attachment 7 - appendix to admin record page 921 of 2455

Model of Scheme 2 – All New Library Building

Attachment 7 - Appendix to Admin Record Page 921 of 2455

Preliminary LEED Score Sheet Based on preliminary assumptions about building systems and materials, it is estimated that this project can score between 49 and 63 points on the LEED Score sheet. The objective is to achieve a minimum of LEED Silver (50 – 59 points). As part of our Schematic Design phase, we will host a LEED charrette with our engineering consultants, representatives from the City, and the Alameda County Stop Waste program to discuss and recommend achievable goals for a sustainable, energy efficient design. Community education on sustainability will be an important component of our approach.


Preliminary Cost Estimates In order to discuss and compare the two proposed design approaches, we asked our construction cost estimator, Alice Nguyen of Davis Langdon, to prepare initial cost summaries for schemes B2 and C, based on the drawings and models presented at the second community meeting. Because these are based solely on concept sketches, the pricing is very preliminary. However, the comparison did illustrate that the addition of a second floor to accommodate the full program in scheme B2 resulted in an increase of approximately 10% in the anticipated construction cost. This is due to the added scope for elevators, stairs, duplicated restroom facilities, and some inefficiency in locating the children’s room in the existing main reading room. Overall, the costs associated with the proposed scope of renovation required at the existing library building were roughly equivalent to the cost of new construction at the site. The conceptual estimate summaries are attached, but should be used for comparative purposes only, since they are not yet based on actual design schemes. Davis Langdon will prepare a more detailed and thorough estimate at the end of the schematic design phase, with updates at the end of design development, and at the midpoint and conclusion of construction documents. Based upon these initial estimate studies, we anticipate that the project can be successfully funded based upon the proposed construction budget of $4.3 million. The component cost summaries for schemes B2 and C follow.


Planning and Zoning Issues Site Coverage The site is zoned R2‐A, which allows for a maximum FAR of 50%. The total lot area is 13,398 sf, resulting in an allowable maximum building area of 6,700 sf. Our proposed building, with a footprint of approximately 8,200 square feet has an FAR of 61%. We will need to apply for a variance for this larger building site coverage. Building Setbacks Existing Required Proposed Front 19’‐9” 15’‐0” 7’‐0” (to 22’‐0”) Street Side 7’‐6” 7’‐6” 5’‐0” (to 36’‐0”) Side 15’‐0” 4’‐0” 5’‐0” Rear 4’‐5” 15’‐0” 8’‐0” A variance will be required to allow us to reduce the required setbacks on 2‐3 sides of the building, depending on the final design footprint. Building Height Current zoning for the site allows for a maximum building height of 28 feet. Our proposed building is a one story structure with an approximate maximum height of 24 feet. This is lower than allowed, and lower than most of the other buildings on the block, including the adjacent property owned by the Buddhist temple. Parking The existing South Branch Library does provide on‐site parking for 2 cars associated with the Tool Lending Library (TLL). The proposed new building will also provide 2 designated spaces for the TLL, with one of them van accessible. We also propose to have select curb areas along Martin Luther King and Russell Street striped green for short term parking only. Because the site is readily accessible by foot, bicycle, and public transit, initial review with the Transportation Department suggests that no additional on‐site parking would be necessary. The Berkeley Public Library has a policy of not providing on‐site parking for staff, and this policy will not change.


Conclusion and Next Steps Based upon the unanimous vote of BOLT, as well as feedback from library staff, the preferred design direction is option 2 – demolition of the existing library building and construction of a new building. This also represents the feelings of the majority of the community members who participated in the three meetings held during this phase. In accordance with the initial historical assessment, the library is preparing to submit a focused Environmental Impact Report. We will confirm if there are any impacts other than the demolition of the new building. The goal is to structure an efficient and timely review process, so as not to add undue cost or delays to the project. We will commenced our schematic design, based on Kathy Page’s updated building program and the preferred direction from BOLT. We will also continue to meet with planning staff and the Landmarks Preservation Commission to pursue the demolition of the existing library building, and will file variance requests with planning to allow for our proposed site coverage, setbacks, and on‐site parking. These discussions are ongoing. We will meet with City and County staff, and our full consultant team, to review and update the sustainability goals for the project, with the intention of submitting for LEED Silver certification for the new library. One additional community meeting is planned for the schematic design phase, at which we will present our updated design, and discuss the proposed architectural character for the new library and the landscape areas around the building. We will continue to meet regularly with library staff and Kitchell, the construction manager for the four branch library projects during this next phase.


Appendix A: Structural Report


Attachment 7 - Appendix to Admin Record 29 of 2455

22 March 2010

West Branch Library

Concept Design Phase Report

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX


West Branch LibraryConcept Design Phase Report

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................. 1

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF CONCEPT DESIGN PHASE............................................... ..3

2. PROJECT SITE....................................................................................................................................... ...3

2.1 SITE HISTORY................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 LANDMARK STATUS (2003).............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 SITE MASTER PLAN (2008)............................................................................................................... 5

2.4 SITE CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES............................................................6

3. ZONING AND CODE DETERMINATIONS..................................................................................................6

3.1 ZONING REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 PLUMBING CODE REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................ 7

3.3 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION................................................................................... 7

4. COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS AND DESIGN ISSUES................................................................................ 8

5. BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.......................................................... 8

6. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES....................................................................................................... 8

6.1 SCHEME A: REHABILITATION AND REBUILDING OF 1923 STRUCTURE...................................... 8

6.2 SCHEME B: ONE-STORY NEW BUILDING WITH REUSE OF HISTORIC ELEMENTS................... 11

6.3 SCHEME C: TWO-STORY NEW BUILDING WITH REUSE OF HISTORIC ELEMENTS.................. 12

7. ZERO NET ENERGY DESIGN.................................................................................................................. 14

8. LEED RATING - INITIAL POINT EVALUATION.........................................................................................14



HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX ii

PROJECT DESIGN TEAM

Harley Ellis Devereaux 2430 5th Street, Studio MARCHITECT Berkeley, CA 94710Edward Dean, AIA 510.644.2814

GreenWorks Studio 2430 5th Street, Studio MZERO NET ENERGY DESIGN Berkeley, CA 94710Edward Dean, AIA 510.644.2814

Timmons Design Engineers 901 Market Street, Suite 480MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING San Francisco, CA 94103ENGINEERING 415-957-8788Sean Timmons Tipping-Mar 1906 Shattuck AveSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Berkeley, CA 94704John Wolfe 510-549-1906

John Northmore Roberts & Associates 2927 Newbury Street, Suite BLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Berkeley CA 94703John Roberts 510-843-3666

Moran Engineering 1930 Shattuck Avenue, #ACIVIL ENGINEERING Berkeley CA 94704-1237David Franco 510-848-1930

Cumming Corporation 1970 Broadway, Suite 630COST ESTIMATING Oakland CA 94612Kan Pang 510-463-0100

Rosen Goldberg Der & Lewitz 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 ACOUSTICS, NOISE CONTROL Larkspur CA 94939Tim Der 415-464-0150



HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The West Berkeley Branch Library project is one of four branch library projects included in Measure FF, passed by the City of Berkeley voters in 2008. The building program developed for this branch recommends a facility that provides 6,600 assignable square feet of total space, resulting in a building with total gross area of 8,660 square feet.

The original library on this site was builit in 1923 and was designed to resemble the Carnegie libraries that were built in the United States from 1889 through 1919. In 1973 the original building was significantly altered by a renovation and addition, with major parts of the older building demolished or damaged.

In May 2003 the remaining 1923 portion of the building was designated a “Structure of Merit” by the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). Six “significant exterior features to be preserved” are listed in the LPC decision. A design for a 14,000 sq. ft. library was developed in 2004 as part of an unsuccessful application for State Proposition 14 funds.

A master plan for all four branch libraries was carried out in 2008, The Branch Libraries Facilities Master Plan. The proposal for the West Branch was based on the Proposition 14 application, though greatly reduced in size.

The design work of the Conceptual Design Phase consisted of the development of three distinct Alternative Schemes for the new West Branch Library. Scheme A represents an approach similar to the Master Plan proposal and Proposition 14, rebuilding the 1923 structure and restoring the original appearance of the building as a portion of the new building. Scheme B is a single-story design that uses some of the significant historic elements but does not rebuild the entire 1923 structure. Scheme C is a two level scheme-a ground level plus a mezzanine.

The project site offered certain issues, constraints and opportunities for the new design. Traffic noise was found to be a serious problem for the design of a library space that meets library design standards. Mitigation measures include an entry vestibule and triple-glazing along University Avenue. The tall building to the east will cast shadow on any potential solar photovoltaic panels, requiring the building’ s roof to be high enough to clear the shadow.

The design team met with a Subcommittee of the LPC for informational exchange. The results of these meetings are summarized in this report. The team also conducted two community workshops to solicit input on the library program and design alternatives. There were also additional meetings with representatives of the City Planning Department, discussing zoning issues, and the City Building Department to obtain some guidance on plumbing fixture requirements.

One of the principal goals of the West Branch Library project is to achieve a design that uses no net energy over the course of a typical year for heating, cooling and electricity. The strategy is to minimize all energy loads and to use an on-site renewable energy source such as solar photovoltaic panels. A zero net energy (ZNE) design such as this was studied and was found to be feasible for both Schemes B and C.

The West Branch design is required to be LEED-Silver certified.

The advantages and drawbacks of each of the three schemes are discussed at length in this report. A cost model was carried out for each of the three schemes and both Scheme B and Scheme C were determined to be on budget (under $4.9 million), including an allowance of $200,000 for the photovoltaic system, though Scheme C required some compromise in the quality of materials in order to do so. Scheme A was found to be over budget by approximately $600,000, which does not include the additional allowance for the same photovoltaic system since the renewable energy system was found not to be feasible for Scheme A.

After extensive discussion on February 6, 2010, the Board of Library Trustees (BOLT) voted to pursue an “all new” building on the site, either Scheme B or Scheme C. At the March 10, 2010, meeting the Board selected Scheme B, the single story scheme.

At the end of the Concept Design phase, the project is on track to achieve all stated goals including zero net energy performance.




Fig. 1. West Branch Library site with existing library building.




1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF CONCEPT DESIGN PHASE

In November of 2008, Berkeley voters approved Measure FF, a library bond measure to renovate, expand and make seismic and access improvements at the four branch libraries. The West Berkeley Branch Library is one of these branch libraries, with an established project construction budget of $4.9 million.

The building program developed for the expansion of this branch requires a facility that provides 6,600 assignable square feet of total space. The total size of the building will be determined by the additional space requirements for non-assignable space, such as mechanical rooms, toilets and internal circulation space that provides access to the building spaces. The target gross area of the building is set at 8,660 square feet. This compares with the current facility size of 6,230 square feet.

The scope of work for the Concept Design Phase was as follows:

1. Review all documentation and confirm the project’s space program. Hold community workshops to solicit the West Berkeley community’s response and input to the space program and the developing proposals for building and site.

2. Develop three alternative schemes to test the space program, the functionality of prospective designs, the sustainabile design approach and the construction cost. Document the scheme selected by the Board of Library Trustees for development in the next design phase, Schematic Design.

3. Establish sustainable design and energy efficiency goals for the project and establish an approach to achieve a minimum of LEED Silver certification. Study a Zero Net Energy (ZNE) option for the building design.

2. PROJECT SITE

The West Branch library is located at 1125 University Avenue, near San Pablo Avenue. The 12,000 square foot site is currently occupied by the existing library structure and a pair of mature redwood trees in the NW corner with a smaller grouping in the NE corner of the site.

2.1 SITE HISTORY

The West Branch library was built on this site in 1923 by architect William K. Bartges of the Roy O. Long

Company, a design-build project. This structure was designed to resemble the Carnegie libraries that were built in the United States from 1889 through 1919. In 1973 the original building was significantly altered by the renovation and additions designed by Ratcliff-Slama-Cadwalader architects. See Fig. 2 on the following page for views of the original library in 1923 and the altered building as built in 1973.

2.2 LANDMARK STATUS (2003)

In May 2003 the existing building was designated a “Structure of Merit” by the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). This Decision also lists the “significant exterior features to be preserved” as:

1. The Roman triumphal arched entry with sem-circular window and surrounding engaged columns;

2. The round ornamental medallion right of the arch;

3. Window proportions of three banks of windows on either side of the arched entry on south facade;

4. Wood-framed windows on west and east facades;

5. The cornice on the west, south and east facades;

6. The remaining incised lettering from the original “WEST BERKELEY BRANCH LIBRARY”, namely “...EY BRANCH LIBRARY”.

As part of the documentation considered in this ruling, a letter from J. Gordon Turnbull, Historic Preservation Architect, noted that the West Berkeley branch would not be eligible for the National Register or the California Register since the structure had not retained its physical “integrity” as evaluated according to the National Park Service’s seven aspects of integrity, as described in National Register Bulletin 15. Mr. Turnbull also noted that

“Parts of the original building are still present on the site and these could be identified, evaluated for significance and partially retained.”

See Fig. 3, which shows the current appearance of the six “significant exterior features” as listed by the LPC Decision of 2003. In our evaluation of the condition of the current structure and these features, we noted that the original entry (feature #1) has been replaced in part with new doors in 1973. In addition, some of the wood




Fig. 2. West Branch Library building in 1923 (left) and in 2008 (right).

x

x

x

yy

y

Fig. 3. Six “significant exterior features to be preserved”, per LPC Decision of 5 May 2003

1. Arched entry 2. Ornamental medallion 3. Window proportions on windows flanking the arched entry

4, 5. Wood-framed windows on west and east sides, and cornices

6. Remaining incised lettering




and cement plaster details adjacent to the entry have been irreparably damaged. (See Fig. 4.)

Fig. 4. Decayed and damaged wood and cement plaster details adjacent to entry.

Also, we noted that the windows flanking this entry have also been replaced with double-glazed windows with snap-on mullions, also different from the original design. Feature #3 noted in the Decision, however, represents the proportion of the windows as significant, not the actual windows, now no longer in place.

As noted in the LPC 2003 Decision, only half of the incised letters remain on the surviving portion of the cornice.

2.3 SITE MASTER PLAN (2008)

In 2008, the Berkeley Public Library commissioned a Berkeley Libraries Facilities Master Plan to describe a general evaluation and a development plan for the four branch libraries, including the West Branch Library. This master plan was used as the basis for Measure FF.

The master plan evaluated the condition of the West Berkeley Branch structure and reiterated the fact that the original 1923 building had been significantly altered in 1973 and portions of the building no longer exist. The poor condition of the remaining portions, as observed during our evaluation of the structure, are also noted.

In addition, the pest report shows that the entire substructure of the building has decayed due to insects and moisture, and would have to be replaced if the remaining portions of the building were to be retained.

The master plan recommended two possible options

for the structure, depending on the size of the building program as determined by the Library. Both suggested options are simply based on the Proposition 14 submittal, which rebuilds the 1923 structure in a new location on the site close to University Avenue and lowered down almost four feet, level with the sidewalk. (See Fig. 5 below.) The proposal utilizes remaining portions of the original structure and adds new building components as needed to restore the original appearance as closely as possible.

Fig. 5. 2008 Master Plan recommendation for the West Berkeley Branch.

2.4 SITE CONDITIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The project site is located on a busy part of University Avenue, near the major collector street, San Pablo Avenue. The area is heavily commercial with nearby residential areas of the West Berkeley neighborhood, and is undergoing development of mixed use projects up to five stories in height.

We observed a very high level of traffic noise at the site, consistently throughout the day. The design approach for a zero net energy building requires use of natural ventilation as an energy reduction measure and




control of the traffic noise is essential for the acoustic environment of the library. In addition, any scheme that utilizes the arched entry of the 1923 structure as shown in the master plan Option A plan will potentially have a disruptive effect on the quality of the library environment.

The design team therefore undertook a noise study to determine the impact of traffic noise at the site and the mitigation measures required for the new building. The complete noise analysis report is attached as an appendix to this report. The key results of the study are summarized as follows:

1. Traffic noise during normal library operating hours averaged 70 dBA, peaking occasionally at 90 dBA. The average noise level exceeds standards for library use. (For noise standards for libraries, see Charles M. Salter, “Acoustics for Libraries”, Libris Design website, www.librisdesign.org.)

2. Mitigation measures include triple glazing at the building elevation facing the street and limiting glazing on this elevation to a maximum of about 50% of the wall area in any one space.

3. In addition, the building entry should include an acoustic vestibule, utilizing two sets of doors, to capture and absorb noise before it enters the library space. Doors should ideally be quickly operating as permitted by code, particularly the automatic door for accessibility use, so that the exterior door closes before the interior door of the vestibule opens.

The hotel to the east is the equivalent of three stories in height, casting a shadow on the project site in the morning hours. Any photovoltaic system located on the roof of the new building will need to be at a height sufficient to avoid this shadow during hours of sufficient solar incidence.

The neighboring property to the north is a two-story residential townhouse building with rear yard bounding the library site. There is a zoning limiation on the height of the new library building, which is discussed in Section 3 below.

There are two groups of redwood trees at the rear of the project site. A pair of trees at the northwest corner are relatively healthy and their root system has adjusted to the existing library structure and its foundations. Maintaining the current depth of footings in the existing location would maintain the health of these trees.

The group of redwood trees at the NE corner, however, are in substandard condition and will eventually cause damage to structures and landscape at both the library site and at neighboring property. The design team will consult with the city arborist to determine if this group of trees should be removed.

In general, the site has good southern exposure and is an excellent candidate for a zero net energy design. See Section 5.

3. ZONING, CODE AND LANDMARK PRESERVATION DETERMINATIONS

As part of the Concept Design Phase, the design team met with a representative of the City Planning Department, the City Building Department and a subcommittee of the City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The following summarizes the principal outcomes of those discussions.

3.1 ZONING REQUIREMENTS

Basic zoning requirements were reviewed with Aaron Sage, Planner, City of Berkeley. Final determinations will be made at the time of permit application by the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB).

The zoning for the project site is C-1, which applies to the first 100 feet from University Avenue. The remaining 20 feet is in the adjacent residential zone, R-3. Any new construction would be required to meet both the R-3 rear setback (15 feet from the rear property line and 4 feet from the side lot lines within the R-3 zone) and the C-1 “solar rear yard setback” in 23E.36.070.C.1.a. The latter specifies a maximum shadow of 20 feet on the adjacent R-3 property to the north of the project site, where the shadow must be calculated from the winter solstice condition at 12 noon.

The existing library structure is set back only 5 feet from the rear property line, thus not in compliance with the current 15-ft requirement. It is possible to apply for a variance for the new building to occupy the area within the existing footprint so long as the solar rear yard setback is maintained.

There is no side yard setback requirement in C-1. There must be an average 2 feet setback from the University Avenue property line.

For this part of University Avenue, property fronting on the street must be two stories in heigh, have a minimum 12 feet ceiling height and 75% of the University Avenue




frontage must be “commercial” space. The library project will require a variance for the “commercial” designation. It is expected that ZAB would rule that library space can be considered as satisfying this requirement and that the building height at University Avenue in excess of 24 feet will satisfy the two story requirement.

Benches and bicycle racks are required along University Avenue. Regulations indicate that bicycle racks to accommodate a minimum of 5 bicycles are required.

On-site parking requirements are likely to be waived since new parking is now discouraged and the library does not now provide on-site parking. Loading can be done using a loading zone on University Avenue. The project design will not include either on-site parking or loading, which will be part of the use permit application to be reviewed by ZAB.

An entry plaza or courtyard of at least 120 sq. ft. is required, with a miinimum width and length of six feet (based on 1% of the site area).

3.2 PLUMBING CODE REQUIREMENTS

We had a discussion with Val Dizitser, Senior Building Plans Examiner for the Berkeley Building Department concerning the plumbing requirements for the new library building. Mr. Dizitser directed the design team to use the UPC Table 4-1 and the Building Occupancy “Assembly Places-for public use” for all library space. The Literacy Program space can be treated as “Office”. Mr. Dizitser agreed that corridors, mechanical rooms, storage rooms, etc., can be excluded when calculating the number of occupants.

Applying this to the building program areas for the West Branch Library, the following requirements were calculated:

Public Restrooms: Men: 2 water closets, 2 urinals, 3 lavatoriesWomen: 4 water closets, 3 lavatories

Staff: 1 accessible, unisex toilet room with 1 water closet, one lavatory.

In addition, the building program calls for one family toilet room, which is accessible, with one water closet, one lavatory and changing table.

3.3 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION

The design team met with a designated Subcommittee of three members of the nine-person LPC to assist the design team in its study of approaches to the preservation of identified historic elements of the existing building. The intention as well was to provide detailed information to the LPC concerning these historic elements as the specific issues were researched during this early design phase. The Subcommittee acted informally, with the final decision to be made by a formal meeting of the full LPC at an appropriate time during the review process.

At these meetings, the Subcommittee was informed that the design team was proceeding with three distinct alternative schemes for the West Berkeley Branch Library that are differentiated in part by how the historic elements are preserved. Scheme A adopts the approach described in the Master Plan, rebuilding the 1923 structure in a new location close to the south property line and lowered to grade level to provide wheelchair access. Schemes B and C utilize some of the historic elements shown in Fig. 3 but do not attempt to rebuild and replicate the entire 1923 structure.

The outcome of these studies are summarized as follows:

• The design team showed that it was not possible to rebuild the 1923 structure in its original location and provide a functioning library using the required program.

• The design team exercised due diligence in the study of rebuilding the 1923 structure to its original appearance, but there appears to be no scheme that does this in any location on the site without compromising the function of the library to some degree.

• If possible, the most important and significant elements should be identified and used in an appropriate way in the new building to meet the general preservation objectives outlined in the 2003 LPC Decision. It was suggested, for instance, that the medallion could be installed on the exterior.

Detailed information about specific design issues pertaining to the historic preservation issue is given below in the discussion of Scheme A.




4. COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS AND DESIGN ISSUES

Two community workshops were held at the West Branch Library during the Concept Design Phase to solicit input from the West Berkeley community on the bulding program for library services and the design of the new building. The minutes of these workshops were recorded by the Library. The principal commentary concerning the building made by the community members in attendance can be summarized as follows:

• The building should be much more visible from the street and be recognizable as the branch library for West Berkeley. A civic presence is desired.

• The building should provide quiet, comfortable reading spaces for adults, away from the traffic and internal noise sources.

• Maximize the amount of seating and access to computers.

It is noted here that there was at least one request to preserve the historic character that remained. There were more comments, however, that this should not be a concern, but rather the focus should be on library services and a modern building.

5. BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

The design team made a number of presentations to the Board of Library Trustees during the Concept Design Phase, as part of the process of determining the design approach that best meets the goals of the project. The Board, as a result, was an active participant in the design study process and the evaluation of design alternatives.

The team developed three different design schemes for consideration, which were evaluated for advantages and disadvantages relative to the project goals, the functionality of the building and site constraints. These three schemes are described in detail in the following section 6 of this report, along with a summary of the pros and cons of each.

The Board met on February 6, 2010, to review the three alternative schemes developed by the design team. After extensive discussion, the Board voted to pursue an “all new” building on the site, deciding that this approach would provide a facility that could meet all project goals, the established budget and all required library functionality. The Board also recommended further study

of the two “all new” building schemes to determine additional cost parameters.

The Board met again on March 10, 2010, and selected the single story scheme over the two-story scheme, as providing the best functional design within the cost budget of the project.

See the Appendix of this report for copies of the presentation boards discussed at these Board meetings.

6. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES

The design team developed three different design approaches to the West Branch Library using the building program provided by Kathy Page, library consultant. Each of these schemes were developed to a degree of design refinement that allowed the Library to evaluate the functional aspects of the library, to study concepts of utilizing the historic aspects of the remaining portions of the 1923 structure and to establish a cost model for each.

The results of these scheme studies provided the Library and Board of Library Trustees with sufficient information to determine a preferred scheme and approach to the site, building and historic preservation issues.

6.1 SCHEME A: REHABILITATION AND REBUILDING OF 1923 STRUCTURE

Scheme A is based on the master plan concept of demolishing the 1974 addition, rebuilding the 1923 structure and restoring it to its original appearance. In order to carry out a thorough due diligence analysis of this approach, the design team first evaluated the best option for the location on the site in comparison to the original location of the 1923 structure and how the 2,200 square feet of space within that structure could best functionally fit the required library program.

Alternative Approaches for Scheme A

Four separate approaches for the utilization of the fully-rebuilt 1923 structure were studied and the three viable schemes that fit the new library program on the site are shown in Fig. 6 (at right). The one scheme that did not allow the required program to fit rebuilds the 1923 structure in its original location and floor elevation.

Of the three schemes that provided sufficient space for the new library program, Scheme A-1, the one-story scheme, resulted in inadequate protection against the




THE WEST BRANCH LIBRARY

ALTERNATIVE SCHEMESREHABILITATION


SCHEME 1Single storyEntry through 1923 buildingVery tight t on site1923 building close to streetCompromised adjacenciesIne�cient �oor planLimited photovoltaic area

SCHEME 2Two storiesEntry through 1923 building1923 building close to streetCompromised adjacenciesIne�cient �oor plan

SCHEME 3Two stories1923 building in original locationReduced height required to maintain R-3 solar access Compromised adjacenciesIne�cient �oor planLimited photovoltaic area













Fig. 6. Three alternative schemes studied for Scheme A - Rebuild 1923 structure in new location on site.

Scheme A-1

Scheme A-2

Scheme A-3




strong traffic noise because of the use of the existing entry and the compromise of the eastern side of the historic structure itself. The location of the 1923 structure at the sidewalk grade immediately adjacent to the street also compromises the original design intent of an elevated location somewhat removed from the commercial street. This location thereby detracts from its civic presence.

A second rejected scheme, Scheme A-2, frees up the eastern side of the historic structure by placing part of the program on a second story. However, the very disruptive traffic noise problem still exists at the front door as well as the need to locate the building below its original floor elevation and immediately next to the street.

The third preliminary scheme, Scheme A-3, solves the traffic noise problem by creating a new entry in the new portion of the building, accessible via a ramp up from the side walk grade, converting the use of the 1923 structure into a main reading room space with the arched entry used essentially as a window. As shown in Fig. 6, however, this scheme has a major functional flaw with the location of the Multipurpose Room on the second floor. This space should ideally be located on the first floor to serve the main library space. The advantage otherwise with this scheme is that the 1923 historic structure is visibly rebuilt and restored to its original appearance on the three principal sides and it is located above sidewalk grade.

The final Scheme A as developed is a variant of Scheme A-3, with the Multipurpose Room accommodated on the ground level. This requires, however, that the 1923 structure be moved closer to the street, compromising its the sense of its original civic presence. See Fig. 7.

Best Resolution of Design Issues for Scheme A

Scheme A was studied further for functionality, space adjacencies, accommodation of zero net energy design features, seismic strengthening of the 1923 structure and construction cost. The following is a summary of these studies.

• Functionality and Space Adjacencies

Scheme A was deemed to work reasonably well, with the exception of the lack of a book drop at the entry directly into a Returns room outfitted with materials handling equipment.

• Accommodation of Zero Net Energy Design Features

The roof area of this scheme that is available for the installation of solar photovoltaic panels is limited to that available on the small second story. This is inadequate to satisfy the goal of a zero net energy design.

• Seismic strengthening of the 1923 Structure

The design team devised a method of strengthening the 1923 structure while maintaining its exterior historic appearance from that time. This would require introduction of new large collector beams into the east and west walls of the structure, which would continue into the new addition along the walls that are in line with these east and west walls. Essentially, the 1923 structure would be held on each side by these large collector beams during an earthquake event.

To mitigate the impact on the appearance of the old building, the beams would be added piecemeal between the vertical wall studs of the east and west walls and formed into a continuous element using appropriate seismic hardware.

In addition, all of the interior plaster of the remaining 1923 structure would have to be removed, reducing the building to bare studs above a decayed cripple wall and inadequate foundation. After the collector beam elements are added the entire interior surface of the structure would be lined with 1/2-inch structural plywood to create seismic shear walls. The entire decayed substructure would be replaced and new foundations would be built.

Because the plywood would add thickness to the strengthened walls of the structure, all of the windows, including the remaining historic components, would have to be rebuilt with wider jambs, heads and sills. Since they have already been replaced with poor modern windows, the south window and the glass doors at the arched entry would simply be replaced with more appropriate reproductions. This leaves only the east and west windows to be salvaged and rebuilt.

In summary, the seismic strengthening work will require further demolition of the remaining 1923 structure in order to provide seismic safety. When completed, the resulting reproduction would resemble the original 1923 building, but will be constructed of largely new building components.

• Construction Cost

A cost model of Scheme A was developed and includes the cost of moving and rebuilding the 1923 structure.




Fig. 7. Scheme A

There is also additional cost associated with a two-story building, primarily because of the cost of an elevator and stair and the additional area needed for circulation and access to the second fl oor.

One of the largest impacts on the cost of this scheme is sequence of work required to prepare the 1923 structure for moving, the process of moving it and the extra time at the site required of the general contractor. The design team consulted a contractor who specializes in moving historic structures. The sequence of steps to move and rebuild the structure is as follows, requiring essentially two different moves of the 1923 structure:

1. Brace all walls and openings of 1923 structure with structural elements to maintain stable “box”

2. Demolish entire 1973 addition3. Move “box” to rear of site and place on cribbing4. Excavate front half of site to fi nal rough grading,

build new foundation and subfl oor structure5. Move “box” to front half of site and place on new

cripple wall. Connect to new foundation system.6. Excavate rear half of site to fi nal rough grading.7. Proceed with seismic strengthening of 1923

structure and construction of new portions of the building.

It is estimated that the additional cost of this rebuilding work alone is $300,000. The total construction cost of Scheme A is determined to be $5,510,000 or $610,000 over the project budget of $4,900,000. This does not include the cost of a solar photovoltaic system since it is not feasible for this scheme.

A summary of costs for Scheme A is provided in the appendix to this report.

6.2 SCHEME B: ONE-STORY NEW BUILDING WITH REUSE OF HISTORIC ELEMENTS

Scheme B fi ts the library program on one level and exactly meets the suggested gross building area of 8,660 square feet.

It should be noted that in order to accommodate all of the building program requirements, provide for the required site features at the entry and to avoid damage




to the redwood trees in the NW corner, a variance on the setback limitations in the rear yard will be necessary. There is inadequate space on the site to otherwise accommodate these requirements. This variance will involve building to the line of the existing north wall of the current building, maintaining the same visual appearance of the rear wall of the library from the north compared to the present building.

The new building design incorporates the following principal design features:

• Large roof area with relatively large height on the south elevation. While this approach permits adequate space with enough clearance from shadows from neighboring buildings for the required solar photovoltaic system array, it also creates a signifi cant architectural presence on University Avenue.

• The large internal volume with the large daylight roof monitors are reminiscent of the industrial warehouse buildings that are part of the history of West Berkeley, formerly known as Ocean View.

• Entry area setback on south side allows adequate space for 15 bicycle parking spaces and a generous entry ramp from the SE corner of the site up to the front door. This keeps the elevation of the fl oor close to the existing level, which will protect the root system of the redwood trees in the NW corner of the site.

• Placement of the large open space on the west side of the building provides visibility of the redwood trees from the street and from the entry area.

• The entry is a vestibule space that incorporates acoustic materials to absorb traffi c noise and that prevents this sound from directly entering the space. The doors to the vestibule will be quick-acting to close and will be set far enough apart to minimize the possibility that both sets of doors will be open at the same time, particularly for the accessible doors.

The historic elements that will be re-used in this new building scheme are the cast medallion, arched entry and possibly use of some portion of the incised lettering. In addition, the proportion of the original window to the right of the arched entry will be duplicated in a large new window opening to the main reading space on the west side of the building. The disposition and treatment of these historic elements will be the subject of design study in the Schematic Design Phase.

Fig. 7. Scheme B

The total construction cost of Scheme B is determined to be $4,888,000, which is under the project budget of $4,900,000. This projected cost includes the allowance for the fully functioning solar photovoltaic system.

A summary of costs for Scheme B is provided in the appendix to this report.

6.3 SCHEME C: TWO-STORY NEW BUILDING WITH REUSE OF HISTORIC ELEMENTS

Scheme C fi ts the library program on two levels, a ground fl oor and a mezzanine. The mezzanine is occupied by the “Berkeley Reads” Literacy Program.

The study of a two-story scheme was motivated by the early understanding that a one-story scheme, as ultimately realized with Scheme B, would occupy almost all of the site, leaving little site area for related use. However, because the library part of the program represents about 85% of the assignable space and must be located on the same level for supervisory staff reasons, the building footprint occupies a similar




Fig. 8. Scheme C

footprint compared with Scheme B.

With Scheme C there is, however, no need to require a variance to occupy the rear setback area. There is also a more generous approach to the rear Multipurpose Room for after hours use.

The design of Scheme C incorporates the following principal design features:

• LIke Scheme B, there is adequate roof area with a relatively large height on the south elevation. The second level of Scheme C provides substantial building height and frontage along University Avenue, providing some architectural presence in comparison to the tall commercial buildings on adjoining properties. The large roof area also permits adequate space with enough clearance from shadows from neighboring buildings for the required solar photovoltaic system array,

• The entry area is similar to Scheme B. The setback on south side allows adequate space for 15 bicycle parking spaces and a generous entry ramp from the

SE corner of the site up to the front door. This keeps the elevation of the fl oor close to the existing level, which will protect the root system of the redwood trees in the NW corner of the site.

• The Scheme C entry is also the same as Scheme B: there is a vestibule space that incorporates acoustic materials to absorb traffi c noise and that prevents this sound from directly entering the space. The doors to the vestibule will be quick-acting to close and will be set far enough apart to minimize the possibility that both sets of doors will be open at the same time, particularly for the accessible doors.

Scheme C can re-use the historic elements in the same way as Scheme B. The elements that can be re-used in this new building scheme are the cast medallion, arched entry and possibly use of some portion of the incised lettering. In addition, like Scheme B, the proportion of the original window to the right of the arched entry will be duplicated in a large new window opening to the main reading space on the west side of the building.




The total construction cost of Scheme C is determined to be $4,896,000, which is just under the project budget of $4,900,000. This projected cost includes the allowance for the fully functioning solar photovoltaic system.

However, to achieve this on-budget cost, Scheme C would have to be designed to be more space efficient during the Schematic Design phase and the exterior finish of the building would be limited for the most part to cement plaster.

A summary of costs for Scheme C is provided in the appendix to this report.

7. ZERO NET ENERGY DESIGN

One of the principal goals of the West Branch Library project is to achieve a design that uses no net energy over the course of a typical year for heating, cooling and electricity. Success with this design goal means that the West Branch Library would be the first known zero net energy library in the United States.

To achieve this, the design team is first of all developing design strategies to minimize the energy load on the building for the thermal environment,the lighting and electrical equipment. If the load is reduced to about 40% of the load prescribed by California Title-24 for a comparable building, then it will be feasible to install a solar photovoltaic system on the roof of the building to supply sufficient renewable energy to offset the total energy load over the course of a year. See Figure 9 for an example of this approach to the building’s energy use and renewable energy supply.

The building will paricipate in PG&E’s solar electric program. When there is an abundance of solar energy available from the PV system, the building will export energy into the electric grid, getting credit from PG&E. When there is inadequate solar energy available, such as during dark winter days, then the building will draw on the PG&E electric grid for its needs. With the zero net energy design of the building, the net balance at the end of a typical weather year will just balance to zero and the library’s net energy bill for the year will be zero.

A detailed report on the zero net energy design for the West Branch Library is being issued under separate cover.

8. LEED RATING - INITIAL POINT EVALUATION

The West Branch Library is required to achieve a LEED Silver certification. The design team has carried out a preliminary evaluation using the LEED scoresheet and has determined that the project will achieve a minimum of LEED Silver rating.

This preliminary scoresheet is provided in the appendix. The scoresheet highlights those points that are due to the high level of achievement in the energy performance area.




APPENDIX


Berkeley Public Library - West Branch 09-00553.001125 University Avenue 2/17/2010Berkeley, CaliforniaConcept Design Cost Models

CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY Scheme A

Elements GFA: 9,869 SF $ / SF Amount

1 Foundations 17.54 173,100$2 Vertical Structure 24.13 238,140$3 Floor & Roof Structures 33.76 333,150$4 Exterior Cladding 48.95 483,070$5 Roofing & Waterproofing 25.95 256,111$

Shell (1-5) 150.32 1,483,571$

6 Interior Partitions, Doors & Glazing 19.83 195,700$7 Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes 28.76 283,842$

Interiors (6-7) 48.59 479,542$

8 Function Equipment & Specialties 37.35 368,665$9 Stairs & Vertical Transportation 12.26 121,000$

Equipment & Vertical Transportation (8-9) 49.62 489,665$

10 Plumbing Systems 15.52 153,137$11 HVAC 41.76 412,172$12 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications 35.92 354,515$13 Fire Protection Systems 4.50 44,412$

Mechanical & Electrical (10-13) 97 70 964 236$Mechanical & Electrical (10-13) 97.70 964,236$

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (1-13) 346.23 3,417,013$

14 Site Preparation & Demolition 29.24 288,600$15 Site Paving, Structures & Landscaping 18.50 182,550$16 Utilities on Site 13.13 129,600$

Site Construction (14-16) 60.87 600,750$

SUBTOTAL - BUILDING & SITE (1 - 16) 407.10 4,017,763$

General Conditions, Bond & Insurance 10.0% 40.71 401,776$Overhead & Profit or Fees 4.0% 17.91 176,782$Design Contingency 12.0% 55.89 551,559$LEED Silver Premium 1.0% 5.22 51,479$Escalation - MOC (3rd Quarter 2012) 4.0% 21.34 210,570$Construction & Schedule Impact 2.2% 10.13 100,000$

PLANNED CONSTRUCTION COST 558.29 5,509,929$

Photovoltaic (PV) System Excluded

Pre-Construction Services Excluded

RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION BUDGET 558.29 5,509,929$

Notes1 Photovoltaic system allowance NOT included due to lack of feasibility for scheme A.

Prepared by Cumming


Berkeley Public Library - West Branch1125 University AvenueBerkeley, CaliforniaConcept Design Cost Models

CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY Scheme B


1 Foundations 17.79 154,100$ 2 Vertical Structure 19.73 170,880$ 3 Floor & Roof Structures 38.14 330,280$ 4 Exterior Cladding 48.38 418,969$ 5 Roofing & Waterproofing 25.97 224,872$

Shell (1-5) 150.01 1,299,101$

6 Interior Partitions, Doors & Glazing 19.80 171,500$ 7 Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes 30.05 260,216$

Interiors (6-7) 49.85 431,716$

8 Function Equipment & Specialties 42.11 364,665$ 9 Stairs & Vertical Transportation - -$

Equip. & Vertical Transportation (8-9) 42.11 364,665$

10 Plumbing Systems 15.69 135,905$ 11 HVAC 41.90 362,895$ 12 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications 35.90 310,873$ 13 Fire Protection Systems 4.50 38,970$

Mechanical and Electrical (10-13) 98.00 848,643$


14 Site Preparation & Demolition 25.59 221,600$ 15 Site Paving, Structures & Landscaping 21.56 186,750$ 16 Utilities on Site 14.97 129,600$



General Conditions, Bond & Insurance 10.0% 40.18 348,000$ Overhead & Profit or Fees 4.0% 17.67 153,000$ Design Contingency 12.0% 55.20 478,000$ LEED Silver Premium 1.0% 5.20 45,000$ Escalation - MOC (3rd Quarter 2012) 4.0% 21.02 182,000$


Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels system Allow 200,000$ Pre-Construction Services Excluded


09-00553.003/2/2010

Prepared by Cumming Page 8 of 17


Berkeley Public Library - West Branch1125 University AvenueBerkeley, CaliforniaConcept Design Cost Models

CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY Scheme C


1 Foundations 14.15 129,100$ 2 Vertical Structure 19.64 179,196$ 3 Floor & Roof Structures 37.69 343,771$ 4 Exterior Cladding 35.72 325,861$ 5 Roofing & Waterproofing 25.70 234,467$

Shell (1-5) 132.91 1,212,396$

6 Interior Partitions, Doors & Glazing 20.00 182,400$ 7 Floor, Wall & Ceiling Finishes 29.25 266,794$

Interiors (6-7) 49.24 449,194$

8 Function Equipment & Specialties 40.09 365,665$ 9 Stairs & Vertical Transportation 11.95 109,000$

Equip. & Vertical Transportation (8-9) 52.04 474,665$

10 Plumbing Systems 14.72 134,279$ 11 HVAC 38.85 354,356$ 12 Electrical Lighting, Power & Communications 35.80 326,605$ 13 Fire Protection Systems 4.50 41,049$

Mechanical and Electrical (10-13) 93 87 856 290$

2/17/201009-00553.00

Mechanical and Electrical (10-13) 93.87 856,290$


14 Site Preparation & Demolition 23.20 211,600$ 15 Site Paving, Structures & Landscaping 17.49 159,550$ 16 Utilities on Site 13.55 123,600$



General Conditions, Bond & Insurance 10.0% 38.23 348,729$ Overhead & Profit or Fees 4.0% 16.82 153,441$ Design Contingency 12.0% 52.48 478,736$ LEED Silver Premium 1.0% 4.90 44,682$ Escalation - MOC (3rd Quarter 2012) 4.0% 20.04 182,768$


Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels system Allow 200,000$ Pre-Construction Services Excluded


ALTERNATES1 Provide entry canopy ADD 15,000$ 2 Provide covered roof terrace & trellis structure ADD 50,000$

Prepared by Cumming Page 7 of 17


Berkeley, CA

Yes ? No

18 2 4 Design or Construction Sustainable Sites 26 Points

Y SS Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required

1 C SS Credit 1 Site Selection 1

5 D SS Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 5

1 D SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1

6 D SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 6

1 D SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1

1 D SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3

2 D SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 2

1 C SS Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat 1

1 D SS Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1

1 D SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1

1 D SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control / Treatment 1

1 C SS Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 1

1 D SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1

1 D SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1

Yes ? No

4 6 0 Water Efficiency 10 Points

Y D WE Prereq 1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Required

2 D WE Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 2

2 D WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 2

2 D WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2

2 D WE Credit 3 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 2

1 Water Use Reduction, 35% Reduction 1

1 Water Use Reduction, 40% Reduction 1

Yes ? No

33 0 2 Energy & Atmosphere 35 Points

Y C EA Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required

Y D EA Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance, 10% New Bldgs 5% Existing Renov. Required

Y D EA Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required

19 D EA Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 19

7 D EA Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy, 1% Power Match per Credit 1 to 7

2 C EA Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2

2 D EA Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2

3 C EA Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 3

2 C EA Credit 6 Green Power, Purchase 35% of Power for 2 Year GreenE Contract 2

Yes ? No

6 2 6 Materials & Resources 14 Points

Y D MR Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required

1 C MR Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 55% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1

1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1

1 Building Reuse, Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1

1 C MR Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1

1 C MR Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal 1

1 C MR Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal 1

1 C MR Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse, 5% 1

1 C MR Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse,10% 1

1 C MR Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + pre-consumer) 1

1 C MR Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + pre-consumer) 1

1 C MR Credit 5.1 Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manuf. Regionally 1

1 C MR Credit 5.2 Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manuf. Regionally 1

1 C MR Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials, Min 2.5% of Total Bldg Mat'l Cost 1

1 C MR Credit 7 Certified Wood, 50% Total Wood Purchased as FSC Certified 1

LEED-BDC (NC) Version 3 - 2009 Registered Project ScorecardWest Berkeley Branch Library

Targeted Materials include Fly Ash / Slag, Conc., Rebar, CMU, Brick, ACT,Gypsum Board, Flooring Materials, Insulation, Etc.

Targeted Materials include Fly Ash / Slag, Rebar, ACT, Gypsum Board, Recycled Rubber, Terrazzo, Countertops, Insulation, Ceramic Til


Berkeley, CA

LEED-BDC (NC) Version 3 - 2009 Registered Project ScorecardWest Berkeley Branch Library

Yes ? No

14 0 1 Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points

Y D EQ Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance RequiredY D EQ Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required1 D EQ Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1

1 D EQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 11 C EQ Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 11 C EQ Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 11 C EQ Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 11 C EQ Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings 11 C EQ Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Flooring Systems 11 C EQ Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 11 D EQ Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 11 D EQ Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 11 D EQ Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 11 D EQ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design 11 D EQ Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 11 D EQ Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 11 D EQ Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces 1

Yes ? No

5 1 0 Innovation & Design Process 6 Points

Maximum 3 Exemplary & 5 Innovation credits available for IDc1.1-1.51 C ID Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Building as a Educational Tool 1

1 C ID Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Green Cleaning / Housekeeping / Pest Control 1

1 C ID Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Exempl. Perf. of 1

1 C ID Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Exempl. Perf. of 1

1 D ID Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Net Zero Energy Design 1

Additional ID Credit Ideas -

1 D ID Credit 2 LEED® Accredited Professional 1

Yes ? No

0 4 0 Regional Priority Credits 4 Points

1 D RP Credit 1.1 Regional Priority Credit: Select from USGBC List Once Released 1




Yes ? No

80 15 13 Project Totals (pre-certification estimates) 110 Points

Certified 40-49 points Silver 50-59 points Gold 60-79 points Platinum 80 and greater points


ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE REPORT AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR:

West Berkeley Branch Library Berkeley, CA

RGDL Project #: 09-073

PREPARED FOR:

Greenworks Studio Harley Ellis Devereaux

2430 5th Street, Studio M Berkeley, CA 94710

PREPARED BY:

Timothy M. Der Principal

DATE:

27 January 2010


West Berkeley Branch Library, Berkeley, CA Page 1 of 8 Environmental Noise Report 27 January 2010

1. Introduction

The existing West Berkeley Branch Library is planned to be replaced with a new building. Due to its location on the busy arterial of University Avenue in Berkeley, CA, noise intrusion into the library is a significant issue. A noise study was performed to document the existing noise on the site and to provide an assessment of the mitigation that would be necessary to achieve appropriate noise levels within the new facility.

2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals

Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the A-weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) and the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time, or L10, is often used to identify and characterize the loudness of a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.

3. Noise Criteria

The typical function of a library is to provide an environment that individual users can focus on reading in the absence of excessive noise and distracting conversation. Additionally, libraries are often a space used occasionally for formal or informal group functions that may involve reading or speaking/presentations. It is the latter use that may pose the more stringent acoustical criteria for the space since “speech intelligibility” by listeners is generally affected more by excess noise. An environment for reading is less impacted by higher ambient noise levels as long as “single event” noise is not too excessive.



For an overall criterion for occupied spaces, we frequently turn to American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for guidance. The focus for ASHRAE is on steady-state noise generated by ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. However, their criteria can be a useful guide for qualifying non-HVAC equipment noise intrusion, such as steady traffic noise. As published in their long-standing ASHRAE Handbooks, the recommended Noise Criteria (NC) is 30 to 40 which roughly translates to an A-weighted noise level range of 40 to 50 dBA. However, more recent studies of spaces used for education and persons with hearing or speech challenges, suggest that more stringent acoustic criteria is appropriate. For instance, the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) as well as LEED® for Schools mandate a maximum ambient noise level of 45 dBA in all core learning spaces, which typically include libraries. Additionally, CHPS offers additional “points” for reduced ambient noise level at thresholds of 40 and 35 dBA. Lastly, in our recent work with classrooms and children with hearing impairment, advocacy groups such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) suggest criteria found in the recent American Nation Standards Institute (ANSI) standard S12.60-2002, Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines For Schools, of 35 dBA for typical classrooms and 40 dBA for large classrooms. Additionally, ANSI has criteria for “single event” traffic noise whereby the average noise-level exceeded 10% of the time is 40 dBA for a typical classroom and 45 dBA in a large classroom.

The goal for these various criteria is to maintain good to excellent speech intelligibility and focus within the occupied space. In areas where speech intelligibility is not important, the criteria can be slighted relaxed. Therefore, our recommended criteria for various types of spaces are as follows:

Table 1: Recommended Criteria For Intrusive Outdoor Noise Indoors

Space/Function Average

Noise Level, Leq dBA

NC Single Event, L10 dBA

Reading Room/Stacks - Adult 40 35 45 Reading Room – Children 35 30 40 Multipurpose 40 35 45 Literacy Room 35 30 40 Meeting Room 35 30 40 Work Room/Staff 45-50 40 55 Circulation Service/Reception 40 35 45



4. Existing Noise Environment Noise measurements were conducted from between December 17th to the 21st. The locations of the outdoor measurements are shown on Figure 1. A “long-term” noise monitor, Location A, measured noise levels for the full 5 days and was located at the western edge of the lower library roof closest to University Avenue. A “short-term” spot measurement was performed on the existing driveway at the southwest corner of the site and at the approximate setback of the new building. A plot of the measurement results is shown on Figure 2. The noise levels that are expected to impinge upon the new facility are shown on Table 2. Consideration was made to not include noises generated by the ongoing construction occurring across University Avenue and for time periods when the library would normally be closed (8PM to 10AM).

Table 2: Summary of Noise Measurements Outdoors 12/17 – 12/22/2009, between 10AM and 8PM

Proposed Facade Average

Noise Level,

Leq dBA

Loudest Hourly

Average Noise Level,

Leq dBA

Single Event,

L10 dBA

Average 15 min

Maximum, Lmax dBA

Façade facing University Avenue (5’ to 10’ north of sidewalk) 69 70 69 75

2nd Floor Façade (30’ to 40’ north of sidewalk) 66 67 67 72

Analysis of the summary data suggests that the primary factors to consider is the loudest hourly average noise level Leq of 70 and 68 dBA and the average Lmax as occurring within 15 minute periods of 75 and 72 dBA. While we had documented a few noise Lmax events in excess of 90 dBA, we feel that the few occurrences over the 5 days did not warrant to be included in the design factor for this project type.



Figure 1: Site Plan and Noise Measurement Locations



Figure 2: Noise Measurement Results Location A

50

60

70

80

90

100

12/1

7

12/1

8

12/1

9

12/2

0

12/2

1

12/2

2

Time Period

Noi

se L

evel

, dB

A

.

Houly Maximum (Lmax)

10% of time (L10)

Hourly Avg (Leq)

A short term noise measurement was also conducted in the existing library. Exposure to University Avenue noise is limited to south facing windows that are set-back about 20’ from the side walk and significantly shielded by a wood fence and buildings that extend past the windows and to west facing windows set-back 40’ from the sidewalk. The current noise in the library appears to be dominated from the ventilation system and office equipment/computers as well as from activity of the patrons and staff. The louder noises on University Avenue are, however, audible in the Library.

Table 3: Summary of Indoor Noise Measurements, 12/21/2009

Location Average

Noise Level, Leq dBA

Single Event,

L10 dBA Lmax dBA

In main reading room, West 39 42 51 Figure 3 depicts the sound-spectrum of the traffic noise impinging upon the library. This information is necessary for determining the noise reduction requirements of the building elements that will comprise the south façade of the new library. For instance, when selecting the glazing system, the noise reduction performance at 125 Hz and 160 Hz must be adequate to resist the low-frequency (rumble) component of the traffic noise spectrum.



Figure 3: Sound Spectrum of Traffic Noise on University Avenue Measured at Location B, Normalized to Long-Term Data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1KHz 2KHz 4KHz 8KHz 16KHz

Octave Band Center Frequencies, Hertz (Hz)

A-w

eigh

ted

Noi

se L

evel

, dec

ibel

s (d

BA

)

Maximum, LmaxAverage, Leq

5. Analysis

Conceptually, the “shell” of the building within the first 15-feet from the sidewalk must provide a noise reduction of roughly 35 decibels (dB) in order to achieve our recommended noise criteria. A typical exterior grade, stucco wall provides at least 45 dB, while a typical 1-inch insulating glazing unit provides about 30 dB noise reduction. Additionally, any door along the south façade will provide little to no noise reduction when opened, which can not be avoided when the library is open. Passive ventilation through open windows or simple louvers near the south façade offer little to no noise reduction performance. Therefore, the design must include noise reduction upgrades and features at the windows, doors and ventilation to the outdoors. Several of the proposed schemes that we have seen have facades that are within 5-feet of the sidewalk and comprised of all glass exterior walls at the main reading room. The implication of this design concept is that the glazing alone will be responsible for the majority of noise reduction to the spaces immediately on the interior. Additionally, most of the proposed schemes also have the entrance facing University Avenue. This poses a particular challenge since typical exterior entrance doors do not have a high degree of inherent noise reduction capability due mainly to the difficulty in providing effective gasketing around the perimeter of the doors. Lastly, the concept of “natural” ventilation precludes having operable



windows along the south and most of the east and west facades. Any air passages to and from the outdoors must be acoustically treated to reduce the transfer of outdoor noise into the occupied spaces.

6. Design Concepts

At this stage of the design, we present the basic concepts to be considered for achieving our recommended noise criteria. As the design progresses, we are available to help further refine the noise reduction treatments and upgrades. 6.1. Windows

Windows facing University Avenue should have a minimum STC rating of 40 and an octave band noise reduction (NR) at the lower frequencies of 125 and 160 Hz of at least 30 dB. If the window area were to be significantly reduced from 100% to 50%, then the STC ratings and NR could be reduced by about 3 points. A “typical” one-inch insulating/laminated (¼” laminated, ½” air-space, ¼” laminated) window has an STC rating of around 40 but would result in an average and single event noise level that would exceed our recommended criteria. However, when taking the 125 and 160 Hz octave band performance into consideration, the required window would still be an insulating/laminated window but would need to have a 2-inch airspace rather than ½” in order to adequately reduce the lower frequency noise, typical of a truck passby or noisy motorcycle. At 2nd story windows that are setback from the sidewalk, typical one-inch insulating/laminated windows would be adequate for meeting rooms or offices with large windows facing south. At skylights and windows facing north, standard insulating glass should be adequate. As window to wall ratios decrease, the STC/NR requirements of the windows also decrease. Therefore, as the fenestration design begins to develop, we are available to perform refined analysis for STC and NR requirements.

6.2. Entrance Doors Two sets of doors separated by an acoustically treated vestibule will be necessary to adequately attenuate intrusive noise from University Avenue. Conceptually, it would be optimal for the 2 sets of doors to be organized so that when one door is open, the other is closed. With both doors open at the same time, the noise reduction through the entrance will rely solely upon the acoustic treatment in the vestibule, which is limited to about 20 to 25 dB.



We understand that automatic sliding doors can inherently open and close in a shorter time than swinging doors. If this is the case, then we recommend sliding doors to minimize the chance for both doors being open at the same time. Features that will offer increased noise reduction through the vestibule include, increased distance between doors, a “dog-leg” in the vestibule, a lowered ceiling that is acoustical absorptive (1-inch thick fiberglass panels or lay-in tile) and acoustic panels on all available wall surfaces (tack-able 1-inch thick fabric wrapped fiberglass panels). An all glass vestibule with a hard-finished floor is not ideal and should be avoided.

6.3. Passive Ventilation The typical scheme for achieving air transfer between noisy spaces is via acoustically lined ductwork or building chases. The length and configuration of the duct or chase would depend open the location of the outdoor opening relative to University Avenue and the cross-sectional area of the opening. Very roughly, a duct lined with 1-inch thick fiberglass duct-liner could achieve 1 dB/foot reduction for a large duct (10 square feet) to about 5 dB/foot reduction for a small duct (1-foot square). Additional reduction can be achieved with 90-degree elbows, 2-inch thick lining and special “duct-silencers”, as necessary. Also, square shapes tend to provide better reduction than circular shaped ducts. Noise generated by associated HVAC system should also be reviewed and designed to achieve our recommended noise criteria within the various occupied spaces.

* * *

File: 09-073_Environmental Report_27jan10.doc




PROJECT GOALS

* Enhance library services with a

convenient, welcoming, safe, secure,

and accessible facility, with flexibility

for the future

* Provide adequate space to

accommodate all library and literacy

programs, including a quiet and

comfortable oasis for learning and

reading

* Provide a LEED silver facility (minimum)

that meets the net zero energy goals

of the city

* Create a civic and engaging presence

on the street that responds to the

Oceanview context



EXISTING CONDITIONS


Dry-rot and termites in cripple wall; cripple wall not salvage-able; exterior walls require seismic strengthening

Door is not original design or construction; single-glazed window

One of two original medallions

West portion of text 'WEST BERKEL' has been damaged by construction of addition; East portion of text 'EY BRANCH LIBRARY' in good condition

Head, jamb and sill extensions required; Fungal infection in some areas; Single-glazing

West Branch Library Built: 1923Berkeley Public Library Addition: 1974 Existing Building Evaluation Summary Size: 6,230 SF

Structural� Provide new concrete footing under walls of original 1923 building � Replace wood framing underneath the building where it is missing or damaged by rot � Replace perimeter cripple walls with new concrete stem walls � Add new plywood shear walls in the crawlspace below the building � Install new plywood sheathing on the roof and tie diaphragm into the walls

HVAC

� The existing system uses three rooftop units that provide both heating and cooling � The HVAC units were installed in 1994 and are still functional, although nearing the end of

their planned useful life; they should be replaced if the scale of work to the rest of the building merits it

� Ductwork needs to be reconfigured in problem areas of the building, and to restore the original reading room ceiling

Mechanical

Plumbing� Replace all existing plumbing fixtures and water piping � Add overflow drains or scuppers to the roof drainage system; replace downspouts � Add a wet-pipe fire sprinkler system to the entire building

Power

� Panels are overloaded and outdated and should be replaced � Panels are surrounded by exposed wiring and crammed behind staff desks without legally

required clearance; the space should be reconfigured to allow construction of a closet � Service to building must be replaced and possibly upgraded

Lighting� Replace existing lighting fixtures with historically appropriate fixtures, augmented to

provide adequate lighting for all tasks � Install new emergency lighting and illuminated exit signs, required by code

Electrical

Telecom

� Telephone and data service is in working order � Replace with state-of the art telecom systems and wiring in concealed raceways and proper

telecommunications room � Add Cable TV service

Roofing � The roof itself is in acceptable condition, but the current roof drainage needs to be reworked so that it does not direct water under the building

Windows& Doors

� All original wood-framed windows need to be repaired where possible, otherwise replaced in kind, so they are easily operable by the staff

� Replace all door hardware for accessibility � Restore original entry door

Architectural

ExistingFinishes

� Remove ceiling in reading room and restore original ceiling and trim � Repair and re-paint entire exterior, including repairs to all remaining original wooden trim � Provide new, historically appropriate and accessible circulation desk

ADA� Recent accessibility upgrades have made much of the public areas accessible, with several

deficiencies� Bring all public areas into compliance (shelf spacing, etc.) � Staff areas are much too crowded for legal accessibility; staff restroom is not accessible

Hazardous Materials � There is asbestos in the existing vinyl floor tile, drywall and taping mud, roofing mastics

and pipe insulation � Existing exterior paint contains lead, particularly at the trim

Pest Damage � There is termite damage and fungus infection in the wood framing under the original part

of the building � There may be fungus infection in some of the original wooden wall framing � There is fungus damage in the wooden trim at doors and windows

Historic Character

� The original building was built in 1923; the additions date from1974. � Very little remains of the original building, and what does remain is invisible from the street

and only slightly apparent in the building interior � Restoration of the building’s historic character would require removal of the additions and

re-creating, from drawings and photographs, the removed windows and other historic features.

� The reading room could be restored by removing the ceiling and rebuilding the original skylight, copying the original light fixtures, and reinstalling built-in wooden bookcases at the perimeter of the room

Major Program Needs � Adequate space for the adult literacy program allowing for private tutoring sessions, group

study, and program expansion � Adequate multi-purpose meeting room space to best meet the programming needs of a

diverse multi-cultural community

Key

Good working condition

Working condition, but should be repaired or replaced

Need immediate repair or replacement

��



DESIGN SCHEME A REHABILITATION


TWO-STORY

UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION

Repair/replace cornice and

incised lettering

New main entrance

Replace missing skylight with

new compatible design

Replace existing east, west,

and arched windows with

double-glazed, deeper wood

windows to match

Close off main entrance; Re-

place doors with solid wood

doors to match original

Reattach existing medallion-

to repaired wall

Replace existing medallion

Replace missing south win-

dows with new 9-square win-

dows of proportion to match

original

Relocate building 13' closer

to street and 2' lower.

Replace deteriorated cripple

wall; Repair/replace deterio-

rated engaged columns

Repair/replace existing

walls as reqd. Add plywood

sheathing, adjust window

depth, provide insulation.

Finish with exterior plaster

and interior gyp. board.

Remove 3 existing mature

redwood trees

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELEVATION

rated engaged columnsssssssss



DESIGN SCHEME A REHABILITATION

HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX Total Area: 9,869 GSF

TWO-STORY

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN

PROS:Rebuilds 1923 Building

Large Entry Courtyard

CONS:Relocates and Lowers 1923 Building

Major Reconstruction Required

1923 Main Entry Closed Off

Inefficient Floor Plan

Book Drop Detached from Returns

Less Effective Daylighting

Less Roof Area for Photovoltaics

Three Redwood Trees Removed BUILDING SECTION



DESIGN SCHEME B NEW CONSTRUCTION


ONE-STORY


Building signage of incised

lettering to match original

Roof monitors bring enhanced

natural daylight inside,

symbolizing enlightenment

Photovoltaics on sawtooth

monitors allude to context

of Ocenview warehouses/

Relocated original medallion

Simple and formal architec-

ture with civic presence

Prominent doorway wel-

coming patrons

New 9-square window with

proportions to match origi-

nal

Existing mature redwood trees

preserved and visible from street

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAARLEEEEEEEEEEEEEY ELLISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DEVEREAUX UNIVERSITY AVENUE ELLLLEVATIONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN



DESIGN SCHEMES B NEW CONSTRUCTION


ONE-STORY

PROS:Civic Presence

Engagement with Street

Connection w/ Oceanview Context

Spacious Atmosphere

Good Circulation Flow

Ease of Use of Single-Story

Efficient Plan w/ Good Adjacencies

Plentiful Daylight

View of Redwood Trees

Adequate Area for Photovoltaics

Good Natural Ventilation

CONS:Removes 1923 Building

Minimal Outdoor Space

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

BUILDING SECTION



DESIGN SCHEME C NEW CONSTRUCTION


TWO-STORY


Building signage lettering

to match original

Central atrium brings enhanced

natural daylight inside,

symbolizing enlightenment

Photovoltaics on sawtooth

supports allude to context

of Ocenview warehouses/

Relocated original medallion

Simple and formal architec-

ture with civic presence

Prominent doorway wel-

coming patrons

New 9-square window with

proportions to match origi-

nal

Existing mature redwood trees

preserved and visible from street

HARLEEEEEEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX




DESIGN SCHEME C NEW CONSTRUCTION


TWO-STORY

PROS:Civic Presence, Engagement with Street

Connection w/ Oceanview Context

Spacious Atmosphere, Good Circulation Flow

View of Redwood Trees

Adequate Area for Photovoltaics

Generous Outdoor Spaces

CONS:Sightlines & Adjacencies Compro-

mised by Vertical Circulation

Less Effective Daylighting

FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN

BUILDING SECTION


........................................................................................................................

A P P E N D I X F

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


........................................................................................................................


berkeley south branch library schematic design reportmarch 15, 2009


BERKELEY SOUTH BRANCH LIBRARY Schematic Design Report Final Report Issued March 15, 2010 Contents Page

1. Project Team 2 2. Introduction 3 3. Process 4 4. Updated Building Program 5 5. Schematic Phase Presentations 7 6. Schematic Design Drawings 20 7. Outline Specifications 31 8. Updated LEED Score Sheet 70 9. Schematic Cost Estimate 71 10. Departmental Review 98 11. Conclusion and Next Steps 100


Concept Phase Project Team Berkeley Public Library Donna Corbeil, Director of Library Services Suzanne Olawski, Neighborhood Services Manager Jeri Ewart, South Branch Manager Rene Cardinaux, Consulting Architect City of Berkeley Alice La Pierre, Energy Office Kitchell PM Steven Dewan, Project Manager Architects Field Paoli

‐ Avery Taylor Moore, Mark Schatz, Jane Lin, Yann Taylor

Library Programming Page + Moris ‐ Kathy Page Engineering Consultants Tipping Mar – Structural

‐ Steve Tipping, Mark Stevenson

Mechanical Design Studio – Mechanical and Plumbing ‐ Dorel Anghel, Minola Anghel

O’Mahony & Myer – Electrical and Lighting ‐ Paul Carey, David Orgish

Site Consultants Charles McCullogh ‐ Landscape Architect

‐ Chuck McCullogh, Sarah Gronquist

BKF ‐ Civil Engineers ‐ Jeremy Marello

Cost Estimator Davis Langdon

‐ Alice Nguyen, Cynthia Madrid LEED Advisor KEMA

‐ Elaine Hsieh, Eric Dyrr


Introduction The following report summarizes the schematic design phase work for the Berkeley South Branch Library project. The scope included two community meetings, in addition to the three held during the earlier Concept phase. The final meeting for each phase was a formal presentation to BOLT. In addition, the design team met with library staff, planning and building department staff, the city arborist, and the full Landmarks Preservation Commission. The meetings are outlined in the process section which follows. Based on the BOLT direction at the end of the concept design phase, we have proceeded to study an all new library, to be built at the site of the existing building at the corner of Russell Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard. Based on our meetings with planning department staff, we now know that a focused environmental impact report is planned for the project. The schematic drawings included in this report should be sufficient for inclusion in that study. In addition to the updated Library Program and Schematic Design documents, this report includes our updated LEED spreadsheet, which has been refined with input from our engineering consultants and the City’s green building coordinator. A second LEED charrette was held on February 22, with the representatives from KEMA, the sustainability consultant retained to help with the projects by Alameda County Stop Waste. It also includes the draft schematic cost estimate.


Process The work of this phase included the following: Meeting with LPC January 7, 2010 Meeting with Project Team January 8, 2010 Updating of Kathy Page’s initial program document Staff and tools area plan review meetings January 12‐13, 2010 First LEED Charrette January 14, 2010 Study of two new building design options Meeting with Building Department Staff January 19. 2010 Site Meeting with City Arborist January 27, 2010 Fourth Community Meeting January 27, 2010 Meeting with South Branch staff February 2, 2010 Second meeting with Project Team February 3, 2010 Development of preferred design Draft schematic cost estimate Fifth Public Meeting / Presentation to BOLT February 10, 2010 Issuance of Schematic documents February 23, 2010 Final schematic cost estimate March 1, 2010 Issuance of draft report March 2, 2010 Issuance of final report March 15, 2010


Building Program The space program for the South Branch Library and Tool Lending Library was generated by library planning consultant Kathy Page, incorporating input from her meetings with Library staff. The final schematic design phase program calls for a total gross building area of approximately 8,000 square feet. This yields a net assignable area of approximately 6,000 square feet. The existing structure measures approximately 5,400 gross square feet. Code mandated increases to restrooms and program areas for accessibility would require about 6,900 square feet to provide the same level of use. Based on our discussions with library staff, we agreed to modify the program in a few areas. We added a small group study room of approximately 100 sf, and reduced the area of the multi‐purpose room to approximately 750 sf. The chart on the following page summarizes the January 28, 2010 updated program which was received from Kathy Page. Areas not given in the chart, including lobby and restrooms, are included in the net to gross area mark‐up that is added in at the bottom of the table. This “grossing” factor also includes mechanical and electrical closets, plumbing shafts, and wall thicknesses. Please note that the actual areas are slightly different from what is called out in the program, but we have worked to assure that the proper number of seats, computers, and lineal feet of shelving are all included. The actual gross area of the building is currently closer to 8,250 gsf. Refinements will continue to be made during design development as we modify the plan in response to mechanical and electrical system requirements documented during schematic design. The following chart compares the new program square footages to the existing building: Existing Proposed Difference Comments Library Area 4,500 7,050 +2,550 TLL Area 900 1,200 +300 Total Area 5,400 8,250 +2,850 Seating 21 54 +33 + 8 kids stools; conference

room furniture not incl. Shelving (lf) 1,907 2,064 +157 Computers 9 14 +5 + 12 on laptop cart


Space Summary from Kathy Page

Space Total SF/space

1.1 Public Entrance/Lobby 1.2 Self‐Checkout 108 1.3 Holds Shelving 30 1.4 Browsing Collection/Books 80 1.5 Adult/Teen Media Collection 120 1.6 Public Computers 260 1.7 Service Desk 180 1.8 Copy Machine 25 1.9 Community Information 15 1.10 Friends’ Book Sale 10

2.1 Adult Seating + Collection 771

3.1 Child Seating/Collection/Computers 992 3.2 Family Restroom In GSF 4.1 Teen Seating/Collection/Computers 347

5.1 Branch Manager

100

5.2 Staff Workroom 428 5.3 Returns and Sorting 288 5.4 Supply/Storage 95 5.5 Staff Break Room 170 5.6 Staff Restrooms In GSF

6.1 Multipurpose Room 914 6.2 Multipurpose Room storage 90 6.3 Programming storage 76 6.4 Public Restrooms In GSF 6.5 Telecom Room In GSF 6.6 Janitorial Storage / mop sink In GSF Library Net Assignable Square Feet 5,100 Library Gross Square Feet @ 75% net‐to‐gross 6,800

TLL 1.0‐3.2 Tool Lending Library Net Assignable Square Feet 996 Tool Lending Gross Square Feet @ 83% net‐to‐gross 1,200

Total Building Square Feet 8,000


Schematic Design Alternatives Based on the concept design input from library staff, the community and BOLT, we proceeded to study design alternatives for an all new building for the existing library site. While we retained the basic plan configuration for the new scheme, we explored a series of massing options. We facilitated the fourth community workshop on January 27, 2010 and presented two alternative design schemes – Option A and Option B. We received very positive input from the community members who participated. [Unfortunately, it was the same night as the President’s State of the Union Address, so participation was limited.] Following on pages 8 through 15 are the presentation drawings, photos of the massing models, and image boards presented at the January 27th workshop. Full minutes from the meeting are available from Suzanne Olawski at the library.

Preferred Design Alternative

On February 2, 2010, we met at the South Branch with library staff whose comments resulted in several recommendations which were implemented; among them: to shift the library desk to have greater visibility; to flip the community room and toilet room/storage locations; to provide a more private staff work area for the Tool Lending Library. Based upon the input from the community, the library staff, and the library administrative team, we proceeded to develop a preferred schematic design approach for the building massing and exterior character. The final design was presented to BOLT on February 10th, 2010 and received enthusiastic response for the design direction. Field Paoli was directed to proceed with the design development phase of work.

Following on pages 16 through 19 are the presentation drawings and the photos of massing models presented at the BOLT meeting. Minutes from the meeting are available from the library website: http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/about_the_library/bolt/bolt.php


Community Workshop Presentation ‐ January 27, 2010


Option A – Computer Renderings

View from the corner of Russell and MLK

View from MLK


Option A – Model



View from MLK

Option B – Computer Renderings


View from MLK


Option B – Model


View from MLK


Image Board 1


Image Board 2


Image Board 3


BOLT Presentation February 10, 2010


Schematic Design Documents The following sheets (pages 21‐30) are reduced copies of all of the documents in our schematic design drawing set. Full or half size copies of these will be issued to the library for actual review, as these will be too small to read clearly. The drawings are followed by the outline specifications in full (pages 30‐70).
