Cupertino City Hall
Essential Services Facility Analysis
Final Report, Revision 1
March 27, 2012
Attachment G3
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Participants
2.0 Executive Summary
3.0 Structural Analysis
3.1. Scope
3.2. Applicable Codes
3.3. Deficiencies Identified
3.4. General Recommendations
3.5. Specific Recommendations
3.6. Recommendations
Figure 3A Key Structural Building Plan
Figure 3B Key Roof Plan
Figure 3C-G Connect ions Details
4.0 Architectural Analysis
4.1. Scope
4.2. Applicable Codes
4.3. Fire and Life Safety Key Issues
4.4. Other Issues
4.5. Recommendations
Exhibit 4A: Code Analysis Work Sheet
Exhibit 4B: Accessibility for Existing Building
Exhibit 4C: Occupancy Load and Exit Diagram First Floor Exhibit 4D: Occupancy Load and Exit Diagram Basement Floor
5.0 Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire Protection Analysis
5.1. Scope
5.2. Applicable Codes and Standards
5.3. Mechanical
5.4. Plumbing
5.5. Fire Protection
5.6. Electrical
Appendix:
Kick-off Meeting Minutes (2/14/2012)
Clarification of Alternatives (2/21/2012 E-mail message)
1.0 Project Participants
Client:
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014
Carmen Lynaugh Public Works Project Manager
Terry Greene Acti ng City Architect
Larry Squarcia Senior Building Inspector
Albert Salvador Building Official
Arnold Hom Plan Check Engineer
Timm Borden Director of Public Works
Chris Orr Facilities Supervisor
Rick Kitson Public and Environmental Affairs Director
Architect:
Perkins + Will
185 Berry Street, Suite 5100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415.856.3000
Karen Alschuler Project Principal
Susan Seastone Project Manager
Haji Ishikawa Project Architect
Structural Engineer:
AKH Structural Engineers Inc.
1505 Meridian Avenue, Suite B
San Jose, CA 95125
Phone: 408.978.1970
Tim Hyde President
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire Protection Engineers:
PAE Consulting Engineers, Inc.
425 California St., Ste. 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.544.7500
Mike Lucas Project Principal
Marco Alves Mechanical Project Engineer
Hooshang Pakzadan Electrical Project Engineer
1 2.0 Executive Summary
This scope of this project is an analysis of the Cupertino City Hall building and its compliance with current codes related to Es sential Services Facility requirements. The objective of this study is to identify both deficiencies and potential improvements to the building necessary to achieve essential facility status by current codes.
Four alternative approaches were identified by the City of Cupertino representatives and the design team for the renovation of the exis ting City Hall facility. These approaches, described below, differ in their scope and anti cipated construction cost. More detail for each item can be found in the body of the report.
Alt #1 No Upgrade: This alternate proposes no modifi cations to the existing City Hall building and a relocation of the existing Em ergency Operations Center (EOC) to another facility.
Alt #2 Minimum Seismic Upgrade: This alternate proposes modifications to the building structure only to bring the facility to a code compliant Essential Services Facility status.
No proposed plan changes are proposed in th is alternate in order to maintain the ability to “grandfather in” the existing EOC in its current configuration. Only structural items triggered by I-factor improvements and maintenance are intended to be modified.
Accessibility upgrade improvements may be triggered in this alternate.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: This alternate proposes that all Alternate #2 items as well as additional plan modifications to address life safety code updates be implemented.
Accessibility upgrade improvements would be triggered in this alternate.
Alt #4 Replacement – This alternate proposes a new City Hall building that aligns with ideas being proposed in the Civic Center Master Plan Study currently in process by Perkins + Will. This new facility would meet all current codes, incorporate sustainable features, and include Essential Services F acility requirements while at the same time address the specific needs and desires of the building occupants.
Following the completion of this report, the Ci ty of Cupertino and th e design team will meet with a cost estimator designated by the city to identify order of magnitude costs for each alternative. After this process has been completed and an alternative is selected, the city may authorize the design team to pr oceed with the design and documentation of the selected alternative.
2 3.0 Structural Analysis (by AKH)
3.1 Scope
The scope of this section includes recommendations for mitigating structural deficiencies discovered in our assessment report dated November 11, 2011. The report has indicated that the heavy roof tile is a major factor in the deficiencies of the structure. The following recommendations are based on the a ssumption that the heavy tile roofing will be replaced by a lighter roofing material, and possibly with solar panels over some of the sloped roof areas.
3.2 Applicable Codes
The structure was recently as sessed using seismic forces required in the 1985 Uniform Building Code (UBC), as this was the Code to which the 1986 alterations were designed.
Recommendations within this report are base d on seismic forces as dictated by the current 2010 California Building Code (CBC).
3.3 Deficiencies Identified
Roof Diaphragm Shear Capacity
Roof Diaphragm Collector Splice Capacity
Anchor Bolt Connections at top of Shear Walls
Upper Concrete Shear Wall Flexural Capacity
Upper Concrete Shear Wall Boundary Members
Upper Concrete Shear Wall Second Layer of Reinforcing Concrete Column Reinforcement for Confinement
Equipment Anchorage Capacities Unknown
3.4 General Recommendations
This structure consists of concrete shear walls with heavy clay roof tiles on the sloped roof areas and heavy gravel ballast in the central area bounded by the upper mansard/screen wall. The roof tiles represen t a significant portion of the building’s mass at the upper level. The design seismic forces on a structure are based directly on a fraction or percentage of the total mass (wei ght) of the building. Thus, the roof tiles represent a significant amount of the seismi c forces that the building’s lateral force- resisting systems must resist. Our recommendations, therefore, include the replacement of the heavy tile roofing with a lighter material. This would also allow for the opportunity to install photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the roof surface. As the weight of typical PV panels is small relative to the weight of the existing clay roof tiles, future improvements could include the addition of these PV panels while still reducing the building’s mass and resulting seismic design forces.
Also, the upper story of this structure relies on two relatively narrow concrete shear walls on each of the four sides of the building. These shear walls comprise the building’s entire lateral force resistance at the upper level, as the structure does not have any interior walls or structural frames that resist lateral forces. While the shear walls occur on each of the building’s four sides, the walls are relatively narrow compared to their height, resulting in high in-plane shear stresses when resisting the seismic design forces, as well as relatively high tension and compression forces at the ends of the walls. Finally, the use of only two primary force-resisting elemen ts on each side of the structure provides 3 only minimal redundancy. Overall, the smaller number and length of walls result in a structural configuration that has historically performed less than optimally in resisting lateral, seismic forces in moderate and major earthquakes. Therefore we recommend that additional shear walls be added on each side of the structure. The included key plan of the building indicates where concrete wall s can be added to the building, utilizing portions of existing solid exterior wall. These proposed locations would affect the building’s current aesthetics and function to only a limited degree, if at all. See Fig. 3.A.
In general, if the clay roof tiles are replaced with lighter roofing materials (even including PV panels), the building’s seismic mass would be reduced substantially, and the magnitude of most of the structure’s noted deficiencies are reduced to levels that are more readily addressed.
3.5 Specific Recommendations
In addition to the general recommendations above, following are our specific recommendations for each of the deficiencies noted in the Section 3.3 above:
3.5.1 Roof Diaphragm Shear Capacity
The existing roof diaphragm is co mprised of plywood sheathing with specific nailing along its panel edges to common framing members. Its shear capacity is affected by the type and thickness of plywood used, and the size and spacing of nailing used. The existing roof diaphragm shear capacity is exceeded even if the existing roof tile were to be removed and replaced with a lighter roofing material . The roof diaphragm forces would be reduced significantly with the replacement of the heavy clay roof tiles, although the calculated diaphragm shears would still exceed the diaphragm near the building’s perime ter, which is where the diaphragm shear forces are highest. The plywood diaphragm can be strengthened as needed with added panel edge nailing ne ar the perimeter of the building.
This added nailing would be installed while the roofing is being replaced.
See Figures 3.B and 3.G.
3.5.2 Roof Diaphragm Collector Splice Capacity
The existing roof diaphr agm collectors consist of steel roof beams around the perimeter of the structure, and are aligned parallel to and above the upper-level concrete shear walls. The se elements colle ct the seismic forces within the roof diaphragm and de liver the forces to the shear walls.
Where splices occur in the lines of steel beams at approximately ten (10) locations, the connectors are currently not adequate to transfer the required seismic collector forces. Our recommendation to address this deficiency would be to provide welding around the splice plates to the beams at the splice connections. See Fig. 3.F.
3.5.3 Anchor Bolt Connections at top of Shear Walls
4 The collector beams mentioned in the previous section are connected to the top of the concrete shear walls with anchor bolts embedded in the walls and extending through the steel beam flange. This is the means through which the seismic forces are transferred from the roof to the shear walls. The current anchor bolts are insufficient to transfer the prescribed forces to the shear walls, even with added shear walls. Our recommendation is to provide adequate anchor bolts to any new walls and provide additional anchor bolts through the existing beams, between the existing anchor bolts, to strengthen the shear-transfer connections sufficiently. See Fig. 3.F.
3.5.4 Concrete Shear Wall In-Plane Flexural Capacity
In-plane flexure results from the shear walls bending when resisting seismic loads at their tops, tending to rotate and bend the wall over, causing tension and compression at wall ends. With the addition of upper-level new shear walls as reco mmended above, this flexural deficiency likely would no longer exist in the existing walls, as the forces resisted by the existing walls would be reduced, as well as the induced flexural forces. The added shear walls would be designed to have sufficient reinforcing to resist bending in the plane of the wall.
3.5.5 Concrete Shear Wall Boundary Members
Boundary members are required where the in-plane flexural forces generate high compressive forces at the wall ends. These compressive forces, when at a certain level, must be resisted by stronger column-type elements, containing internal confinement of the vertical wall reinforcing near the wall ends. The existing walls would require added boundary confinement to resist current Code-level forces. With the removal of the heavy roof tile and gravel, and dependi ng on the lengths and locations of added shear walls as noted above, the compressive flexural forces would be reduced to a level where only the current Code’s prescriptive requirements would be applicable. This could be accomplished in one of two possible means. First, a short length of reinforced wall could be added to the existing, which would mo ve the highest compressive forces away from the existing bars, and woul d contain new bars and confinement complying with Code requirements. Second, if the wall length cannot be increased, a column element that is wider than the wall could be introduced, containing the required confining reinforcement.
3.5.6 Concrete Shear Wall Second Layer of Reinforcing
When calculated in-plane shear stre sses within shear walls exceed a certain threshold, those walls must have two layers of internal reinforcing.
The shear walls currently have one layer of reinforcing, comprised of vertical and horizontal rebar. With the removal of the heavy roof tile and addition of new perimeter shear walls as noted above, the shear stresses 5 within the walls will likely be reduced to levels such that the second layer is not required.
3.5.7 Concrete Column Reinforcement for Confinement
The existing concrete columns throughout the structure, at both levels, contain longitudinal reinforcement running vertically and transverse, confining tie reinforcement around the lo ngitudinal bars. The ties are of a specific size and occur at a specific spacing. In extreme cases, such as in moderate and major earthquakes, the lateral drift of the structure, combined with the axial forces from the supported structure, can induce extremely high compressive forces in the longitudinal (vertical) column bars. If not confined adequately by ties of sufficient size, at spacing that is close enough, the vertical bars can buckle outward, causing damage to the column, loss of support and possible collapse. Regardless of the calculated forces in the existing columns, the existing column ties do not conform to the current Building Code’s prescriptive requirements for minimum confinement. Thus, supplem ental confinement needs to be added for conformance to the current Code. This added confinement may be required only near the ends of so me columns, or for the full height of the columns, depending on the calculated column loads. Where additional confinement is required, it is recommended that the columns be wrapped with designed layers of carbon fiber and re sin. The total build-up of carbon fiber layers is rela tively thin, and would not adversely affect the spaces where the columns occur.
As indicated in these descriptions, and in general, the noted deficiencies can be addressed and resolved only with a sufficient reduction of the building’s mass through the removal of the heavy clay tile roofing, and with the addition of some lengths of new upper-level concrete shear walls. The recommended alterations combine to reduce the seismic forces acting on the structure, increase the strength and capacities of the load- resisting elements, including the shear walls and collector members. The following key building plan indicates the recommended locations for the proposed added shear walls, which would likely affect the building’s aesthetics and functionality to only a minimal degree.
3.5.8 Equipment Anchorage Capacities Unknown
The capacity of the anchorage of the equipment throughout the building is unknown and warrants a survey of existing on-site conditions, as well as any drawings available that address the methods of anchorage and lateral bracing. The current Building Code excludes some equipment below certain weight limits from requiring anchorage, if the Component Importance Factor (Ip) for determining the anchorage design forces is no higher than 1.0. However, since the entire subject structure is considered an Essential Facility, housing the EOC, the Importance Factor for the overall building’s seismic design, as well as the seismic Component Importance factor, Ip, is 1.50. Thus, the seismic anchorage of all 6 significant equipment anchorage is governed by the Code. Equipment that should be considered, in particular, includes the following:
Emergency Generator, including isolators
Emergency Generator flexible connections for conduit, fuel and coolant piping
Rooftop HVAC Equipment
Elevator Equipment
Electrical Transformers, Panels, Switchgear, Cabinets, etc. Suspended Light Fixtures
Ductwork and Piping Supports and Bracing
Electrical Conduits, Trapezes, Banks and Trays
Fire Sprinkler Piping
7 8
9 10
11 4.0 Architectural Analysis
4.1 Scope
The existing Cupertino City Hall building is a two-story structure containing city administrative and building de partment services as well as the City of Cupertino’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC.) The or iginal building was built completed in 1965 and later renovated in 1986.
This study is based on record documents listed below and received electronically from the city as well as a facility site walk on Feb 14, 2012.
1965 Drawings for Original Construction
1986 Drawings for Renovation (except single line Electrical plans) Current Exiting Diagram included the latest floor layout modifications
The architectural analysis primarily focuses on fire and life safety issues and includes a detailed code compliancy review of the existing City Hall building as an Essential Service Facility. The recommendations follow the analysis and include four alternatives outlined by city representatives and the design team.
The current code, the 2010 California Build ing Code (CBC), and the 1985 Uniform Building Code used for the renovation exhibit significant differences in all chapters. The first step of this analysis was to review the existing building against the 2010 CBC.
Exhibit 4A provides the analysis in detail. Exhibits 4C and 4D show occupancy load calculations, exit occupancy calculations, and required rated wall locations.
The required scope of accessibility modifica tions for the existing building is also summarized to define the extent of potentia l renovation work. Exhibit 4B lists scope requirements from the 2010 CBC Chapter 11B.
4.2 Applicable Codes
The 2010 CBC was used to review code compliancy. The 2010 California Green Building Code (Cal Green) was not used for the analysis of the existing building. Currently, the City of Cupertino does not enforce the Cal Green for the remodel of existing buildings.
The requirements of 2010 ADA Standards for Ac cessible Design is applicable for local government facilities and was also used to review for compliancy.
4.3 Key Fire and Life Safety Issues
The key issues below are extracted from Exhibit 4A - Code Analysis Worksheet. Occupancy Classification
The existing Council Room is appr oximately 1,300 sf (over 10% of the total floor area of the first floor) with an Occupancy Load of 86. The room cannot be considered an incidental accessory occupancy because it is too large. It needs to be considered an A3 Occupancy, a separate occupancy from rest of the building, which is a B Occupancy.
12 Type of Construction
The type of construction is Type VB with an automatic sprinkler system throughout.
Fire Resistive Separations
Interior Walls:
A 1-hour Fire Barrier separation is required between A and B occupancies. The existing wall is shown as a 1-hour partition in the 1986 drawings. The wall construction above the ceiling needs to be further investigated. The doors in the 1-hour Fire Barrier need to have a 45-minute fire resi stance rating. The existing two doors are labeled with 20-minute ra tings. The label of the third door was covered by finish material and not legible. It will need to be replaced if it cannot be confirmed as compliant. See section
4.5.1 of the 2010 CBC.
Although the 1-hour separation requirement of an incidental use area is exempted because the existing building is equipped with a sprinkler system, the Mechanical Room and Storage Rooms (over 100 sf) require smoke partitions. The 1986 drawings indicate the existing Mechanical Room is enclosed by a 1-hour partition. See section 4.5.2 of the 2010 CBC.
Elevator Shaft Enclosure:
The existing elevator shaft may be deficient. The drawing A2.1 (1986 Renovation) indicates “Carry shaft wall to underside of lobby ceiling”. Fire Barriers need to extend to the underside of the roof sheathing per 707.5 or enclosed at the top with the same fire resistance rating per 708.12. See section 4.5.3 of the 2010 CBC.
Exit Stair Enclosure:
The exit stair enclosure wall needs to be a 1-hour Fire Barrier with a 1-hour rated opening. The existing door on the first floor is labeled as 60-minute. The rating of the door on the basement was not legible and will need to be replaced if it cannot be confirmed as complaint. See section 4.5.4 of the 2010CBC.
Corridors
The building’s corridors are not required to be separated by fire or smoke partitions because the existing building is A and B Occupancies and equipped with a sprinkler system. The existing corridors open to the public area are rated per the 1986 drawings. The existing openings between the west corridor and the office area are allowed per the current code.
13 Interior Finishes
Wall and Ceiling:
Corridors serving the egress of the EOC, West Corridor, Lobby, and South Corridor require Class B finishes on the walls and ceiling.
The existing finish materials need to be further examined to confirm that they meet the ASTM E-84 Class B frame spread rating and the ASTM C 635 or C636 for suspended acoustical ceiling.
See section 4.5.6 of the 2010 CBC.
Floor:
A Class I or II interior floor finish is required in all exit routes. The existing finishes need to be further reviewed and replaced if they cannot be confirmed as compliant. See section 4.5.6 of the 2010 CBC.
Means of Egress
Occupant Load:
The Occupant Load of the existing building is calculated based upon the area under consideration divided by an occupant load factor per section 1004.1.1 of the 2010 CBC. See Exhibit 4A.
Egress Width:
All existing doors and corridors currently provide more than the required egress width. Exiting occupancies at the exit discharge are:
Basement Terrace 98
Main entrance 57 (113 / 2 exits)
South Corridor Door 35
North Door 29
Accessible Means of Egress:
Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings per section 1007.1 Exception 1 of the 2010 CBC.
Panic Hardware:
Mechanical Room and Transformer Room doors need panic
hardware or fire exit hardwa re per section 1008.1.10 of the 2010 CBC. The existing doors do not have the required hardware.
Vertical Exit Enclosures–Lobby Open Stairs to Basement:
The analysis of the exiting occupancy revealed that the basement floor egress is not code compliant without using the open stairs as means of egress. The 2010 CBC allows for vertical openings in a stairway only if it is not part of means of egress per 708.2 Exceptions; therefore, in order to meet the requirements of the code the stair will require the installation of draft curtains and closely spaced sprinklers. These upgrades based on the interpretation above are believed to be more economical than 14 converting the open stairway to an enclosed exit stair. See section
3.5.7 of the 2010 CBC.
Roof Assembly and Rooftop Structure
A roof assembly is required to meet Class A fire test exposure in accordance with the city ordinances. The existing roof equipment shows an incomplete attachment mechanism to the roof deck. See section 3.5.8 of the 2010 CBC.
4.4 Other Issues
4.4.1 Accessibility
The extent of the specific accessibility upgrades will require further study as well as design solutions after a solution is selected. Exhibit 4B describes accessibility requirements for existing buildings.
The 2010 CBC requires that accessibility up grades apply only to the area of specific alteration. The 2010 ADA Standards (Chapter 2, 202) state “each altered element or space shall comply with the applicable requirements”.
The 2010 CBC also outlines construction cost thresholds for specific levels of accessibility upgrades. For a project wher e the construction cost does not exceed $50,000, it requires accessibility compliance only in the area of the actual work and not in supporting areas. For a projec t where the construction cost does not exceed $128,410.86, it allows accessibility compliance to be limited to 20% of the cost of the project. Priority must be given to the accessible elements in the following order.
sanitary facilities
drinking fountains
signs
public telephone
additional accessible elements such as parking, storage, and alarms For a project where the construction cost exceeds $128,410.86, the facility must be made fully accessible.
4.4.2 OSHA
Access to all areas for building main tenance will need to meet Cal-OSHA standards. The metal ladder to the roof requires a safety upgrade.
4.4.3 Sustainability
A comprehensive sustainable strategy and specific sustainable solutions are not identified in this report; however, as the project moves to the next phase we would recommend incorporating a sustainable approach into the solution selected.
4.4.4 Architectural & Planning
Several architectural and planning issu es were identified by the building representatives and design team during the Feb 14, 2012 site walk. These items 15 were captured in the Meeting Minutes, item 2012-02-14.07, and should be addressed if Alternate #3 or Alternate#4 is selected for implementation.
4.5 Recommendations
Four alternative approaches were identified by the City of Cupertino representatives and the design team for the renovation of the existing City Hall facility. These approaches, described belo w, differ in their scope and anticipated construction cost.
Alt #1 No Upgrade: This alternate proposes no modifications to the existing City Hall building and a relocation of the existing EOC to another facility.
Alt #2 Minimum Seismic Upgrade: This alternate proposes modifications to the building structure only to bring the fac ility to a code compliant Essential Service Facility status. No proposed plan changes are proposed in this alternate in order to maintain the ability to “grandfather in” the existing EOC in its current configuration. Only structural items triggered by I-factor improvements and maintenance are intended to be modified. Accessibility upgrade improvements may be triggered in this alternate. The modifications include:
Replacement of roof tile – as maintenance
Possible adjustment of roof profile and equipment screen Connection of collector beam and concrete shear wall
Additional concrete wall to the main level, if required. (The modification should not affect floor plan and egress)
Ducts and equipment seismic support
Accessibility upgrade for 20% of construction cost if required
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: This alternate proposes that all Alternate #2 items as well as additional plan modifications to address life safety code updates be implemented. Accessibility upgrade impr ovements would be triggered in this alternate. The modifications include:
All Alt #2 items
Fire and Life Safety upgrade to meet 2010 CBC
MEP upgrades to meet operation requirements as Essential Services Facilities including replacement of HVAC equipment/control, water heater/plumbing pipe, adjustments of sprinkler system, and upgrade of the electrical system after testing and verifications.
Minimum energy efficiency to meet performance of the existing building Accessibility upgrade
Alt #4 Replacement – This alternate proposes a new City Hall building that aligns with ideas being proposed in the Civic Center Master Plan Study currently in process with Perkins + Will. This new facility would meet all current codes, incorporate sustainable features, and include Essential Service Facility requirements while at the same time address the specific needs and desires of the building occupants.
16 These recommendations are based on the findings from the available drawings and observations of the accessible areas during the site walk. As highlighted above, some areas of the existing building have unknown conditions and will require further investigation after an alternate is selected:
penetrations thru partitions
above-ceiling conditions
actual construction of the interior partitions
storage rooms created during the recent renovation around the EOC renovated areas in locations where the record drawings were not available
Specific recommendations for the correction of items identified in the code analysis are outlined below. If Alternative #3 or Alternative #4 described above is chosen, all architectural code deficiencies must be integrated into the solution.
4.5.1 1-hour Fire Barrier at Council Room
The existing doors to the Council room n e e d t o b e r e p l a c e d w i t h a t l e a s t 4 5 - minute fire resistance rated doors. The pa rtition may need to be repaired or re- built to meet 1-hour Fire Barrier requirements. The existing rated partition enclosing Council room should be further field investigated.
4.5.2 Smoke Partitions to Mechanical Room and Storage Room The existing doors to the Mechanical Room and Transformer Room need to be replaced with panic hardware. The existing wall and doors enclosing the Mechanical Room need to be rebuilt or repaired to meet smoke partition requirements.
Mechanical Room work space clearances and clear path of travel require further investigation near the 1600 Amp electrica l panel. The room requires either 2 exits with panic hardware or 1 exit door with panic hardware and a clear unobstructed path from panel to exit door, or a single exit door with panic hardware and double the required working space around the panel.
Storage Rooms (areas exceeding 100sf) need to be enclosed by smoke partitions.
The Storage Rooms north of Council Room that were recent additions/modifications exceed 100sf. These walls and doors need to be rebuilt or repaired to meet smoke partition requirements.
4.5.3 Elevator Shaft Enclosure
The construction of the existing elevator shaft enclosure needs further field investigation to verify if it meets the 1- hour Fire Barrier requi rements. The shaft enclosure may either need to extend to the roof sheathing or be enclosed at the top of the shaft with 1-hour fire resistance rated assembly.
4.5.4 60-Minute Door to the Exit Stair at Basement
The exit access door to the existing exit stair should be confirmed as a 60 minute door or replaced with a 60 minute door. The construction of the existing exit stair shaft enclosure needs further field investig ation to verify if it meets the 1 hour Fire Barrier requirements.
17 4.5.5 Interior Finishes
The finishes of West Corridor, Lobby, and South Corridor need further field investigation to confirm if they meet the current code classifications. The finishes may need to be replaced to meet the requirements.
4.5.6 Lobby Open Stairs to Basement
The existing open stairs from Lobby to the basement should be designated as non- exit stairs. In addition, the draft curtains and closely-spaced sprinklers per NFPA 13 need to be installed. The exit sign should be rearranged accordingly.
4.5.7 Roof Assembly and Rooftop Equipment
The attachment of the roof equipment to the roof deck must be secured following the I factor requirements for the Essential Services Facilities. Reroofing assembly is required to meet Class C roofing.
4.5.8 Replacement of Roof Tile (This item is for Alt #2) As described in the Structural Sectio n 3.4 General Recommendations, the heavy tile roofing should be replaced with a lighter material such as standing seam metal roofing system. A system can be selected to match the appearance of the adjoining buildings in the Civic Center. As the project proceeds an option to integrate photovoltaic panels or film at the roof should be investigated.
18 Exhibit 4A ‐ Code Analysis Worksheet
This exhibit is prepared to review the code compliancy of the existing City Hall under 2010 California Building Code.
Subject CBC
Reference
Notes
1. Building Description
1 above grade story with 1 below grade basement Table 503 See 7 OK
2. Building Height
Height to highest occupancy Story: 1.8 ft above finish grade (224.9 FG, 226.7 FF) Height to top of roof: 20’‐11 ½” @ top of beam, 26’ @ top of parapet Table 503 See 7 OK
3. Building Separations
East: 174 ft
West: 60+ ft (60 ft to PRW)
North: 60+ ft (60 ft to PRW)
South: 103 ft (to 1964 PL)
All exceeds 30’ in Table 602 fire Separation distance Table 602 OK
4. Occupancy
Building Area Occupancy
First Floor B (Except Concil room: A3, 1,300sf) Basement B
Note: EOC Room (former Council Room) will be separated Occupancy from the rest of the building because the area sqft of 1,300sf exceeds 10% of the building area of the floor (508.2.1). The occupant load of the EOC Room is 1,300/15 = 86.
The two occupancies need to be separated by 1hr fire barrier (Table 50
8.4)
508.4
5. Approximate Building Area
Level 1: 11,520 sf
Basement: 11,520 sf
Total: 23,040 sf
6. Type of construction
Type V‐B (fully sprinklered)
7. Allowable Area and Height – Type V‐B (fully‐sprinklered) B occupancy A‐3 Occupancy
Allowable / Built Allowable / Built
Story (above grade) 2 / 1 1 / 1 Height 40ft / 26 ft 40ft / 26 ft Floor Area / Story 18,000sf / 11,520sf 12,000sf / 1,300sf
Per 508.4.2
11520/18000 + 1300/12000 = 0.748 < 1.00
Table 503
508.4.2
OK
8. Fire Resistive Requirements – Type V (fully‐sprinklered) 19 Subject CBC
Reference
Notes
Structural Frame: 0 hrs
Bearing Walls
o Exterior: 0 hrs
o Interior: 0 hrs
Non‐bearing Walls
o Exterior: 0 hrs
o Interior: 0 hrs
Floors: 0 hrs 3” concrete floor Roof: 0 hrs 6x6 beam, 2x6 T&G Deck, 5/16” Plywood Table 601 &
602
603.1 &
717.5 OK
9. Fire Resistive Separations
1‐hr Fire Barrier separations between B and A1 occupancy 508.4 Incidental Use Areas
o Mech / Boiler Room (031 & 032) –
o Storage over 100 sf (036, 038, New storage north of Council )
1‐hr separation or provide automatic fire extinguishing system – OK w/ Fully sprinklered bldg
Smoke Partition (711; Full ht solid walls w/self‐closing solid drs) is still required
508.2
508.2.5.2
OK
10. Exterior Walls
Opening Allowed in exterior walls
Max area of exterior wall openings allowed: No Limit
Fire Separation distance is > 30’
Table 705.8
OK
Parapets: not required – exterior wall is not required to be rated 705.11 OK
11. Interior Walls
Fire Barriers – separating B & A3 occupancy around fmr. Council Room 707 o Extend from the top of the floor 0 ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing.
o Openings are limited to 25 % of length of wall
o Openings are not limited to 156sf if fully‐sprinklered o Opening protection
Wall Type Opening Rating
1‐hr shaft / exit enclosures 1 hour
1‐hr fire barrier 45 min.
707.5
707.6
707.6 exc 1
Table 715
dr & glazing
need
upgrade to
45 min
assembly
Shaft Enclosures – exit stairs, elevator hoist way 708 o Enclosures to have fire barrier with 1‐hr fire resistance rating o Openings limits are not applicable for for exit enclosures o Opening protection – see above
708.4
707.6
Visually
inaccessibl
e, Need
further
investigatio
n of shaft
termination
above
ceiling
Corridors – Not req’d to be separated by fire or smoke partitions in A and B occupancy if fully sprinklered.
Table
1018.1 OK
Enclosed Elevator Lobby
20 Subject CBC
Reference
Notes
o not required not mre than 3 stories in Group B 708.14.1 OK o not required for A where the building is fully‐sprinklered 708.14.1 Ex 4 OK
12. Penetrations
Thru penetration fire stop systems protecting wall penetrations shall have an F rating equal to the rated wall
713.3.1.2 Visually
inaccessibl
e, Need
further
investigatio
n
Thru penetration fire stop systems protecting rated horizontal assemblies shall have an F and a T rating of 1 hour or equal to the rated assembly 712.4.1.1.2 Visually
inaccessibl
e, Need
further
investigatio
n
13. Interior Finish 803.1
Wall and ceiling finishes per ASTM E‐84, Class A, B & C / NFPA 286 Flame spread Req
Area Served Rating
Exit Enclosures B
Corridors Serving A Occupancy B
Other rooms & corridors C
Table 803.9
Suspended acoustical ceilings per ASTM C 635 or C636 808.1.1.1 ? Class I or Class II interior floor finish req’d in all exit route 804.4.1 ?
14. Automatic Sprinkler system – per MEP analysis 903.2.1.3 OK
15 Means of Egress
Occupant load
Is established in Figure 1 based upon the area under consideration divided by an occupant load factor
Table
1004.1.1
OK
Egress width 1004
o Considered for floors individually 1004.4 OK
o Stairways – factor .3 in
o Other egress component – factor .2 in
1005.1
OK
Lighting 1006.2 Noted in
Elect
Section
o 1 fc –at walking surfaces f exit access, exits, and exit discharge o 10 fc – at walking surface of stairs during use
o Emergency power 90min min 1006.4
Accessible means of egress 1007.1
o Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings
1007.1 Ex 1
OK
Doors
o Shall have a clear width of at least 32 in and no door leaf shall be greater than 48 in – all egress doors exceed required width
1008.1.1
OK
o With limitations, egress doors may include: 1008.1.4 OK 21 Subject CBC
Reference
Notes
Revolving doors
Power‐operated doors
Access‐controlled doors
o Panic hardware is required on exit doors from
A occupancies
Elect rooms rated over 1200 A – check with Electrical.
1008.1.10 OK
Stairways
o Min width is 44 in unless serving fewer than 50 people, except accessible egress stairs
o Handrails may extend 4 ½” from stair wall into req’d clear width 1003.3.3
1012.7
OK
o At accessible egress stairs, the stairs are req’d to have a min clear width between handrails of 48 in min width is 44 in unless serving fewer than 50 people, except accessible egress stairs
7.2.12.2.3 n/a per
1007.1 Ex.
OK
o Min headroom clearance is 80 in 1009.2 OK
o Riser height
Min 4 in, Max 7 in
1009.3
OK
o Ramps (for exiting)
o Max slope – 1:12
o Max cross slope – 1:48
o Max vert rise – 30 in
o Ramps with rise greater than 6 in shall have handrails on both sides
1010.3
1010.4
1010.8
n/a
OK
Handrails and guards
o Shall be provided on both sides of stairs and ramps with risers grater than 6 in
1009.10 Need
further
review
o Intermediate handrails to be provided so that all parts of egress capacity on stairs and ramps area within 30 in of a handrail
1012.8
o Guards required on elevated surfaces with an adjacent droop more than 30 in
1013.1
o Guards to be 42 in high min 1013.2
o Not allow a 4 in diameter sphere to pass 1013.3
Exit Signs
o Not required in rooms or areas requiring only one exit 1011.1 OK o Required at exit and exit access doors and other areas so that no place in a corridor is more than 100 ft from an exit sign
1011.1
OK
o Exit sign may be either internally or externally illuminated 1011.2 OK o Illumination required to be on emergency power with 90 min duration 1011.5 OK
Exit Access
o Egress shall not pass through adjoining rooms except where such rooms are accessory to the area served, are not high‐hazard, and provide a discernible path to an exit
1014.2
OK
o When two or more exits are required, they shall be separated by one third the diagonal dimension of the space
fmr Council – 2 exits provided
Mech room – 2 exits provided
1015.1
1015.1
1015.3 OK
Travel Distance
o Max allowable travel distance from any location to an exit A3: 250 ft (w/ fully‐sprinklered) Table OK
22 Subject CBC
Reference
Notes
B: 300 ft (w/ fully‐sprinklered) 1016.1
Common path of travel distance
o The max allowable common path of travel distance from any location to a point where occupants have a choice between two separate exit paths is limited to 100 feet for Group B and S
1014.3
OK
Corridors in sprinkler protected B or S may be non‐rated Table 1018.1 OK
o Corridor width to be OL x 0.2 but not less than 44”
o 36” with a required occupant capacity of less than 50 1005,
1018.2
1018.2 Ex OK
o Dead ends may not exceed 50 feet in B
Min number of exits
o OL 1‐500 – 2 exits required 1021 OK
Vertical Exit Enclosures
o Required rating – 1‐hr
o A max of 50% of exit capacity is permitted to egress through areas in the level of discharge w/ three conditions check (1.2 floor rating of 3” conc) o Stairs to the building permit counter should not be used for egress, to be “communicating stair”
1022.1
1027.1 Ex
Adjust exit
sign
accordingly
Exterior Exit Stairs and Ramps
o Exterior exit stairways can be used in a means of egress o Must be open at one side
o Not required to have separation per exceptions
1026.2
1026.3
1026.6 Ex.
OK
OK
OK
Exit Discharge
o A max of 50% of exit capacity is permitted to egress through areas in the level of discharge w/ three conditions check
1027.1 Ex
OK
16 Roof Assembly and Rooftop Structures
Roofing Classifications – Class A is required per City of Cupertino Ordinances Table 1505.1
Classificatio
n of (E)
roof
assembly is
unknown.
Existing roof replacement – more than 50% of the total roof area is replaced within any one‐year period, the entire roof covering of every new structure, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair, or replacement of the roof of every existing structure shall be a fire–retardant roof covering that is at least Class C
1505.1.3 To be Class
A per City
of
Cupertino
Ordinances
23 Exhibit 4B ‐ Accessibility for Existing Buildings
This Exhibit is prepared to summarize the required accessibility upgrade for the existing buildings per 2010 CBC.
Subject CBC
Reference
Notes
1. Accessibility for Existing Buildings 1134B
Provisions apply to renovation, structural repair, alteration and addition to existing buildings
No decreased accessibility of existing buildings
Requirements shall apply only to the area of specific alteration structural repair of addition
o Primary entrance to the building
o Primary path of travel to the specific area of alteration, structural repair or addition
o Followings th
at serves the area of alteration, structural repair or addition Sanitary facilities
Drinking fountains
Signs
Public telephone
1134B.1
1134B.2
Exceptions #1
Total construction cost does not exceed $128,410.86 (Jan 2010) Unreasonable hardship is where exceeds 20% of the cost of the project without these features (disproportionate cost)
Access shall be provided to the extent that it can be within 20% of the cost of project
Priority is to these elements that will provide the greatest access following order o An
accessible entrance
o An accessible route to the altered area
o At least one accessible restroom for each sex
o Accessible telephones
o Accessible drinking fountains
o When possible, additional accessible elements; parking storage and alarms
3 years duration of accumulated cost when th
ere are many small work
Alterations after Jan 1992 shall be considered in determining if the cost of providing a accessible path of total is disproportionate Exceptions #2
n/a ‐ Re: privately funded project
Exceptions #3
Accessibility improvement work itself is limited to the actu al work of the project Exceptions #4
Work limited to
o HVAC
o Re‐roofing
o Electrical (not included switches and receptacles)
o Cosmetic work
1134.2.1 Ex.
Alternative uni‐sex per floor will be permitted if technically infeasible 1134B.2.2
24 Exhibit 4D Basement Floor Occupancy Load and Exit Diagram Exhibit 4C First Floor Occupancy Load and Exit Diagram 25 5.0 Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire Protection Analysis
5.1 Scope
The main goal of this report is to evaluate the MEP equipment and infrastructure serving the Cupertino City Hall and the EOC. The evaluation of the existing MEP systems is being performed according to the following overall facility improvement alternatives:
Alt #1 No Upgrade - Relocation of EOC
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade – Duct, pipe, and equipment seismic support (per I factor change)
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade - Alt #2 items, Fire & Life Safety upgrade to meet 2010 CBC, MEP upgrade to meet operation requirements as Essential Services Facilities, Energy efficiency to meet performance of the existing building Alt #4 Replacement – New Building
5.2 Applicable Codes and Standards
Codes:
State of California Code of Regulations (CCR).
2010 California Building Code.
2010 California Electrical Code.
2010 California Mechanical Code.
2010 California Plumbing Code.
2010 California Fire Code.
2010 California Energy Code, Title 24 – 2008
2010 California Green Code, CALGreen
City of Cuppertino Municipal Code
Standards:
ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 – Ventilation
ASHRAE Standard 55-2010 – Thermal Comfort
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010: Energy Standard for Buildings except Low-Rise Residential Buildings
AMCA – Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc.
ANSI – American National Standards Institute.
26 ARI – Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute.
SMACNA – Fire and Smoke Damper Installation Guide.
SMACNA – Guidelines for Seismic Restraints of Mechanical Systems.
SMACNA – Standards for Duct Construction.
NEMA – National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association.
NEMA - National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
NECA - National Electrical Contractors Association.
IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
UL – Underwriters Laboratories.
NFPA - National Fire Protection Association.
NFPA 90A – Air Conditioning and Ventilating Systems.
NFPA 101 – Life Safety Code.
NFPA 13 – Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.
5.3 Mechanical HVAC Systems
5.3.1 Heating and Cooling Systems
The HVAC system for the Cupertino City Hall consists of a water-cooled chiller plant (70 Ton) with the cooling tower located on the roof and the chiller located on the lower level. A gas fired non-condensing boiler generates heating hot water.
The boiler is from the 1965 original building construction and is well past its life time. Both of these systems provide chilled and heating hot water to the Air Handling Units (AHU’s) located at the lower level that heat and cool the building through a VAV reheat design. All equipment was installed in ~1986 and is now 26 years old and at the end of its useful life. While the equipment appears to be well maintained, and the AHU’s have been retrofitted with VFD’s, the building operates inefficiently at a rate of $3.63/SF-Year and 106 kBTU/SF-Year (based on 2009 utility bills). A modern, energy efficient office building operates at $1.50/SF-Year and 50 kBTU/SF-Year.
The Cupertino City Hall has a small server room that is cooled by split system AC units, with air-cooled condensers located on the roof. The AC units for the server room appear to have been installed more recently that the rest of the HVAC equipment.
27 Figure 5A (Closed-Circuit 70 Ton Cooling Tower)
Figure 5B (Water-cooled 70 Ton Chiller)
In the lower level mechanical room, maintenance clearances and an exit pathway may not exist throughout the space. In addition, the combination of chiller, gas boiler, electrical gear, and generator equipment do not meet today’s code 28 requirement to have separate rooms for each of these pieces of equipment. The room is also not equipped with a refrigerant detection and exhaust systems currently required for chiller rooms, and the combustion air ducts in the boiler room need to be routed to an outdoor location.
Figure 5C (Gas Fired Boiler)
Figure 5D (Server room AC unit (1 of 2))
29 Recommendations
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: Upgrade all duct, pipe, and equipment anchorage and seismic attachments to building structure. Replace duct and pipe connections with flexible joints where required.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: Replace existing HVAC equipment with smaller, more efficient, better comfort equipment design.
Alt #4 Replacement: New HVAC systems for new building.
5.3.2 Ventilation
The existing AHU’s air intake is located in an airwell that does not provide good air quality air for building occupants. The amount of fresh air brought into the building is not enough by today’s standards and codes, and should be increased and improved.
Recommendations
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: No work.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: Obtain fresh air from a different location (i.e. roof louvers) and increase amount of fresh air.
Alt #4 Replacement: New HVAC systems for new building.
5.3.3 Controls
The existing control system is and outdated pneumatic system that does not allow for remote monitoring or the implementation of common energy efficiency strategies in modern buildings. In addition the pneumatic controls system requires more maintenance to upkeep the compressor, air filter, and other mechanical systems required to run the system.
Recommendations
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: No work.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: Replace existing system with modern DDC controls system.
Alt #4 Replacement: New HVAC systems for new building.
30 5.4 Plumbing Systems
5.4.1 Plumbing Fixtures
The existing plumbing fixtures are functioning and meet current code.
Recommendations
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: No work.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: No work.
Alt #4 Replacement: New plumbing systems and fixtures for new building.
5.4.2 Domestic Water System
The domestic water piping appears to be copper. An AO Smith boiler gas fires water heater provide domestic hot water to all building plumbing fixtures. The water heater appears to have been installed with the last 5 years.
Recommendations
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: Upgrade all plumbing pipe and equipment anchorage and seismic attachments to building structure.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: Replace existing plumbing pipe (cold and hot water).
Replace existing water heater with a high efficiency heat pump water heater.
Alt #4 Replacement: New plumbing systems and fixtures for new building.
5.5 Fire Protection Systems
5.5.1 Fire Sprinkler system
The bulling is fully sprinklered and testing station appears to be in proper operating condition given the test log dates.
Recommendations
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: Upgrade all fire protection pipe and equipment anchorage and seismic attachments to building structure.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: Replace existing pipe and sprinkler heads inside building to match renovation intent.
Alt #4 Replacement: New fire protection system for new building.
31 5.6 ELECTRICAL
5.6.1 Electrical Systems Summary
This report is an evaluation of the Cupertino Essential Services building electrical systems, located at Rodrigues and Torre Avenue, in Cupertino, California. The data used to develop this report was collected during one site visit conducted on February 15, 2012, as well as interviews of the staff working at the building.
During the field visit, we observed the site conditions and systems exposed to visual observation. No testing or destructive investigation was performed.
Additional information about the building’s power distribution system was gathered by reviewing the building plan sets made available in PDF format. The walk through was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Electrical systems.
This report provides an overview of existing conditions of the electrical system, identification of potential weaknesses in the systems and suggested improvements to the systems.
All major electrical equipment appear to be original and in working condition. The main distribution equipment is nearly 47 years old and has past its expected useful life. The generator is nearly 34 years old and has passed its useful life.
The existing light fixtures are in serviceable condition. As a possible energy saving project, the building management may want to consider replacing the existing lights with more energy efficient T5, T8, LED, and compact fluorescent fixtures. Another energy saving technique would be to upgrade the lighting control system and incorporate occupancy sensors and/or daylight sensors in addition to using time clock controls.
The main service to the City Hall space is a rated at 1000A at 208V, 3-phase system and provides power for a load density of approximately 12.5 W (or 15.5 VA, using 0.8 power factor) per square foot for the entire building, which is adequate for the current loads.
5.6.2 Assessment of Existing Conditions
Normal Power
Utility Transformer
The building is fed from a utility transformer (PG&E) located outside the building. 32 Figure 1E (PG&E Transformer)
The secondary power from the transformer to the main switchboard is provided via (4) sets of 4” underground conduits.
The main switchboard is rated 1600A, 208/120V, 3-phase, 4-wire and is located inside the main electrical room.
General Condition
The transformer belongs to PG&E and was recently upgraded. It appears to be in good working condition.
Code Issues
No code issues.
Recommendation:
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: Confirm with PG&E if the new transformer meets current Seismic code
Alt #3 Upgrade: No work. Transformer was recently upgraded.
Alt #4 Replacement: Transformer was recently upgraded.
Main Switchboard
The Main Switchboard is rated at 2000A, 120/208V, 3 phase, 4 wire with a 1600A main breaker manufactured by Industrial Electric Manufacturing, Inc. The main switchboard is feeding a distribution panel via a 1,000Amp breaker. This switchboard serves the City Hall.
33 The table below summarizes the load on each panel.
Table 5.1 (Panel Load)
Name Size Load Serving
MSB 2000A Section Library,
Future Public Safety Building,
ATS for Generator
Panel DP 1000A Section PANEL F,
PANEL C,
PANEL A,
PANEL E,
PANEL B,
PANEL D,
PANEL G (MCC)
CHILLER,
Future E.O.C. Panel
G (MCC) 600A Pump 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
Cooling Tower Fan
A/C Fan Basement
A/C Fan 1st Floor
A/C Fan 1st Floor
Remote Radiator
Fuel Pump
34 Figure 5F (Main Switchboard)
General Condition
The main switchboard appears to be of the original construction and in working condition, although past its useful life. In general, the switchboard is adequately sized to support the existing loads.
Code Issues
Maintenance clearances and exit pathway are required to be investigated around the 1600 Amp electrical panel. Electrical panel is over 1200 Amps, thus requiring either (A) 2 exits with panic hardware, or (B) 1 exit door with panic hardware but a clear and unobstructed path from Panel to exit door, or (C) a single exit door with panic hardware but double the required working space around the Panel.
Recommendation
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: Provide adequate support suitable for the seismic and earthquake condition.
Alt #3 Upgrade: The existing main distribution switchboard shall have regular preventative maintenance procedure per NETA (National Electrical Testing Association) standards.
Megger test existing feeders.
Test overcurrent protective devices in the switchboard for proper operation. 35 Alt #4 Replacement: In order to ensure reliable power distribution to the building and reduce service needs in the future, we recommend the main switchboard be replaced with a new model.
5.6.3 Emergency Power
The emergency power system consists of a generator rated at 125KW, 208/120V and is located inside the main electrical room. The fuel tank, with 1000 gallon capacity, is located outside the room. In the event of a power outage, the generator provides power to the panel DP via a 400A automatic transfer switch (ATS) located in the main electrical room. The generator also provides power to the Chiller but the pump must be “jump” to move chilled water. The generator does not serve the existing elevator. or the chiller, as confirmed by discussions with facility personnel.
Figure 5G (Indoor Generator)
General Condition
The generator was installed in 1978, making it nearly 34 years old, which has exceeded its useful life. It appears to be operational, as confirmed by facility personnel.
Code Issues
No code issues
Recommendation
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: Provide adequate support suitable for the seismic and earthquake condition.
36 Alt #3 Upgrade: The generator should at the minimum be tested per manufacturer’s recommendation to confirm its operation, and the batteries tested to confirm capacity and condition as well.
Alt #4 Replacement: The existing generator is currently loaded to its full capacity.
In order to increase reliability and provide assurance of operation in the future, it is recommended that the generator be replaced with a new unit. We also recommend upsizing the generator to 175kW or above and its associated automatic transfer switch to 500A or above to provide capacity to serve additional loads such as the elevator and any future loads.
5.6.4 Grounding System
The service ground was not readily visible at the Main Switchboard. Feeder and branch circuit ground conductor sizes were not verified. Bonding to the building mechanical systems was not confirmed.
General Condition
No hazard has been identified with the current grounding system.
Recommendations
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: No work
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: The grounding electrode resistance should be verified and supplemented as needed with additional ground rods. The mechanical and plumbing system bonding should be verified.
Alt #4 Replacement: Provide new grounding system to meet current code.
5.6.5 Lighting
Interior Lighting
The existing lighting system consists mostly of recessed and pendant mounted fluorescent linear T8 32/26 watts source fixtures, with additional recessed incandescent downlight fixtures.
Illumination levels were observed to be uniform and adequate in all common area corridors, offices, work areas, and equipment rooms. Emergency exit signs are provided throughout the building according to Code. Emergency and egress lighting is provided by selected normal fixtures fed by emergency circuits from the generator.Exit lights are LED with battery back-up. Bug-eye type supplemental emergency fixtures was provided in the boiler room.
General Condition
Light fixtures appear to date back to the original construction and are in fair condition, with no operational issues.
Code Issues
37 Perform functional testing of all existing emergency lighting and measure light levels for code compliance.
Install additional emergency lighting as necessary after the functional testing of the existing installation to provide current code required minimum egress illumination.
Recommendations
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: Provide adequate support suitable for the seismic and earthquake condition.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: If improvements to the lighting system are to occur, the existing outmoded T12 source fixtures should be replaced with new higher efficiency T8, T5 or LED source fixtures to reduce energy usage. Newer fixtures will also provide better light distribution and higher uniformity to increase occupant comfort. Any existing incandescent source fixtures should be replaced with higher efficiency compact fluorescent source fixtures.
Alt #4 Replacement: Similar to Alternative 3
5.6.6 Lighting Controls
The existing general lighting is controlled by local switches located within the corridors and at the each room. Lighting in the Kitchen, bathrooms, stairwell and conference room “A” is controlled by motion sensors. Relay control panels provide time schedule control for corridors and general areas, and dimming equipment provides dimming functionality to meeting rooms.
Recommendation
Alt #1 No Upgrade: No work.
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade: Provide adequate support suitable for the seismic and earthquake condition.
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade: Ceiling mounted occupancy sensors can be added to individual rooms to automatically switch on one-half or all of the fixtures when occupancy is detected and switch off all fixtures when no one is present, to take advantage of irregular occupancy intervals. A time delay of 30 minutes or less can be used to minimize nuisance switching.
To meet current code, reduce energy use, and increase the effectiveness and flexibility of the lighting installation, it is recommended that automatic and multilevel lighting controls be installed in every space.
Alt #4 Replacement: As the perimeter office areas receive good access to daylight, ceiling mounted photosensors may used to provide automated dimming of the perimeter fixtures according to the amount of daylight available, further reducing the lighting load. The existing fluorescent source fixtures within the 38 perimeter daylight area will need to be provided with dimming ballasts in order to integrate with the photosensor input.
In addition, both occupancy sensing and daylight harvesting through photosensors can be employed together. This will keep lights off when the space is unoccupied and also dim the light output when sufficient daylight is available in order to maximize the energy saving potential.
39 Meeting Minute s
By: Haji Ishikawa Date: 2/15/2012
Meeting Date: 2/14/2012 Project Name: Cupertino City Hall Essential Services Facility Study
Meeting Time: 10am - 1pm Project No.: 491204.000
Meeting
Location:
Cupertino City Hall
Conference Room C
Attendees: See Attached Sign-In Sheet
Next Meeting
Date:
2/21 1:30pm-2:30pm
Conference Call
Discussion
Items in bold are new, items in italics are revised.
Item No. Description Responsibility Status
Introductions and Scope of Work
2012-02-14.01 Goal of the study is to evaluate Essential Facilities status of the current Emergency Operation Center (EOC) in the City Hall can be maintained by:
1) Upgrade the building to meet the code requirement, OR 2) Relocate EOC out of the City Hall
If any options are desirable the City will be incorporating into the master plan.
Information
Only
n/a
2012-02-14.02 Carmen (Project Manager, Public Works) and Haji (Perkins + Will) will be the day-to-day contacts between the City team and the consultants team.
Information
Only
n/a
Review of Reference Documents
2012-02-14.03 3 CDs with the record pdf drawings from the 1965, 1987 construction, and the current exit plan diagrams were
handed to the consultant team. P+W to share with the
consultants team.
P+W Closed 2/15
2012-02-14.04 There are additional retrofit work after 1987 renovation:
• Council Room area, Main Floor
• NW Open Office, Main Floor
• SW Storage area, Basement
Consultants to refer to the current exit plans for these revisions.
Information
Only
n/a
40 Item No. Description Responsibility Status
Deliverables
2012-02-14.05 Priority in architectural analysis will be items associated with Fire & Life Safety.
Information
Only
n/a
2012-02-14.06 The City intends to bring Nova Partners to the project to provide cost estimating service.
Information
Only
n/a
2012-02-14.07 The City identified the following additional information and concerns for the consultants team to better understand the context.
1) The wall opening near west corridor on the main level has rating issue. It affected the occupancy certificate of the 1987 renovation.
2) The weight of the tile roof is not helping the structural capability.
3) The City is looking for clean and efficient means of achieving what is required.
4) The operation cost of the current building is
substantially high. Although a specific energy savings target has not been established,
the City is interested in
improvement. The City will share the energy study
report for the MEP consultants to review.
5) The City experiences temperature control difficulty for the occupants, especially during the transition of the
seasons. Some occupants use portable space heaters.
6) Adaption of a new accessibility code is forthcoming.
Concerns on discrepancies between the federal (Dept.
of Justice) standard and CBC Ch. 11 were discussed.
For this study the consultants team will use 2010 CBC.
7) In addition to the study based on 2010 CBC, the
consultants team will identify the foreseeable potential issues that can be effected by the 2013 CBC adaption.
8) Electrical use is currently maxed out. The 1987
renovation gave some improvement.
9) The City shared the idea of installing solar panels on the roof.
10) PG&E has upgraded the transformer serving the
building.
11) The current plan does not provide visual access to the most heavily used areas for the visitors. A receptionist is required at the lobby.
12) The City is looking for a holistic solution if EOC needs to be relocated.
13) In order to have a new City Hall the current building needs to be either deficient or unfixable.
14) The current parking satisfies only 54% to 84% of the demand.
15) IT related space needs expansion and improvement in function.
16) The server room at NW corner provides capacity for
buildings beyond the City Hall.
17) Solid proposal /options are required to be developed before submittal to the council.
18) The City will provide the environmental hazard report to Information
Only
n/a
41 Item No. Description Responsibility Status
the consultant team.
19) The City experienced a flood problem in the sunken
terrace area and the basement; however the existing
sump tank should be sufficient.
Information
Only
n/a
Schedule and Milestones
2012-02-14.08 The proposed milestone works with City’s subsequent activities.
• 2/14 (Tue) Site Visit and kick-off Meeting
• 2/21 (Tue) Clarifications Conference Call
• 2/28 (Tue) Issue Electronic Rough Draft
• 3/5 (Mon) Rough Draft Comment Response
Conference Call
• 3/9 (Fri) Final Report
• 3/13 (Tue) Cost Estimate Meeting (to be confirmed)
Information
Only
n/a
Other Issues
2012-02-14.09 City encourages the consultants’ team to lead the process for delivery of the report.
Information
Only
n/a
End of Document
42 43
From: Ishikawa, Haji
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:05 PM
To: Terry Greene ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Cc: '[email protected]' ([email protected]); Hooshang Pakzadan (hooshang.pakzadan@pae- engineers.com); Marco Alves ([email protected]); Seastone, Susan; [email protected]
Subject: Cupertino City Hall: Target Alternatives
Terry,
Below is the key scope items of the four different alternatives that we discussed in the teleconference today. I would like to share this with the consultants team as a target to sort out our recommendations after the analysis is done. Please let us know if you have any comments.
For the Alt #4, my assumption is a new construction after demolition of the existing building.
Please clarify.
Facility Improvement Alternatives
Alt #1 No Upgrade
· Relocation of EOC
Alt #2 Min Seismic Upgrade – with items triggered by I factor improvement · Replacement of roof tile – as maintenance
· Possible adjustment of roof profile & equipment screen · Connection of collector beam and concrete shear wall · Additional concrete wall to the main level, if req’d. (should not affect floor plan and egress) · Ducts & equipment seismic support (per I factor change) · 20% of cost for ADA upgrade
Alt #3 Moderate Upgrade
· All Alt #2 items
· Fire & Life Safety upgrade to meet 2010 CBC
· MEP upgrade to meet operation requirements as Essential Services Facilities · Energy efficiency to meet performance of the existing building · ADA upgrade
Alt #4 Replacement –New Construction
· Meet all the current codes
· Improve architectural and planning issues
44 Thank you,
Haji
Haji Ishikawa , AIA, LEED AP BD+C
185 Berry St., Lobby One, Suite 5100, San Francisco, CA 94107 t: 415.856.3015 f: 415.856.3001 e: [email protected] www.perkinswill.com | Facebook | Twitter
Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Ishikawa, Haji
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:37 AM
To: Marco Alves ([email protected]); '[email protected]' ([email protected]) Cc: Seastone, Susan
Subject: Cupertino City Hall: Additional Information
Marco, Tim,
After the Tuesday meeting Terry Greene mentioned his expectation of the range of recommendations. We need to further get into the study before deciding the format, but I’d like to share his input with you.
1. Do nothing – I understood this means relocation of the EOC
2. Min renovation – Likely limited to structural scope
3. Moderate renovation – Terry hopes that this doesn’t trigger full ADA upgrade (by exceeding $129,000 construction cost). But from structural point of view Tim thinks even the option #2 min renovation could exceed the threshold.
4. Substantial Renovation – I understand this would improve most of the City’s concerns expressed in the meeting (and beyond) to make the building more efficient and functional.
We will be issuing the minutes from Tuesday kick‐off this shortly. I have also started a simple architectural code summary of the existing building. I will share with both of you by the end of the day today.
Thanks,
Haji
Haji Ishikawa , LEED AP BD+C
Senior Project Architect
185 Berry St., Lobby One, Suite 5100, San Francisco, CA 94107 t: 415.856.3015 f: 415.856.3001 e: [email protected] www.perkinswill.com | Facebook | Twitter
45 Perkins+Will. Ideas+ buildings that honor the broader goals of society
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email.
Please consider the environment before printing this email. 46