The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.1 SrCntrFeasibilityStudy -CITY CLERK File #240-30 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Senior Center Feasibility Study Report prepared by: Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Services Director and Herma Lichtenstein, Parks & Facilities Development Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1) Final Draft - Senior Center Feasibility Study RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive presentation from Staff and Consultant 2) Provide direction on preferred plan for new Senior Center; renovation versus new construction 3) Provide direction on whether to further study the site for senior housing 4) Authorize Staff to prepare a financial analysis of funding options based on the preferred plan for new Senior Center. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See Discussion Below DESCRIPTION: In 1998 the City retained Group 4 Architecture Research and Planning, Inc. to evaluate the present Dublin Library Building and Site for conversion to a Senior Center. The Study included a program analysis of space and site needs, a preliminary building evaluation and a conceptual floor plan. In order to meet the needs of the Dublin' senior community, the Study found that 15,200 square feet to 16,500 square feet are needed for a new senior center. Of this amount, 13,170 square feet is necessary to accommodate the program goals identified by the seniors. The Study also determined that the existing Library building could be renovated for a new Senior Center. As a cost benefit analysis was not included as part of the Group 4 Study, in August 2001, the City Council retained the services of Noll and Tam Architects to determine the cost effectiveness of renovating the existing Library Building for a Senior Center, or demolishing it and constructing a new Senior Center. Further, Noll and Tam Architects were asked to evaluate how senior housing might be accommodated on the site along with a Senior Center. Noll and Tam Architects have completed their assessment and prepared alternate concept designs and cost estimates for consideration by the City Council. BACKGROUND/METHODOLOGY Noll and Tam, along with their sub-consultants, performed a survey of the existing library facility in the following areas: COPIES TO: Parks and Community Services Commission Senior Center Advisory Committee Noll & Tam Architects • Architectural/Accessibility/ADA 66.°• Code Review/Fire and Life Safety • Structural/ Seismic • Mechanical/Plumbing/Fire Protection • Electrical/ Security/Data/Telecommunications The existing drawings and specifications from the original construction in 1977 were reviewed and site investigations were made. The Senior Center Advisory Committee was also consulted regarding updated program needs that could influence building design. The Architects found that the existing site improvements are in reasonable condition. The building presents an adequately maintained visual appearance, showing some wear and tear from 24 years of use. If the building were to be renovated, there are a number of recommendations for meeting the City's renovation and expansion needs and improving the compliance of the building with current ADA and building codes, including: • Modifications to make the building more compliant with current standards for accessibility, including the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). • Creation of a new entrance and front lobby with a new front desk to create a wind protected entrance that corresponds well to the new vehicle entrance. • Division of the existing large reading room into program areas suitable for the senior center usage. • Planning of a new institutional kitchen for the existing senior nutrition program, which is prepared on- site. • Upgrade of building and mechanical systems as they are inefficient and reaching the end of their usable life. • Upgrade of structural elements to improve the seismic performance of the building. • Upgrade of plumbing, fire protection, electrical and data systems to support the new building spaces and uses. • Site improvements replacing existing site elements, address anticipated expanded parking needs, and maintain the established trees wherever possible. In the case of new building construction, all new site improvements would be proposed although most of the established trees would remain. RENOVATION DESIGN The renovation design is intended to address the goal of developing the required program spaces within the existing facility, without a major addition of space, as well as to bring the building up to standards of function, comfort, appearance and code compliance. • Site Design As part of the redesign for the facility the entrance to the building has been reoriented to the south side. A new access road through the Target retail development is proposed which provides greater vehicle safety. The site design maximizes parking on the site by developing the north side of the site into vehicle parking and providing a more efficient development of the parking spaces to the south of the building. This provides approximately 111 parking spaces (80 spaces are required based on the size of the assembly spaces in the building). 2 QI Building Design s~e? Due to restrictions in the layout of the existing building, not all the program goals establi by the Group 4 Study can 'be substantially achieved in the renovation design proposed by Noll and Tam. Although the building has approximately 14,800 square feet, gross building area, the existing spaces cannot necessarily be optimized for the architectural program. For example, the Main Activity Space in the renovation concept is planned in two structural bays of the building. As proposed, the activity room itself is 3,360 square feet. When the stage and associated storage is included, this program element totals 3,948 square feet, which is short of the original program by 1,052 square feet. This is due largely to the way the ceiling and structural columns are arranged in the existing building. This limits how the room can be configured and reduces the size of the space available for the activity room. The renovation design proposed in this report achieves greater efficiency of circulation than was anticipated in the Group 4 program (15%). Even with an increase in efficiency in the lay out, the building can only accommodate 12,421 square feet of actual program space, falling 749 square feet short of the original 13,170 square feet from the 1998 Study. As previously mentioned a new building entrance was established to the south, providing good visibility from approaching vehicles from the east, a covered drOP-off canopy and good protection from west winds. The soaring two-story space of the library's main reading room was incorporated into the Main Activity Room of the Senior Center. Other large activity rooms were located along the east to take advantage of the views of the mature trees along that edge of the site and of the heightened ceiling spaces and greenhouse skylights. The library building's existing conference room was retained for the same use. Smaller activity rooms, offices and suppOrt spaces were arranged in logical groupings to be functional as well as provide efficient circulation. The existing storage mezzanine, janitor's closet, mechanical room, and mechanical yard were retained for their original functions. For functionality, the new kitchen is required to be adjacent to the Main Activity RoOm, so a new exterior service entrance was developed to the north. The new addition of the entrance vestibule also houses space for new restroom facilities. This configuration is more cost effective than renovation of the existing restrooms. The existing restrooms can be cost effectively renovated into single use uni-sex toilets. Single use uni-sex toilets are als° developed in the northeast comer of the building, making no program space more than a short walk from a restroom. Preliminary Cost Estimate The building costs associated with a renovation are $3,572,036 or $223.25 per square foot. The site costs are $725,719 or $45.36 per square foot. Including a 10% design contingency, the total cost is $4,727,530 or $295.47 per square foot. When costs relating to design, inspection, furnishings, etc. are added, the total prOject cost is $6,119,045. NEW CONSTRUCTION DESIGN The new construction design is intended to address the goal Of developing the required program spaces within a new facility in an efficient compliant and flexible manner while establishing high standards of function, comfort and appearance. Site Design The site design maximizes parking on the site by more efficiently developing vehicle parking perpendicular to the interior property boundaries. The new building is sited closer to Amador Valley Boulevard than the existing library building. The building has been oriented to provide protection for visitors from the prevailing west winds and the entrance has been located to allow a new vehicle access to the east from the Target retail development. The site design achieves approximately 121 parking spaces (86 spaces are required based on the size of the assembly spaces in the building). 3 Building Design The original Group 4 program goal of 13,170 square feet is achieved in the new facility design with the exception of the Main Activity Space. This space is approximately 4,760 square feet or 240 square feet short of the required 5,000 identified in the Group 4 program. The building entrance was established to the south, providing good visibility from approaching vehicles frOm the east, a covered drop-Off canopy and some protection from west winds. An entrance foyer/vestibule leads directly to the Main Activity Room of the Senior Center with restrooms located also adjacent to the vestibule. This layout allows the large meeting space to be segregated for use by community groups at times when it is not needed for senior center activities on the weekends or in the evenings. The Main Activity Room features dining alcoves to the north. A large outdoor patio is sited to the south. The kitchen is adjacent to the Main Activity Room, and a new exterior service entrance was developed to the west. The other spaces of the Senior Center are an'anged along a common circulation corridor located to the east to take advantage of the views of the mature trees along that edge of the site. The ceilings above the reception and lounge are designed to be raised to increase the day lighting of these spaces. The mechanical room and a mechanical yard were located centrally for cost-effectiveness of HVAC runs. While the multiple restrooms serve the Main Activity Space, single use uni-sex toilets were developed in the center of the building near the other activity spaces, to minimize the walking distance to a restroom. Preliminary Cost Estimate The cost to construct a new Senior Center is $4,463,204 or $278.95 per square foot. The site costs are $864,880 or $54.06 per square foot. Including a 10% design contingency, the total cost is $5,860,895 or $366.31 per square foot. When costs relating to design, inspection, furnishings, etc. are added, the total project cost is $7,510,245. SENIOR HOUSING The City of Dublin is considering development of housing units for seniors on various sites throughout the City, including the Senior Center site. The City asked the Assessment Team to propose site design alternatives for both the renovation scheme and the new construction design that might allow podium-style housing to also be constructed on the site. Under the Renovation Scheme 30 senior housing units could be accommodated. This would result in a loss of 30 parking spaces for the Senior Center. The Renovation Scheme provides for 111 spaces and only 80 are required so there is still adequate parking available for the Senior Center (81 spaces) if senior housing is pursued. With the New Construction Scheme 50 senior housing units could be accommodated resulting in a loss of 50 parking spaces. The New Construction Scheme provides for 121 spaces and 86 are required so if senior housing is pursued there is a shortfall of 15 spaces. The parking ratio assumed for the study was one parking space per housing unit. However, Staff has found with the following two senior housing projects that parking ratios are less (.5 to .6 spaces to the unit). Parking ratios would need to be further evaluated if senior housing is desired on this site. Although not included as part of the assessment conducted by Noll and Tam, Staff found two other senior housing projects in the area that are adjacent to senior centers. The Rosewood Terrace project in Union City contains 45 units and was designed as one development with the Senior Center. Since the same architect was used and both projects were developed simultaneously, the project presents an integrated and coherent development. All the units are one-bedroom traits and the parking ratio is 0.6 spaces per Unit. No conflicts with parking between the senior center and housing project have been reported. The second project is the Ridge View Commons Project in Pleasanton. This project contains 200 units and while it is adjacent to the Pleasanton Senior Center, it was developed as a separate project. The parking ratio is .5 spaces per unit and due to the Separation between the project and the senior center, no parking problems have been reported. ALTERNATE CONCEPT SCHEMES COMPARISON A comparison of the alternate concept schemes is shown below. Estimated Construction Costs RENOVATED BUILDING NEW CONSTRUCTION Building $3,929,240 $4,909,525 Site $ 798,290 $ 951,370 Subtotal $4, 72 7, 530 $5,860,895 Design, Inspection, Etc. $1,391,985 $1,649,350 TOTAL $6,119,515 $7,510,245 Construction Timeframe Site Comparable 14 - 18 months Comparable 14 -18 months General Building Inefficient Site Layout New Vehicle Entrance Parking for 111 cars (80 required) Retains all mature trees 30 housing units feasible (reduce parking by 30 :spaces) Efficient Site Layout New Vehicle Entrance Parking for 121 cars (86 required) Retains most mature trees 50 housing units feasible (reduce parking by 50 spaces) Replacement increase service life of major building systems to 30+ years Components to remain are aged 25 years Higher maintenance required for older building Anticipated 30-40 year service life of new building Lower maintenance required for new building Space Program Main Activity Space Mis-fit between original program requirements and existing building No flexibility for shared use Original program requirements generally fit within new building Opportunities for shared use Future Expansion 3,360 square feet 480 max. persons 144 persons dining 3,930 square feet 561 max. persons 176 persons dining · Difficult due to building shape and inefficiency of site Can be achieved by planning for a future second story addition AVAILABLE FUNDING ~ At present, there is $3,318,510 identified in the 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program for this project. This amount includes $2,135,910 from the General Fund (64% of project cost) and $1,182,600 from Public Facility Fees (26% of project cost). In order to proceed with either the renovation of the existing building or construction of a new building, additional funding is necessary. Under the renovation scheme, the estimated shortfall is $2,800,535; with new construction, the estimated shortfall is $4,191,735. A further analysis of how much of the shortfall could be offset by Public Facility Fees versus the General Fund is needed.. An Update to the 1998 Public Facility Fee Study is scheduled for this Fiscal Year and Staff is in the process of obtaining consultant services to perform the Update. Consequently, this analysis could be accomplished as part of the proposed Update. When the renovation of the existing library for use as a senior center was first contemplated, the cost was estimated at $200 per square foot. At that time, the extent of the renovation needed to convert the library to a senior center was not expected to be as extensive as is now recommended. This cost was adjusted to $209 per square foot with the 1998 Update to the Public Facilities Fee Study and again in 2000 and 2001 based on the escalator included in the Public Facilities Fee Ordinance. At present, the cost per square foot is $219, which was the cost used in preparing the project for inclusion in the 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program. Despite the annual increases, the cost per square foot has not kept pace with the increased building costs evidenced by today's market. In order to insure that the Public Facility Fee generates adequate funds in the future, the cost per square foot used for the Senior Center Feasibility Study will be incorporated in the proposed Update to the Public Facility Fee. CONCLUSION Noll and Tam Architects concurs with the Group 4 Study that the site selected for the new Senior Center is appropriate for this use. The site is large enough to provide for the contemplated activities and it appears that it is possible to organize the site to develop additional parking places for the development of senior housing units (if desired). Renovation of the existing building is feasible and can yield a well laid out design for a senior center. While there is some misfit and inefficiency between the building and the identified program spaces, overall, the fit is quite good. The cost associated with adapting the building and updating it to current standards of code and functionality are 24% less than the cost of new construction. Demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building on the site is also a viable option. New construction is inherently more flexible and can be more closely matched to program needs. Additionally, new construction provides the option for a second story expansion in the future (if needed). RECOMMENDATION At a joint meeting, the Parks and Community Services Commission and th6 Senior Center Advisory Committee considered the alternate designs and cost estimates for a renovated senior center versus a newly constructed senior center. By majority decision, the Commission and Committee recommended construction of a new senior center. Both the Commission and Committee were privy to the budget shortfalls associated with both projects but felt that the construction of a new center would best serve the long-term needs of Dublin's senior community. The Commission and Committee also favored the layout of the new construction design, which allows for the possibility of renting out the main activity space to the public without compromising the other areas of the Center. Additionally, the Commission and Committee considered senior housing on the site. Again, by majority decision, the Commission and Committee recommended that senior housing not be constructed on site. The concern expressed was that 6 bLP there was not enough space for both a senior center and senior housing and that parking conflicts between v the two uses would arise. In order to proceed with the Senior Center Project, Staff requests direction from the City Council on the following questions. 1) Should the existing Dublin Library be renovated for use as a Senior Center or demolished for construction of a new Senior Center? Additional funding is required for both options ranging from $2,800,535 (renovation) to $4,191,735 (new construction). 2) Should additional studies on the viability of senior housing on the site be done? Funding has been included in the CIP to further examine the feasibility of housing on site. These additional studies would determine if construction was economically viable and whether there was interest from non- profit housing developers. Additional studies would delay work on the Senior Center design for approximately three to four months. Based on the preliminary direction from the City Council, it is recommended that a financial analysis of the preferred option be completed by Staff to identify funding options for consideration by the Council. The financial analysis would be done concurrently with the Public Facility Fee Update. It is anticipated that both will be complete by May 2002. Consequently, this would delay work on the Senior Center design. As an alternative, the City Council could authorize Staff to circulate a Request for Proposal for Consultant Services in order to begin design of the Senior Center based on the Council's preferred direction in advance of the completion of the financial analysis. Sufficient funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget to proceed with the design. A decision on how to fund construction of the improvements would be made once the financial analysis and fee update are completed. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I - Introduction A. Executive Summary ............ i .......................................................... .3 B. Purpose and Scope of Assessment Study ...................................... 6 C. City of Dublin PrOject Team ......................................................... .7 D. Building Assessment/Design Team .............................................. 8 E. Description and History of Building ............................................. .9 F. Location Map .............................................................................. :..11 G. Existing Building Plan .................................................................. 12 Part II - Codes and Regulations A. Planning and Zoning Requirements. ............................... : ............ 13 B. Building Code Review. ................................................................. 13 C. Americans With Disabilities ......................................................... 14 Part III - Building Evaluation & Upgrade Recommendations A. Site ................................................................................. .'.i ............. 16 B. Architectural and Accessibility Issues ......................................... 19 C. Structural .................................................................................. , ..... 22 Part IV- Review and confirmation of Architectural Program A. Architectural Space Program ...................................................... .23 B. Special Design Considerations for Senior Centers .................... .26 Part V - Alternate Concept Designs A. Renovation. ................................................................................... .27 B. Demolition and New Construction ............................................... 31 Part VI.' Construction Costs A. Costs. ..................................... .' ...................... ~ ................................ .35 B. Cost Summary Tables .................................................................. .37 Part VII- COnclusion & Recommendations A. Design Assumptions ..................................................................... 39 B. Public Feedback ............................................................................ 39 C. Conclusions .................................................................................. .42 Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 1 Part VIII - Appendices ......................................................................... ' ................. .43 Appendix A- Building Evaluation & Upgrade Recommendations A. Site ................................................................................................ .43 B. Structural ....................................................................................... .45 C. Mechanical, Plumbing and Fire Protection ................................ .54 D. Electrical, SecuritY, Data & Communications ........................... .57 Appendix B- Cost Estimate Assumptions for Renovation Design A. Site ................................................................................................ .60 B. Architectural .................................................................................. 63 C. Structural. ....................................................................... : ............... 66 D. Mechanical, Plumbing and Fire Protection ................................ .67 E. Electrical, Security, Data & Communications ............................. 69 Appendix C- Cost Estimate Assumptions for New Construction A. Site ................................................................................................. 71 B. Architectural ................................................................................. .74 C. Structural. ...................................................................................... .77 D. Mechanical, Plumbing and Fire Protection ................................. 78 E. Electrical, Security, Data & Communications ............................. 80 .Appendix D- Meeting Notes .............................................................................. .82 Appendix E- Detailed Cost Estimates....i ........................................................... 94 Appendix F- Existing Building Photographs ............................................... 108 Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam,~rchitects Page 2 PART I INTRODUCTION A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Dublin commissioned the Assessment Team, led by Noll & Tam Architects, to perform a feasibility study for the renovation of the Dublin Public Library building for use as a Senior Center, and to compare the costs with the construction of a new Senior Center building on the site. The planning for the site incorporated a new vehicle access through adjacent privately held property, planning for expanded parking and tested the potential of podium style senior housing. This report is an evaluation of the existing facility, documentation of the current and projected space needs for the Senior Center, and concept floor plan alternates for renovation and new construction designs with associated construction costs. Costs for the construction of potential senior housing units are not included in this study. This report is intended to assist the City of Dublin in their decision-making process establishing a Senior Center on the site. The Assessment Team performed a survey of the existing library facility in the following areas: · Architectural / Accessibility / ADA · Code Review / Fire and Life Safety · Structural / Seismic · Mechanical/Plumbing/Fire Protection · Electrical/Security/Data/Telecommunications The team reviewed the existing drawings and specifications from the original construction in 1977 and visited the site in September 2001 to investigate the existing conditions. Visual and non-destructive inspections were made of the site and building conditions and systems to evaluate their status for this report. The team also reviewed an earlier feasibility and programming document prepared for the City of Dublin by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning and confirmed and updated the architectural space program, Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam ,,lrchitects Page 3 Assessment and Renovation The existing site improvements are in reasonable condition, although aged, with well- planned site drainage, paving, curbs and established, mature landscape plantings, turf areas and trees which enhance the site and buffer it from traffic arterials. The building has changed little from its original form, and presents an adequately maintained visual appearance, showing some wear and tear of the intervening 24 years. The team identified a number of recommendations for meeting the City's renovation and expansion needs and improving the compliance of the building with current ADA and building code, including: · Modifications to make the building more compliant with current standards for accessibility, including the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). · Creation of a new entrance and front lobby with a new front desk to create a wind protected entrance that corresponds well to the new vehicle entrance.' · Division of the existing large reading room into program areas suitable for the Senior center usage. · Planning of a new institutional kitchen for the existing senior nutrition program which is prepared on-site. · Upgrade of bUilding and mechanical systems for better energy usage. (The existing heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment was found to 'have reached the end of its useful life). · Upgrade of structural elements to improve the seismic performance of the building and meet current code standards~ · Upgrade of plumbing, fire protection, electrical and data systems to supPort the new building spaces and uses. · Site improvements replacing existing site elements, which address anticipated expanded parking needs and maintain the established trees wherever possible. The construction costs for the building and site improvements in the concept design for the renovation were estimated at $4.73 million (in January 2002 dollars). New Consfrucfion An alternative design proposed the demolition of the existing library building and.the cOnstruction of a new senior center building on the site, in order to provide a basis of comparison between the costs of new construction and the costs of renovating the building. All new site improvements which maximize parking are proposed, although the design retains most of the established trees. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 4 The new construction design was planned to fit the available area of the site after efficiently laying out the parking. In general the new building is' comparable in size with the renovation scheme. However, the new construction scheme meets the goals for types and sizes of program spaces by a more efficient layout of building circulation space.. The costs for the new construction of building and site improvements for the concept design for the senior center were estimated at $5.86 million (in January 2002 dollars). Testing the SRe for Senior Housing Units The City of Dublin is considering development of housing units for seniors on various sites throughout the City, including the subject site for the Senior Center. In order to confmu the viability of incorporating housing onto the site, design alternatives for both the renovation scheme and the new construction included testing housing on the site. In bOth cases the design would allow a small scale development of podium-style housing to also be constructed on the site. Feasibility Report Components Part I of this report provides an executive summary, describes the purpose and scope of the study, identifies the City of Dublin Project team and the Building Assessment/Design team. Part I also includes a description and history of the building. In order to evaluate the advantages of new construction Versus renovation of the building, several factors were taken into consideration. These factors include the building's compliance with current code, the condition of the existing building and site improvements, upgrades appropriate to adapt the existing building into a well functioning senior center and how well the building fits the senior center program. Further discussion of the compliance of the existing building with building codes is in Part II of the report. The assessments upon which the proposed modifications are based are described in Part 1II of this report, under Building Evaluation and Upgrade Recommendations. Further detailed consultant reports are to be found in Appendix A. Discussion of the architectural building program and update is in Part IV. The two schemes which were prepared as alternates are presented in Part V- Alternate Concept Designs. Cost Estimates The cost estimates are the outcome of empirical cost data and are based on the most em'rent information available in the tri-valley area. The cost estimate for both alternate concept schemes is in Part VI of this report. The cost estimate assumptions for the renovation design are found in Appendix B .and new construction costs are in Appendix Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 5 C. The conclusion in Part VII summarizes the recommendations of the team, as well as public feedback. B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT STUDY Noll & Tam Architects was selected to perform an evaluation of the current Dublin Library building and site to determine its suitability for conversion into a Senior Center. Noll & Tam worked collaboratively in a team approach with the City's Project Manager, and the City's Senior Center Director, in a series of working sessions and meetings over a period of five months. These meetings incIuded the Senior Center Advisory Committee, City Staff, existing Library staff and maintenance personnel. The following report is a response to the current and future programming for Senior Services in the City of Dublin. It builds upon the work previously commissioned by the City in 1998 by Group 4 Architecture + Planning, talcing the architectural program developed at that time as a starting point for concept design. The types of spaces and the sizes were reviewed and then used to form the basis for the two alternate concept schemes: one scheme for the adaptive reuse and renovation of the existing building, and the second scheme is an alternative which proposes to demolish the building and construct a new senior center facility. The renovation design is intended to address the goal of developing the' required program spaces within the existing facility, without a major addition of space, as well as to bring the building up to standards of function, comfort, appearance and code compliance. The goal of the new construction alternate is to optimize the program spaces while efficiently organizing the building, in order to maximize the overall capabilities of the site. The architects, together with the structural, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering sub-consultants, reviewed original drawings and made on-site observations of the existing building and building systems. The team did not conduct any survey or evaluation of hazardous materials. A separate survey was conducted by the Alameda County Library System for certain areas and found no hazardous materials. The team's observations were made in September, October and November of 2001. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam~4rchitects Page 6 o Documents RevieWed The following documents pertaining to the Dublin Library were reviewed: Dublin Library, As-Built Drawings Al.l, Al.2, A2.1, _82.2, A4.1 to A4.5, A5.1 to A5.5, and A6.1 by Collin, Byrens Architects Al& dated October 12, 1977. ' Foundation Investigation for Dublin Library, Dublin, California, prepared by Peter Kaldveer and Associates, Geotechnical Consultants, dated April 4, 1977; and Supplemental Soil Investigation, Dublin Library, Dublin, California, prepared by Peter Kaldveer and Associates, dated July 11, 1977. "Dublin Senior Cemer, Preliminary Site Evaluation, Program and Illustrative Floor Plan" prepared by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc. dated October 1998. CITY OF DUBLIN PROJECT TEAM SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE Barbara Gifford Mary Lou Bielke Burr Cain Jr. George McHugh Paul Silvas SENIOR SERVICES Anna Hudson, Dublin Senior Center Director PROGRAM MANAGER Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Services Manager PROJECT MANAGER Herma Lichtenstein, Parks and Facilities Development Manager Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 7 BUILDING ASSESSMENT/DESIGN TEAM ARCHITECT Noll & Tam Architects 729 Heinz AvenUe Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel. 510.649.8295 Principal: Janet Tam Project Architect: Laura Riggs STRUCTURAL/CIVIL Forell/Elsesser Engineers 645 Harrison Street, Suite 101 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel. 415.837.0700 Principal: Grace Kang Project Engineer: Daisy Yu Civil Engineer: Chris DiMaggio MECHANICAL/PLUMBING Taylor Engineering 1305 Marina Village Pkwy, suite i01 Alameda, CA 94501 Tel. 510.749.9135 Principal: Glenn Friedman ELECTRICAL O'Mahony & Myer 4340 Redwood Hwy, suite 245 San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel. 510.492.0420 Project Engineer: Paul Carey COST ESTIMATOR Openheim Lewis 60 Federal Street, Suite 307 San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel. 415.543.4074 Principal: Scott Lewis Dublin Senior Center FeasibilitY Study Noll & TamArchitects Page 8 E. DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF BUILDING Original Design The Dublin Public Library building at 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin was constructed in 1977-78 from plans prepared by Collin-Byrens, AIA in Berkeley, California, for the Alameda County Public Works Agency. The building was built prior to the incorporation of the City of Dublin and so record documents reside with the County of Alameda. The record set of construction plans are dated October 12, 1977. The original technical specifications are available for the building. There is no documentation of any field changes during the construction period. The members of the original design team included: Architect: Collin-Byrens, AIA, Berkeley, California Structural Engineer: Shapiro, Okino &Hom, San Francisco, California Mechanical: Montgomery & Roberts, E1 Cerrito, California Electrical: Belden, Inc., San Leandro, California Description The building is square in plan, one story, with a soaring interior space nearly two stories high with clearstory windows providing natural day light to the interior. The structural beams of the roof are exposed on the underside, resting on deep wood girders, also exposed. The primary structure of the building is composed of perimeter bearing walls with four interior steel columns, supporting glue-laminated wood beams, wood lumber framing, and plywood roof sheathing. The foundation system is a reinforced concrete slab-on-grade with spread footings. Interior partitions typically extend to the underside of roof and provide lateral shear resistance. The exterior finishes' of the building are brick veneer and aluminum windows and curtain wall system. The roofing is a commercial metal standing seam roof with two large greenhouse skylights which face roughly to the north and east. The interiors of the building are primarily spray applied ceiling system, natural unfinished rough sawn grooved plywood and painted gypsum board walls with carpeting. Specialized areas have finishes appropriate to their function, such as ceramic tile floors and walls in restrooms, quarry tile flooring in the entrance lobby and under the greenhouse skylights2 The building is fully fire-sprinklered inside and out and has a fire and security alarm system. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 9 The building is currently in its original use as the Dublin. Public Library, which is part of. the Alameda County Library system, housing a public meeting space, staff work areas and offices and an open library reading room with reading alcoves. A small mezzanine with a mechanical dumbwaiter hoist serves a storage function. Mechanical equipment is located indoors in a mechanical room and also outdoors in a well-screened mechanical yard. See the following pages for the location map for the site and a current building plan diagram. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam.drchitects Page 10 CURRENT DUBLIN PUBLIC LIBRARY LOCATION MAP Dublin SeniOr Center Feasibility Study Noll & TamArchitects Page 11 ! I I Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Stut Page l~ PART II - CODES AND REGULATIONS A. PLANNING AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS The building was constructed in 1977, prior to the incorporation of the City.of Dublin. The site is presently zoned for commercial use (C-1), which would allow the use as a senior center (community facility). The overall height limitation is 45 feet for the area, but the City could allow a variance if needed. The site setbacks are related to the adjacent structures or uses, as such the eastern and western boundaries have a setback of 10 feet while the north and south boundaries have a 15-foot setback. The existing building is compliant with these planning requirements. The lot meets the minimum area requirement of 5,000 sq ft. The parking requirements for the site were outlined by the Group 4 report and included a total of 96 spaces based on the following breakdown: 1 Parking Space per 50 sq ft in the main hall 1 Parking Space for each classroom 1 Parking Space per 300 sq ft of office space These same guidelines were used to determine the parking requirements of 80 parking spaces for the renovation design and 86 parking spaces for the new construction scheme. The difference in parking requirements between the two schemes is due to the larger main activity room in the new construction scheme. The existing site has 72 parking spaces. The actual parking requirement is subject to final determination by planning staff at the time of the building permit application and is subject'to their interpretation. If senior housing were constructed on the site, it would have a parking requirement of one parking sPace per housing unit, with an additional guest parking space required per three housing units. This parking requirement will displace some of the Senior Center parking if built. B. Burr.DING CODE APPLICABLE CODES Since the building's construction in 1977-78, significant changes have been made to the building codes. It is assumed that the building must be brought up to current code standards for seismic performance, handicapped accessibility, life safety and egress, for it's planned use as a city-owned facility. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & TamArchaects Page 13 City of Dublin staff has made the determination that the senior center building is not required to be considered as an essential facility. An essential facility is designed to higher standards of seismic performance for use as an emergency facility after an earthquake or other community-wide emergency. The codes currenflyin effect in the City of Dublin are: 1997 Uniform Building Code (1998 California Building Code) 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code (1998 California Phmbing Code)' 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code (1998 California Mechanical Code) 1996 National Electrical Code (1998 California Electrical Code) As of July 1, 2002 the City of Dublin plans to adopt: 1997 Uniform Building Code (2001 C~lifornia Building Code) 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code (2001 California Plumbing Code) 20.00 Uniform Mechanical Code (2001 California Mechanical Code) 1999 National Electrical Code (2001 California Electrical Code) 2000 Uniform Housing Code (2001 Califo~ Housing Code) Since the planned construction date for the senior center is Spring of 2003, the cost estimates for the concept designs take into consideration increased costs due to anticipated changes in the building codes. Building Code Issues The Main Activity Room, and any other room with an occupant load Over 50 persons, is considered an assembly occupancy (A2). The rooms considered as assembly occupancy are required to each have two exits from the room. The remainder of the senior center is a general occupancy (B) for offices and classrooms. A One-hour fire rated occupancy. separation wall is required between the A and B occupancies (see alternate concept plan diagrams for assumed location of occupancy separation wall). Assembly occupancies are not permitted in type V um'ated construction, so the construction type must be upgraded to type V one hour rated for the renovation scheme. For the purposes of cost comparison, this is the construction type assumed for the new construction as well. The allowable area for a type V one hour rated building with fire sprinklers, as configured on the site (with separation on all sides) is 77,000 square feet, this does not pose any area restriction for the planned senior center. C. AMERICANS WITH D~SABmrrms ACT (ADA) The ADA is a federal civil code that regulates both the design of a building and how the building is operated. Many of the design aspects of ADA have been incorporated into Title 24, California Code of Regulations, which are enforced by local jurisdictions. The requirements for accessibility have evolved and changed since the building was originally Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 14 built; making some areas non-compliant with'the building code and ADA even though they may have been considered compliant at the time of construction. ADA was enacted into law after the construction of the library building. In the case of the renovations proposed for this building, this w/Il esSentially require the City of Dublin to remove all physical barriers to the disabled in the public parking, Public lobby, all toilet rooms, public meeting rooms and throughout the other areas of the facility. Employee areas are also required to be barrier free to prevent discrimination in hiring practices. Any new construction will be required to be completely accessible and code compliant as is appropriate for a community center for seniors, since the building will serve a portion of the population which have mobility impairments at a higher rate than the general population. Since the majority of the existing facilities will be renovated, both the building and site are assumed to be made compliant as part of this project. Dublin Senior Center Feasibilit-v Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 15 PART III BUILDING EVALUATION AND UPGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS A. S~TE The existing Dublin Library building was constructed in 197%78. The site assessment was performed based on a comparison of the record site improvement documentation with current improvement standards for comparable facilities. A detailed description of the assessment is described below. Existing Site Description The site, with an approximate area of two acres, is relatively level. The difference in high and low grades across the site is on the order of 4.5', with a prevailing gentle slope of about 1.5% downward toward the east. Surface soils are known to have a moderate expansion potential. Mature landscape plantings, tuff areas, landscaped berms and trees were established at the time of original construction, which enhance the site and buffer it from surrounding streets. The existing parking lot covers approximately 34,000 square feet. The existing pavement consists of 2" asphalt over an 8" aggregate base, with design cross-slopes generally between 1 and 2 percent. A 6" extruded concrete curb, occasionally notched to admit drainage from landscape areas, borders the parking lot. Per the Foundation Investigation by Peter Kaldveer and Associates, the pavement section is suitable for automobile traffic and parking areas and was designed to have an anticipated life of 11 to 20 years. Now aged 23 years, this pavement has attained the performance criteria for which it was originally designed. The paving and curbing still has a neat appearance and may have additional service life, depending on the anticipated level of through-traffic and heavy vehicle use. For comparison, new municipal projects plan drive aisle sections for heavier use with 3" of asphalt over 12" of base. The location of sanitary seWer services for the existing building cannot be deduced from the documents reviewed. However, a sanitary sewer main is known to run near the centerline of Amador Valley Boulevard, and it is presumed that the existing building sewer connects to it. Site storm drainage is currently handled by a system ofprecast catch basins and shallow pipes, with branches both east and west of the existing building. This piping system discharges to a catch basin offsite, northeast of the property. Rainwater leaders at the building typically fall onto splash blocks within landscape areas. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 16 Site Improvement Alternatives and Recommendations Two alternate site improvement schemes are currently under investigation. The first scheme proposes renovation of the existing building for conversion to a new senior center. This scheme retains much of the geometry of the existing parking lot to the east and south, but adds both a new parking lot to the northwest and a new access driveway to the northeast. The second scheme proposes construction of a new senior center building on the north side of the site, in a current landscape area. It retains some of the geometry of the existing parking along the south and west borders of the parking lot, but adds two parking aisles parallel to the southerly boundary and a new access driveway to the northeast. Under both proposed alternatives, if the existing paving were retained, application of a reseal coat to the existing mature asphalt pavement in its entirety would be recommended, together with construction of the new access driveway and expanded parking areas. However, the parking lot Will be subject to heavy equipment during the course of construction which will impact the appearance and the viability of reuse of the existing paving. The cost estimate assumes complete replacement of the paving areas. Resistance-value testing and suitable traffic indices should be developed by a geotechnical engineer for use in the design of new pavements. Construction and renovation of pedestrian ramps as well as parking lot striping should be in accordance with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The sewage load of a new senior center with additional bathrooms and a kitchen is likely to be on the order of the sewage load of the existing building. However, development of any new senior housing project on this site would necessitate that capacity of the Amador Valley Boulevard main be evaluated by the project civil engineer. Though replacement of'the aged, shallow storm drain lines would be recommended, it may be possible to retain the existing storm drainage system under the renovation scheme, depending on its state of repair and the extent of re-grading required within the existing parking lot. In either case, the building rainwater leaders would need to be connected directly to the storm sewer system, as is the City standard to do so. New pathways on the site should be developed to meet the requirements of the code for slope and cross-slope. The loading dock should be mOdified to allow legal wheelchair emergency egress with a compliant pathway to the public right of way. Site Construction Standards During the previous period of construction, this site was located in a then-unincOrPorated area of Alameda County. The City of Dublin was incorPorated in 1982, following construction. As such both the renovation scheme and the new design use the design standards of the City of Dublin rather than the County of Alameda. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Non a~ a'am,~,'chit~ts Page 17 Recommendations for Future Documentation Prior to design development of any future addition, a project geotechnical report should be prepared to evaluate both shb-on-grade and pavement design requirements. Additionally, topographic, boundary and utilities surveys of the proposed building envelope and its surroundings should be completed by a licensed land surveyor. The topographic survey should include a data field extending at least 40 feet beyond the perimeter of proposed improvements and should contain 1' contours based on a regular grid of spot elevations, as well as locations and elevations of all visible surface features such as poles, vaults, hydrants, foundations, standpipes, valves, trees and walls. A boundary survey would consist of a review of any existing current tide reports and maps of record to analyze the legal description and to determine the existence of any easements or other encumbrances that may affect the project site. A boundary survey would also retrace the perimeter property boundary- lines, locate any accessible major encroachments along the perimeter boundary- lines (including storm drainage at the easterly comer), and establish semi-permanent reference points to delineate the perimeter propertylines. A utilities survey would record the locations and elevations of all drainage features within the property lines and proximal storm and sanitary sewer features within the adjoining streets. Such a survey would identify all catch basins, area drains, trench drains, manholes and utility boxes and all visible onsite utility features exclusive of irrigation lines and valves. 'Where ' possible, all drainage inlet grates and manhole covers should be opened and their inverts and tributarTpipe sizes both noted. Additionally, a utilities survey should map the record utility locations based upon research of the records of the City and' utility companies to determine the existence, size, depth and location of all underground utility lines and structures on the site and within the adjoining streets, including but not limited to sanitary and storm sewers, gas, telecommunications, electrical, steam and water lines. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study -- Noll & Tam Architects Page 18 B. ARCHITECTURAL AND ACCESSIBILITY General Building Accessibility The building is located all on one level, except for a mezzanine as noted below. Due to increased numbers of persons planned in the assembly areas of the building, new egress doors will be required which should be installed so as to provide a path of travel that is accessible with a wheelchair. Building Exterior The exterior of the building is fairly well maintained. The brick veneer and aluminum curtain wall is in good condition, although after 24 years, it would benefit from a thorough cleaning. No serious deterioration of these surfaces was noted, although some tuckpointing and caulking of the exterior should be undertaken during a major refurbishment project. Roofing and Skylights The roofing appears to date from the original construction of the building. Moisture problems are reported in the areas under the greenhouse skylight, which are thought to be due to micro-ponding of rainwater against the sealant at the skylight frame. There is observable efflorescence, or signs of leaking, at the interior in these areas. The metal roof has no observable missing caps, although the color of the roof appears to have aged. Assessment of the roof was based on non-destructive observations. It is recommended that a qualified roofing inspector be retained to determine the cause of the moisture problem and recommend a remedial solution during construction documents phase. The greenhouse skylights should be removed, refurbished or replaced, according to the recommendation of the waterproofing expert. Doors and Windows Doors and windows are bronze anodized aluminum and are in good repair, although the building appears to have been single glazed throughout. For best energy efficiency, the building should be re-glazed with insulated, energy efficient glass. Doors should be retrofitted with weather stripping brushes. Front entrance doors should be equipped with power assistance for handicapped accessibility. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam.4rchitects Page 19 Mezzanine The existing mezzanine is used for book storage. It is accessed by a small stair and serviced with a dumbwaiter which is reported to be operational. The building code. permits this feature to remain in use as a storage area. No upgrades have been planned £or this area. Interior Finishes The interior finishes throughout are adequately maintained with only some exceptions. The carpeting is worn and should be replaced throughout. The spray-applied ceilings were cleaned sometime recently, leaving some uncleaned gray edges due to the limitations of the cleaning process. Since structural retrofit recommendations include clips to the underside of the roofing plywood, it is recommended to upgrade the insulation value of the ceiling and provide new ceilings with an acoustically absorptive material which is easy to maintain such as wood strips with acoustic backing. It is reported that the existing ceiling material has been tested and does not contain asbestos fiber. In other portions of the building, the ceiling is quite low, approximately 7 feet high. In these areas, the general public has been able to easily reach the finish ceiling tiles, leaving telltale impressions from their fingers in the soft ceiling tile material. Ceiling finishes should be replaced throughout to achieve a uniformly aesthetic renovation, and the low ceilings should be replaced at eight feet high, minimum, wherever possible. Window Treatments Vertical vinyl blinds control direct sunlight at the south, east and west exposures of the building. The blinds date from the original construction of the building and should be 'replaced. Lighting The light fixtures suspended from the ceiling throughout the facility appear to date from the original construction and are not energy efficient. The lighting in the public lobby and east corridor is incandescent down light type and should be changed out to a more energy efficient type of fixture. The exterior down lights at the soffits are inefficient, although the cost of replacing them is quite disproportionate, so they have been retained for the purposes of this study. They are recommended for relamping. (See consultant's report in the Appendix), Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam ~4rchitects Page 20 ElectricaI Distribution and Security, Data & Communications Cabling The transformer and distribution panels are in good shape and can be retained. Partition changes needed to adapt the building for use as a senior center will require most, if not all of the distribution wiring to be replaced. The security, telephone and data cabling will also be replaced for the same reason, although these systems are outdated as well. Plumbing The librarians report numerous problems with the plumbing system of the building. The main waste line backed up and was repaired some time ago. The plumbing fixtures themselves are reported to leak. Due to the poor condition of the plumbing system, and the on-going maintenance problems it presents, this system should be replaced outright. (See consultant'S report in the Appendix). Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) The mechanical equipment is aged 24 years and should be replaced outright for lowered maintenance costs, as well as on-going energy efficiency. Much of the ductwork, which delivers the heated and cooled air, is mn below the structural slab, and has been subjected to moisture and corrosive soils for years and must be presumed to be unusable. It is planned to be sealed and abandoned in place. The spiral ducting that hangs in the Main Reading Room could be reused, if it is cost advantageous to do so. Fire Sprinklers New ceiling finishes in open ceiling areas will necessitate the extension of fn'e sprinkler heads to below new surfaces, although the branch lines are fine. Areas of iow ceilings will require new branch lines and heads. Fire sprinkler heads at the exterior soffits show signs of corrosion and should be replaced throughout with fire sprinkler heads which are compatible with the system. The equipment at the northwest comer of the site can remain to service the renovated building. Dublin Senior Center Feasibili _ty Stud~/ Noll & Tam Architects Page21 C. STRUCTURAL The existing Dublin Library building was constructed in 1977-78. The building is a single story wood framed building with a partial mezzanine level, and haSan overall floor plan of approximately 14,800 square feet gross building area. Its structural system is a wood framed roof, timber columns, plywood shear walls, a concrete slab-on-grade and spread footings. The structural design criteria was either the 1973 or 1976 Uniform Building Code (UBC). A visual survey of the building was performed on September 27, 2001, and the building appeared to be in general conformance with the original structural drawings with the exception'of the front entrance which appeared to have been modified slightly. No significant signs of structural distress were observed. A structural assessment was performed based on a comparison of the original UBC seismic design basis with the seismic requirements of the 1998 California Building Code (CBC) along with a limited analysis of the existing lateral capacity of the building. Among the significant changes in the seismic requirements of the 1998 CBC from previous codes is the addition of a near source factor which increases the design seismic force for buildings located in the proximity of active earthquake faults. The result of this code revision is an increase in design base shear for a building on this site by roughly 30%. Along with other revisions in the formula, the seismic design force for the current code results in abase shear of 1.4 to 1.9 times the original design base shear based on the 1976 and 1973 UBC, respectively. Based on limited analysis of the existing lateral capacity of the building, the existing building is deficient in meeting current code requirements and it appears that the building also falls short of meeting minimum expectations for a life safety level of performance. During a major earthquake, it is anticipated that the building would suffer significant damage with a moderate likelihood of life safety hazards from partial structural collapse. In order to upgrade work required to meet the life safety level of seismic performance based on the current code the following areas need to be addressed. Proposed new shear walls with concrete strip footings, steel collectors bolted to the roof girders, and angle braces at the clerestory are among the major structural elements recommended for seismic strengthening. The upgrade work is recommended for life safety purposes and does not guarantee property protection nor preclude significant structural damage during a major earthquake event. A detailed description of the assessment is described in the appendix A: scope of work and methodology, documents reviewed, existing building structural description, existing building site review, existing building seismic criteria, existing building seismic assessment, conceptual upgrade scheme, and conclusion. Dubhn Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam ~trchitects Page 22 PART IV - REVmW AND CONFIRMATION OF PROGRAM A. ARCHITECTURAL SPACE PROGRAM Preliminary Report In 1998 the City of Dublin commissioned a study by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning: "Preliminary Site Evaluation, Program and Illustrative Floor Plan." The wish list of the Senior Center Advisory Committee was developed at that time into an architectural program with design criteria and optimum sizes for activity spaces. The actual required program space in the report is 13,170 square feet. At that time, in order to meet the goal for the required program space the total building area for new construction was identified at 15,145 square feet. For adaptive reuse of the existing library building, the area was higher in order to provide for the inefficiency of circulation in the concept design developed by Group 4:16,460 square feet. Update of the Program Noll & Tam architects conducted interviews with Ms. Anna Hudson, the current director of the Senior Center, and met with the Senior Advisory Committee and members of the general public who had been involved in the creation of the 1998 report and architectural program in order to confirm the types and sizes of spaces in the program. Since the time of publication of that report, Noll & Tam was able to define some refinements to the architectural space program requirements established in 1998: 1) The Senior Center currently has volunteers who cook on-site for the senior nutrition program. The kitchen and storage was sized at 700 square feet in the 1998 report. The current size of the kitchen and storage is approximately 900 square feet. It was felt that the kitchen in the new center should be at least as large as the'cra'rent kitchen. Deliveries are by car, van or light truck. 2) Strong interest has not been expressed by the director or by the general public for billiards which was identified in the Group 4 report. The seniors now enjoy card games in small groups, which would function best in two smaller rooms rather than one large game room, although the program area was kept the same as that established by the report: 900 square feet. 3) The seniors expressed strong interest in having a permanent, raised platform in the Main Activity Room to support popular bingo games; with associated storage for the bingo equipment. Not a tree stage with a fly area, this raised platform would provide better visibility for small ensemble performances, the bingo announcer and similar activities. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 23 4) It was felt that the Main Activity Space need be divisible into two Spaces, rather than three, and it would be desirable to create dining alcoves for people who use heating aids and require an acoustically controlled environment in order to 'enjoy conversations. 5) An L-shaped Main Activity Space, ~as shown in the Group 4 report, was not desirable to support the program activities. The Main Activity Space should not have freestanding columns in the space for safety reasons during dance or exercise programs. Group 4 identified program space of 5,000 square feet for this use including the associated storage. A stage was included as an option. It may not be possible to achieve 5,000 square feet in the renovation design due to limitations in the existing building layout. The new construction scheme could achieve this requirement. 6) A small counter for an informal coffee bar would be a desirable feature located near the program activity spaces. This was not identified in the original report. 7) The Arts and Crafts Room should be located near the parking and entrance to the Senior Center in order to facilitate the unloading of craft supplies. On.the following page is a graphic diagram of the program activity areas. The labeling of each activity area conforms to the original program elements of the Group 4 report. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 24 STORAGE 700 S;' ! MAIN HALl. 5,000 SF ST~RAGr CGNF'£RENCr RGGH 350 SF' PROORAH ]:r~AGRAN N~LL & TAM ARCHITECT~ SE~T ET, ~001 SIZES FR~ GROUP 4 R~T ]~. SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR SENIOR CENTERS There are some issues, unique to people as they age, which have design implications. The center can be sensitively designed to meet the changing needs of all the people who want to take advantage of the programs in the center. A successfUl center supports many informal social interactions throughout.the day. The design can encourage informal social groupings with seating alcoves in hallways for people to chat, a lounge, small rooms for unplanned activities, seating areas nearby in the park, and other features. Through imaginative design of spaces, which foster small' group, as well as large group activities, the design can increase the choice of social activities. Activity rooms themselves can be designed to allow for others passing by to observe the activities and develop an interest in joining in. Circulation'paths must never cut through an activity circle, but flow alongside. Many Older seniors can be adverse to bouncy, noisy spaces. People who rely on hearing aids are sensitive to ambient noise which prevents them from enjoying conversations. Lobbies and hallways can be designed to trap unwanted noise. A large eating hall can have alcoves for peOple who need to escape fi.om the din of the larger room. Finish surfaces throughout should be selected to dampen noise. Design of ceilings can prevent sounds fi.om traveling throughout the building. As we age, our eyes become less able to adjust to glare. Modulation of light at entrances and good use of natural day lighting to prevent glare inside is especially important. We may also need more light to read or see our face in the mirror as we age, so the lighting design can take this into account. It is important to design spaces which feel and are secure. An information desk which is staffed can provide ~ontrol of the lobby, the approach to the center, and the parking lot. Many people rely on senior vans, taxicab services or their adult children to meet their transportation needs as they grow older. Providing for a drop-off and pick-up area and creating a sheltered and secure place to wait for their ride are design features which support seniors' needs as their independence changes as they age. These special design considerations were a part of the basis for the concept designs for the Senior Center which follow in Part V.' Dublin SeniOr Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 26 PART V - ALTERNATE CONCEPT DESIGNS A. RENOVATION DESIGN Site. Design The goal for the renovation concept design was to accommodate the updated senior center program, while upgrading the building for code compliance and safety. The design of the renovation of the library building also reorients the building entrance so as to provide better protection for visitors from the prevailing west winds, to locate the entrance to allow a new vehicle access to be developed to the east, and provides for covered drop off at the entrance. Concern was expressed about the suitability of the existing vehicle access from busy Amador Valley Boulevard, since it does not have a traffic signal light. The access road to the retail development just to the east provides greater vehicle safety because it has an existing traffic signal. Negotiations for an easement for vehicle access driveway from this access road' are underway with the adjacent property owners. Noll & Tam Architects was directed to develop a site plan which addresses the concerns described above. The site design maximizes parking on the site by developing the front setback into vehicle parking and providing a more efficient development of the parking spaces to the south of the building. The existing building is sited to be provide a parallel front to Amador Valley Boulevard. This relationship to the street skews the building with respect to the interior property boundaries, creating great inefficiencies in the parking layout. The overall inefficient site layout precludes a major expansion to the building without reduction in parking. The site design achieves approximately 111 parking spaces on-site. Based on the parking criteria discussed in Part II of this report, 80 spaces are required for the senior center use. If housing were developed with this scheme, it would require approximately 30 spaces which would displace some of the parking for the Senior Center. The design sketch is reproduced on the following pages of this report. Building Design The renovation design which provides the basis for the cost estimate assumptions in this report, sought to retain the existing building's architectural character while fashioning it into a facility suitable to house the seni°r activities. The design sketch for the concept plan is reproduced on the following pages of this report. · The renovation design allows large shear resistive walls to be developed to provide improved earthquake safety for the building in a cost-effective fashion. Other seismic retrofits have also been recommended, such as installation of clips to the roof plywood and installation of structural hardware to the existing framing; see the structural evaluation by Forell-Elsesser engineers in the appendix A. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 27 Due to restrictions in the layout of the existing building, all the program goals established by the Group 4 report cannot be achieved in the renovation design. Although the building has approximately 14,800 square feet, gross building area, the existing spaces cannot necessarily be optimized for the architectural program. For example, the Main Activity Space in the renovation concept design is planned in tWo structural bays of the building. The activity room itself is 3,360 sq ft. When the stage and associated storage is included this program element totals 3,948 sq ft, which is short of the original program by 1052 sq ft. This is due largely to the way the ceiling and structural columns are arranged in the existing building. This limits how the room can be configured and reduces the size of the space available for the activity room. The renovation design proposed in this report achieves greater efficiency of circulation than was anticipated in the Group 4 program (15%). Even with an increase in efficiency in the lay out, the design can only accommodate 12,421 square feet of actual program space, falling 749 square feet short of the original 13,170 square feet from the 1998 report. A new building entrance was established to the south, providing good visibility from approaching vehicles from the east, a covered drop-off canopy and good prOtection from prevailing winds. The small new addition of the entrance vestibule also houses space for new restroom facilities. The building of new restrooms outside the existing building shell is more cost effective than renovation of the existing restrooms which involves attempting to rework plumbing lines and cut and patch the existing structural slab. The existing restrooms can be cost effectively renovated into single use m-sex toilets, although they are a bit large for this purpose. Single use uni-sex toilets are also developed in the northeast comer of the building, making no program space more than a short walk from a restroom. The soaring tWo-story space of the librarY's main reading room was incorporated into the Main Activity Room of the Senior Center. Other large activity rooms were located along the east to take advantage of the restful views of the mature trees along that edge of the site and of the heightened ceiling spaces and greenhouse skylights. The library building's. existing conference room was retained for this same use. Smaller activity rooms, offices and support spaces were arranged to form functional, efficient circulation and grouped logically. The existing storage mezzanine, janitor's closet, mechanical room, and mechanical yard were retained for their original functions with little alteration presumed. For functionality, the new kitchen is required to be adjacent to the Main Activity Room, so a new exterior service entrance is planned to be developed on the north side of the building. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 28 B. DEMOLITION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION DESIGN Site Design As in the renovation design, the goals for the demolition of the library building and design of a new building on the site were to meet the architectural space program while maximizing parking on the site. The new construction scheme orients the building so as to provide protection for visitors from the prevailing winds, and locates the entrance to allow a new vehicle access to be developed to the east. The site design maximizes parking on the site by more efficiently developing vehicle parking orthogonal to the interior property boundaries. The new building is sited closer to Amador Valley Boulevard than the existing library building is. The efficiency of the site layout allows some of the site to be developed into outdoor patio or garden spaces which relate to the Main Activity Space. The.site design achieves approximately 121 parking spaces on-site. Based on the parking criteria discussed in Part II of the report, 86 are required parking spaces. If housing were developed with this scheme it would require approximately 50 spaces which would displace some of the Senior Center's parking. The design sketch for the new construction concept plan is reproduced on the following pages of this report. Building Design The concept design which provides the basis for the cost estimate assumptions in this report, proposes a new facility suitable to house the senior activities, within the irregular portion of the site which is. not efficientlY developed into parking. The design sketch is reproduced on the following pages of this report. The program goal established by the Group 4 report is achieved in the new facility design, with the exception of the Main Activity Space which is approximately 4,760 square feet, or 240 square feet short of the original program The building entrance was established to the south, providing good visibility from approaching vehicles from the east, a covered drop-off canopy and some protection from west winds. An entrance foyer/vestibule leads directly to the Main Activity Room of the Senior Center with restrooms located also adjacent to the vestibule. This layout allows the large meeting space to be segregated for use by community groups at times when it not needed for senior center activities on the weekends or in the evenings. The Main Activity Room features dining alcoves to the north. A large outdoor patio is sited to the south. The kitchen is adjacent to the Main Activity Room, and a new exterior service entrance is planned to be developed on the west side. The other spaces of the Senior Center are arranged in a bar located along the east to take advantage of the restful views of the mature trees along that edge of the site. The ceilings above the reception and lounge will be raised to enhance the day lighting of these spaces. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 31 The Arts and Crafts Room is located adjacent to the parking lOt to facilitate the unloading of craft supplies. The mechanical room and a mechanical yard were located centrally for cost-effectiveness of HVAC runs. While the multiple restrooms serve the Main Activity Space, single use uni-sex toilets were developed in the center of the building near the other activity spaces, to minimize the walking distance to a restroom. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 32 ,% PART VI -CONSTRUCTION COSTS A. COSTS Oppenheim Lewis has prepared the following opinion of probable construction cost for the alternate concept designs outlined in Part V above. The intent of this work is to analyze the cost to renovate and add area to the building to meet the needs of the Senior Center, and to compare this cost to the cost of clearing the site and building a new facility. On the following pages will be found the summary sheets for construction cost estimates for the renovation and new construction alternate concept designs prepared by Oppenheim Lewis. For a detailed description of the costs, see the entire cost estimate ' reproduced in Appendix C. Design Contingency Design contingency is a figure set aside to cover the cost of additional details that have not been drawn but will become part of the project and whose costs are not assignable at this time. As a standard estimating practice, the design contingency will be reduced in future design phases as the money is absorbed into cost line items. The cost estimates include construction costs only with an appropriate design contingency. Subtotals on the summary sheets give bid costs in January 2002 dollars. Construction Contingency and Escalation Not included but also to be considered are construction contingency and escalation for inflation to the Spring of 2003 which is the earliest presumed start date for construction. Inflation in the construction industry has been higher than inflation in the general economy. The construction contingency carried for renovation construction should be higher than that carried for new construction in order to cover the costs of unknown conditions which may be discovered during construction. Total Project Costs Project costs will need to include the following costs: Moving costs Professional architectural and engineering fees Construction management fees (optional) Agency plan check and permit fees Utility company fees Testing during construction Soils report/Survey Furnishings, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) Telecommunications equipment Audio-visual equipment Security system Typically, the soft costs (not including construction contingency) amount to'25-35% in addition to the construction costs. Dublin Senior Center Feasibili _ty Study Noll & Tarn Architects Page 35 Construction Costs The construction costs for all proposed modifications, including factors for general conditions, design contingency and contractor's fee were $4,727,531 for renovation and $5,860,893 for new construction. The difference between the two schemes is approximately $1 million dollars or a 24% premium for new construction. Although a significant sum, the amount is a relatively small premium for new construction. This is due to the age of the existing building and the presumed life expectancy of the remaining building elements. The renovation design was estimated at $245.58 per square foot, as compared to the new construction estimate of $306.85 per square foot (figures include 10% design contingency). Value Engineering and Construction Phasing As an exercise in value engineering, it would be possible to trim the project budget by planning to retain some of the elements which have been scheduled for replacement. For example, the cost estimate assumes replacement of the roof, due to existing roof leaks. A detailed study involving exploratory demolition can be undertaken which might identify a way to salvage the roof. Until this level of information is developed, it is not appropriate to recommend retaining the existing roof, Other possible areas of cost savings to either scheme would be the stage and associated wheelchair lift and the drop-off canopy, but these two items were of importance to seniors and have been mentioned frequently as desired elements. Lastly, it may be possible in the design of a new building to simply provide a smaller, less expensive project. The renovation scheme is essentially set by the area of the existing building and significant cost savings are difficult to realize, other than those already mentioned above. The site improvements could be considered in phases of improvements, since it is not likely that usage of the center would reach its peak and fill the parking lot to capacity initially. As the programs at the new center grew, and the daily attendance increased, the parking lots could be built out to the maximum site coverage diagrammed in the site plans. For example, in the renovation scheme, the new parking lot to the north could be built in a later phase. The existing landscaping and patio could be retained until the parking is felt to be necessary. In the new construction scheme, the portion of the site to the south could be reserved for two rows of future parking along the length of the site. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam.4rchitects Page 36 Dublin Senior Center Dublin, CA Preliminary Program Estimate RenOvation Summary (16,000 SF) Building Cost 2.0 'Structural Work 3.0 Exterior Closure 4.0 Roofing Subtotal 5.0 Interior Construction 6.0 Mechanical Systems 7.0 Electrical Systems General Conditions Contractor's Fee Subtotal Building Cost 9.0% 4.0% Cost Cost/SF $295,300 $18.46 279,250 17.45 302,500 18.91 1,054,250 65.89 650,855 40.68 568,900 35.56 $3,151,055 $196.94 283,595 137,386 $3,572,036 $223.25 Site Cost Subtotal 1.0 Site Preparation 8.0 Finish Sitework General Conditions Contractor's Fee Subtotal Site Cost 9.0% 4.0% $285,190 $17.82 355,000 22.19 $640,190 $40.01 57,617 27,912 $725,719 $45.36 Subtotal Building & Site Cost Design Contingency Total Construction Cost in January 2002 Dollars 10.0% $4,297,755 429,776 $268.61 $4,727,531- $295.47 Note: Cost shown above excludes escalation, construction contingency, hazardous materials mitigation, and soft Costs, Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study, Noll & Tam Architects page 37 Dublin Senior Center Dublin, CA Preliminary Program Estimate New Construction Summary (16,000 SF) Building Cost 2.0 Structural Work 3.0 Exterior Closure 4.0 Roofing Subtotal 5.0 Interior Construction 6.0 Mechanical Systems 7.0 Electrical Systems General Conditions Contractor's Fee Subtotal Building Cost 9.0% 4.0% Cost Cost/SF $534,800 $33.43 780,500 48.78 302,500 18.91 1,036,230 64.76 671,865 41.99 611,300 38.21 $3,937,195 354,348 171,662 $246.07 $4,463,204 $278.95 Site Cost Subtotal 1.0 Site Preparation 8.0 Finish Sitework General Conditions Contractor's Fee Subtotal Site Cost 9.0% 4.0% $407,950 $25.50 355,000 22.19 $762,950 $47.68 68,B66 33,265 $864,880 $54.06 Subtotal Building & Site Cost Design Contingency Total Construction Cost in January 2002 Dollars 10.0% $5,328,084 532,808 $333.01 $5,860,893 $366.31 Note: Cost shown above excludes escalation, construction contingency, hazardous materials mitigation, and soft costs. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study No]] & Tam Architects Page 3 8 Part VII - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Report has been a collaborative effort between the City of Dublin staff, the Senior Advisory Committee and the architectural design team, led by Noll & Tam Architects. Over the course of the study the library building was evaluated, the priorities of the senior community gleaned from the Group 4 report, those priorities confirmed from interviews, the potential of the site was tested and building and site schemes were developed in a back-and-forth process in working sessions with city staff. Many operational, functional and spatial issues were explored and addressed in the designs. A. DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS It is through this process that the following basic assumptions and decisions surfaced to guide the design process: Although the original 1998 program .identified 16,000 square feet as the 'optimum size for the senior center, this was due largely to the intent to reuse the existing building. As new construction, a smaller building can be designed to adequately house the identified program spaces. Through efficiency in building circulation, the overall size of the building can be reduced and the numbers of parking spaces on the site can be maximized New vehicle access to the site should be developed to provide for a traffic safety signal fit the primary vehicle access. Protection ofpedesthans from prevailing westerly winds and adverse weather is a high priority. A covered drop-off canopy is a desirable feature. A stage is a desired feature of the Main Activity Space with large amounts of storage for equipment, chairs and tables. Acoustic attenuation through materials and a dining alcove which allows persons who use hearing aids to participate more actively in conversation is a highly desirable feature. In addition to restrooms for men and women, Single-use toilet rooms allow for attendants or spouses 'to provide assistance when required. These single-use toilet rooms should be distributed so' as to minimize the travel distance of major program spaces to a restroom. B. PUBLIC FEEDBACK On January 24t~, 2002 the preliminary findings of this feasibility study were presented in a joint meeting of the Parks and Community Services Commission (PCSC) and the Senior Center Advisory Committee (SCAC). In a joint vote that body decided to Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study -- Noll & TamArchitects Page 39 recommend to the Dublin City Council that the new construction option be further developed without the inclusion of housing for seniors on the site. It was generally felt that both designs, renovation and new construction, met the needs of the Senior Center adequately and were well planned. Both designs were perceived to provide all of the amenities that the seniors had requested. Concern was expressed by SCAC members that there be adequate parking to accommodate the future users of the senior center without Competition from housing residents. One member was skeptical that the site was large enough for the intended use as a senior center, but most members of the PCSC/SCAC felt that there was enough parking planned. The layout of the new construction scheme allows for the possibility of renting out to the general public the main activity space with its associated dining patio, commercial kitchen, cloak closets and restrooms. This potential revenue stream was. regarded as a considerable plus by the SCAC and members of the senior community. Another reason given for their preference for the new construction scheme was the possibility to plan the new building to receive a second story addition in order to expand the Senior Center in the future. One member of the PCSC felt that the parking on the site was more than adequate since the site is surrounded by parking for the retail center adjacent and another PCSC member felt it was worth more thought as to whether the senior housing could be incorporated on the site without compromising the use of the Senior Center, but these individual views did not prevail. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 40 Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam architects Alternate Concept Schemes Comparison Chart Renovation Scheme Estimated Construction Costs February 4, 2002 New Construction Scheme Building (plus contingenc,. Site (plus contingency) Total Construction Timeframe $3,929,240 $798,291 $4,727,531 $4,909,525 $951,368 $5,860,893 Site Comparable 14-18 months Comparable 14-18 months General Building Inefficient Site Layout New Vehicle Entrance Parking for 111 cars / 80 required Retains all mature trees 30 housing units feasible / reduce parking by 30 spaces Efficient Site Layout New Vehicle Entrance Parking for 121 cars / 86 required Retains most mature trees 50 housing units feasible / reduce parking by 50 spaces S pace Program Replacement increases service life Anticipated 30-40 year of major building systems to 30+ years, service life of new building. Components to remain are aged 25 years. Higher maintenance required for older building. Lower maintenance required for new building. Main Activity Space Future Expansion Mis-fit between odginal program requirements and existing building No flexibiliy for shared use Odginal Program requirements generally fit within new building Oppodunitiesforshared use 3,360 square feet 480 max. persons 144 persons dining no patio space 3,930 square feet 561 max. persons 176 persons dining adjacent outdoor dining Difficult due to building shape & inefficiency of site Can be achieved by planning for a future second story addition Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & TamArchitects Page 41 C. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The site that has been selected for the new Senior Center for the City of Dublin has been found to be appropriate 'for this use. The site has been found to be large enough to provide for the contemplated activities and it would be possible to organize the site to develop additional parking spaces for the development of senior housing units. Renovation of the existing library building is feasible and can yield a well laid out design for a senior center. While there is some misfit and inefficiency between the building and the identified program spaces, overall, the fit is quite good. The costs associated with adapting the building and updating it to current standards of code and functionality rival the costs of new construction. New construction was found to bear a 24% premium over renovation. Demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building on the site was preferred by the Parks and Community Services Commission and the Senior Center Advisory Committee. New construction is inherently more flexible and can be more closely matched to program needs. The City of Dublin is now poised to embark on the next phase of realizing the Senior Center. The process of elaborating a building design for the seniors will bring their needs and dreams for the new building into greater focus. During the design process, the design team should continue to receive input from the Senior Center Advisory Committee and the DireCtor of the Senior Center, as well as other city staff. It is the hope of all the members of the community who have worked so long to establish this new senior center that the final building will be a lasting and valuable part of the community life in Dublin, and serve the present social and recreational needs of seniors, and long into the future. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 42 Part VIII - APPENDICES APPENDIX A - CONSULTANT REPORTS BUILDING EVALUATION AND UPGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS A. SITE BY FORELL-ELSESSER ENGINEERS Summary The Dublin Library building at 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin, California, was constructed in 1977-78. The building is a single story wood framed building and has an overall floor plan of approximately 14,400 square feet. We performed a review of record documentation regarding site improvements. The site assessment was performed based on a comparison of the record site improvement documentation with current improvement standards for comparable facilities. A detailed description of the assessment is described in the following sections: scope of work and methodology, documents reviewed, existing site description, and site improvement alternatives and recommendations. Scope of Work and Methodology ForelVElsesser Engineers, Inc. has performed site and seismic assessments of the Dublin Library building located at 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin, California. This site assessment is part of a larger study of the facility, which is being reviewed for possible conversion for use as the new Senior Center for the City of Dublin. The purpose ofthis site assessment is to evaluate the existing site and identify the major items of site work recommended. The following tasks were performed for the seismic evaluation of the building: Review existing record documents including as-built site improvement drawings. Make recommendations for site improvements if necessary. Documents Reviewed The following documents pertaining 'to the Dublin Library were reviewed: Dublin Library, As-Built Drawings Al.1, Al.2, A2.1, A2.2, A4.1 to A4.5, A5.1 to A5.5, and A6.1 by Collin, Byrens Architects AIA, dated October 12, 1977. Foundation Investigation for Dublin Library, Dublin, California, prepared by Peter Kaldveer and Associates, Geotechnical Consultants, dated April 4, 1977; and Dublin Senior Center FeasibiliW Study --- Noll & Tam Architects Page 43 Supplemental Soil Investigation, Dublin Library, Dublin, California, prepared by Peter Kaldveer and Associates, dated July 11, 1977. Dublin Senior Center, Preliminary Site Evaluation, Program and Illustrative Floor Plan prepared by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc. dated October 1998. Dublin Senior Center New Construction Scheme: Preliminary Parking Layout prepared by Noll & Tam Architects, dated November 15, 2001. Dublin Senior Center Renovation Scheme: Preliminary Parking Layout prepared by Noll & Tam Architects, dated November 15, 2001. Existing Site Description The existing building is a wood framed structure designed in 1977 and constructed in 1978, and is 120 feet square in plan. The site, with an approximate area of two acres, is relatively level. The difference in high and low grades across the site is on the order of 4.5', with a prevailing gentle slope of about 1.5% downward toward the east. Surface soils are known to have a moderate expansion potential. Mature landscape plantings, tuff areas, landscaped berms and trees were established at the time of original construction, which enhance the site and buffer it from traffic arterials. The existing parking lot covers approximately 34,000 square feet. The existing asphalt pavement consists of 2" asphaltic concrete over an 8" aggregate base, with design cross- slopes.generally between 1 and 2 percent. The parking lot is bordered by a 6" extruded concrete curb, occasionally notched to admit drainage from landscape areas. Per the Foundation Investigation by Peter Kaldveer and Associates, the pavement section is suitable for automobile traffic and parking areas and was designed to have an anticipated life of 11 to 20 years. Now aged 23 years, this pavement has attained the performance criteria for which it was originally designed. The paving and curbing still has a neat appearance and may have additional service life, depending on the anticipated level of through-traffic and heavy vehicle use. The location of sanitary sewer services for the existing building cannot be deduced from the documents reviewed. However, a sanitary sewer main is known to mn near the centerline of Amador Valley Road, and it is presumed that the existing building sewer connects to it. Site storm drainage is currently handled by a system ofprecast catch basins.and shallow pipes, with branches both east and west of the existing building. This piping system discharges to a catch basin offsite, northeast of the property. Rainwater leaders at the building typically fall onto splash blocks within landscape areas. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility StUdy ~- Noll & Tam Architects Page 44 APPENDIX A -CONSULTANT REPORTS BUILDING EVALUATION AND UPGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS B. STRUCTURAL BY FORELL-ELSESSER ENGINEERS The Dublin Library building at 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin, Califomia, was constructed in 1977-78. The building is a single story wood framed building with a partial mezzanine level, and has an overall floor plan of approximately 14,400 square feet. Its structural system is a wood framed roof, timber columns, plywood shear walls, a concrete slab-on-grade and spread footings. The structural design criteria was either the 1973 or 1976 Uniform Building Code (UBC). A visUal survey of the building was performed on September 27, 2001, and the building appeared to be in general conformance with the original structural drawings with the exception of the front entrance which appeared to have been subsequently built out slightly. No significant signs of structural distress were observed. A stmcmral assessment was performed based on a comparison of the original UBC seismic design basis with the seismic requirements of the 1998 California Building Code (CBC) along with a limited analysis of the existing lateral capacity of the building. Among the significant changes in the seismic requirements of the 1998 CBC from previous codes is the addition of a near source factor which increases the design seismic force for buildings located in the proximity of active earthquake faults. The result of this code revision is an increase in'design base shear for a building on this site by roughly 30%. Along with other revisions in the formula, the seismic design force for the current code results in a base shear of 1.4 to 1.9 times the original design base shear based on the 1976 and 1973 UBC, respectively. Based on limited analysis of the existing lateral capacity of the building, the existing building is deficient in meeting current code requirements and it appears that the building also falls short of meeting minimum expectations for a life safety level of performance. During a major earthquake, it is anticipated that the building would suffer significant damage with a moderate likelihood of life safety hazards from partial structural collapse. Upgrade work required to meet the life safety level of seismic performance based on the current code is presented. Proposed new shear walls with concrete strip footings, steel collectors bolted to the roof girders, and angle braces at the clerestory are among the major structural elements recommended for seismic strengthening. The upgrade work is recommended for life safety purposes and does not guarantee property protection nor preclude significant structural damage during a major earthquake event. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study ~ NolI & Tam Architects Page 45 A detailed description of the assessment is described in the following sections: scope of work and methodology, documents reviewed, existing building structural description, existing building site review, existing building seismic criteria, existing building seismic assessment, conceptual upgrade scheme, and conclusion. Scope of Work and Methodology ForelVElsesser Engineers, Inc. has perfOrmed a seismic assessment of the Dublin Library building located at 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin, California. The seismic assessment is part of a'larger study of the building which is being reviewed for possible conversion for use as the new Dublin Senior Center. The purpose of this seismic assessment is to evaluate the existing building for current seismic code requirements, recommend a scheme to seismically upgrade the building if found deficient, and identify the major items of structural work recommended. The following tasks were performed for the seismic evaluation of the building: 2. 3. 4. Review existing documents including as-built structural drawings of the building. Conduct a site visit to review the existing structure and to determine major deviations from the structural drawings. Perform a limited structural analysis of the building's lateral system for current seismic code forces. Make recommendations for seismic upgrade if necessary. Documents Reviewed The following documents pertaining to .the Dublin Library were reviewed: Dublin Library, As-Built Drawings S3.1 through S3.11 by Shapiro Oki_nO Hom and Associates Engineers, dated October 12, 1977; As-Built Drawings Al.1, Al.2, A2.1, A2.2, A4.1 to A4.5, A5.1 to A5.5, and A6.1 by Collin, Byrens Architects AIA, dated October 12, 1977. Dublin Library Project Specification Sections 03100, 03200, 03300, 06100, and 06180 [likely dated 1977]. Foundation Investigation for Dublin Library, Dublin, California, prepared by Peter Kaldveer and Associates, Geotechnical Consultants, dated April 4, 1977; and Supplemental Soil Investigation, Dublin Library, Dublin, California, prepared by Peter Kaldveer and Associates, dated July 11, 1977. Dublin Senior Center, Preliminary Site Evaluation, Program and Illustrative Floor Plan prepared by Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc: dated October 1998. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study.. ,-- Noll & Tam Architects Page 46 Existing Building Structural Description The existing building is a wood framed structure with brick veneer, designed in 1977 and constructed in 1978. The building is 120 feet square in plan with a sloping roof rising from roughly 9 feet at the perimeter to approximately 38 feet at the high point of the roof. The roof slopes from each of the four sides of the building to the building center, with the south and east sides of the roof soaring above the north and west sides of the roof thereby creating an OPening for a vertical window. The roof typically overhangs the exterior walls by 3 feet. The roof is wood framed, consisting of glu-laminated girders and beams, wood joists, and plywood sheathing. Hip girders mn from each of the building comers toward the center with intermediate beam framing at 13'-4" spacing. The glu-lam members range in size from 6,3/4" x 27" to 5-1/8" x 13-1/2". They are supported at the exterior by 6 x 6 timber posts and at the interior by 10 feet deep by 40 feet long wood trusses which are framed in a square at the. center of the structure. The interior trusses are supported by four interior 8 x 8 timber posts. The 5-1/8" x 22-1/2" glu-lam roof beams support 2 x 8 joists spaced at 2 foot spacing. The roof sheathing is 2" plywood. Two large 10 feet by 40 feet skylight openings occur at the roof along the north and west sides of the building. There is a small mezzanine level at the east side of the building framed with 2x12 joists at 16" spacing with 2" plywood sheathing. Lighter framing consisting of 2x6 joists at 24" spacing forms the ceiling concealing mechanical equipment and ventilation ducts over the lobby area located on the south side of the building. Foundations are concrete spread footings, typically 1'-6" to 2'-0" wide strip footings along exterior and interior walls and 4'-6" square footings at the interior columns. The building slab is a 6 inch concrete slab on grade. The lateral forces are resisted by plywood shear walls along the exterior walls and a limited number ofinteri0r walls. Typical shear walls consist of 2 x 6 wood studs at 16 inch spacing with 2" structural plywood on each side. The majority of interior shear wails at the mezzanine and lobby area appear to have 5/8" gypboard sheathing as shear resisting elements. 3" brick veneer is attached to the exterior walls and is separated from the wall face by a 1" airspace. Existing Building Site Review A visual survey of the building was conducted on September 27, 2001. The purpose of the survey was to confirm general conformance of the building with the original structural drawings and to note any visible signs of distress. The review'did not include the opening of finishes to review concealed structure or material testing. Based on our observations, it appears that the building is in general conformance with the as-built structural drawings, with the exception that the area at the front entrance has since been built out slightly. , No significant signs of structural distress were observed. Although the library stated that there has b.een some water infiltration at some of the roof areas, we do not believe that such water leakage will affect the structural performance of the building, Dublin Senior Center FeasibiliW Study ~ Noll & Tam Architects Page 47 unless the timber framing shows signs of decay. No evidence of decay was readily apparent. Existing Building Seismic Criteria Dublin Library was constructed in the era of the 1973 and 1976 Editions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Because of design drawings dated in 1976 and the 1977-1978 years of construction, it is unclear whether the seismic design of the building was based on the 1973 UBC or the 1976 UBC. Original documents did not indicate the design code basis for the building. The specified seismic design base shear for each code respectively is 0.10W and 0.14W based on the following formulae: 1973 UBC 1976 UBC V = ZKCW V = ZIK(CS)W = (1.0)(1.00)(0.10)W = (1.0)(1.0)(1.00)(0.14)W = 0.10W = 0.14W The 0.10W to 0.14W range of design base shear is compared with current seismic requirements based on the 1998 California Building Code (CBC), the current code for the design of new buildings. Existing Building Seismic Assessment The structural assessment of the existing building is based on limited analysis of the lateral capacity of the building and a Comparison of the estimated original seismic design basis with the seismic requirements of the 1998 California Building Code (CBC). The seismic requirements of the 1998 CBC are significantly changed from those contained in the 1973 UBC and 1976 UBC. Among the changes is one which addresses "near-source" effects. Whereas previous editions of the building code prior to 1997 did not include any specific additional seismic requirements for sites located in the vicinity of active faults, the current code now acknowledges based, on historical data that sites near faults that rupture can experience higher seismic forces than those sites located outside the immediate vicinity of the fault. This change affects the Dublin Library building which is located less than 2 km away from the Calaveras Fault, which is classified as a Type B fault under the UBC, and less than 15 km away from the Hayward Fault, which is classified as a Type A fault. The resulting specified seismic design base shear for the current code is O.19W based on the following formula: V = (2:5CaYR)/1.4 W = [(2.5)(0.572)(1.0)/(5.5)3/1.4 W = 0.19 W An R factor of 5.5 is used for this structure and is applicable for buildings with a bearing, shear wall system. This design base shear is on the order of 1.4 to 1.9 times the original Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study __ Noll & Tam Architects Page 48 design base shear. Based on this increase in design force level, and based on the results of limited analysis to estimate existing lateral capacities of various structural elements, strengthening the eXisting building would be required to meet the seismic requirements of the current code. It appears from the original structural drawings that a number of interior gypboard shear walls were utilized to provide lateral resistance for the mezzanine level as well as the intermediate framing above the lobby area. While the use of gypboard shear walls was allowed in the i970's, current code prohibits the use of gypboard sheathing as lateral resisting elements in new buildings due to the poor performance of this brittle material. Therefore, the replacement of the existing gypboard sheathing at the mezzanine level and lobby areas with structural plywood is recommended to provide improved seismic performance to meet current code. Other identified areas of concern include the lack of sufficient lines of lateral resistance for the building and the present large span of the roof diaphragrn. Since the majority of the existing building's lateral resistance is provided by the exterior shear walls, high demands are placed on the roof diaphragm to span to these walls and transfer the lateral seismic loads. The presence of the vertical discontinuity caused by the window opening at the soaring roof area along with the absence of any full height interior line of lateral resistance contributes to the potential poor performance of the structure during a major seismic event. Concept'ual Upgrade Scheme The conceptual upgrade scheme addresses the areas of deficiency by both strengthening existing structural elements which are found deficient and by introducing new structural elements as a way of relieving some of the areas which would experience high seismic demands. Figures 1 and 2 show the major structural improvements recommended to meet the seismic requirements of the current code. To relieve some of the demand on the exterior shear walls as well as to relieve the demand on the roof diaphragm and to provide for a more direct shear transfer from the roof, shear walls are proposed along each of the interior wood trUss lines located under the roof (i.e. at Lines D, G, 4, and 7). Steel collectors with steel plates and bolted connections would be required along the existing wood girders to transfer lateral load to the new shear walls. The open space at the clerestory between the interior lower roof line and the top chord of the wood truss would need to be filled with diagonal angle braces to provide a continuous load path from the ro°fto the new shear walls. New seismic clips at the underside of the roof diaphragm to the collectors at the new shear walls are needed to transfer the lateral roof loads to these new lines of resistance. The' locations of the new shear walls are shown on Figure 1. New concrete grade beam foundations approximately 3 feet wide by 2 feet deep, which are tied into the existing 6" square column spread footings, will be required at each of the four new lines of shear walls. It is anticipated that the new grade beam foundation will be a spread foundation Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study, -- Noll & Tam Architects Page 49 that will not require drilled piers or soil anchors to resist uplift or downward loads induced by the new shear walls. Also shown on the figure for the conceptual seismic upgrade is the replacement of the existing interior gypboard sheathing at the mezzanine and lobby areas which act as shear resisting elements. Since current code no longer allows gypboard to be used as shear resisting elements, the structural gypboard sheathing shown on the original drawings will need to be removed and replaced with structural plywood. Conclusion The building code requirements for the seismic design of buildings has changed significantly over the years.' One significant change affecting the Dublin Library building is the higher design seismic force prescribed by the current code, which stems in part to the addition of a near-source factor requirement which increases the seismic demand placed on buildings located in the immediate vicinity of active earthquake faults. The building seismic design base shear based on the 1998 CBC, the current building code, is on the order of 1.4 to 1.9 times the original design base shear. Due to this increase in the seismic demand and based on limited analysis, the existing building is deficient in meeting current seismic code requirements. Deficient areas .:-- include the inability of the existing roof diaphragm to span to the existing exterior shear walls for the higher seismic loads. Furthermore, the exterior shear walls would be ! overstressed to handle these higher force levels. Additionally, interior shear walls for the mezzanine level and lobby area rely on gypboard sheathing for lateral shear resistance, - which is no longer allowed by the current code. Proposed new shear walls located along the underside of the roof girders along the wood tress lines would reduce the roof diaphragm spans and diaphragm shears, and would provide new lines of lateral shear resistance to relieve the overstressed exterior walls. New concrete grade beam foundations would be located at the new shear'walls. Roof tie elements consisting of steel collectors, steel plates and bolts to collect lateral load and transfer load to the shear wall elements would be required. Additionally, replacement of the interior structural gypboard sheathing at the mezzanine level and lobby area with structural plywood sheathing is proposed for the upgrade. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study ~ Noll & Tam Architects Page 50 .H, OTE$ 1) 6" STUD SHEAR WALL WITH %" STRUCT. I PLYWOOD EA SIDE & HOLD DOWN EA. END; 3' x 2' STRIP CONCRETE SPREAD t=OOTINGS 2) STEEL CHANNEL DRAG/COLLECTOR ( APPROX. WT = 15 LBS/FO BOLTED TO (E) WOOD GIRDERS STEEL PLATE & BOLTED CONNECTION 4) L 4x4xl/2 ANGLE BRACES AT CLERESTORY TO T.O. (E) WOOD TRUSS GIRDER 5) ADD'L SEISMIC CLIPS AT UNDERSIDE OF ROOF DIAPHRAGM TO WOOD GIRDERS 6) REMOVE AND REPLACE (E) GYPBOARD WITH STRUCTURAL PLYWOOD, ONE SIDE 7) 6" STUD SHEAR WALL W1TH PLYWOOD ONE SIDE AND STRIP CONCRETE SPREAD FOOTINGS DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER RENOVATION OF EXISTING LIBRARY FIGURE t 12~11/01 FORELLIELSESSER'ENGINEER$, INC. ' '04 IJJ Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 52 Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 5 3 APPENDIX A- CONSULTANT REPORTS BUILDING EVALUATION AND UPGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS C.'MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND FIRE PROTECTION BY TAYLOR ENGINEERING I-IVAC The heating, ventilating and air conditioning (I-IVAC) system includes a main supply and remm fan system, an outdoor air-cooled condensing unit and a natural gas boiler. The HVAC system is a constant-volume reheat system. The cooling is an outdoor condensing unit and a direct-expansion cooling coil. The heating is a dual,fuel hot-water boiler and multiple hot-water heating coils. The boiler fuel oil tank was previously abandoned and a dual fuel boiler is not longer needed, so the boiler only operates on natural gas.' There is a central fan system with one supply and one return fan. The controls are electric. There is one supplemental HVAC system dedicated to the Meeting Room. The Meeting Room HVAC system cooling is an outdoor condensing unit and a direct-expansion fan- coil unit. The heating is a single duct-mounted hot-water heating coil. The controls are electric. There are two cabinet type exhaust fans serving the toilet and general exhaust. The duct system includes overhead furred ducts, exposed spiral ducts and under-ground ducts. Plumbing The existing building domestic supply from a 1-1/2 inch water meter with a 2-inch double check valve assembly located next to Amador Valley Boulevard. Two electric water heaters serve the domestic hot water system. One water heater serves the toilets and janitor rooms and the other water heater serve the kitchen. Fire Protection The existing building automatic sprinkler system is supply from a 4-inch fire line with a double check valve assembly and post indicator valve located next to Amador Valley Boulevard. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 54 CODES AND REGULATIONS It is generally not required to bring systems into compliance with current codes unless the building undergoes a complete rehabilitation. Nevertheless, it is valuable to have systems up to current code from operations perspective and potentially from an insurance and liability perspective. HVAC The existing HVAC system is code compliant for the generation of code during construction. The current code would require more energy efficiency from the HVAC systems. Plumbing The existing plumbing system is code compliant for the generation of code during construction. The current code would require low water consumption and ADA compliant plumbing fixtures. Fire Protection The existing fire protection system is code compliant for the generation of code during construction. Since the building is fully sprinkler, the existing fire protection system would most likely meet present code. BUILDING EVALUATION & UPGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS HVAC The existing HvAc systems are beyond their useful life. New equipment is more energy efficient that the existing equipment. The under-ground duct system is an indoor air quality concern and should be replaced with an overhead duct system. We recommend replacing the HVAC systems with new equipmen~t and ducts, with the exception of the supply and return fans, and the hot water pump, which are worth reusing. Though the spiral duct may be reused, it will not save any significant amount of money to do so, so budget all new ductwork. Plumbing Replace the existing plumbing fixtures with new low water consumption ADA compliant plumbing fixtures. Replace the existing electric water heaters with new and provide check valve with domestic water expansion tank to each water heater. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study ~ Noll & Tam Architects Page 55 Wire brash the mst off of the outdoor gas piping and provide new protective coating. Provide high/low electric water cooler (drinking fountains). Fire Protection Provide cap and chain on existing dual fire department inlets. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam,~rchitects Page 56 APPENDIX A - CONSULTANT REPORTS BUILDING EVALUATION AND UPGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS D. ELECTRICAL, SECURITY, DATA AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS BY MAHONY & MYER Main Service: The building, originally designed in 1977 is served by an 800Amp, 120/208Volt,.three phase, four wire, electric service. The existing Main Switchboard service equipment, and utility company meter are located outdoors in an equipment yard. The Main Switchgear is outdoor rated NEMA 3R. The building is served by an underground electrical service from an outdoor PG&E pad mounted transformer located in the parking lot. The Main Switchboard equipment is in good condition and together with the existing PG&E electrical service could remain in place. Modification to the distribution section will be required to serve new panel boards installed as. part of any remodel work. Provisions to allow for the temporary hook up of a portable generator will be required. The hook up will include an 800Amp, NEMA 3R, Manual Transfer Switch together with 800A Amp feeders to the Main Switchboard. The Main Switchboard will also need to be modified to accept the new feeders from the Manual Transfer Switch. Distribution System: The electrical distribution throughout the building consists of a number of sub panels located within the building. Two of the panels are located within the Library area, and the third panel is located in the mechanical room. Each of the panels is fed with a sub-feeder from the Main Switchboard. The panels are in good condition. The panels could be reused if their existing locations are allowed to remain. Two of the panels within the library are' flush type, making it necessary to remove the sheetrock to allow for installing new branch circuit conduits and wiring to the panels. Should it be determined that the existing panel locations will not work for the proposed change in building use, neW panel boards together with new feeders will be required. Additional panels with new feeders will most likely be required for the new building use for areas such as the computer room, and the new kitchen area. The building wiring systems' were not visible during our review. The extent of any future remodel will obviously dictate which areas must be upgraded, but in general, all branch wiring and devices should be replaced in areas of remodel. Selective replacement in Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 57 these areas, although cheaper, almost always proves to be more costly as electrical inspectors and contractors uncover hidden deteriorating conditions that must be corrected. New wiring will be required for the new kitchen, the new computer room, Stage in the multi use area, and any other new program areas. The building currently has an electrical under floor duct system, which could be potentially used for new wiring in areas of remodel. Selected areas that will remain unchanged could be left with existing branch circuits in place as long as the circuits and devices were not modified during the eom'se of construction, and a contractor can aScertain that no code violations exist. Lighting System: The general lighting systems in the building are mostly incandescent, and older fluorescent fixtures most likely T12, While the fixtures appear to be in operational condition and have been maintained fairly well, each of these sources consume much more energy than comparable modem sources. New T8 fluorescent and compact fluorescent sources with electronic ballasts should be used wherever possible to maximize lamp life and reduce energy consumption. As with the wiring systems, all lighting in the areas to be remodeled should be replaced and re-wired with new switching and/or dimming where required. The existing emergency lighting and exit signs are connected to central battery packs, which appear to be close to the end of their useful life. Upgrades .should also include new exit signs with LED sources and emergency lighting battery ballasts in selected. fluorescent fixtures to provide emergency egress lighting in the path of egress. Some form of master shut-off lighting control will also need to be provided to comply with current California Title 24 energy compliance requirements. These requirements dictate that grouped areas not to exceed 5,000 square feet each shall be provided with automatic shut-off systems for after hours and weekends to conserve energy. The Existing central switching is a designed based on Library use, which will not be adaptable for a senior center. To insure adequate security lighting and avoid possible litigation in the future, it is strongly recommended that all traveled areas around the building, within the property line be provided with lighting levels to meet the current Illumination Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Additional pole mounted light fixtures will most likely need to be added to supplement the existing parking lot lighting. New exterior lighting should be connected to a photocell and time clock control to provide automatic operation. A dimmable lighting system will be required in the Multi Purpose Room. This will comprise of lighting tracks with incandescent light fixtures and ceiling mounted dimmable fluorescent light fixtures. A Lutron Graphic Eye system should be considered. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Archaects Page 58 Telephone and Data System: The telephone service enters the building from Amador Valley Blvd. and terminates on a backboard located in the mechanical room. The building has an existing telephone/data wiring infrastructure based on a typical Library. It is expected that the building will be required to meet the new Senior Center use. New modem 4-pair telephone and Data cables should be installed from the existing telephone backboard location to each individual room requiring telephone and/or data service. It is recommended that this wiring be Category 5 or Category 5E rated to accommodate computer network capabilities. If multiple cables are extended to each room, this will allow the wiring infrastructure to be utilized for telephone and data communications, which will become even more prevalent .in the coming years. Now would be the time to upgrade the wiring infrastructure to avoid furore added costs. The new computer room will require new data network wiring to meet the needs of the new Senior Center. Fire Alarm System: The building currently has a Pyrotronics System 3 Fire Alarm Panel. We recommend that a new fire alarm system be installed in the building consisting of manual pull stations at all exits, automatic smoke detectors in mechanical/electrical rooms and storage closets, duct smoke detectors in large air-handling systems, sprinkler water flow monitor, and visual/audible alarm devices to meet current NFPA and ADA requirements throughout the building. Security'System: The building currently has a book alarm systeml and motion sensors throughout the building. We recommend that a new security system be added to the building consisting of door contact, and motion sensors with a control panel tied to a remote central station. Reuse of the existing door contacts should be considered. New motion sensors will most likely be required based on the new proposed building, use. P.A. System: The building currently has a P.A. System, which will most likely not meet the prOposed new building use. A new P.A. System will most likely be required which could be tied to the building telephone switch for paging and general announcements. For the Multi Purpose area previsions will need to be made to allow for a portable A/V system with ADA assertive listing systems to used an as needed basis. These provisions should' include conduit with pull wires to outlet boxes. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 59 APPENDIX B - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RENOVATION DESIGN The following represent design assumptions that the design team has made for the purposes of costing. This list was provided to the cost estimator in order to assign an appropriate level of finish and materials. Design and selection of interior and exterior finish materials, architectural style, landscaping, etc. will be developed and reviewed with the City of Dublin in the subsequent design phases. A. SITE BY FORELL-ELSESSER ENGINEERS The renovation design proposes adaptation of the existing building to a new senior center. This scheme retains much of the geometry of the existing parking lot to the east and south, but adds both a new parking lot to the northwest and a new access driveway to the northeast. Under this proposed alternative, replacement of the existing mature asphalt'pavement in its entirety would be recommended, together with construction of the new access driveway and expanded parking areas. Resistance~value testing and suitable traffic indices should be developed by a geotechnical engineer for use in the design of new pavements. Construction and renovation of pedestrian ramps as well as parking lot striping should be in accordance with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The sewage load of a new senior center is likely to be on the order of the sewage load of the existing building even though numbers of plumbing fixtures will be increased and a kitchen is planned. However, development of any new senior housing project on this site would necessitate that capacity of the Amador Valley Road main be evaluated by the project civil engineer. Though replacement of the aged, shallow storm drain lines would be recommended, it may be possible to retain the existing storm drainage system under the renovation scheme, depending on its state of repair and the extent ofregrading required within the existing parking lot. In any event, however, we recommend that building rainwater leaders be connected directly to the storm sewer system, as is required by most municipalities. During the previous period of construction, this site was located in a then-unincorporated area of Alameda County. The'City of Dublin was incorporated in 1982, following construction. It may be assumed that future improvements on this site will need to be constructed in accordance with the design standards of the City of Dublin rather than the County of Alameda. These City standards may be expected to apply to new storm and Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & TamArchitects Page 60 sanitary sewers, curbs, sidewalks and other site features both on-site and in the adjoining public right-of-way. Prior to design development ofany future addition, a project geotechnical report should be prepared to evaluate both slab-on-grade and pavement design requirements. Additionally, topographic, boundary and utilities surveys of the proposed, building envelope and its surroundings should be completed by a licensed land surveyor. The topographic survey should include a data field extending at least 40 feet beyond the perimeter of proposed improvements and should contain 1' contours based on a regular grid of spot elevations, as well as locations and elevations of all visible surface features such as poles, vaults, hydrants, foundations, standpipes, valves, trees and walls. A boundary survey would consist of a review of any existing current title reports and maps of record to analyze the legal description and to determine the existence of any easements or other encumbrances that may affect the project site. A boundary survey would also retrace the perimeter property boundary lines, locate any accessible major encroachments along the perimeter boundary lines (including storm drainage at the easterly comer), and establish semi-permanent reference points to delineate the perimeter property lines. A utilities survey would record the locations and elevations of all drainage features within the property lines and proximal storm and sanitary sewer features within the adjoining streets. Such a survey would identify all catch basins, area drains, trench drains, manholes and utility boxes and all visible onsite utility features exclusive of irrigation lines and valves. Where possible, ali drainage inlet grates and manhole covers should be opened and their inverts and tributary pipe sizes both noted. Additionally, a utilities survey should map the record utility locations based upon research of the records of the City and utility companies to determine the existence, size, depth and location of all underground utility.lines and structures on the site and within the adjoining streets, including but not limited to sanitary and storm sewers, gas, telecommunications, electrical, steam and water lines. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 61 APPENDIX B - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RENOVATION DESIGN COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SITE WORK By Noll ~cTam a~cld~cts EXTERIOR HARDSCAPING broom finish concrete paving to match existing, integral color (typical) special paving unit material at public entrance for accent allowance: for feature at new plaza entrance steel post and steel decking drop-off canopy allowance: exterior signage LANDSCAPING new ~,ehicle access driveway new parking lot; asphaltic paving with concrete curbs extend existing spray & bubbler irrigation system on timer new drought tolerant trees, shrubs and bulbs exterior lighting on timers at all entrances pole mounted site lighting maintain existing mature trees as shown SITE UTILmES new sewer and water lines retain existing electrical pad transformer Dublin Senior Center Feasibilitv Study Noll & Tam ,4rchitects Page 62 APPENDIX B - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RENOVATION DESIGN B. ARGHITEGTURAL By Noll &Tam architects ' Building additions should complement as well as update the existing building. At this point in the design process, it makes sense to assume that the exterior finish match the existing colors of the brick veneer and window wall system. It might be appropriate at the new public entrance to employ a change of material for color and accent, such as tile or glazed concrete masonry units. The southern building addition entrance portico should have an average ceiling height of about 14 feet. It is assumed that the portion over the new lobby will be generous in height to provide a welcoming and well-lit entry. COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RENOVATION DESIGN WITH SMALL BUILDING ADDITION 1. EXTERIOR CLOSURE AT RENOVATED BUILDING anodized aluminum window units with low e glass set into existing frames anodized aluminum greenhouse atria units with low e glass set into existing structural frames new roof jacks for kitchen exhaust equipment at roof cleaning of brick veneer and stucco soffits 2. INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION type V, one hour fire resistive construction throughout walls extend to underside of roof throughout except at bank of offices two sets of rated double doors at occupancy separation wall panic hardware at all exterior doors allowance: interior signage solid core wood doors with hollow metal frames, lever hardware, typical interior glazing hollow metal frame with tempered float glass, typical assume existing ceilings throughout to be removed and refrained except at underside of existing mezzanine 3. TYPICAL INTERIOR FINISHES AT OFFICESt GAME ROOMS AND COMPUTER ROOM carpet tile painted type X gypboard, smooth finish rubber cove base T-bar ceiling 2 X 2 florescent lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum window coverings Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study, Noll & Tam Architects Page 63 4. INTERIOR FINISHES AT MAIN ACTIVITY ROOM Wilson Art, plastic laminated wood flooring, two color pattern wood base, stain grade painted Type X gypboard walls, smooth finish, extends to underside of roof wood slat acoustic ceiling acoustical wall treatment panic hardware at all doors acoustic deadening accordian dividing wall glazing in truss above diving wall pendant lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum chair storage under raised stage window coverings wheelchair lift to stage 5. KITCHEN resilient sheet flooring painted type X gypboard walls, smooth finish, high gloss rubber cove base painted type X gypboard ceiling, smooth finish, high gloss 2 X 2 florescent lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum commercial kitchen equipment freestanding commercial refrigerators stainless steel counters and shelving class A hood over commercial range 6. INTERIOR FINISHES AT ACTIVITY ROOM AND ARTS &: CRAFTS ROOM Wilson Art, plastic laminated wood flooring, two color pattern wood base, stain grade painted Type X gypboard walls, smooth finish wood slat acoustic ceiling wood chair rail acoustical wall treatment pendant lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum panic hardware at egress doors, lever hardware at storage room doors interior glazing at Arts &Crafts Room: Fire Lite glass wood veneer casework, stain grade stainless steel sink and corian countertops metal shelving in storage room window coverings 7. CONFERENCE ROOM carpet tile painted gypboard walls, smooth finish rubber cove base refurbish existing casework wood slat acoustic ceiling (open ceiling) Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 64 pendant lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum lever hardware at all doors window coverings projection screen marker board 8. LOUNGE AND WAITING AREA · Wilson Art, plastic laminated wood flooring, two color pattern wood base, stain grade carpet tile accent inset painted type X gypboard, smooth finish wood slat acoustic ceiling (open ceiling) pendant lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum window coverings 9. EXTERIOR CLOSURE AT ENTRY PORTICO anodized aluminum window wall with low e glass Spectraglaze CMU walls · Anodized aluminum entrance doors at front entrance, panic hardware, power assisted Anodized aluminum doors and frames with full lite at vestibule allowance: exterior signage commercial built-up roofing system ASSUME 50% WINDOW AREA, 50% WALL AREA IN NEW ADDITION 10o STRUCTURE AT ENTRY PORTICO dimensioned lumber framing plywood roof sheathing reinforced concrete slab-on-grade perimeter foundation drains see report by Forell-Elsesser Engineers 12. INTERIOR FINISHES AT ENTRANCE VESTIBULE/FOYER ceramic pavers, mortar set tile base wood slat acoustic ceiling Spectraglaze accent walls 13. WC AND RESTROOMS, NEW AND REFURBISHED ceramic porcelain tile flooring and wainscot type X gypboard ceiling and walls brushed stainless steel accessories stainless steel toilet partitions wall hung porcelain Water closets, flush valve corian countertop with porcelain lavatory basins florescent ceiling lighting Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Archaects Page 65 APPENDIX B - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RENOVATION DESIGN C. STRUCTURAL See "Conceptual Upgrade Scheme" and Figure 1 description of new structural strengthening elements. in Appendix. A for location and Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 66 APPENDIX B - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RENOVATION DESIGN D. MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND FIRE PROTECTION I-IVAC Replace the following items: Replace the 40-ton outdoor air-cooled condensing unit with a new unit equipped for VAV operation with hot-gas by-pass. Replace the main fan's economizer return, exhaust and outside air control dampers with new dampers. The air-handier us designed for 18,900 CFM. Each damper is approximately 21 square feet. Replace the main air-handling unit's direct-expansion cooling coil. The coil is 6- row, 8-fins per inch, 8-feet wide by '5-feet tall. Install two variable speed drives on the main air-handling unit, for the 10- horsepower supply fan and the other for the 3-horsepower return air fan. Replace the Bryan natural-gas steel-tube boiler with a new natural draft boiler, 650,000 BTUH input. · Replace the Meeting Room 5-ton split system fan coil unit and outdoor condensing unit. Add a 100% outdoor air economizer system. · Install a dedicated miniTsplit system heat pump to serve the Computer Room. · Demolish the existing duct system and grilles outside the mechanical room and replace with new ducts and grilles. · Install 9 VAV boxes with 2-row hot-water reheat coils. · Install a new direct digital (DDC) control system to operate the entire HVAC system. · Remove exhaust fans EF-1 & EF-2. Replace EF-1 exhaust fan with a new 800 CFM. Replace EF-2 with two new ceiling mounted 150 CFM exhaust fans. All new exhaust fans require ducts and grilles and louver to the outside. · Add a new 800-CFM direct-drive exhaust fan with ducts, grilles, variable-on-off control and louver to serve the arts and crafts area. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 67 Add a new Type 1 kitchen hood, welded grease exhaust duct and roof mounted kitchen exhaust fan. Also, add a new heated and evaporative-cooled kitchen make up ak system. Plumbing Replace existing water heaters with new water heaters. Replace existing plumbing fixtures to present low water consumption and ADA compliant fzxtures and provide additional plumbing fixtures as required per California Plumbing Code based on building type and usage (occupancy). Provide new sanitary waste, vent, domestic hot and cold water as required for new and relocated toilet rooms and kitchen. Fire Protection Provide cap and chain for existing fire department connection. For minor building renovation, replace existing sprinkler heads as required. All sprinkler heads within the room shall be the same manufacturer and model number. · For major building renovation, recommend replace all existing sprinkler heads and piping with new. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study, Noll & Tam Architects page 68 APPENDIX B - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RENOVATION DESIGN E. ELECTRICAL, SECURITY, DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS Modify the existing Main Switchboard for new feeder circuit breakers to new panel boards. Allow for the addition of three new 225Amp feeder circuit breakers. Provide provisions for the temporary hook up of a portable generator. The provisions will inclUde afl 800Amp NEMA 3R, Manual Transfer Switch together with new 800Amp feeders to'the existing Main switchboard. The existing Main Switchboard will also need to be modified to accept the feeders from the Transfer Switch. · ProVide an additional three new 225Amp panelboards and feeders to the existing Main Switchboard. Replace all existing branch circuit wiring including lighting, outlets, mechanical systems and other miscellaneous systems with new wiring and conduit. New wiring will also be required to the new kitchen area. Replace ali interior lighting with new lighting. An allowance of $12 per square foot should be included in the budget for light fixtures. The allowance is for light fixtures only, and does not include installation, supports, conduit, wiring and controls. · Provide new emergency light fixtures and exit signs throughout the building. · Provide new lighting control systems including master shut-off to comply with Title 24. · Provide six additional poles and pole mounted light fixtures in the existing parking lot to match the existing type, together with 25 new walkway bollard light fixtures. New building mounted light fixtures should also be added over doorways. Install new wiring and controls for the additional light fixtures. · Provide a dimming system (such as Lutron Graphic Eye) and stage lighting for the stage area in the Multi Purpose room. This system will comprise of lighting tracks with incandescent light fixtures and ceiling mounted dimmable fluorescent light fixtures. Dublin Sen/or Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 69 Provide a new Fire Alarm system for the building. Refer to the Building Evaluation and Upgrade Recommendations Electrical, Security, Data and Communication Systems section of this report for a description of the proposed new system. Provide a new Telephone/Data Conduit and cabling system for the building. The system should include wiring as outlined in the Building Evaluation and UPgrade Recommendations Electrical, Security, Data and Communication Systems section of this report. Provide a new Security system for the building. Refer to the Building Evaluation and Upgrade Recommendations Electrical, Security, Data and Communication Systems section of this report for a description of the proposed new system. Provide new Public Address system, and A/V systems for the building. Refer to the Building Evaluation and Upgrade Recommendations Electrical, Security, Data and Communication Systems section of this report for a description of the proposed new system. Provisions should also be included for Cable Television in the building including TV outlets in all public rooms with wiring installed back to the main telephone room. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 70 APPENDIX C - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION The following represent design assumptions that the design team has made for the purposes of costing. This list was provided to the cost estimator in order to assign an appropriate level of finish and materials. Design and selection of interior and exterior finish materials, architectural style, landscaping, etc. will be developed and reviewed with the City of Dublin in the subsequent design phases. A. SrrE BY FORELL-ELSESSER ENGINEERS Site Improvement Alternatives and Recommendations The design for demolition and construction of a new senior center building proposes a location on the north side of the site, in a current landscape area. It retains some of the geometry of the existing parking along the south and west borders of the parking lot, but adds two parking aisles parallel to the southerly boundary and a new access driveway to the northeast. Under this proposed alternative, as in the renovation design, replacement of the existing mature asphalt pavement in its entirety would be recommended, together with construction of the new access driveway and expanded parking areas. Resistance-value testing and suitable traffic indices should be developed by a geotechnicaI engineer for use in the design of new pavements. Construction and renovation of pedestrian ramps as well as parking lot striping should be in accordance with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The sewage load of a new senior center is likelyto be on the order of the sewage load of the existing building. However, development of any new senior housing project on this site would necessitate that capacity of the Amador Valley Road m~in be evaluated bythe project civil engineer. Rephcement of the aged, shallow storm drain lines is recommended. We also recommend that building rainwater leaders be connected dkecflyto the storm sewer system, as is required by most municipalities. During the previous period of construction, this site was located in a then-unincorporated area of Ahmeda County. The City of Dublin was incorporated in 1982, fo]lowing construction. Tt may be assumed that future improvements on this site Mil need to be Dublin Senior Center FeasibiliW Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 71 constructed in accordance with the design standards of the City of Dublin rather than the County o£ Alameda. These City standards may be expected to applyto new storm and sanitary sewers, curbs, sidewalks and other site features both on-site and in the adjoining public right-of- way. Prior to design development of any future addition, a project geotechnical report should be prepared to evaluate both slab-on-grade and pavement design requirements. Additionally, topographic, boundary and utilities surveys o£ the proposed building envelope and its surroundings should be completed by a licensed land surveyor. The topographic survey should include a data field extending at least 40 feet beyond the perimeter o£ proposed improvements and should contain 1' contours based on a regular grid of spot elevations, as well as locations and elevations o£ all visible surface £eatures such as poles, vaults, hydrants, £oundations, standpipes, valves, trees and walls. A boundary survey would consist o£ a review o£ any existing current tide reports and maps o£ record to analyze the legal description and to determine the existence o£ any easements or other encumbrances that may affect the project site. A boundary survey would also retrace the perimeter property boundary lines, locate any accessible major encroachments along the perimeter boundary lines (including storm drainage at the easterly comer), and establish semi-permanent re£erence points to delineate the perimeter propertylines. A utilities survey would record the locations and elevations of all drainage features within the' property lines and proximal storm and sanitary sewer features within the adjoining streets. Such a survey would identify all catch basins, area drains, trench drains, manholes and utility boxes and all visible onsite utility features exclusive of irrigation lines and valves. Where pOSsible, all drainage inlet grates and manhole covers should be opened and their inverts and tributary pipe sizes both noted. Additionally, a utilities survey should map the record utility locations based upon research of the records of the City and utility companies to determine the existence, size, depth and location of all underground utility lines and structures on the site and within the adjoining streets, including but not limited to sanitary and storm sewers, gas, telecommunications, electrical, steam and water lines. Dublin .Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & TamArchaects Page 72 APPENDIX C - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION~ COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SITE WORK By Nell & Tam architects EXTERIOR HARDSCAPING broom finish concrete paving, integral color (typical) special paving unit material at public entrance for accent allowance: for feature at new plaza entrance steel post and steel decking drop-off canopy allowance: exterior signage LANDSCAPING new vehicle access driveway new parking lot; asphaltic paving with concrete curbs spray and bubbler irrigation system on timer new drought tolerant trees, shrubs and bulbs exterior lighting on timers at all entrances pole mounted site lighting maintain existing mature trees as shown reinforced Spectraglaze walls at mechanical yard and drop-off canopy SITE UTILITIES new sewer and water lines retain existing electrical pad transformer Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Nell & TamArchaects Page 73 APPENDIX C - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. B. ARCHITECTURAL By Noll & Tam ~rchitects At this point in the design process, it makes sense to assume that the design of the new building for the senior center will be comparable to the level of finishes used at the existing library building. The portion of the building containing the main activity room should have an average ceiling height of about 14 feet; the bottom chord of the tresses may be about 11 feet above finish floor. It is assumed that the portion over the new lobby will be exposed to. underside of structure and generous in height to provide a welcoming and well lit space. ThroughoUt the rest of the senior center an average ceiling height of 10 feet should be assumed. COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FoR DEMOLITION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION SCHEME 1. EXTERIOR CLOSURE anodized aluminum window units with low e glass painted stucco exterior walls standing seam metal roofing Spectraglaze accent walls (CMU) 2. STRUCTURE see structural report below by Forell/Elsesser Engineers in Appendix C reinforced concrete slab-on-grade with perimeter footings conventional wood framing manufactured trusses (typical) carpenter built trusses at Main Activity Room, Lounge/Waiting and TV alcove (open ceilings) plywood roof sheathing plywood shear walls perimeter foundation drains 3. INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION type V, one hour rated construction throughout walls extend to underside of trusses throughout two sets of rated double doors at occupancY separation wall at assembly occupancy Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & TamArchitects Page 74 panic hardware at all exterior doors allowance: interior signage solid core wood doors with hollow metal frames, commercial grade lever hardware, typical interior glazing hollow metal frame with tempered float glass, typical 4. TYPICAL INTEmOR FINISHES AT OFFICES, CONFERENCE ROOM AND COMPUTER ROOM .. carpet tile painted gypboard, smooth finish rubber cove base T-bar ceiling 2 X 2 florescent lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum window coverings 5. INTERIOR FINISHES AT MAIN ACTIVITY ROOM AND DINING ALCOVES Wilson Art, plastic laminated wood flooring, two eolor pattern wood base, stain grade painted Type X gypboard, smooth finish, extends to underside of roof wood slat acoustic ceiling acoustical wall treatment panic hardware at all doors acoustic deadening accordian dividing wall glazing in tress at dividing wall pendant lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum chair storage under raised stage window coverings wheelchair lift to stage 6. KITCHEN resilient sheet flooring .painted gypboard, smooth finish, high gloss rubber cove base painted gypboard ceiling, smooth finish, high gloss 2 X 2 florescent lighting, energy efficient, full spectrum commercial kitchen equipment freestanding commercial refrigerators stainless steel counters and shelving class A hood over commercial range 7. INTERIOR FINISHES AT ACTIVITY/CLASSROOM AND ARTS & CRAFTS ROOM Wilson Art, plastic laminated wood flooring, two color pattern wood base, stain grade painted Type X gypboard wood slat acoustic ceiling wood chair rail Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & TamArchitects Page 75 ' acoustical wall treatment pendant lighting panic hardware at all doors wood veneer casework, stain grade stainless steel sink and corian countertops metal shelving in storage room window coverings 8. CONFERENCE ROOM typical interior finishes as in item '#5 above panic hardware at all doors projection screen marker board 9. LOUNGE, WArrING AREA, LIBRARY AND TV ALCOVE Wilson Art, plastic laminated wood flooring, two color pattern wood base, stain grade carpet tile inset accent wood slat acoustic ceiling pendant lighting lever hardware at all doors, except panic hardware at exit doors window coverings 10. VESTIBULE Spectraglaze CMU accent walls Anodized aluminum entrance doors at front entrance, power assisted, panic hardware Anodized aluminum doors and fi:ames with full lite at vestibule Ceramic tile flooring, mortar set painted Type X gypboard tile base wood slat acoustic ceiling 11. RESTROOMS AND WCs ceramic porcelain tile flooring and wainscot gypboard ceiling and walls brushed stainless steel accessories stainless steel toilet partitions wall hung porcelain water closets, flush valve corian countertop with porcelain lavatory basins florescent ceiling lighting Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects . Page 76 APPENDIX C - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION Co STRUCTURAL BY FORELL-ELSESSER ENGINEERS The structural system description is based on the attached figures by Noll & Tam: 1. New construction scheme, Plan, dated 11/20/01 and received by F/E on 12/3/01 2. New construction scheme, Roof Plan, dated 12/5/01 3. New construction scheme, Section Diagrams, dated 12/5/01 Roof Framing 1~ Typically, ½" Structural I plywood sheathing supported by design-build carpenter trusses at 24" o.c., supported by wood stud walls. 2. Over open areas as shown in Sections A, B, and D of the section diagrams: ½" Structural I plywood sheathing supported by 2x8 joists at 16" o.c.. Joists span to design-build wood trusses supported by wood stud walls. Vertical and Lateral Force Resisting Systems' · Wood stud bearing walls. Walls 8 feet or longer will be shear walls with ½" Structural I sheathing nailed to 2x6 studs ~ 16" o.c. Sheathing edges are blocked. Hold down assemblies at each end of shear walls. Foundation System 5" concrete slab-on-grade, underlain by 2" sand, vapor barrier, 4" capillary break, and 6" non-expansive fill based on existing library construction. Continuous footings, 2' wide, are located at bearing and shear walls, and at the perimeter of the building. Bottom of continuous footings are founded at least 2 feet below nearest adjacent grade and 6" into native material based on existing.library construction. The overall structural system shall be coordinated with fire-resistive requirements and geotechnical recommendations. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 77 APPENDIX C - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION D. MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND FIRE PROTECTION BY TAYLOR ENGINEERING HVAC Demolish the existing HVAC system. Before this work is performed the refrigerant and oil in the existing condensing units should be recovered and recycled. There is one existing 40-ton condensing unit with about 100-pounds of refrigerant and another existing 5-ton condensing unit with about 15-pounds of refrigerant. Install the following items: · Install one 40-ton outdoor air-cooled condensing unit equipped for VAV operation with hot-gas by-paSs. Install one indoor VAV, 16,000-CFM air-handling unit with direct-expansion cooling coil, bag filters and variable speed drives, supply and exhaust fan and Title 24 comPliant outside-air economizer. Install a new natural-gas steel-tube boiler, 600,000 BTUH input. Install a dedicated mini-split system heat pump to serve the Computer Room. · Install a dedicated mini-split system heat pump to serve the Nutritionist Room. · Install new ducts and grilles. · Install 13 VAV boxes with 2-row hot-water reheat coils. · Install a direct digital (DDC) control system to.operate the entire HVAC system. · Install exhaust fans to serve each toilet room. All new exhaust fans require ducts and grilles and louver to the outside. · Add a new 800-CFM direct-drive eXhaust fan with ducts, grilles, variable-on-off control and louver to serve the arts and crafts area. Noll & Tam Architects Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Page 78 · Add a new Type 1 kitchen hood, welded grease exhaust duct and roof mounted kitchen exhaust fan. Also, add a new heated and evaporative-cooled kitchen make up air system. Plumbing · Install a new plumbing system as appropriate for the new building. Fire Protection · Install a fire protection system as appropriate for the new building. Dublin Senior Center FeasibihW Study Noll & TamArchaects Page 79 APPENDIX C - COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION E. ELECTRICAL, SECURITY, DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS BY O'MAHONY &; MYER New PG&E underground electrical service. Every effort should be made to design the project to save the existing incoming PG&E underground primary service, and transformer pad. New secondary service conduits will be required from the transformer pad to the new Main Switchboard. It may be possible to intercept the existing secondary service conduits adjacent to the transformer pad to avoid having to replace the existing pad. · New underground Telephone service from the street to a new main telephone backboard to be located in the new main telephone/data room. · New underground Cable Television service from the street to a new main cable television backboard tobe located in the new main telephone/data room. New 1000 Amp 120/208Volt, 3-Phase, 4-Wire Main Switchboard with Automatic Transfer Switch and transient voltage surge suppression system installed in the new main electrical room. New grounding system including UFER type grounding cable in foundation slab, supplementary ground rod(s) at the main service entrance, connection to building steel and cold water service entrance. A 1000Amp circuit breaker in a NEMA 3R enclosure will be required on the exterior of the building for the hook-up of a City portable generator. New 1000Amp feeders to' the new Main Switchboard will be required. New 120/208 Volt branch circuit panelboards, feeders, branch circuit wiring, wiring devices and connections to all equipment requiring electrical service. Include 25 floor outlet boxes together with conduit in the slab for power, telephone and data at the floor boxes. New interior light fixtures. An allowance of $12 per square foot should be included in the budget for light fixtures. The allowance is for light fixtures only, and does not include installation, supports, conduit, wiring and controls. · Provide new emergency light fixtures and exit signs throughout the building. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study m Noll & Tam Architects.' Page 80 Provide new lighting control systems including master shut-off to comply with Title 24. Provide new site lighting using approximately 15 poles and. pole mounted light fixtures, together with 25 walkway bollard light fixtures. New building mounted light fixtures should also be added over doorways. Provide a dimming system (such as Lutron Graphic Eye) and stage lighting for the stage area in the Multi Purpose room. This system will comprise of lighting tracks with incandescent light fixtures and ceiling mounted dimmable fluorescent light fixtures. New Fire Alarm system for the building. Refer to the Building Evaluation and Upgrade Recommendations Electrical, Security, Data and Communication Systems section of this report for a description of the proposed new system. New Telephone/Data Conduit and cabling system for the building. The system should include wiring as outlined in the Building Evaluation and Upgrade Recommendations Electrical, Security, Data and Communication Systems section of this report. New Security system for the building. Refer to the Building Evaluation and Upgrade Recommendations Electrical, Security, Data and Communication Systems section of this report for a description of the proposed new system. New Public Address system, and A/V systems for the building. Refer to the Building EvalUation and Upgrade Recommendations Electrical, Security, Data and Communication Systems section of this report for a description of the proposed new system. Provisions should also be included for Cable Television in the building including TV outlets in all public rooms with wiring installed back to the main telephone room. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study. Noll & Tam Architects Page 81 APPENDIX D- MEETING NOTES Meeting Notes Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA Date of meeting: September 27, 2001 DATE OF NOTES: OCTOBER 2, 2001 N/T Project number 2122 Attendees: Anna Hudson, City of Dublin Senior Center Marty, City of Dublin Senior Center Herma Lichtenstein, City. of Dublin Parks & Recreation Laura Riggs, Noll & Tam architects 1.0 Anna has not had an opportunity to review the Group 4 report from 1998. get her a copy. Herma will 2.0 Current operatiom 2.0.1 The present center typically serves 30 meals a day. At monthly luncheons, 80 to 100 meals are served. Dinner dances attract 50 participants. Need secured AV storage room, small room with storage for 30 folding chairs and tables, can use under stage storage for 70 folding chairs' 2.0.2 Aerobics attracts 34 to 35 people. The present facility is tight: 48' X 56? The aerobics room should have a spnmg wood floor, mirrors, storage for exercise mats 2.0.3 Definitely want a raised stage for performances, bingo. Using present stage(. 24' X 48' ) for a variety of uses. Need storage at raised stage level for bingo machines, tables & chairs Bingo machines measure: console 4'-3"long by 24" wide by 32" high; sign board 7'-6" long by 6" deep by 27" high 2.0.4 Need classrooms with acoustic separation. Do not presently have good acoustic separation. 2.0.5 Small library room; do not want to present books on Shelves in a corridor or lobby. Noll.& Tam Architects Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Page 82 2.0.6 Unsure about billiard room, it requires a large .room which is dedicated to one use. 2.0.7 Need storage for seasonal decorations. For storage of rummage sale items they will use a classroom for 3-4 weeks as they hold the items 2.0.8 Possible night use of the facility for the larger community, provide locking storage 2.0.9 Staff toilet is not needed in the new facility. Do want an auxiliary toilet for persons that need assistance from spouses for toileting. Noll & Tam Architects Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Page 83 Meeting Notes Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA Date of meeting: September 27, 2001 DATE OF NOTES: OCTOBER 2, 2001 N/T Project number 2122 3.0 Kitchen: 3.0.1 Overall, the present kitchen is approximately 900 sq ft, including dry storage, walk- in refrigerator and single use toilet, which is being used as a staff toilet. Group 4 report programs 700 sq ft for these functions. Decided that this is probably not sufficient; will plan for 900 sq ft kitchen to accommodate present program and future usage. 3.0.2 Presently have 2-2 door Traulsen refrigerators, 1-1 door freezer and 1-2 door freezer; walk-in refrigerator is not operational 3.0.3 Dry storage is 6' X 12', which is too small. Need storage for cleaning supplies, janitor's closet 3.0.4 Dishwashing is set up as a one person station, but would prefer a two person arrangement with a three basin sink for rinse and wash. Presently the seniors bus their own plates to the service window. 3.0.5 Kitchen staffing (volunteers) is 4 to 5 persons. Meals are served to the patrons from the kitchen. Hot drinks are self-served from tables on the side. 4.0 OUtdoor spaces: 4.0.1 Presently do not use outdoor space at the senior center. 4.0.2 Would like to develop a small area for community gardening, not at entrance areas, secured and screened from view (in case participation is intermittent). 4.0.3 Seniors are concerned about skin cancer, so need sun protection; Sun and rain protected outdoor social area would be used by smokers, which would keep smoke away from other users of the facility. It should be designed to prevent smoke from blowing back into the facility. 4.0.4 This site needs wind protection and buffering from traffic noise Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Notl & Tam Architects Page 84 4.0.5 An outbuilding would be useful for storage of a BBQ, umbrella tables, garden tools, perhaps with a gardening table 4.0.6 City will provide maintenance of landscaping on the grounds 4.0.7 Parking requirement is unclear, Laura contacted Andy Bide in the planning dept., Herma believes 95 spaces are required Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 85 Meetin§ Notes Dublin Senior Center Feasibility S~udy 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA Date o£ meeting: September 27f 2001 DATE OF NOTES: OCTOBER 2f 2001 N/T Project number 2122 5.0 Renovation ot~ Library building: $.0.1 Need power assisted door because of wind conditions Relocate entrance or provide wind screerfing $.0.2 Group 4 renovation solution with column in center o£ main activity space poses a hazard for dancing and aerobics. Laura to prepare altemative scheme. 6.0 New construction: Would like to explore the idea of a two story center with an elevator Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 86 APPENDIX D- MEETING NOTES Meeting Notes/Site Visit Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA Date of meeting: September 27, 2001 DATE OF NOTES: OCTOBER 1, 2001 N/T Project number 2122 Attendees: Paul Carey, O'Mahony & Myer Glenn Friedman, Taylor Engineering Grace Kang, Forell-Elsesser Engineers Herma Lichtenstein, City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Daisy Yu, Forelt-Elsesser Engineers Pat Zahn, Dublin Library, Alameda County Public Library Laura Riggs, Noll Ce Tam architects 1.0 Structural issues: 1.0.1 Forell-Elsesser will be examining the seismic performance of the structure and comparing it to the requirements of current code, as requested by the Client. 1.0.2 G.'Kang and D.Yu found the site to be located near a class B seismic fault. 1.0.3 The building is thought to have been designed under the 1976 UBC. The design forces under today's code, the 1998 CBC, are approximately 2 to 2 ½ times the forces considered by the 1976UBC. The structure will need additional strengthening against shear forces by installing braced frames or shear walls. G.Kang will analyze the building and get back to L.Riggs about recommended remedies. 2.0 Mechanical issues: 2.0.1 G.Friedman noted that the windows and storefront system throughout is single glazing. 2.0.2 The mechanical equipment is at the end of its useful life and the under-floor ducting system is likely to be unusable, due to the corrosive soils in the local area and the common practice in 1976 to leave ducting uninsulated. The exposed spiral ducting serving the main reading room is reusable however. Noll & TamArchitects Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study. Page 87 2.0.3 A new commercial kitchen for the senior meal program will require installation of an exhaust hood. 3.0 Plumbing issues: 3.0.1 P.Zahn reports that they have experienced plumbing problems in' the paSt} prObably due to backed up sewer lines. A waste line was changed some years ago. (There is evidence of trenching across the parking lot fi:om the building to the street.) Noll & Tam Architects Dublin Sen/or Center Feasibility Study. Page 88 Meeting Notes/Site Visit Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA Date of meeting: September 27, 2001 DATE OF NOTES: OCTOBER 1, 2001 N/T Project number 2122 3.0.2 In general, the plumbing is reported to be in poOr shape. P.Zahn reported a blocked condensate drain in the mechanical room, which created a moisture problem in surrounding offices. L.Riggs noted that the plumbing facilities are almost certainly out of compliance for ADA requirements. 4.0 Electrical issues: 4.0.1 The librarian does not report any electrical load problems. P.Carey requested a bill from the energy utility. 4.0:2 Assisted listening devices will be required for ADA compliance in assembly areas (main activity room). Assume data lines throughout the renovated rooms. 4.0.3 Originally, there was emergency electrical generation, but that equipment hasbeen removed. H.Lichtenstein does not believe the City of Dublin would be interested in this capability for the senior center. 5.0 Roofing P.Zahn reported water infiltration at the roof/greenhouse intersections, 6.0 Site The site experiences quite a bit of Wind and the entrance doors often blow shut since they are facing the prevalent windward side (west). 7.0 Format/Schedule: L.Riggs will issue materials to establish report format. She requested the team to give her their assessment reports and design criterion for cost estimation purposes in two weeks (on October 11, 2001'). Noll & Tam Architects Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Page 89 'APPENDIX D- MEETING NOTES Meeting Notes/Site Visit Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA Date of meeting: November 15, 2001 DATE OF NOTES: NOVEMBER 27, 2001 N/T Project number 2122 1.0 SITE VISIT (11/15/01) 1.0.1 Spoke with Lester, a carpenter with the Alameda County Library, who had recently been inspecting the roof of the building. It had rained two or three days ago. Lester pointed out visible efflorescence and corrosion at the interior which was due to, in his opinion, small failures of the sealant between the greenhouse glazing and aluminum frame. The glass is slightly below the level of the frame which permits micro-pending. 1.0.2 Lester recommended speaking with his supervisor, Dave Bussell (925-551-6673). Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Nell & Tam ,~rchitects Page 90 APPENDIX D- MEETING NOTES Meeting Notes/Senior Advisory Committee Meeting Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin, CA Date of meeting: November 15, 2001 DATE OF NOTES: NOVEMBER 27, 2001 N/T Project number 2122 Attendees: Paul McCreary, City of Dublin, Parks and Community Programs Anna Hudson, City of Dublin, Senior Center Director Barbara, Chair, Dublin Senior Center Advisory Committee George M., Dublin Senior Center Advisory Committee Paul S., Dublin Senior Center Advisory. Committee Burr, Dublin Senior Center Advisory Committee Ted Woy, President, senior Center Foundation Ray, Member, Senior Center Foundation Marty, general public Rich, general public Laura Riggs, Noll & Tam architects 1.0 Feasibility Study 1.0.1 Paul McCreary introduced the Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study. 2.0 Comments on Renovation Design 2.0.1 L. Riggs gave presentation to the committee of the site planning and building design for two schemes: Renovation Design and New Construction. 2.0.2 Locate Nutritionists' office closer to kitchen 2.0.3 Provide a dividing wall in the Ma/n Activity Room: Assume it is a good quality wall which has better acoustic properties. 2.0.4 Plan for a sink and casework in Arts and Crafts Room. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam.~rchitects Page 91 2.0.5 Provide for covered drop-off. 2.0.6 Provide a number of handicapped parking spaces which exceed code minimum in next phase. 2.0.7 Provide kitchenette/coffee area near main activity spaces. 2.0.8 Like location of reception desk very close to entrance. There is good visibility of parking lot from the desk. 2.0.9 Like the renovation design; spaces have a good feeling. 3.0 Comments on New Construction Design 3.0.1 Locate Nutriti0nists' office in kitchen. 3.0.2 Shift alcove in Main Activity Room to permit the placement ora good quality. movable partition wall. 3.0.3 Plan for sink and casework in Arts and Crafts Room. 3.0.4 Exchange the location of the Arts + Crafts Room with the Game Room for better vehicle access for stocking craft supplies. 3.0.5 Provide for a covered drop-off area. 3.0.6 Provide handicapped parking in excess of code minimum. 3.0.7 Provide kitchenette/coffee area off of hall between activity areas. 3.0.8 Exchange location of Conference Room and Directors office. 4.0 Discussion Questions 4.0.1 Should game room be sized to accommodate billiard table? Or, alternatively, provided as smaller rooms? 4.0.2 The new construction scheme for the senior center could possibly be exPanded in the future by building a second story. Should we plan for this possibility at this time in the cost/estimate? 5.0 Discussion of Proposed Senior Housing and Overall Site Issues 5.0.1 Operation and funding would NOT be by the City of Dublin. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 92 5.0.2 Placement of housing on site creates a fight parking situation. The City of Dublin planning department has indicated flexibility in the parking requirement. Concern was expressed over how tight the site planning is. 5.0.3 Discussed how placement of senior housing on the site affects the site planning. In the renovation design, the site planning would essentially remain the same. In the new construction design, a multitude of different configurations would be possible, although the current design maximizes the parking on the site and meets the architectural space program. 5.0.4 Discussed the input process for the seniors to have a voice on whether to place housing on the site; by attendance at the PRC and City Council meetings in January. 6.0 Discussion of Overall Site 6.0.1 Future expansion of the Senior Center will be difficult because of the tight site planning. Expansion would be possible only by cutting into parking, creating a tighter parking situation. 6.0.2 The roof design of the existing building does not lend itself technically or aesthetically to a large addition or a second story addition. 6.0.3 It would be possible to expand senior programs in other facilities- ie weight-training classes for seniors. 6.0.4 Discussed possibility of developing a second center in the future. At present the Dublin Master Plan calls for the development of ONE senior center. The city of Dublin is in the process of reviewing census data to confirm the Master Plan. 6.0.5 Expansion of the new construction scheme would be feasible by a second story addition and development of an elevator. Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects Page 93 APPENDIX E- DETAILED COST ESTIMATES Oppenheim Lewis has Prepared the following opinion of probable construction cost for the alternate concept designs outlined in Part V above. The intent of this work is to analyze the cost to renovate and add area to the existing building to meet the needs of the senior center. The summary sheets were presented in Part VI of the report and are presented again in this section of this appendix. Reading the Cost Estimate Cost estimating involves identifying the quantities of various building components and assigning a cost to these quantities. The overall area of the schemes is reported, although each building component has been measured off from the concept plans. For this reason, quantities do not necessarily match the overall square footage of the building. For example, due to the pitch ora roof, the square footage of the roofing'component is higher than the overall area of the building. Also flooring quantities can be higher if, for example, a slab must be sealed before a flooring material is applied, then that area is double counted. The overall area of the renovation and new construction schemes are reported, with the cost per square foot factor calculated from the overall costs. This cost per square foot factor is the result of the cost estimate process. It was not applied to derive the cost figures and should not be applied to reductions or increases in building area for the purposes of project budgeting. It has been calculated for the purposes of comparing the costs of renovation versus new construction. Dublin Senior Center FeasibiliW Study Noll & Tam ~trchitects Page 94 2/7/2002 Renovation Summary Page I of 7 Dublin Senior Center Dublin, CA Preliminary Program Estimate Renovation Summary (16,000 SF) Building Cost 2.0 Structural Work 3.0 Exterior Closure 4.0 Roofing 5.0 Interior Construction 6.0 Mechanical Systems 7.0 Electrical Systems Subtotal General Conditions Contractor's Fee Subtotal Building Cost 9.0% 4.0% Cost Cost/SF $295,300 $18.46 279,250 17.45 302,500 18.91 1,054,250 65.89 650,855 40.68 568,900 35.56 $3,151,055 283,595 137,386 $196.94 $3,572,036 $223.25 Site Cost Subtotal 1.0 Site Preparation 8.0 Finish Sitework General (~onditions Contractor's Fee Subtotal Site Cost 9.0% 4.0% $285,190 $17.82 355,000 22.19 $640,190 $40.01- 57,617 27,912 $725,719 $45.36 Subtotal Building & Site Cost Design Contingency Total Construction Cost in January 2002 Dollars 10.0% $4,297,755 429,776 $268.61 $4,727,531 $295.47 Note: Cost shown above excludes escalation, construction contingency, hazardous materials mitigation, and soft COsts. _ OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 New Construction Estimate 1.0 Site Preparation Site Clearing & Grading Demo Existing Building Miscellaneous Cut & Fill Miscellaneous Demolition/Protection Site Utilities Allowance Mechanical Electrical' Subtotal 1.0 Site Preparation Dublin Senior Center Dublin, CA Preliminary Program Estimate New Construction Estimate Page 2 of 7 71000 SF 0.65 $46,150 15360 SF 5.00 76,800 500 CY 20.00 10,000 1 LS 20,000 1 LS ILS 175,000 80,000 $407,950 2.0 Structural Work Foundations Drilled Piers Spread Footings & Grade Beams 'Slab on Grade Building Interior Exterior SOG @ Terrace/Plazas Pads & Curbs ROof Structure Wood Framing Plywood Headers, Bracing, & Blocking Allow for Trusses @ Long Spans Rough Hardware & Misc Iron Allow for Intedor Shear Loading Dock Transformer Pad Miscellaneous Subtotal 2.0 Structural Work None 150 CY 300.00 45,000 16000 SF 6.00 96,000 3000 SF 6.00 18,000 1LS 10,000 61000 BF 18000 SF 10000 BF 1LS 18000 SF 1LS None 1LS 1LS 3.00 183,000 1.85 33,300 3.50 35,000 45,000 1.50 27,000 25,000 2,500 15,000 $534,800 OLI 3.0 Exterior Closure Typical Exterior Wall Assembly Roof Screen Walls Windows & Glazing Soffits - Allow Fascia, Returns, & Detailing Entry Doom Terrace Doors Other Doom Miscellaneous Hardware Speci~al Finish (~ Terrace Slab 01117 12000 3000 2500 t 3 8 14 1 3000 SF None SF SF LS Pr Lvs LS SF 35.00 55.00 15.00 3,000 3,000 1,500 3.50 $420,000 165,000 37,500 30,000 9,000 24,000 21,000 10,000 10,500 DublinSenior Center 2/7/2002 3.0 Extedor Closure (Continued) Louvres Architectural Metals Miscellaneous Subtotal 3.0 Exterior Work 4.0 Roofing & Insulation Roofing Skylight Allowance Sheet Metal Miscellaneous Subtotal 4.0 Roofing & Insulation 5.0 Interior Construction Partitions CMU Rated GWB Non-Rated GWB Furr Columns Intedor Glazing Allowance Acoustical Treatment Doors Single Double Miscellaneous Hardware Floor Finishes Carpet Ceramic Tile Wilsonant Wood Lobby Sealed Concrete Base Finishes Wall Finishes Ceramic Tile wainscot 6' Vinyl Wall Covering Allowance Acoustical Treatment Allowance Miscellaneous Other Ceiling FinisheS Typical Acoustical/GWB Premium For Other Millwork Toilet Room Lavatories Multi-purpose - Base & Wall Cabs Multi-purpose Room Trim & Finish Storage/Support Room Cabinets/Shelving Kitchen - Base & Wall Cabs OLI 01117 New Construction Estimate Page 3 of 7 300 SF 1 LS 1 LS 45.00 13,500 25,000 15,000 $780,500 18000 SF 500 SF 18000 SF ILS 12.00 85.00 1.75 $216,000 42,500 31,500 12,500 $302,500 None 3000 SF 12500 SF 3000 SF 1000 SF 1LS 8.00 6.00 5.50 45.00 24,000 75,000 16,500 45,000 10,000 26 Ea 14 Pr 1LS 1,350 2,500 35,100 35,000 10,000 6800 SF 1100 SF 7000 SF None 600 SF 500 SF 4.60 11.00 4.75 15.00 1.00 Included Above 31,280 12,100 33,250 9,000 500 2500 SF 11.00 27,500 2000 SF 5.00 10,000 3000 SF 7.00 21,000 1LS 25,000 16000 SF 5.00 8000 SF 8.00 80,000 64,000 80 LF 175.00 50 LF 325.00 1LS 150 LF 175.00 Included Below 14,000 16,250 15,000 26,250 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 5.0 Interior Construction, Millwork (Continued) Assembly Administration (Including Conference) Allow Reception Miscellaneous Other Millwork Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry Miscellaneous Folding Partitions Roof Ladders Projection Screen Kitchen Equipment Allowance Toilet Partitions Toilet Fixture Accessories Other Sink Accessories Stage & Lift Window Blinds Staff Mail Slots/Mail Room Cabinets/etc Fire Extinguisher & Cabinets Signage Allowance- Code Required Only Miscellaneous Painting Miscellaneous Specialties Subtotal 5.0 Interior Construction New Construction Estimate Page 4 of 7 None 100 LF 200.00 20,000 · 100 LF 300.00 30,000 1 LS 40,000 1 LS 20,000 900 SF 65.00 1 Ea 250.00 Included in FF&E 1 LS 18 Ea 850.00 35 Ea 350.00 6 Ea 350.00 1 LS Included in FF&E 1 LS 6 Ea 350.00 1 LS 1 LS ILS 58,500 250 125,000 15,300 12,250 2,100 30,000 5,000 2,100 10,000 10,000 20,000 $1,036,230 6.0 Mechanical Systems Equipment Boiler-Gas 600 MBTU Air Cooled Condenser 40Tn ~ Pump-HW/CHW 0gpm:0HP Tank-Expansion Air Separator Suction Diffuser Water Treatment Air Handling Units w/S&R Fans/VFD Make-up Air Heat Pumps Fan-Exh./Rf. 0000cfm:0HP Tits. /I.L.0000cfm:0HP M&E Rms /Kitchen - Miscellaneous VAV w/Reheat Coil unit Heater Roof Vent Miscellaneous Equipment Ductwork & Accessories Duct - GSM Insulation Damper/Manual OLI 01117 1Ea 20,000 $20,000 I Ea 50,000 50,000 4 Ea 3,500 t4,000 2 Ea 1,800 3,600 2 Ea 2,000 4,000 4 Ea 900.00 3,600 1LS 2,000 I Ea 30,000 30,000 1Ea 7,500 7,500 2 Ea 3,500 7,000 3 Ea 2,000 2 Ea 2,000 1 Ea 4,000 2 Ea 2,000 6,000 4,OOO 4,000 4,000 13 Ea 900.00 11,700 2 Ea 900.00 1,800 2 Ea 450.00 900 1LS 40,000 15000 # 6.00 6000 SF 2.00 200 Ea 50.00 90,000 12,000 10,000 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 New Construction Estimate Page 5 of 7 6.0 Mechanical Systems, Ductwork & Accessories (Continued) Diffuser-Supply 180 Ea Register-Return 140 Ea -Exhaust 40 'Ea Louvres 6 Ea Sleeves/Fireproofing 1 LS Misc. Ductwork & Accessories 1 LS Pipework & Accessories Pipe-HW 1000 LF Pipe-Drains Etc. 200 LF Valves 75 Ea Vents 20 Ea Sleeves/Fireproofing 1 LS Misc. Valves & Specifications 1 LS Controls & Testing Control System/DDC/EMCS Test & Balance 1 LS 1 LS Fire Sprinkler System Wet Fire Sprinkler System:Bldg. Special Systems @ Kitchen 16000 SF None Plumbing Fixtures & Equipment Water Heater-Gas Tank-Expansion Pump-DHW Recirc. I/L WC-Wall w/Rough In /HC Urinal Lavatories 2 1 2 14 4 5 12 Ea Ea Ea Ea Ea Ea Ea Sink-Service -Activity Rooms -Counter/Single -Floor Ea Ea Ea Ea Shower-H.C. Drinking Fountain None 2 Ea Drain-Floor/Toilet Rooms /General -Roof -Area -Deck/Planter 6 8 15 6 Ea None Ea Ea RI & Connect to Kitchen Misc. Fixtures & Equipment 1 LS ILS Pipework & Accessories Pipe-Waste & Vent Pipe-Storm · Pipe-CW w/Insl 700 LF 300 LF 850 LF 100.00 18,000 85.00 11,900 80.00 3,200 575.00 24.00 15.00 130.00 80.00 3.50 3,000 550.00 1,500 890.00 960.00 600.00 550.00 600.00 750.00 750.00 300.00 1,300 195.00 235.00 190.00 175.00 25.00 27.00 22.00 3,450 5,000 5,000 24,000 3,000 9,750 1,600 2,5OO 5,000 30,000 7,500 56,000 6,000 550 3,000 12,460 3,840 3,000 6,600 1,200 4,500 750 1,800 2,600 1,170 1,880 2,850 1,050 15,000 2,500 17,500 8,100 18,700 OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 New Construction Estimate Page 6 of 7 6.0 Mechanical Systems, Pipework & Accessories (Continued) Pipe-DHW w/Insl 300 LF 20.00 Pipe-Gas 250 LF 29.50 Pipe-Drains Etc. 150 LF 15.00 6,000 7,375 2,250 Valve~Water 75 Ea 100.00 7,500 Backflow Preventer 1 Ea 3,500 3,500 Hose Bibbs -Intedor 2 Ea 50.00 100 - Exterior 6 Ea 165.00 990 Access Door 10 Ea 160.00 1,600 Gas-Valves & Accessories 1 LS 5,000 Cleanouts Sleeves/Fireproofing Misc. Valves & Specifications Test & Clean Subtotal 6.0 Mechanical Systems 150.00 20 Ea ILS ILS 1 LS 3;000 2,500 2,500 2,500 $671,865 7.0 Electrical Systems Pdmary Power Transformer - Relocate & Reconnect Main Switchboard & Dist. Center Emergency Power - Connection Only UPS Panelboards Stepdown Transformers Feeders · Equipment Power User Power Lighting General Building Lighting Exterior Building Lighting Conduit, Wire, & Switching Stage Lighting & Control Signal & Communications Fire Alarm System Telephone/Data Rough-In Telephone/Data Outlets (Incl Cable) AudioNisual Rough-In AudioNisual System Security Rough-In Security System Paging Rough-In Paging System Subtotal 7.0 Electrical Systems 1Ea 15,000 $15,000 1Ea 25,000 25,000 1Ea 15,000 15,000 None 4 Ea 1 LS 2,700 10,800 5,000 300 LF 70.00 21,000 16000 SF 1.40 22,400 250 Ea 250.00 62,500 16000 SF 14.00 224,000 40 Ea 750.00 30,000 Included Above 1LS 25,000 16000 SF 1.75 150 Ea 150.00 150 Ea 450.00 16000 SF 0.80 Includedin FF&E 28,000 22,500 67,500 12,800 16000 SF 0.80 12,800 Includedin FF&E 16000 SF 0.75 12,000 Includedin FF&E $611,300 OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 New Construction Estimate Page 7 of 7 8.0 Finish Sitework AC Paving Concrete Paving Curb & Gutter Site Lighting Site Drainage Tree Allowance Planting & Irrigation Allowance Site Amenities Subtotal 8.0 Finish Sitework 40000 SF 5000 SF 1000 LF ILS 55000 SF 30 Ea 10000 SF 1 LS 3.00 5.50 15.00 1.00 750.00 6.00 $120 000 27 500 15 000 40 000 55 000 22 500 60 000 15,000 $355,000 OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 New Construction Summary Page 1 of 7 Dublin Senior Center Dublin, CA Preliminary Program .Estimate New Construction Summary (16,000 SF) Building Cost 2~0 Structural Work 3.0 Exterior Closure 4.0 Roofing Subtotal 5.0 Interior Construction 6.0 Mechanical Systems 7.0 Electrical Systems General Conditions Contractor's Fee Subtotal Building Cost 9.0% 4.0% Cost Cost/SF $534,800 $33.43 780,500 48.78 302,500 18.91 1,036,230 64.76 671,865 41.99 611,300 38.21 $3,937,195 354,348 171,662 $246.07 $4,463,204 $278.95 Site Cost Subtotal 1.0 Site Preparation 8.0 Finish Sitework General Conditions Contractor's Fee Subtotal Site Cost 9.0% 4.O% $407,950 $25.50 355,000 22.19 $762,950 $47.68 68,666 33,265 $864,880 $54.06 Subtotal Building ,& Site Cost Design Contingency Total Construction Cost in January 2002 Dollars 10.0% $5,328,084 532,808 $333.01 $5,860,893 $366.31 Note: Cost shown above excludes escalation, construction contingency, hazardous materials mitigation, and soft costs. _ OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 Renovation Estimate 1.0 Site Preparation Site Clearing & Grading Miscellaneous Cut & Fill Miscellaneous Demolition/Protection Demo Inted°r of Existing Building Site Utilities Allowance Mechanical Electrical Subtotal 1.0 Site Preparation Dublin Senior Center Dublin, CA Preliminary Program Estimate 125000 SF 1000 CY 1 LS ' 15360 SF 1 LS 1 LS Renovation Estimate Page 2 of 7 0.35 $43,750 20.00 20,000 20,000 4.00 61,440 100,000 40,000 $285,190 2.0 Structural Work Foundations Drilled Piers Spread Footings & Grade Beams Slab on Grade Building Interior Exterior SOG @ Terrace/Plazas Pads & Curbs Cut & Patch for New Mech & Elect Roof Structure Wood Framing Plywood Headers, Bracing, & Blocking Rough Hardware & Misc Iron Interior Shear Walls Loading Dock Transformer & Generator Pads Miscellaneous Su~otat2.0 Stru~uralWork None 80 CY 350.00 28,000 2500 SF 6.00 15,000 2500 SF 6.00 15,000 1LS 10,000 1LS 7,500 20000 BF 18000 SF 2000 BF 18000 SF 5000 SF None 1LS 1 LS 3.00 60,000 1.85 33,300 3.50 7,000 1.50 27,000 15.00 75,000 2,500 15,000 $295,300 3.0 Exterior Closure Typical Exterior Wall Assembly Windows & Glazing Soffits - Allow Fascia, Returns, & Detailing Entry Doors Terrace Doors Other Doors Miscellaneous Hardware Special Finish @ Terrace Slab 6500 1500 1 1 SF 10.00 $65,000 SF 55.00 82,500 LS 10,000 LS 30,000 1 Pr 3,000 3,000 1 Pr 3,000 3,000 9 Lvs 1,500 13,500 ILS 10,000 2500 SF 3.50 8,750 _ OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 3.0 Exterior Closure (Continued) Louvres Architectural Metals Miscellaneous Subtotal 3.0 Exterior Work 4.0 Roofing & Insulation Roofing Skylight Allowance - Cut in New Sheet Metal Miscellaneous Subtotal 4.0 Roofing & Insulation 5.0 interior Construction Partitions CMU Rated GWB Non-Rated GWB Furr Columns Interior Glazing .Allowance Acoustical Treatment Doors Single Double Miscellaneous Hardware Floor Finishes Carpet Ceramic Tile Wilsonent Wood Lobby Sealed Concrete Base Finishes Wall Finishes Ceramic Tile Wainscot 6' Vinyl Wall Covering Allowance Acoustical Treatment Allowance Miscellaneous Other Ceiling Finishes Typical Acoustical/GWB Premium For Other Millwork Toilet Room Lavatories Main-Activity - Base & Wall Cabs Main-Activity Room Tdm & Finish Storage/Support Room Cabinets/Shelving Kitchen - Base & Wall Cabs Renovation Estimate Page 3 of 7 300 SF ILS ILS . 45.00 13,500 25,000 15,000 $279,250 18000 SF 500 SF 18000 SF 1LS 12.00 85.00 1.75 $216,000 42,500 31,500 12,500 $302,500 None 3000 SF 12500 SF 2500 SF 1000 SF t LS 8.00 6.00 5.50 45.00 24,000 75,000 13,750 45,000 10,000 28 Ea 14 Pr 1LS 1,350 2,500 37,800 35,000 .10,000 7000 SF 1100 SF 6000 SF None 400 SF 500 SF 4.60 11.00 4.75 15.oo 1.00 Included Above 32,200 12,100 28,500 6,000 500 3000 SF 11.00 33,000 2000 SF 5.00 10,000 3000 SF 7.00 21,000 1LS 25,000 16000 SF 5.00 7400 SF 8.00 80,000 59,200 100 LF 175.00 17,500 50 LF 325.00 16,250 1LS 15,000 150 LF' 175.00 26,250 Included Below _ OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 5.0 Interior Construction, Millwork (Continued) Assembly Administration (Including Conference) Allow Classrooms Miscellaneous Other Millwork Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry Miscellaneous Folding Partitions Roof Ladders Projection Screen Kitchen Equipment Allowance Toilet Partitions Toilet Fixture Accessories Other Sink Accessories Stage + Lift Window Blinds Staff Mail Slots/Mail Room Cabinets/etc Fire Extinguisher & Cabinets Signage Allowance - Code Required Only, Miscellaneous Painting Miscellaneous Specialties Subtotal 5.0 Interior Construction Renovation Estimate Page 4 of 7 None 100 LF 200.00 20,000 100 LF 300.00 30,000 1 LS 40,000 1 LS 20,000 950 SF 80.00 None Included in FF&E 1 LS 20 Ea 850.00 40 Ea 350.00 6 Ea 350.00 1 LS Included in FF&E 76,000 125,000 17,000 14,000 2,100 30,000 1LS 5,000 6 Ea 350.00 ~100 .1LS 10,000 1LS 10,000 1LS 20,000 $1,054,250 6.0 Mechanical Systems Equipment Boiler-Gas 650 MBTU Air Cooled Condenser 40Tn Pump-HW/CHW 0gpm:0HP Tank-Expansion Air Separator Suction Diffuser Water Treatment Air Handling Units w! S&R FansNFD - RewOrk Make-up Air Split Systems Fan-Exh./Rf. 0000cfm:0HP Tits. /I.L.0000cfm:0HP M&E' Rms /Kitchen - Miscellaneous VAV w/Reheat Coil Unit Heater Roof Vent Miscellaneous Equipment Ductwork & Accessories Duct - GSM Insulation Damper/Manual 1Ea 22,000 I Ea 50,000 Existing to Remain 2 Ea 1,800 2 Ea 2,000 None ILS $22,000 50,000 3,600 4,000 2,000 1Ea 25,000 25,000 I Ea 7,500 7,500 2 Ea 5,500 11,000 4 Ea 2,000 8,000 3 Ea 2,000 6,000 I Ea 4,000 4,000 2 Ea 2,000 4,000 9 Ea 900.00 8,100 2 Ea 900.00 1,800 2 Ea 450.00 900 1LS 40,000 15000 # 6.25 93,750 6000 SF 2.00 12,000 200 Ea 50.00 10,000 _ OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 6.0 Mechanical Systems, Ductwork & Accessories (Continued) Diffuser-Supply 160 Ea Register-Return 120 Ea -Exhaust 35 Ea Louvres 6 Ea Sleeves/Fireproofing 1 LS Misc. Ductwork & Accessories 1 LS Pipework & Accessories Pipe-HW/CHW Pipe-Drains Etc. Valves Vents Sleeves/Fireproofing Misc. Valves & Specifications 1000 LF 200 LF 75 Ea 20 Ea 1 LS 1 LS Controls & Testing Control System/DDC/EMCS Test & Balance 1 LS 1 LS Fire Sprinkler System Wet Fire Sprinkler System:Bldg. Special Systems @ Kitchen 16000 SF None Plumbing Fixtures & Equipment Water Heater-Gas Tank-Expansion Pump-DHW Recirc. I/L WC-Wall w/Rough In /HC Urinal Lavatories 100.00 85.00 80.00 575.00 Sink-Service - Activity Rooms -Counter/Single -Floor Renovation Estimate Page 5 of 7 16,000 10,200 2,800 3,450 5,000 5,000 Shower-H.C. Ddnking Fountain 24.00 15.00 130,00 80.00 Drain-Floor/Toilet Rooms /General -Roof -Area -Deck/Planter 24,000 3,000 9,750 1,600 2,500 5,000 RI & Connect to Kitchen Misc. Fixtures & Equipment 30,000 7,500 Pipework & Accessories Pipe-Waste & Vent Pipe-Storm Pipe-CW w/Insl 3.00 48,000 2 Ea 3,000 6,000 1 Ea 550.00 550 2 Ea 1,500 3,000 16 Ea 890.00 14,240 6 Ea 960.00 5,760 5 Ea 600.00 3,000 13 Ea 550.00 7,150 2 6 1 6 Ea 600.00 1,200 Ea 750.00 4,500 Ea 750.00 750 Ea 300.00 1,800 None 2 Ea 6 Ea 8 Ea None 15 Ea 6 Ea 1 LS 1 LS 1,300 2,600 195.00 1,170 235.00 1,880 190.00 2,850 175.00 1,050 15,000 2,500 700 LF 25.00 17,500 300 LF 27.00 8,100 850 LF 22.00 18,700 m OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 Renovation Estimate Page 6 of 7 6.0 Mechanical Systems, Pipework & Accessories (Continued) Pipe~DHW w/Insl 300 LF 20.00 Pipe-Gas 250 LF 29.50 Pipe-Drains Etc. 150 LF 15.00 6,000 7,375 2,250 Valve-Water 75 Ea 100.00 7,500 Backflow Preventer 1 Ea 3,500 3,500 Hose Bibbs- Interior 1 Ea 50.00 50 - Exterior 2 Ea 165.00 330 Access Door 10 Ea 160.00 1,600 Gas-Valves & Accessories 1 LS 5,000 20 Ea 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 150.00 Cleanouts Sleeves/Fireproofing Misc. Valves & Specifications Test & Clean Subtotal 6.0 Mechanical Systems 3,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 $650,855 7.0 Electrical Systems Primary Power New Transformer Main Switchboard & Dist. Center- Rework Emergency Power - Connection Only UPS Panelboards Stepdown Transformers Feeders Equipment Power User Power Lighting General Building Lighting Exterior Building Lighting Stage Lighting & Control Conduit, Wire, & Switching Signal & Communications Fire Alarm System Telephone/Data Rough-In Telephone/Data Outlets (Incl Cable) AudioNisual Rough-In AudioNisUal System Security Rough-In Security System Paging Rough-In Paging System Subtotal 7.0 Electrical Systems None 1LS 10,000 1Ea 15,000 15,000 None Existing ~ Remain LS 5,000 300 LF 70.00 21,000 16000 SF 1.40 22,400 250 Ea 250.00 62,500 16000 SF 14.00 224,000 30 Ea 750.00 22,500 1LS 25,000 Included Above 16000 SF 1.65 150 Ea 150.00 150 Ea 500.00 16000 SF 0.8O Includedin FF&E 26,400 22,500 75,000 12,800 16000 SF 0,80 12,800 Includedin FF&E 16000 SF 0.75 12,000 Includedin FF&E $568,900 _ OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center 2/7/2002 8.0 Finish Sitework AC Paving Concrete Paving Curb & Gutter Site Lighting Site Drainage Tree Allowance Planting & Irrigation Allowance Site Amenities Subtotal 8.0 Finish Sitework 40000 SF 5000 SF 1000 LF 1 LS 55000 SF 30 Ea 10000 SF 1LS Renovation Estimate Page 7 of 7 3.00 5.50 15.00 1.00 750.00 6.00 $120,000 27 500 15 000 40 000 55 000 22 500 60 000 15 000 $355,000 -- OLI 01117 Dublin Senior Center APPENDIX F- EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOGRAPHS Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study Noll & Tam Architects DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Existing Building: Site Improvements DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Existing Building: General Exterior ay DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Existing Building: Mature Landscaping DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Existing Building: Interior