35 S

F) a

nd c

lean

ing

and

rese

ttin

g ro

of

drai

ns a

nd c

aps.

599,

535

$

59

9,53

5$

3/

6/20

15Co

mpl

eted

(a

wai

ting

Invo

ice)

JCC-

15-0

14FM

-004

4229

bO

rang

eW

est J

ustic

e Ce

nter

HVAC

- Ai

r Han

dler

s and

BAS

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e th

e o

rigin

al fa

iling

air

hand

lers

an

d a

faile

d he

at p

ump.

Con

vert

the

phas

e 2

AHU

-5 d

ampe

r con

trol

s, th

e ph

ase

1 AH

U-3

and

the

phas

e 3

Zone

con

trol

s to

DDC

cont

rol.

Retr

o co

mm

issio

n th

e Bu

ildin

g Au

tom

atio

n Sy

stem

. Wor

k in

clud

es th

e in

stal

latio

n of

cod

e re

quire

d re

frig

eran

t m

onito

ring

syst

em to

pha

ses 1

and

2. R

epro

gram

the

BAS

to ru

n al

l BAS

con

trol

led

equi

pmen

t at t

he m

ost e

ffici

ent l

evel

s.

138,

876

$

13

8,87

6$

8/

31/2

015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0442

37e

San

Fran

cisc

o Ha

ll of

Just

ice

Phas

e 2

- Ele

vato

r - R

efur

bish

Cou

rt E

xclu

sive

Elev

ator

s (4)

- 50

+ yr

old

, 350

dai

ly in

-cu

stod

y tr

ansf

ers p

er c

ar, i

n im

med

iate

nee

d of

refu

rbish

men

t due

to in

crea

sed

high

nu

mbe

rs o

f ent

rapm

ents

, fai

lure

s, a

nd n

o co

nnec

tion

to b

uild

ing

fire

syst

em a

s re

quire

d

114,

742

$

-

$

12

/7/2

015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 6

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0507

66Sa

nta

Clar

aM

orga

n Hi

ll Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of li

ghtin

g co

ntro

ls on

ext

erio

r pol

e lig

hts,

inte

grat

ion

of li

ghtin

g co

ntro

ls w

ith B

AS sy

stem

, upg

rade

of e

xist

ing

met

al h

alid

e lig

hts i

n sa

llypo

rt a

nd o

n th

e bu

ildin

g ex

terio

r to

LED

light

ing;

upg

rade

inte

rior f

ixtu

res t

o LE

D lig

htin

g; in

stal

l CO

2 m

onito

rs to

supp

ort d

eman

d ve

ntila

tion

cont

rols;

and

upg

rade

air

hand

ling

syst

em to

su

ppor

t new

var

iabl

e fr

eque

ncy

driv

e un

its.

302,

461

$

19

7,27

8$

5/

20/2

016

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

FM-0

0573

47Fr

esno

B.F.

Sisk

Fed

eral

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of li

ghtin

g, o

ccup

ancy

and

day

light

ing

cont

rols,

2 V

FD d

rives

on

the

15HP

co

nden

ser p

umps

, and

upg

rade

of l

ight

ing

fixtu

res o

n th

e ex

terio

r and

inte

rior t

o LE

D lig

htin

g (a

ppro

x. 1

860

lam

ps).

304,

927

$

27

7,55

9$

5/

20/2

016

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

FM-0

0586

53Al

amed

aHa

ywar

d Ha

ll of

Ju

stic

eEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n Va

riabl

e Fr

eque

ncy

Driv

es o

n ch

iller

, chi

lled

cold

& h

ot w

ater

pum

ps (3

); re

plac

e ex

terio

r met

al h

alid

e fix

ture

s with

LED

ligh

ting;

and

inst

all o

ccup

ancy

sens

ors

priv

ate

offic

es, f

ile a

reas

, mec

hani

cal s

pace

and

bat

hroo

ms;

inst

all b

i-lev

el li

ghtin

g co

ntro

ls in

stai

rwel

ls.

107,

922

$

10

7,92

2$

5/

20/2

016

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0586

54Sa

nta

Clar

aHi

stor

ic

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

re

prog

ram

min

g of

the

BAS,

inst

alla

tion

of o

ccup

ancy

sens

ors,

and

upg

radi

ng in

terio

r ha

llway

, cou

rtro

om, o

ffice

, and

bat

hroo

m C

FL la

mps

and

ext

erio

r met

al h

alid

e lig

htin

g to

LED

ligh

ting.

75,3

82$

73

,024

$

5/20

/201

6Co

mpl

eted

Clo

sed

Task

FM-0

0586

56Sa

n Be

nito

New

Hol

liste

r Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

conv

ersio

n of

exi

stin

g Hi

gh In

tens

ity D

ischa

rge

lam

ps w

ith L

ED li

ghtin

g in

the

park

ing

and

on th

e bu

ildin

g ex

terio

r. In

stal

l tw

o Va

riabl

e Fr

eque

ncy

Driv

es o

n ch

illed

wat

er

and

cool

ing

tow

er p

umps

.

60,3

36$

14

,944

$

5/20

/201

6Co

mpl

eted

(a

wai

ting

Invo

ice)

FM-0

0586

57Bu

tte

Butt

e Co

unty

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of b

i-lev

el li

ghtin

g an

d oc

cupa

ncy

cont

rols;

inst

alla

tion

of v

aria

ble

freq

uenc

y dr

ive

on c

hille

d w

ater

pum

p, a

nd u

pgra

de o

f hig

h pr

essu

re so

dium

&

Met

al H

alid

e ex

terio

r fix

ture

s (39

) and

inte

rior f

luor

esce

nt fi

xtur

es (a

ppro

x. 7

58) t

o LE

D lig

htin

g.

150,

229

$

15

7,12

7$

5/

20/2

016

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

FM-0

0586

58Sa

n Jo

aqui

nM

ante

ca B

ranc

h Co

urt

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of li

ghtin

g fix

ture

s on

the

inte

rior t

o LE

D lig

htin

g (a

ppro

x. 2

52 la

mps

).9,

557

$

19,6

61$

5/

20/2

016

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)FM

-005

8660

Sacr

amen

toCa

rol M

iller

Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

Co

urt F

acili

ty

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of a

ppro

x. 1

,415

LED

lam

ps a

nd d

aylig

htin

g co

ntro

ls, 2

VFD

driv

es a

nd

asso

ciat

ed v

alve

s on

the

chill

ed w

ater

pum

ps, a

nd O

ccup

ancy

sens

ing

circ

uit c

ontr

ols

for c

omm

on a

rea

and

brea

kroo

m p

lug

load

.

114,

932

$

16

5,14

6$

5/

20/2

016

Com

plet

ed (C

lose

d Ta

sk)

FM-0

0170

40c

Los A

ngel

esCo

mpt

on

Cour

thou

seFi

re -

Phas

e 2

- Bui

ldin

g al

arm

syst

em is

not

cod

e co

mpl

iant

and

mus

t be

reno

vate

d to

com

ply

with

Sta

te F

ire M

arsh

al n

otic

e to

com

ply.

1,21

3,35

3$

1,

221,

353

$

1/

17/2

015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)FM

-002

0439

Sant

a Cl

ara

Sant

a Cl

ara

Cour

thou

seRo

of -

Repl

ace

appr

ox. 1

6,58

0 sq

. ft.

of fa

iled

leak

ing

roof

, inc

ludi

ng 8

30 sq

. ft.

of

flash

ing,

(6) 1

5" ro

of d

rain

s and

dom

e st

rain

ers.

Due

to d

eter

iora

tion

ther

e is

evid

ence

of c

rack

ing,

pon

ding

and

wat

er in

trus

ion

into

the

build

ing.

510,

083

$

-

$

4/

4/20

16In

Pro

gres

s (De

sign

/ Ass

essm

ent)

FM-0

0283

22c

Ora

nge

Cent

ral J

ustic

e Ce

nter

Fire

- Ph

ase

2 - B

uild

ing

alar

m sy

stem

is n

ot c

ode

com

plia

nt a

nd m

ust b

e re

nova

ted

to c

ompl

y w

ith S

tate

Fire

Mar

shal

not

ice

to c

ompl

y.1,

666,

539

$

-$

7/17

/201

5In

Pro

gres

s (P

lan

Chec

k)FM

-005

2988

Los A

ngel

esSa

n Fe

rnan

do

Cour

thou

seRo

of -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

exist

ing

faili

ng ro

ofin

g sy

stem

s on

mai

n de

ck, 2

nd a

nd 3

rd

floor

Nor

thea

st d

ecks

as w

ell a

s mac

hine

room

roof

s at t

he m

ain

roof

(app

roxi

mat

ely

38,0

00) w

ith a

SBS

roof

Sys

tem

. Roo

f met

al w

ill b

e re

plac

ed a

s nee

ded.

673,

266

$

69

8,76

3$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 7

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0530

02Lo

s Ang

eles

Mon

rovi

a Tr

aini

ng

Cent

erRo

of -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

exist

ing

roof

syst

em a

t ele

ven

diffe

rent

are

as (2

0,00

0 SF

). Du

e to

the

poor

con

ditio

n of

thes

e ar

eas,

reco

mm

ende

d re

mov

al a

nd re

plac

emen

t of

exist

ing

and

build

ing

met

al w

ill b

ring

entir

e bu

ildin

g ro

of to

goo

d co

nditi

on.

316,

305

$

33

9,75

6$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0530

03Lo

s Ang

eles

Alha

mbr

a Co

urth

ouse

Roof

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ex

istin

g ro

of w

ith n

ew S

BS ro

of sy

stem

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ap

prox

imat

ely

31,8

00sf

of f

ailin

g bu

ilt u

p ro

of sy

stem

. Wor

k w

ill in

clud

e ne

w

build

ing

met

al, v

ents

and

wal

k pa

ds a

s nee

ded.

601,

846

$

78

0,74

9$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0530

04Lo

s Ang

eles

Van

Nuy

s Co

urth

ouse

Wes

tRo

of -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

exist

ing

faili

ng ro

of w

ith n

ew S

BS ro

of sy

stem

- W

ork

to

incl

ude

repl

acin

g ap

prox

imat

ely

25,0

00sf

of f

ailin

g bu

ilt u

p ro

of, t

wo

roof

dra

ins,

re-

coat

the

Heli-

Stop

and

repl

ace

build

ing

met

al a

s nee

ded.

470,

864

$

47

2,97

7$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0530

30Lo

s Ang

eles

Glen

dale

Co

urth

ouse

Roof

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ex

istin

g ro

of w

ith n

ew S

BS ro

of sy

stem

- W

ork

to in

clud

e re

plac

ing

appr

oxim

atel

y 34

,000

sf o

f fai

ling

built

up

roof

, res

tore

roof

dra

ins,

inst

all

tape

red

insu

latio

n as

nee

ded

and

repl

ace

build

ing

met

al if

not

re-u

sabl

e.

685,

694

$

73

6,02

0$

10

/23/

2015

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

FM-0

0533

94Lo

s Ang

eles

Torr

ance

Co

urth

ouse

Roof

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e 40

,000

squa

re fe

et o

f the

exi

stin

g m

ain

deck

and

low

er

deck

sect

ions

with

new

SBS

roof

syst

em /

Due

to ro

of d

ecks

cur

rent

ly fa

iling

and

le

akin

g. W

ork

to in

clud

e ne

w b

uild

ing

met

al, v

ent j

acks

and

equ

ipm

ent c

urbs

as

need

ed

719,

972

$

74

6,27

4$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0534

60Lo

s Ang

eles

Edm

und

D.

Edel

man

Ch

ildre

n's

Cour

thou

se

Roof

- R

emov

e an

d re

plac

e 43

,000

sf o

f exi

stin

g ro

of w

ith n

ew S

BS ro

of sy

stem

, cu

rren

tly th

e ex

istin

g ro

of is

in p

oor t

o fa

ir co

nditi

on a

t bes

t, w

ork

will

repl

ace

the

roof

at t

hree

bui

ldin

g se

ctio

ns a

t var

ious

leve

ls. N

ew b

uild

ing

met

al a

nd c

urbs

will

be

repl

aced

as n

eede

d. (N

o w

ork

to b

e do

ne o

n th

e He

li - S

top)

.

662,

105

$

32

7,94

4$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0535

49Lo

s Ang

eles

Dow

ney

Cour

thou

seRo

of -

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

exist

ing

mai

n de

ck, l

ower

eas

t dec

k an

d lo

wer

wes

t dec

k (a

ppro

xim

atel

y 34

,000

sf) w

ith a

SBS

type

roof

syst

em -

Due

to m

ain

and

low

er d

ecks

ar

e pa

st d

ue a

nd b

egin

ning

to le

ak d

urin

g ra

iny

wea

ther

.

630,

669

$

68

6,92

0$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0535

54Lo

s Ang

eles

Pom

ona

Cour

thou

se S

outh

Roof

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ex

istin

g ro

of w

ith n

ew S

BS ro

of sy

stem

at m

ain

deck

(2

3,22

0 sq

. ft.)

, low

er n

orth

dec

k (2

,838

sq. f

t.), a

nd lo

wer

sout

h de

ck (2

,838

sq. f

t.).

Roof

ing

met

al w

ill b

e re

plac

ed a

s nee

ded.

622,

391

$

11

3,75

5$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0541

01Lo

s Ang

eles

Sant

a M

onic

a Co

urth

ouse

Roof

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e 53

,000

sf o

f exi

stin

g ro

of w

ith n

ew S

BS ro

of sy

stem

, cu

rren

tly th

e ex

istin

g ro

of is

in p

oor t

o fa

ir co

nditi

on a

t bes

t, w

ork

will

repl

ace

the

roof

at t

hree

bui

ldin

g se

ctio

ns a

t var

ious

leve

ls. N

ew b

uild

ing

met

al a

nd c

urbs

will

be

repl

aced

as n

eede

d.

874,

646

$

91

8,15

9$

10

/23/

2015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0570

43Lo

s Ang

eles

Ingl

ewoo

d Ju

veni

le C

ourt

Roof

- Re

mov

e an

d re

plac

e ap

prox

imat

ely

11,6

00 S

F of

faili

ng b

uilt

up ro

of. N

ew ro

of

to b

e a

SBS

mul

ti-pl

y ro

of, t

o in

clud

e ne

w b

uild

ing

met

al, c

lean

all

roof

dra

ins a

nd

supp

ly a

nd in

stal

l new

roof

dra

in c

aps

226,

432

$

24

2,11

7$

12

/7/2

015

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

FM-0

0574

12Lo

s Ang

eles

Sant

a M

onic

a Co

urth

ouse

HVAC

- N

orth

side

- Re

plac

e de

terio

ratin

g ro

of to

p ho

t wat

er p

ipe;

app

rox.

200

LF o

f 2"

cop

per p

ipe

& fi

ttin

gs. R

e-in

sula

te 2

00LF

of p

ipe,

repl

ace

210S

F al

umin

um

insu

latio

n ja

cket

& b

ands

. Con

duct

wor

k un

der k

now

n AC

M e

nviro

nmen

t, Gl

ove

bag

200L

F of

ACM

The

rmal

Sys

tem

Insu

latio

n

63,8

16$

11

3,08

2$

4/

4/20

16Co

mpl

eted

(clo

sed

task

)

FM-0

0574

96Lo

s Ang

eles

Mic

hael

D.

Anto

novi

ch

Ante

lope

Val

ley

Cour

thou

se

HVAC

- Re

tro

com

miss

ion

Fire

Sm

oke

Dam

pers

. Res

tore

com

plet

e op

erab

ility

of

exist

ing

equi

pmen

t. W

ork

to in

clud

e re

plac

ing

any

Mic

rosm

art D

MS

cont

rolle

rs,

cont

acto

r rel

ays,

or f

aile

d FS

Ds. F

SDs a

re n

ot w

orki

ng a

s des

igne

d, F

SDs w

ill

succ

essf

ully

shut

but

are

inca

pabl

e of

mod

ulat

ing

open

. Rec

omm

ende

d m

easu

res

wer

e id

entif

ied

as a

par

t of t

he R

Cx.

69,8

35$

69

,835

$

4/4/

2016

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 8

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0581

61Lo

s Ang

eles

Met

ropo

litan

Co

urth

ouse

Plum

bing

- Re

mov

e/re

plac

e (2

) 8 su

pply

wat

er is

olat

ion

gate

val

ves &

(1) S

econ

dary

4

isola

tion

valv

e; in

stal

l 20-

of 8

& 6

L-T

ype

Copp

er p

ipes

and

con

nect

ions

. Exi

stin

g va

lves

are

seve

rely

rust

ed a

nd le

ak

52,7

15$

52

,715

$

5/20

/201

6Co

mpl

eted

(clo

sed

task

)

FM-0

0586

36Sa

nta

Clar

aHa

ll of

Just

ice

East

Roof

- Re

plac

e 21

,000

sq. f

t. of

det

erio

rate

d ro

of, 5

00 ln

. Ft.

of c

opin

g m

etal

, de

terio

rate

d ro

of d

rain

ring

s and

ove

r flo

w d

rain

s. T

he ro

of is

ove

r 40

year

s old

sh

owin

g sig

ns o

f dam

aged

insu

latio

n, c

rack

ing,

pon

ding

and

roof

leak

s are

evi

dent

in

the

build

ing.

811,

254

$

-

$

5/

20/2

016

In P

rogr

ess (

Desig

n / A

sses

smen

t)

FM-0

0549

51O

rang

eN

orth

Just

ice

Cent

erHV

AC -

Phas

e 1

- Des

ign

- Coo

ling

Tow

ers -

Dem

o, re

mov

e, re

plac

e, a

nd re

loca

te tw

o 25

0+ to

n (2

0hp

ea.)

cool

ing

tow

ers.

The

coo

ling

tow

ers r

equi

re re

loca

tion

due

to

curr

ent u

nsaf

e w

ork

cond

ition

s and

repl

acem

ent d

ue to

age

and

faili

ng c

ompo

nent

s.

The

roof

top

loca

tion

has a

rust

ing

and

faili

ng b

low

er w

heel

shaf

t tha

t cou

ld b

reak

at

any

mom

ent a

nd c

anno

t be

repl

aced

or m

aint

aine

d du

e to

lack

of f

all p

rote

ctio

n;

relo

catio

n w

ill a

llow

pre

vent

ive

mai

nten

ance

to b

e pe

rfor

med

in a

safe

and

effi

cien

t m

anne

r.

233,

000

$

17

9,68

4$

7/

17/2

015

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0569

65M

onte

rey

Mon

tere

y Co

urth

ouse

COU

NTY

-MAN

AGED

- El

ectr

ical

- in

stal

l rep

lace

men

t gen

erat

or. W

ork

to in

clud

e cr

ane

lift.

Cur

rent

equ

ipm

ent h

as fa

iled.

A te

mp

rent

al h

as b

een

depl

oyed

dur

ing

repl

acem

ent.

127,

900

$

12

7,90

0$

4/

4/20

16Co

mpl

eted

(a

wai

ting

Invo

ice)

FM-0

0573

36Lo

s Ang

eles

Dow

ney

Cour

thou

seDE

SIGN

- Ph

ase

1 - E

xter

ior S

hell

- Ren

ovat

e fa

iling

wal

l are

a le

adin

g in

to th

e sa

lly

port

per

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

with

in th

e en

gine

erin

g st

udy.

Wor

k to

incl

ude

exca

vatio

n an

d br

acin

g of

wal

l are

as, r

emov

al o

f tre

es c

ontr

ibut

ing

to w

all s

yste

m

failu

re, r

epla

cem

ent o

f fai

led

drai

nage

syst

em.

129,

735

$

10

2,46

1$

2/

19/2

016

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0575

76Sa

n M

ateo

Hall

of Ju

stic

eCO

UN

TY M

ANAG

ED: H

VAC

- Rep

lace

faile

d 60

yr o

ld A

HU's

(S-1

, S-2

, S-3

, S-6

& S

-7) -

AH

Us (

5) h

ave

faile

d re

sulti

ng in

seve

re te

mpe

ratu

re is

sues

and

disr

uptio

ns to

Cou

rt85

6,37

5$

856,

375

$

4/4/

2016

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 9

of 1

3

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0576

00Sa

nta

Clar

aHa

ll of

Just

ice

(Eas

t)Ex

terio

r She

ll - I

nsta

ll (1

) con

cret

e AD

A ra

mp,

70

ln ft

. of h

and

rails

, and

(2) A

DA p

ush

butt

ons f

or e

xter

ior d

oors

to m

eet c

ode

com

plia

nce.

Wor

k to

incl

ude

dem

o of

ex

istin

g AD

A ra

mp

and

fill w

ith d

irt. T

he c

ourt

CEO

has

rece

ived

com

plai

nts f

rom

the

boar

d m

embe

r chi

ef o

f sta

ff an

d th

e pu

blic

who

hav

e fa

llen

dow

n th

e st

airs

.

187,

602

$

21

5,82

2$

4/

4/20

16Co

mpl

eted

(clo

sed

task

)

FM-0

0586

27Bu

tte

Butt

e Co

unty

Co

urth

ouse

Fire

Pro

tect

ion

- Rep

lace

the

fire

alar

m c

ontr

ol p

anel

and

all

its d

evic

es th

roug

hout

th

e bu

ildin

g w

ith a

non

-pro

prie

tary

"Not

ifier

" sys

tem

. The

Sim

plex

Grin

nell

fire

alar

m

syst

em is

obs

olet

e, c

anno

t be

repa

ired,

and

cur

rent

ly h

as se

vera

l dev

ices

in tr

oubl

e-al

arm

.

120,

000

$

12

0,00

0$

5/

20/2

016

Com

plet

ed(c

lose

d ta

sk)

FM-0

0529

79a

Los A

ngel

esBu

rban

k Co

urth

ouse

Roof

- O

rigin

al G

able

Roo

f Sec

tion

- Rem

ove

appr

oxim

atel

y 12

,500

sf o

f exi

stin

g ro

lled

roof

ing

over

a p

re-e

xist

ing

roof

. Wor

k w

ill in

clud

e ne

w p

lyw

ood

roof

sh

eath

ing,

Den

s Dec

k m

ater

ial,

insu

latio

n bo

ard

and

a ne

w S

BS ro

of sy

stem

with

Coo

l Ro

of c

oatin

g. T

wo

piec

es o

f aba

ndon

ed m

echa

nica

l equ

ipm

ent w

ill a

lso b

e re

mov

ed

from

the

roof

and

the

pene

trat

ions

will

be

capp

ed. T

he e

xist

ing

gabl

e ro

of

mem

bran

e is

faili

ng a

nd re

quire

s im

med

iate

repl

acem

ent.

209,

186

$

20

9,18

6$

7/

17/2

015

Com

plet

ed(c

lose

d ta

sk)

JCC-

15-0

15FM

-003

5096

Ora

nge

Nor

th Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

HVAC

- Re

plac

e fa

iling

air

hand

lers

uni

ts 1

-8. C

urre

nt a

ir ha

ndle

rs a

re th

e bu

ildin

gs

orig

inal

and

fail

inte

rmitt

ently

. Str

uctu

ral i

nsta

bilit

y fo

r cou

pler

syst

ems w

as n

oted

du

ring

AHU

-1 b

earin

g re

plac

emen

t occ

urrin

g w

ithin

the

last

yea

r. In

stal

l ref

riger

ant

mon

itorin

g sy

stem

as r

equi

red

by c

ode.

1,08

6,42

9$

1,

086,

429

$

5/

20/2

016

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0586

61Am

ador

New

Am

ador

Co

unty

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of B

AS C

ontr

ols f

or a

ll HV

AC u

nits

, upg

rade

exi

stin

g ai

r han

dler

to C

limat

e W

izard

(CW

) ind

irect

eva

pora

tive

cool

ing

air h

andl

er, u

pgra

de e

xist

ing

inte

rnal

lam

ps

to L

ED, a

nd in

stal

l ene

rgy

effic

ient

tele

com

switc

hes d

ecre

asin

g ov

eral

l plu

g lo

ad.

465,

010

$

60

,201

$

5/20

/201

6In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 1

0 of

13

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

JCC-

16-0

13FM

-006

0574

Fres

noFr

esno

Cou

nty

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

375

5 Fi

xtur

es)

120,

496

$

11

4,21

6$

5/

19/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)FM

-006

0524

Los A

ngel

esN

orw

alk

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

68,1

92$

67

,880

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

79Lo

s Ang

eles

Bellf

low

er

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

123

4 Fi

xtur

es)

32,1

87$

22

,433

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

81Lo

s Ang

eles

Dow

ney

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

122

2 Fi

xtur

es)

34,3

22$

34

,322

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

84Lo

s Ang

eles

Whi

ttie

r Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

583

Fixt

ures

)45

,795

$

45,5

85$

5/

19/2

017

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)FM

-006

0583

Los A

ngel

esBe

verly

Hill

s Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 2

246

Fixt

ures

)59

,755

$

59,7

55$

5/

19/2

017

In P

rogr

ess

(Con

stru

ctio

n Pr

ocur

emen

t)FM

-006

0525

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it12

9,85

7$

119,

382

$

5/19

/201

7In

Pro

gres

s (C

onst

ruct

ion

Proc

urem

ent)

FM-0

0601

92Lo

s Ang

eles

Ingl

ewoo

d Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(App

rox.

217

2 la

mps

)16

8,80

8$

168,

808

$

3/3/

2017

In P

rogr

ess

(Con

stru

ctio

n Pr

ocur

emen

t)FM

-006

0545

Los A

ngel

esAl

ham

bra

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

38,5

11$

22

,009

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0355

37Lo

s Ang

eles

Pasa

dena

Co

urth

ouse

Elev

ator

- El

evat

or R

enov

atio

n - C

ompl

ete

reno

vatio

n of

five

(5) t

ract

ion

and

two

(2)

hydr

aulic

ele

vato

rs.

2,16

3,92

1$

2,

159,

505

$

3/

3/20

17In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

75Lo

s Ang

eles

Stan

ley

Mos

k Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

2937

Fix

ture

s)42

0,21

2$

424,

211

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

73Lo

s Ang

eles

Clar

a Sh

ortr

idge

Fo

ltz C

rimin

al

Just

ice

Cent

er

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

7928

Fix

ture

s)41

1,22

9$

412,

169

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

82Lo

s Ang

eles

Mon

rovi

a Tr

aini

ng

Cent

erEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

350

Fix

ture

s)8,

238

$

8,23

8$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

28Lo

s Ang

eles

East

Los

Ang

eles

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it33

,366

$

33,1

33$

5/

19/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)FM

-006

0529

Los A

ngel

esPo

mon

a Co

urth

ouse

Sou

thEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

71,8

65$

72

,029

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

37Lo

s Ang

eles

Pom

ona

Cour

thou

se N

orth

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it27

,423

$

27,7

98$

5/

19/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0605

26or

ange

Nor

th Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it48

,395

$

48,3

94$

5/

19/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)FM

-006

0538

San

Bern

ardi

noSa

n Be

rnar

dino

Co

urth

ouse

En

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

50,7

70$

39

,567

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

36Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

San

Bern

ardi

no

Cour

thou

se -

Anne

x

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it47

,695

$

38,5

64$

5/

19/2

017

Com

plet

ed

(Aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 1

1 of

13

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0605

80Sa

n Be

rnar

dino

San

Bern

ardi

no

Just

ice

Cent

erEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

727

2 Fi

xtur

es)

223,

251

$

17

9,23

0$

5/

19/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)FM

-006

0527

Sant

a Cl

ara

Dow

ntow

n Su

perio

r Cou

rtEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

51,2

16$

51

,215

$

5/19

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

03Tu

lare

Sout

h Co

unty

Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it40

,767

$

40,7

52$

5/

19/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)JC

C-17

-018

FM-0

0119

23e

San

Dieg

oEa

st C

ount

y Re

gion

al C

ente

rEl

evat

or -

Elev

ator

Ren

ovat

ion

- Com

plet

e re

nova

tion

of n

ine

(9) g

earle

ss tr

actio

n el

evat

ors.

Wor

k w

ill in

clud

e bu

t not

be

limite

d to

, car

fram

es a

nd p

latf

orm

s, b

uffe

rs

and

safe

ties,

hoi

stw

ay e

ntra

nce

fram

es, d

oors

and

pit

equi

p., n

ew A

C ge

arle

ss

mac

hine

s, m

icro

-pro

cess

or c

ontr

ol sy

stem

s, re

gene

rativ

e VV

VF A

C dr

ives

, gov

erno

rs

(ele

vato

rs 1

,2&

3 on

ly),

clos

ed lo

op h

eavy

dut

y hi

gh sp

eed

oper

ator

s, c

urre

nt c

ode

requ

ired

wiri

ng, i

nter

ior a

nd lo

bby

cont

rol p

anel

s, c

ount

erw

eigh

ts a

nd ro

ller g

uide

s (E

leva

tors

7&

9 on

ly),

hoist

and

gov

erno

r rop

es, c

ab c

eilin

gs w

ith L

ED d

own

light

s,

rope

com

pens

atio

n an

d se

ismic

pro

visio

ns.

5,04

8,59

7$

-

$

4/

9/20

18O

n Ho

ld fo

r sha

red

cost

lett

er

FM-0

0606

89M

ono

New

Mam

mot

h La

kes C

ourt

hous

eGr

ound

s & P

arki

ng L

ot -

Prov

ide

and

inst

all a

new

stru

ctur

al st

eel r

oof s

yste

m o

ver

the

exist

ing

utili

ty y

ard.

The

new

roof

will

be

stru

ctur

ally

des

igne

d fo

r sno

w lo

ads.

Th

is sy

stem

will

allo

w m

aint

enan

ce d

urin

g th

e w

inte

r mon

ths a

nd k

eep

snow

from

all

equi

pmen

t and

util

ities

hou

sed

in th

is en

clos

ure.

- Th

e cu

rren

t util

ity e

nclo

sure

ho

uses

the

mai

n co

nden

sing

unit

and

build

ing

12Kv

tran

sfor

mer

. The

enc

losu

re d

oes

not h

ave

prot

ectio

n fr

om sn

ow fo

r the

equ

ipm

ent.

87,3

77$

87

,377

$

3/3/

2017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

FM-0

0586

53d

Alam

eda

Hayw

ard

Hall

of

Just

ice

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

Varia

ble

Freq

uenc

y Dr

ives

on

chill

er, c

hille

d co

ld &

hot

wat

er p

umps

(3);

repl

ace

exte

rior m

etal

hal

ide

fixtu

res w

ith L

ED li

ghtin

g; a

nd in

stal

l occ

upan

cy se

nsor

s pr

ivat

e of

fices

, file

are

as, m

echa

nica

l spa

ce a

nd b

athr

oom

s; in

stal

l bi-l

evel

ligh

ting

cont

rols

in st

airw

ells.

39,0

79$

39

,079

$

12/4

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0592

31d

Los A

ngel

esEl

Mon

te

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy P

roje

ct -

Elec

tric

al -

Com

plet

e en

ergy

effi

cien

cy m

easu

res i

dent

ified

in

rece

nt e

nerg

y au

dits

com

plet

ed b

y th

ird p

arty

. Mea

sure

s inc

lude

: HVA

C m

odifi

catio

ns a

nd li

ghtin

g re

plac

emen

t and

con

trol

s pro

ject

s.

29,6

71$

-

$

12

/4/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0605

24g

Los A

ngel

esN

orw

alk

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

1,66

1$

-

$

12

/4/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0605

25d

Los A

ngel

esAi

rpor

t Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it7,

545

$

-$

12/4

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0605

28d

Los A

ngel

esEa

st L

os A

ngel

es

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

17,6

97$

-

$

12

/4/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0605

26c

Ora

nge

Nor

th Ju

stic

e Ce

nter

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it9,

428

$

-$

12/4

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0605

38d

San

Bern

ardi

noSa

n Be

rnar

dino

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it9,

124

$

-$

12/4

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0605

36d

San

Bern

ardi

noSa

n Be

rnar

dino

Co

urth

ouse

- An

nex

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

mea

sure

s inc

ludi

ng

inst

alla

tion

of In

terio

r and

Ext

erio

r Lig

htin

g re

-lam

ps a

nd re

trof

it23

,364

$

-$

12/4

/201

7Co

mpl

eted

(a

wai

ting

Invo

ice)

FM-0

0605

27c

Sant

a Cl

ara

Dow

ntow

n Su

perio

r Cou

rtEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

17,0

95$

17

,095

$

12/4

/201

7Co

mpl

eted

(a

wai

ting

Invo

ice)

FM-0

0605

03c

Tula

reSo

uth

Coun

ty

Just

ice

Cent

erEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res i

nclu

ding

in

stal

latio

n of

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior L

ight

ing

re-la

mps

and

retr

ofit

52,0

14$

-

$

12

/4/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 1

2 of

13

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0605

74d

Fres

noFr

esno

Cou

nty

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

tert

ior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 3

755

Fixt

ures

)19

,093

$

-$

12/4

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

79d

Los A

ngel

esBe

llflo

wer

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rtio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

123

4 Fi

xtur

es)

31,2

92$

-

$

12

/4/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)FM

-006

0581

dLo

s Ang

eles

Dow

ney

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

tert

ior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

222

Fixt

ures

)26

,075

$

-$

12/4

/201

7In

Wor

k (C

onst

ruct

ion)

FM-0

0605

84d

Los A

ngel

esW

hitt

ier

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

tert

ior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

583

Fixt

ures

)30

,592

$

30,5

92$

12

/4/2

017

Com

plet

ed

(aw

aitin

g In

voic

e)FM

-006

0583

dLo

s Ang

eles

Beve

rly H

ills

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

tert

ior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 2

246

Fixt

ures

)16

,599

$

-$

12/4

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0605

82d

Los A

ngel

esM

onro

via

Trai

ning

Ce

nter

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rtio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

350

Fix

ture

s)31

,985

$

31,9

85$

12

/4/2

017

In W

ork

(Con

stru

ctio

n)FM

-006

0580

dSa

n Be

rnar

dino

New

San

Be

rnar

dino

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rtio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

727

2 Fi

xtur

es)

11,5

56$

-

$

12

/4/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

74a

Rive

rsid

eFa

mily

Law

Cou

rtEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

256

fixtu

res)

67,6

68$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

57a

El D

orad

oJo

hnso

n Bl

dg.

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

621

fixt

ures

)33

,312

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

36a

Mer

ced

New

Dow

ntow

n M

erce

d Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

961

fixt

ures

)51

,060

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

32a

Sant

a Ba

rbar

aSa

nta

Mar

ia

Juve

nile

Cou

rt

(new

)

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

258

fixt

ures

)7,

530

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

84a

Sant

a Cl

ara

Sant

a Cl

ara

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 5

57 fi

xtur

es)

29,4

14$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

80a

Kern

Bake

rsfie

ld

Juve

nile

Cen

ter

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

137

3 fix

ture

s)48

,294

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

77a

Impe

rial

Impe

rial C

ount

y Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

100

0 fix

ture

s)52

,663

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

30Sa

n Di

ego

East

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Cen

ter

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

636

2 fix

ture

s)30

7,13

3$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

79a

Rive

rsid

eLa

rson

Just

ice

Cent

erEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 2

540

fixtu

res)

129,

889

$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

81Ke

rnBa

kers

field

Su

perio

r Cou

rtEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 3

714

fixtu

res)

152,

773

$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

85a

Sola

noHa

ll of

Just

ice

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

184

5 fix

ture

s)70

,383

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

09a

Mer

ced

Old

Cou

rtEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 3

92 fi

xtur

es)

16,9

92$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

52a

Sant

a Ba

rbar

aSa

nta

Mar

ia C

lerk

s Bu

ildin

gEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 4

13 fi

xtur

es)

17,8

48$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

28a

San

Dieg

oN

orth

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Cen

ter -

An

nex

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

493

fixt

ures

)21

,173

$

302

$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil

CFAR

F Fu

nds U

pdat

eO

pen

Proj

ects

Tria

l Cou

rt F

acili

ty M

odifi

catio

n

Mee

ting

Date

04/

08/2

019

3/29

/201

9TC

FMAC

WO

RK P

RODU

CT -

Last

Upd

ated

3/2

9/20

19 1

:00

PMPa

ge 1

3 of

13

Tran

sfer

sLo

catio

n (C

ount

y)Fa

cilit

y N

ame

Proj

ect T

itle

TCF

MAC

App

rove

d Fu

nds

Tot

al A

mou

nt

Encu

mbe

red

Date

of T

CFM

AC

Appr

oval

Curr

ent S

tatu

s

FM-0

0610

91a

Del N

orte

Del N

orte

Cou

nty

Supe

rior C

ourt

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

643

fixt

ures

)16

,817

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld fo

r sha

red

cost

lett

erFM

-006

1092

aSa

nta

Cruz

Mai

n Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

833

fixt

ures

)35

,175

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

25a

San

Dieg

oKe

arny

Mes

a Co

urt

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

919

fixt

ures

)39

,075

$

305

$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0610

97a

Lass

enN

ew S

usan

ville

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

938

fixt

ures

)39

,872

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

26a

San

Dieg

oJu

veni

le C

ourt

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

103

7 fix

ture

s)32

,837

$

186

$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0610

88a

Cont

ra C

osta

Bray

Cou

rts

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

108

4 fix

ture

s)39

,317

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

35a

Sant

a Cl

ara

Palo

Alto

Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

185

1 fix

ture

s)51

,310

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

21a

Nap

aCr

imin

al C

ourt

Bu

ildin

gEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

049

fixtu

res)

44,0

18$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

01a

Los A

ngel

esGl

enda

le

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

238

fixtu

res)

47,0

06$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

07a

Los A

ngel

esHo

llyw

ood

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 1

281

fixtu

res)

48,9

39$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

FM-0

0611

05a

Los A

ngel

esBu

rban

k Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

130

0 fix

ture

s)49

,457

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

23a

San

Bern

ardi

noFo

ntan

a Co

urth

ouse

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

135

3 fix

ture

s)46

,593

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

33a

Sant

a Cl

ara

Hall

of Ju

stic

e (W

est)

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

155

4 fix

ture

s)65

,154

$

-$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

27a

San

Dieg

oN

orth

Cou

nty

Regi

onal

Cen

ter -

N

orth

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

- El

ectr

ical

- Im

plem

ent e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

upgr

ade

of in

terio

r and

ex

terio

r lig

htin

g to

LED

(app

rox.

120

3 fix

ture

s)14

1,91

6$

302

$

8/28

/201

7O

n Ho

ld

FM-0

0611

06a

Los A

ngel

esPa

sade

na

Cour

thou

seEn

ergy

Effi

cien

cy -

Elec

tric

al -

Impl

emen

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y up

grad

e of

inte

rior a

nd

exte

rior l

ight

ing

to L

ED (a

ppro

x. 2

041

fixtu

res)

138,

969

$

-

$

8/

28/2

017

On

Hold

Shad

ed re

gion

show

s an

upda

te to

the

info

rmat

ion


Information Only Item 4 – Facility Modification Budget Reconciliation Report Summary: FM Budget Reconciliation Projects Update Supporting Documentation:

• FM Budget Reconciliation Projects Report

Meeting Date: April 08, 2019

Facility Modifications Completed and Canceled This fiscal year 774 facility modifications funded over multiple fiscal years were completed. Collectively, the actual costs were under budget of the original estimated amounts by approximately 94.79%.

REPORTING PERIOD STATUS

Quantity Estimated Cost of FM Program Budget Share

Actual Cost of FM Program Budget Share

% of Estimated Cost

Completed 774 $21,571,238 $20,447,377 94.79% Funded FMs Canceled 19 $1,040,681 N/A N/A Non-Funded FMs Canceled 28 N/A N/A N/A

CURRENT YEAR STATUS (FY18-19)

Quantity Cost Adjustment to Current Year FM Program Budget

Completed 331 $656,290 Canceled 10 $22,204

TOTAL COST ADJUSTMENT $629,046 FY 2018-2019 FM Budget YTD Reconciliation The first meeting of the year in July 2018 included initial encumbrances for statewide planning, Priority 1 FMs, FMs less than $100,000, and planned FMs, as well as encumbrances for Firm Fixed Price and the approved FMs over $100,000 and cost increases greater than $50,000. The revised proposal to the budget amount has been indicated and the reconciled expenditure has been updated to reflect the revised budget amount that is going to be pre-encumbered for the remaining fiscal year. Any end of the year fiscal revisions will be reflected after the end of the fiscal year 2018-2019.

Meeting Date: April 08, 2019

FY 2018-2019 ($1,000s)

Description Budget Amount

Revision to Budget

Revised Budget Amount

Reconciled Expenditure

Funds Available

Statewide FM Planning Allocation

$5,600 $0 $5,600 $5,600 $0

Priority 1 FM Allocation $7,500 $1,750 $9,250 $9,250 $0 FMs Less Than $100K Allocation

$9,000 ($1,000) $8,000 $8,000 $0

Planned FMs Allocation $1,864 $0 $1,864 $1,864 $0 Priority 2-6 FMs Allocation $37,673 ($750) $36,923 $34,724 $2,199 Energy Efficiency Projects

$2,364 $0 $2,364 $2,364 $0

DMF Contingency $1,000 $0 $1,000 $822 $178 Facility Assessments $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 DMF 2 Funds to offset Facility Assessments

($5,000) $0 ($5,000) ($5,000) $0

TOTALS: $65,000 $0 $65,000 $62,624 $2,377

Note: The sum totals might be exact because of rounding errors FY 2018-2019 FM Budget Spending Plan

FY 2018-2019 Spending Plan ($1,000s) Month/Item Spending

JUL 2018 (approved 7/20) DMF Contingency

$36,624 $1,000

AUG 2018 (approved 8/27) $3,022 OCT 2018 (approved 10/12) Energy Efficiency

$5,609 $201

DEC 2018 (approved 12/03) …..Facility Assessments

$1,317 $5,000

JAN 2019 (approved 1/29) $5,748 MAR 2019 (approved 3/8) $938 APR 2019 (proposed) $3,342 MAY 2019 $2,199 TOTAL $65,000

Meeting Documents - California Courts - CA.gov

Documents

Transcript of Meeting Documents - California Courts - CA.gov