table of contentsnews.cypresscollege.edu/documents/2017... · commonly-used seismic hazard...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Overview

Executive Summary

Architectural

Architectural Assessment. ..................................................................................................................... 1

Observations

Roof ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Roofing System .............................................................................................................................. 4 Building Enclosure ......................................................................................................................... 6

Interior Observations .... . ......... .............. ............. ................... 1O Accessible Parking .. ....................... ....... ....... . ......... .12

Accessible Path of Travel to East Building Entry ............. .......... ........... 14

General Interior Accessible Path of Travel .................. . ......... 15 Accessible Restrooms.......... .............. ..... .................. ... ............ .......20

Stair ........................................................................................................................................ 33

E r .. . ...... ....... . ... .......... .. . ................ ... ..

Analysis and Recommendations

Roof ........................................................................................................................................38

Roofing System ..................................................................................................................... 38

Building Enclosure ................................................................................................................. 39

Interior Observations .............................................................................................................. 39

Accessible Parking ................................................................................................................40

Accessible Path of Travel to East Building Entry ................................................................... 40

General Interior Accessible Path of Travel. ..................................................................... 40

Accessible Restrooms. ................................................................................................................ 41 Stair .................................................................................................................................. 43

Elevator ............................................................................................................................ 43

Warranty and Limitations of this Report.............................................................................................. 43

Structural

1. Project Overview and Scope of Work .. ............ ..............

1.1. Project Overview ............... ........................... 1.2.

Scope of Work .............. ............ ..............

2. Existing Conditions and Observations ..................

2.1. Existing Structural Drawings ....................

2.2. Building Systems Description ..

..... .. ........... ...... ··············· ... 1

. .......................... 2

····· ..... . ............. ..2

··················· ....4

................... 5

.......... 5

2.2.1. General .................................... .............. .............. .

2.2.2. Gravity System............... ................ .. .......... ........

2.2.3. Lateral Force Resisting System ........................ ...................... .

....................... 4

....... . .......... 8

......... 13

2.2.4. Foundations...................................... ............... ... .............. ....... 14

illDLR Group Science/Engineertng/Math Building

Cypress College, Cypress, California

2.3. Site Visit and Observations .............................................................................................. 14

2.3.1. General. ........................................................................................................................ 14

2.3.2. Skylights ....................................................................................................................... 16

3. Building Systems Evaluation (ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1) ...................................................................................... 18

3.1. General. ................................................................................................................................. 19

3.2. Performance Objective ......................................................................................................... 19

3.3. Site Seismicity ............................................................................................................................ 19

3.4. Required Checklists ......................................................................................................... 21

3.5. Noncompliant Items ......................................................................................................... 21

3.5.1. Basic Structural (Type C2) ......................................................................................... 21

3.5.2. Supplementary Structural (Type C2) ......................................................................... 22

3.5.3. Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations ................................................................ 23

3.5.4. Basic Nonstructural ................................................................................................. 23

3.5.5. Intermediate Nonstructural ......................................................................................... 24

4. Recommendations and Next Steps ............................................................................................. 25

5. References ................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix A - Completed ASCE/SEI 31-03 Checklists

Appendix B - Seismic Design Parameters

Appendix C - Selected Site Photos

Mechanical

Mechanical Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1

Mechanical Equipment .................................................................................................................... 2

Electrical

Electrical Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 1

Electrical Systems ........................................................................................................................... 1

Electrical Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 4

Lighting Systems ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Lighting Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 6

Power and Other Miscellaneous Systems ........................................................................................... 7

Power and Other Miscellaneous Systems Recommendations ........................................................... 8

Cost Estimate

Building Efficiency

Building Options

PROJECT OVERVIEW

"Cypress College is the American Dream." Students can start with nothing and leave with all the skills

necessary to thrive. The College has proudly earned a reputation for academic excellence and for the

variety and depth of the educational programs offered. With the support from the local community many

programs are housed in state-of-the-art facilities.

As Cypress College continues to look forward and plan for the future, the College recognized the need to

assess some of the existing facilities. Can they be retrofitted to meet tomorrow's needs, can they be

repurposed for other uses, should they be replaced? These and many more questions need to be fully

understood, discussed and answered to determine the best path forward.

In an effort to begin to answer one of the questions for one of the buildings, Cypress College has

requested to have a due diligence study performed on the Science, Engineering and Mathematics (SEM)

Building. The SEM building is a three story, approximately 100,000 square foot building constructed in

1970-71 on the Cypress College campus. The building program consists primarily of classrooms,

laboratories and offices and also includes mechanical/electrical rooms, a two-story entrance lobby, a

greenhouse and two central lecture halls that slope from the second level to ground level. The building is

currently still used for instruction with the exception of some classroom spaces which are inactive.

The study was to determine the condition of the building enclosure, structural, mechanical, plumbing and

electrical systems as it currently stands and what is necessary or recommended to maintain the facility for

current uses. The study also addressed accessibility issues as it relates to existing buildings, as well as a

cost analysis comparing renovation of the existing building to the costs associated with constructing a

new building at an adjacent location.

The site investigation and study was completed in August and September of 2015 and consisted of visual

site observations and review of plans furnished by the College. No destructive or non-destructive testing

or investigation was conducted.

Group Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ARCHITECTURAL

The goal of the architectural assessment was to visually review the building envelope consisting of the

roof and exterior building walls and windows of its current condition and deficiencies and provide any

recommendations for the future. Building compliance with the 2013 California Building Code accessibility

requirements were also reviewed. When the building was designed, no Code for accessibility existed but

since then some provisions had been made, primarily on the first floor.

Compared to the State of California Department of General Services, Office of Architecture and

Construction approved drawings dated February 13, 1970, the building has undergone very few plan

altering renovations. Maintenance has been deferred on some items while some systems or parts thereof

have been updated.

The roofing system has served its useful life and should be removed and replaced. When the roofing

system is replaced, the various components that are connected and impacted by the roofing should be (;JV addressed. The skylights should be replaced, roof access door and frame replaced, metal copings

installed, roof overfow drains installed, sheet metal equipment pad covers installed, cracks in the

concrete equipment screen walls filled, the concrete equipment screen walls sealed and utility supports

installed.

The concrete and aluminum window system building enclosure is in good condition. To maintain and

increase the useful life, a concrete sealer should be applied to the exterior concrete walls to minimize

moisture penetration. Cracks in the concrete wall or adjacent bridge structure should be filled and sealed.

All the window gaskets should be removed and replaced as they have shrunk with age. Window weep

holes should be drilled into the window sill for moisture evacuation. Landscaping irrigation should be

checked, adjusted and redirected to avoid spraying the windows.

An attempt to address exterior accessibility such as parking and path of travel to an entry has been made

but does not comply with the current 2013 California Building Code or even back to the 2007 California

Building Code. Code compliant accessible parking and an accessible path of travel to an entry should be

provided as any work to the building requiring a building permit will require this.

Accessibility issues have generally not been addressed within the building with the exception of the first

floor restrooms. The first floor restrooms have been modified to comply with most, but not all the

accessibility requirements, and require additional work.

When additions or alteration work is executed in an existing building, the cost of compliance shall be

limited to 20 percent of the adjusted construction cost of alterations when the adjusted construction cost

is less than or equal to the current valuation threshold as defined in the Code. If the adjusted

construction cost exceeds the threshold, full compliance is required unless full compliance exceeds 20

percent of the construction cost. At that situation, compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent

possible without exceeding 20 percent. In general the accessible parking and the path of travel to the

area of work are priority and must comply with accessibility requirements. Then the restrooms and

drinking fountains serving the area must comply with accessibility requirements.

The building complies with current exiting requirements with the current uses and corresponding area or

square feet related to the use. If uses are changed or current uses are expanded or decreased, an

exiting calculation should be made to ensure Code compliance.

r

STRUCTURAL

The purpose of the structural report is to identify structural and nonstructural elements of the existing

Structural, Engineering and Mathematics (SEM) building that may require replacement and/or upgrades.

The ultimate objective is to estimate the costs associated with continued operation of the existing SEM

building to compare to the cost of a new replacement building. The ASCE/SEI Tier 1 procedure detailed

in this report is a "first step" screening procedure that identifies "noncompliant" items, or items requiring

further investigation/evaluation (Tier 2 analysis). Once the Tier 2 analysis is complete, required upgrades

are determined (if applicable) and costs can be estimated for these specific upgrades.

Nonstructural components identified as "noncompliant" per Tier 1 will need to be replaced to current

building code standards (no Tier 2 required). Structural and nonstructural components that are identified

as "compliant" per Tier 1 are acceptable as-is.

Mandatory vs Voluntary Seismic Upgrades

The California Administrative Code (CAC), Chapter 4 determines the requirements for seismic upgrades

to community college buildings in California. A seismic rehabilitation is required for the Community

College building if any of the following apply:

Mandatory Seismic Rehabilitation

Triaaer

CAC Ch. 4 Section Applicability to Cypress SEM Building

Existing "nonconforming" building is

converted for use as a school building*

CAC Section 4-307 Does not apply to the SEM building

which is already a DSA Certified

school buildino.

Cost of reconstruction, alteration or

addition exceeds $25,000 and 50% of

the replacement value of the existing

building**

CAC Section 4-309(c) It is anticipated that the alterations

will exceed 50% of the replacement

value; however, this will need to be

confirmed by the cost consultant for

the alterations versus new building

construction costs.


addition exceeds $25,000 but does not

exceed 50% of the replacement value of

the existing building and the proposed

modifications either**

• Increase the effective seismic weight or wind force in any story by more than 10%

! • Decrease the design capacity of

CAC Section 4-309(c) This will need to be confirmed once

the specific proposed alterations to

the SEM building have been

identified.

It is not anticipated that structural

alterations to the building in its

current form to achieve the Life

Safety performance objective will

result in weight increases or capacity

decreases beyond the above

thresholds; however, this will need to

be confirmed after a Tier 2 analysis

is performed on the identified items

in this report.

any existing structural

component by more than 5%,

unless the component has the

capacity to resist the retrofit

desiqn forces

* A "nonconforming" building is defined by CAC as any building that has not been certified by DSA as a

school building.

** Cost excludes maintenance, HVAC, insulation materials, any voluntary seismic upgrades.

Ill DLR Grou p Science/Engineering/Math Building


If none of the above conditions applied, a seismic rehabilitation would not be required but may be

performed on a voluntary basis at the school's discretion. All structural deficiencies need not be

addressed if voluntary upgrades are performed, whereas all structural deficiencies must be addressed if

seismic upgrades are required by CAC. Voluntary seismic upgrades should not make the building perform

at a lesser seismic capacity. ---

At this time the estimated cost of the replacement building 61.83 million. e alterations to the

existing SEM building exceed 50% of the replacement valu; c1fic alterations/additions to the

existing SEM building have not yet been proposed, seismic rehabilitation will be required per the CAC.

Once the specific alterations are identified, the changes in seismic weight and/or member capacities can

be estimated by the Structural Engineer.

Any seismic upgrades are supervised by and approved by the Division of the State Architect (DSA).

The seismic hazard value referenced in this report is established by the USGS. The USGS Design Maps

summary report is used to generate acceleration parameters Sos & S01 for the site. These values are

commonly-used seismic hazard parameters that indicate how much ground acceleration is expected at a

certain site for a given seismic hazard (in this case, ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1 uses the mapped 2%

probability of exceedance in 50 year values). These values then determine whether the site is classified

as "Low", "Medium" or "High" seismicity per ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1 (see page 20 of the structural report).

MECHANICAL

The existing mechanical systems in the building were installed in 2009 and are in very good condition.

No work on these systems is needed or recommended at this time. The rooftop mechanical equipment,

consisting of fans and other equipment are not in good condition. These units, however, can be replaced

by maintenance as the need arises as the units are still functioning.

ELECTRICAL

The SEM building was built in the 1970's. The electrical power distribution is 45 years old and in good

condition. There are several code violations on the required clearances for electrical equipment which are

the most problematic, and should be addressed in either the proposed renovation or within any

repurposing effort planned for this building in the future. The other issues are simpler which are related to

mounting heights of devices and lighting control functionality. The code violations regarding the

clearances will require relocation of electrical equipment which is complicated and requires further

planning since it will impact the electrical service and power distribution. Correction of the lighting controls

should be implemented with Title 24 regulations which utilizes dimming controls and LED energy efficient

fixtures. The simplest corrections are the relocation of outlets and devices to be accessible since the

impacts are localized and isolated. The extent of the renovation is dependent of the future plans and shall

require a separate in-depth study.

COST ESTIMATE

Cost estimates for three scenarios were developed. The first was to renovate the existing building as it

currently exists irrespective of the Final Project Proposal (FPP) impacts. The second was to renovate the

existing building considering both existing conditions and impacts of the FPP. The third was to construct a

completely new building adjacent to the location where the existing building stands. In today's costs, the

existing renovation work without FPP work will cost approximately $17.6 million, the inclusion of the FPP

work to the renovation scope will add approximately $31.7 million ($49.4 million total), and a new building

will cost approximately $71.03 million. The new building estimate includes a 3,500 SF modern

Planetarium, in lieu of a separate building, at a cost of approximately $9.2 million.

The renovation work would address the findings of this report including deferred maintenance items, such

as the roofing system, skylights and windows. Code issues such as general accessibility and fully

accessible restrooms on each floor would be addressed. Code issues involving electrical requirements

and clearances would be addressed. Additionally, electrical revisions required to comply with energy

conservation requirements will be implemented such as providing all new energy compliant LED light

fixtures. Since renovation work exceeds $30.8 million - or half the replacement value - of the building is

anticipated, structural upgrades would be triggered. Changes to the layout of the classrooms, offices and

lecture halls are not included with the exception of modifications required to accommodate accessible

restrooms. This number was to simply identify the costs associated with code or maintenance items not

necessarily associated with the FPP.

The inclusion of FPP scope to the renovation project will result in fully refurbished and modernized

classroom and laboratory spaces, faculty offices, support spaces, toilet rooms and preparatory spaces.

This work would also include ceiling replacement, lighting replacement, reconfiguration of network and

electrical services, replacement/reconfigurati on of the mechanical systems, space reconfiguration to

alleviate efficiency issues and to create more effective instructional environments.

A new building (3,500 SF larger than existing for Planetarium) would comply with all current Codes and

standards including seismic requirements. The cost includes the demolition ($800k) of the existing

building but does not include addressing the displacement of the current programs housed in the building.

An option to this scenario would be to use the existing building as swing space for the bond program

since the building is already DSA approved and field act compliant.

In all cases, the estimated cost is only for the hard cost sometimes referred to as the "brick and mortar

cost" involving the actual physical construction such as site work, building materials and labor. Soft costs

which include design, permits, insurance, testing and furnishings is not included. Soft costs vary from

project to project but can range from 15% to 25% of the hard costs.

BUILDING EFFICIENCY

Efficiencies of the existing building need to be factored as part of the due diligence study summary.

While energy efficiency is discussed within the mechanical section of this report, the purpose of this is to

provide instances for discussion of the pragmatic building efficiencies. These pragmatic inefficiencies are

difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

The building's concrete structure, relative to the provisions of the Capital Outlay Program Final Project

Proposal (FPP) approval for this building, is inherently inefficient due to the difficulty in being able to

"right-size" particular spaces locked within the building's envelope or structure. The push within spaces

requiring accessible upgrades (toilet rooms, elevators, stairs for egress/circulation, etc.), can result in

spaces that are inherently compromised, and ultimately the programming suffers as it attempts

accommodate the specific curriculum and academic needs. For example, the restrictions of the existing

Group Science/Engineering/Math Building

Cypress College, Cypr-ess, CaHfornia


building make it impossible to increase the number of specific laboratory sections that can be offered or

accommodated.

Inefficiency can also be a result of the specific requirements of the educational specification that cannot

be accommodated within the parameters of the building structure, or as a result of the inability to provide

additional space required by the physical sciences - a planetarium, for example - due to the State Capital

Outlay Program limitations on space additions for modernization projects. The desired addition of a

planetarium is not possible to add under the currently approved Final Project Proposal. Additionally, the

space push mentioned above can adversely affect the ability to construct an addition in an effective

manner as well.

Finally, efficiency of one building needs to be reviewed in the context of the campus. The S.EM Building,

even with an inability to become more efficient than its potential, can still be beneficial to the campus for

short term use. The existing SEM Building is efficient in terms of swing space use to alleviate space

needs for capital construction or for secondary effect projects, without consuming valuable parking or

another site on campus. The aggregate savings by alleviating both parking and available swing space

concerns could exceed $10 million.

BUILDING OPTIONS

As part of the summary of this assessment, three (3) options of approach are presented below with

recognized advantages and disadvantages for consideration. Option 1 is a "maintain the course" action

that may require waiting for a statewide bond for renovation funding, Option 2 is a utilization of local

Measure J funds to move forward with the renovation, and Option 3 is a utilization of local Measure J funds to construct a new SEM Building.

OPTION 1 - Renovation of the Existing SEM Building with State Funds (FPP).

Advantages:

1. State Funds will potentially cover approximately 51% of the project cost ($24 million).

Disadvantages:

1. Delay project approximately one (1) year for funding.

2. Project will be limited to what the State has approved.

3. There is no room for growth.

4. Swing Space cost of approximately $10 million will be spent in modular labs that will later need to be removed and disposed of. This may also impact parking on campus.

5. The project will not allow the opportunity of building a viewing platform, crematorium, nor a

planetarium. The cost of building these new facilities at a later time will be approximately $1O

million.

6. Delaying the project after the community has approved the local bond for the renovation of the

Science building does not seem appropriate.

7. The State Bond needs to be on the 2016 ballot for possible approval.

OPTION 2 - Renovate the Existing SEM Building using Local Bond funds.

Advantages:

1. The renovation Project can start a year sooner.

2. Planetarium, viewing platform and other improvements could be added to the project.

3. There will be more flexibility on the applied modification to meet the ever changing needs of the

instructional programs.

lloLR Group Science/Engineering/Math Building

Disadvantages:

1. The existing SEM Building structure will limit the opportunities for program growth.

2. District would forfeit the $24 million from the State Bond.

3. Swing Space cost of approximately $10 million will spent in modular labs that will later need to be

removed and disposed of. This may impact parking on campus as well.

4. A Planetarium building will still be needed according to the Educational Master Plan

5. The cost of building the Planetarium is approximately $10 million.

OPTION 3 - Build a New SEM Building using Local Bond at New Proposed Location.

Advantages:

1. The new building could be built to meet the current needs and plans for future growth. 2. The existing SEM Building will be used to avoid the expenses of swing space (estimated at $10

million).

3. The new Planetarium and viewing platform could be included in the design of the new SEM

Building.

4. The cost of building these facilities in the future would be saved (approximately $10 million).

5. The existing SEM Building could also be used for swing space for the many future building

modifications planned in the local bond. This would also save a significant amount over the 20

years of the bond.

6. The Educational Master Plan projects the need for a new instructional building in the next 20

years. The existing SEM Building could be re-purposed and re-programmed to be that building.

Disadvantages:

1. Would forfeit the $24 million from the State Bond.

2. Parking will be impacted by the placement of the new SEM Building.

3. College may need to build a new parking structure.

The District's Board of Trustees will need to weigh the options and provide direction to the College on the

desired option and/or course of action relative to the SEM Building.

DLR Group Science/Engineering/Math Building

ARCHITECTURAL


1

ARCHITECUTRAL ASSESSMENT

Introduction

Cypress College is located at 9200 Valley View Street, south of the intersection of Valley View Street and

Lincoln Avenue, The Science/Engineering/Math (SEM) building is located at the north end of the campus

off of College Circle Drive and west of Parking Lot 7,

The three story, concrete building houses classrooms, laboratories, offices and two lecture halls, One

elevator is provided to serve all floors, At the west elevation of the building, at the second floor, a bridge

system is present connecting the SEM building to the Humanities building to the north and the Fine Arts

building to the west On grade faculty and student parking is located east of the building in Parking Lot 7,

The following report is a based on a visual review of the roof, exterior building envelope, accessible

components, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems relative to the 2013 California

Building Code, The accessible components reviewed consisted of the parking, path of travel from the

parking to the entry, review of the restrooms and review of the general accessible components, All

accessible requirements for each accessible component were not checked, Since the review was only

cursory in nature, it is recommended that a complete field investigation to determine the full scope of work

to correct any deficient items be conducted,

The following existing drawings were available for review in the preparation of this report,

• TS, SD1, SD2, SD3, SD4, C1, C2, C3, C4, 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, SA, 9A, 10A, 11A, 12A,

13A, 14A, 15A, 16A, 17A, 18A, 19A, 20A, 21A, 22A, 23A, 24A, 25A, 26A, 27A, 28A, 29A, 30A,

31A, 32A, 33A, 34A and 35A,

• M-2A, M-3A, M-4A, M-1B, M-2B, M-3B, P-1A, E-5A, E-6A, E-7A, E-SA, E-9A, E-10A, E-11A, E-

12A, E-1B, E-2B, E-3B, E-48, E-58, E-68, E-78, C-3(?, Business building) C-4(?, Business

building)

• E-1T, E-2T, E-2A, E-3A, E-4A, and E-5A

Photographs included in the report were taken to illustrate the conditions documented in the report and are for general reierence,

DLR Ciroup Science/Engineering/Math Building

ffti; DLR (Jroup Science/Engineering/Math Building


2

I. OBSERVATIONS

A. Roof

1. Stair No. 1 located at the south side of the building provided roof access.

2. Four skylights were located in a north-south alignment near the center of the building.

a. The northern skylight was broken and mastic was applied onto the crack.

b. Skylight gasketing was dried and weathered. Caulking was applied over most of

the gasketing but the caulking was also dried and cracking.


3

3. Concrete equipment screen walls were located along the east and west elevations.

a. The concrete screen walls had no visible water repellant applied to the surface.

b. The top surface of the wall was sloped to prevent moisture build up on the wall.

c. Vertical cracks in the wall were observed at two locations.

4. Most of the mechanical equipment was positioned within the equipment screen walls.

a. Equipment pads and curbs of various types were observed.

b. The top horizontal surface of the concrete equipment pads were not protected from the weather.

c. Rooftop conduit and piping was supported on wood blocks which were set on the

traffic pads.

ii£i DLR {foup Science/Engineering/Math Building


4

5. A total of eight (8) roof drains were observed on the roof.

a. No overflow roof drains or scuppers were observed.

b. The roof was sloped down away from the roofs perimeter edges.

6. The roof access door and frame were rusted and holes in the frame were observed.

B. Roofing System

1. The roofing system of the building consisted of a built-up asphalt roofing system with a

granule-surfaced cap sheet.

(Jroup Science/Engineering/Math Building


4

a. Surface cracking or "alligatoring" of the cap sheet was observed throughout the

roof.

b. Cracked and dried mastic was observed throughout the roof.

2. Foil faced flashing was installed at base of wall and parapet top conditions.

3. At the parapet tops, the foil flashing terminated on the horizontal surface.

4. Parapet coping was not observed.

5. At the base of the wall conditions. a sheet metal reglet and counterflashing was set into the wall with the roofing system tucked under the counterflashing.

a. Loose reglets were observed in some locations.

DLR (rouµ Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

6

6. Lead flashing at vent pipe penetrations were observed.

a. The lead flashing was wrapped into the pipe at the top.

b. At one observed condition, a sheet metal sleeve flashing was installed and

caulked where the sleeve terminated on the pipe.

C. Building Enclosure

1. The exterior walls of the building were constructed of cast-in-place structural concrete and aluminum storefront window system.

5_: DLR (:Jroup Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

6

2. The east and west exterior walls of the stair shafts were finished with ceramic tile applied over the concrete wall, red tile at the east elevation and blue tile at the west

elevation.

3. At the second floor of the west elevation, the building was connected to an exterior

bridge system which connected with some of surrounding buildings.

4. At the third floor of the south elevation, a slope glass roof enclosed a greenhouse.

5. No significant cracks in the structural concrete walls were observed.

6. The concrete walls appeared to be in good condition.

DLR CJroup Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

8

7. At the north, east and west elevations, in ground planters abutted the building wall.

a. The planters abutted both the concrete walls and storefront windows of the

building.

b. Water from the landscape sprinklers was observed hitting the lower panes of the storefront window system.

;, DLR (roup Science/Engineering/Math Building


8

8. At the aluminum window system. water intrusion was observed in various locations at

the window sill.

a. Weep holes along the exterior of the window sill were not observed.

b. The rubber window gaskets had shrunk and large gaps were observed in the

corners of some of the windows.

c. Water intrusion was evidenced by the stains and efflorescence on the window

system and floor.

l!isoLR Science/Engineering/Math BuHding Cypress College, Cypress, California

10

9, On the first floor, at the west elevation, just south of the center entry, evidence of water

intrusion through a crack at the second floor exterior bridge was observed,

a, Water stains were observed on the vertical mullion adjacent to the crack in

addition to the discoloration of the stained wood railing at the window,

0, Interior Observations

1, At the first and second floors, a few areas with stained ceiling tiles were observed,

Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

11

2. At the second floor, overlooking the west lobby, a guardrail with vertical pickets

bordered the two story space.

a. The top of the guardrail was 42 1/2-inches above the finish floor.

b. Along the bottom of the rail was a 4-inch high by 3-inch wide curb.

c. The 1/2-inch wide pickets were spaced 6-inches on center.

LDLR: (roup Science/Engineering/Math Building


12

E. Accessible Parking

1. Four parking stalls identified with the International Symbol of Accessibility were located

in Lot 7, the parking lot directly across from the east entry.

2. These stalls each measured 9'-0" wide by 14'-6" deep to the interior or front curb.

3 The northern loading/unloading area was 5'-0" wide and the remaining two were 9'-0"

wide.

a. The stripped area of these loading/unloading areas were 16'-0" deep.

b. 1'-6" of this area was located in the drive aisle.

c. "No Parking" in 12-inch high lettering was marked in the striped

loading/unloading area.

5. The International Symbol of Accessibility was 3'-3" square.

6. The post mounted sign in the grass area at the front end of the stall stated "Reserved"

with the International Symbol of Accessibility.

a. The signs were 18 inches high by 12-inches wide.

b. The height to the bottom of the sign was 6'-5".

c. Van accessible parking was not identified.

LoLR Science/Engineering/Math Building


13

7. A striped path was marked from the loading/unloading areas to the curb ramp.

a. The striped path was routed behind parked cars others than the stall that it was

serving.

b. The slope of the striped path was measured at 4.9% near the curb ramp.

c. The slope of the striped path was measured at 3.0% parallel to the path of travel.

d. The cross slope was measure at 3.6% along the drive aisle.

e. Depressions and dips in the striped path were observed.


14

8. Curb ramp

a. The center portion of the curb ramp was measured at 10.2%.

b. The side slopes were measured at 20.9%.

F. Accessible Path of Travel to East Building Entry

1. The slope of the walk at the top of the curb ramp parallel to the ramp (running slope)

was measured at 3.3%.

2. Parallel to the curb in front of the east entry. the cross slope of the walk was measured

at 4.1%.


15

3. At other areas of the walk leading to the east entry, the slope was measured at 2.0% or

less.

4. The surface mounted emergency telephone enclosure projected out 7 3/4-inches from

the face of the wall.

5. Automatic sliding double doors were observed at the east building entry.

a. The same type of doors were observed at the center entries located at the south

and west elevations.

G. General Interior Accessible Path of Travel

1. The corridors of the building were less than 2% slope in all directions.

a. On the first floor, at the west side near the stairs, a depression around a cleanout

in the hallway was observed. Also a raised door catch was observed.


16

2. At the majority of the doors, round door knobs were observed.

a. The center of the knobs were measured at 38-inches above the finish floor.

3. Electrical receptacles and other low mounted devices and controls were generally

measured at 10-inches to the bottom of the box.

4. Switches, thermostats and other high mounted devices and controls were generally measured at 53-inches to the top of the box.

(roup Science/Engineering/Math Building


17

5. In various random locations, wall mounted pencil sharpeners were observed. The

sharpeners projected out 5-inches from the wall.

6. Surface mounted fire alarm pulls with protective covers were observed. The protective

covers projected 5-inches from the wall.

7. Surface mounted fire extinguisher cabinets project out 5 3/4-inches from the wall.

lliK DLR Coup Science/Engineering/Math Building


17

8. At the west lobby, the clear height under the central concrete stair mid-landing was 81

112-inches.

9) On the south side of the second floor, at the study cubicles, a television mounted was suspended from the ceiling. The bottom edge of the television was measured at 78

314-inches.

10) The fire alarm strobes were mounted at various heights with some less than 80-inches

above the finish floor.

,,,DLR Group Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

19

11) At the first floor, a wall mounted telephone projects out 5 1/2-inches from the wall.

12) In the classrooms, pull strings or handles for suspended maps, charts projection

screens were higher than 48-inches above the finish floor.

13) Classrooms with raised platforms for the instructor's desks or stations were not accessible. The platforms were measured at 7-inches high.

DLR Croop Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

19

14) In the two lecture halls, the instructor's raised platform was only accessible by steps,

H, Accessible Restrooms

1, At the first floor, one Women's and one Men's restroom were observed,

a, The Women's restroom was not fully compliant with accessibility Codes although

some modifications had been made in an attempt to comply,

1) The number of water closets in the restroom was reduced to one to provide

a larger water closet stalL

2) At the entry door, on the pull side of the door, a 12 1/2-inch clear space on

the strike side was provided,

DLR (rour Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, Callfornia

21

3) On the push side of the door, a 9-inch clear space was provided at the

strike side.

4) The door signage was mounted 65 1/2-inches above the finish floor. No

wall signage was provided.

5) The stall dimensions were 79-inches wide by 98-inches long with a 34 1/4-

inch clear opening door.

(.roup Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

21

6) The stall door did not self-close.

7) The stall door latching mechanism required grabbing to operate.

8) The coat hook was 68-inches above the finish floor.

23

9) The water closet was centered 18-inches from the wall.

10) The flush handle was located on the narrow side of the stall.

11) The height of the seat was 18-inches above the finish floor.

!h_DLR (iroup Science/Engineering/Math Building


23

12) The rear grab bar was 36-inches long, 34-inches from the floor to the top of the bar and 6-inches from the corner,

13) The side grab bar was 52-inches long, 33 314-inches from the floor to the top of the bar, started at the rear wall and extended 2'-2" past the front of the water closet

14) The toilet paper dispenser was 19-inches above the finish floor and 2-

inches in front of the water closet

) DLR (;roup Science/Engineering/Math Building


25

15) The seat cover dispenser was 45-inches above the finish floor.

16) A 36-inch long by 12-inch deep shelf was positioned on the wall opposite

the water closet.

17) The top of the lavatory was 30 3/4-inches above the finish floor and the

bottom 27 1/2-inches.

18) The soap dispenser was 36-inches above the finish floor.

,t--· DLR (Jroup Science/Engineerlng! Math Building


25

19) The air hand dryer was 34 1/2-inches above the finish floor and projected 6 3/4-inches from the wall.

20) The mirror was 48 1/4-inches above the finish floor to the reflective

surface.

b. The Men's restroom was not fully compliant with accessibility Codes although some modifications had been made in an attempt to comply.

1) The number of water closets in the restroom was reduced to one to provide

a larger water closet stall.

2) On the push side of the door, an 8 1/2-inch clear space was provided at the

strike side.

Croup Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress. California


27

3) The door signage was mounted 65 1/2-inches above the finish floor. No wall signage was provided.

4) The stall dimensions were 66 3/4-inches wide by 114-inches long with a 34

1/2-inch clear opening door.

5) The stall door did not self-close.

6) The stall door latching mechanism required grabbing to operate.

7) The coat hook was 65-inches above the finish floor.

DLR (Jroup Science/Engineering/Math Building


27

8) The water closet was centered 17 3/8-inches from the wall.

9) The flush valve was located on the wide side of the stall.

10) The height of the seat was 17 1/4-inches above the finish floor.

11) The rear grab bar was 36-inches long. 34-inches from the floor to the top of

the bar and 6-inches from the corner.

\c/; DlR (roup Science/Engineering/Math Building

DLR Croup Science/Engineering/Math Building


29

12) The side grab bar was 52-inches long, 33 3/4-inches from the floor to the

top of the bar, started at the rear wall and extended 2'-2" past the front of

the water closet.

13) The toilet paper dispenser was 19-inches above the finish floor and 2- inches in front of the water closet.

14) The seat cover dispenser was 56-inches above the finish floor.

15) Two urinals were provided mounted in the same position.

17) The urinal rim was 24 1/2-inches above the finish floor.

18) The urinal rim projected out 15-inches from the wall.


30

19) The urinal flush handle was mounted 52-inches above the finish floor.

20) The top of the lavatory was 30-inches above the finish floor and the bottom 26 3/4-inches.

21) The soap dispenser was 36-inches above the finish floor.

22) The air hand dryer was 36-inches above the finish floor and projected 6

3/4-inches from the wall.

Science/Engineering/Math Building

31

23) The mirror was 55 1/4-inches above the finish floor to the reflective surface.

24) The top of the electrical receptacle was 43 1/2-inches above the finish floor.

c. The drinking fountain located in the hallway did not comply with accessibility

requirements.

2. At the second floor. one Women's and one Men's restroom were observed.

a. In the Women's restroom, no significant modifications had been made in an

attempt to comply with accessibility requirements.

DLR' (.Jroup Science/Engineering/Math Building


;;DLR (roup Science/Engineering/Math Building


32

b. In the Men's restroom, no significant modifications had been made in an attempt

to comply with accessibility requirements.

c. The drinking fountain located in the hallway did not comply with accessibility requirements.

3. At the third floor, one Women's restroom and one Men's restroom were observed.

a. Jn the Women's restroom, no significant modifications had been made in an

attempt to comply with accessibility requirements.

33

1) The floor of the restroom vestibule sloped up to the restroom floor.

2) The slope was measured at 4.1%.

b. In the Men·s restroom, no significant modifications had been made in an attempt

to comply with accessibility requirements.

1) The slope of the restroom vestibule sloped up to the restroom floor.

2) The slope was measured at 4.2%.

c. The drinking fountain located in the hallway did not comply with accessibility

requirements.

I. Stairs

1. The west, east and south stairs in the stairways were similarly designed and

constructed.


Cypress College, Cypress. California

'DLR Science/Engineering/Math Building


34

a. The stair treads and risers are cast-in-place concrete with rubber flooring on the treads and risers.

b. Contrasting striping was not observed at the upper approach or lower tread of

any stair run.

c. The top of the handrail was measured to be 34-inches at the stair runs and 33-

inches at the landing.

d. A clear space of 2 7/8-inches was measured between the handrail and wall.

e. The wooden handrail was 2-inches wide by 8-inches high.

f. Handrail extensions of 24-inches at the bottom and 12-inches at the top were

measure.

g. At the south stair, at the run from the third floor to the roof, steel pipe handrails

and bare concrete treads and risers were observed.


35

2. The west stair in the two story lobby was a concrete floating stair.

a. The stair treads and risers were cast-in-place concrete with rubber flooring on the

treads and risers.

b. Contrasting striping was not observed at the upper approach or lower tread of

any stair run.

c. The top of the handrail was measured to be 32-inches at the stair runs and 41-

inches at the landing and handrail extensions.

J. Elevator

1. The building was served by one elevator located near the center of the building.

2. The cab was 80-inches in width and 51-inches in depth at the side panel and 55-inches

in depth at the door.

3. A 36-inch wide clear side opening door provided access to the cab.

l!G.DLR Croup Science/Engineering/Math Building

36

4. Handrails installed at 37 1/2-inches to the top, were provide on back and side walls of

the elevator cab.

5. The elevator control panel was mounted less than 48-inches above the finish floor to

the top button.

6. Hall lanterns were measured to be centered 60 1/2-inches above the finish floor.




37

7. Foor landing numbers were measured to be centered 60-inches above the finish floor.

7. Call buttons were centered 42-inches above the finish floor.

8. An audible signal sounded for each floor.

DLR Croup


38

II. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Roof

1. The roof access door and frame is rusted and holes in the frame will allow moisture

intrusion into the building.

2. The skylight gasketing had deteriorated and caulking was applied to seal the skylight

assembly. However, the caulking has also dried out.

3. Cracks in the concrete equipment screen walls will allow moisture intrusion and

promote concrete degradation and rusting of concrete reinforcing.

4. At the equipment pads, the exposed horizontal concrete surface can allow moisture

intrusion into the concrete and building.

5. The lack of roof overflow drains will result in ponding water until the drainage area of

the drain reaches a depth to spill to the adjacent drain or over the roof edge.

6. Recommendations:

a. Remove and replace the roof access door and frame.

b. Replace the skylights.

c. Seal cracks in the concrete equipment screen walls with

d. Apply clear liquid waterproofing to the concrete screen walls to minimize water

absorption.

c. Provide sheet metal equipment pad covers.

d. Fix al/ leaking valves and equipment.

f. Replace the wood supports under the piping and conduit runs with metal support

trapezes or rubberized blocks compatible with the roofing system.

g. Add roof overflow drains.

B. Roofing System

1. The roofing system has reached the end of its useful life as evidenced by the cracking

in the roof membrane and deterioration of the roof flashing details.

2. The lack of a coping depends upon the adhesion of the roofing system to the concrete

parapet wall to prevent water intrusion.

3. A coping will also help protect the top surface of the concrete parapet walls from

absorbing moisture.

4. Recommendations:

a. Remove and replace the roofing system.

liffiDLR Science/Engineering/Math Building


39

Cypress Col!ege, Cypress, California

<rour Science/Engineering/Math Building


39

b. Provide sheet metal coping at the top of the parapets.

c. At the pipe penetrations, provide new flashings compatible with the roofing

system.

d. Remove and reinstall reglets and counterflashings if the design and locations are

compatible with the new roofing system.

C. Building Enclosure

1. The exterior concrete walls appeared to be in good condition.

2. The storefront window system gasketing has shrunk and deteriorated and is beyond its

useful life.

3. Recommendations:

a. Apply a clear liquid waterproofing to the concrete surface to minimize moisture

absorption.

b. Remove and replace all window gasketing or provide a combination of gasketing

and wet sealing the glass.

c. Provide weep holes in the window system sill.

d. Adjust the direction of the landscape irrigation away from the windows.

e. Adjust the strength of the sprinkler irrigation spray to stop short of the windows.

D. Interior Observations

1. The stains observed at the first and second floor ceilings were most likely the result of dripping or leaking plumbing pipes and not from water intrusion from the exterior of the building.

2. The top of the guardrails were in compliance with current Code.

a. The presence of the 4-inch high curb has been argued to provide a step thereby

reducing the effective height of the guardrail.

3. The clear space of the guardrail pickets does not comply with Code requirement of less than 4-inches.

4. Recommendations:

a. Confirm that the leaking above the ceiling was the result of a leaking pipe or

valve and that the condition was corrected.

b. Add a decorative sloped cap to the top of the curb to prevent the appearance of

step and make it more difficult to stand on.

c. Add an additional picket or infill panel between the prickets to comply with the

clear space requirement.

40

E. Accessible Parking

1. The accessible parking depth does not comply with the Code requirement of 18'-0".

2. The length of the loading and unloading area does not comply with the Code of 18'-0".

3. Code compliant accessibility parking signage is missing.

4. Additional signage addressing unauthorized parking in accessible spaces is missing.

5. Signage identifying van parking is missing.

5. Directional signage to the accessible entry is missing.

6. Recommendation:

a. Redesign the parking layout to comply with Code.

b. Provide Code compliant parking signage and directional signage.

c. Grade the accessible path to the sidewalk to comply with Code allowed slopes

and cross slopes.

F. Accessible Path of Travel to East Building Entry

1. At the curb ramp, the flared sides exceeded the maximum Code allowed slope of 1:1O

or 10%.

2. For the path of travel, the maximum running slope or slope in the direction of travel is

1:20 or 5%.

3. For the path of travel, the maximum cross slope is 1:50 or 2%.

4. Recommendation:

a. Reconstruct the perpendicular curb ramp to comply with Code.

b. Identify an accessible path to the building entry or regrade the walkway for the

slopes to comply with Code.

G. General Interior Accessibility

1. The general items observed to be not compliant with Codes were throughout the

building.

2. Recommendation:

a. Correct the items that are noncompliant along the accessible path of travel and in

the area or space of work.

b. Replace door knobs with levers or other hardware that does not require grasping

or twisting.

Croup Science/Engineering/Math Building

Cypress College. Cypress, California

42

c. Electrical receptacles and other low mounted devices and controls should be relocated so that the bottom of the box is a minimum of 15-inches above the

finish floor.

d. Switches. thermostats and other high mounted devices and controls should be relocated so that the top of the box is a maximum of 48-inches above the finish floor.

e. Remove the projecting wall pencil sharpeners or provide barriers to comply with

Code to alert someone of the projection.

f. Relocate projecting wall mounted fire alarm pulls or provide barriers to comply

with Code to alert someone of the projection.

g. Relocate projecting fire extinguishers and cabinets or provide barriers to comply

with Code to alert someone of the projection.

h. At the west lobby, under the first run from the first floor to the mid-landing,

provide barriers to comply with Code to alert someone of the reduced overhead clearance.

i. On the south side of the second floor, at the study cubicles, raise the suspended TV to provide a minimum of 80-inches vertical clearance.

j. Adjust the height of the fire alarm strobes so that the entire lens is a minimum 80-

inhces and a maximum of 96-inches above the finish floor.

k. If the scope of work is in a classroom, provide pull strings and handles for

suspended maps, charts and projection screens within the accessible reach

range.

I. If the scope of work is in a classroom or lecture halls, provide access to the

raised platforms.

H. Restrooms

1. The first floor restrooms. where some modifications have been made, may be able to

be fully comply with accessibility Codes.

a. Some relocation and/or removal of walls are necessary to make the entry

comply.

b. Total fixture count required for the building should also be analyzed as required

by the Plumbing Code.

2. In the first floor Women's restroom:

a. Relocate the door signage.

b. Provide and locate proper wall signage.

c. Correct the water closet stall door to self-close.

d. Replace the latching mechanism.


Cypress College, Cypress, Callfornia

41

e. Relocate the coat hook.

f. Reverse the location of the flush handle to the wide side of the stall.

g. Relocate the toilet paper dispenser.

h. Relocate the seat cover dispenser.

i. Relocate one lavatory.

j. Relocate the mirror.

3. In the first floor Men's restroom:

a. Relocate the door signage.

b. Provide and locate proper wall signage.

c. Correct the water closet stall door to self-close.

d. Replace the latching mechanism.

e. Relocate the coat hook.

f. Relocate the toilet paper dispenser.

g. Relocate the seat cover dispenser.

h. Relocate one urinal.

h. Relocate one lavatory.

j. Relocate the mirror.

4. The second and third floor restrooms do not comply with the accessibility Codes.

a. Full compliance will require a complete renovation involving removal of some

fixtures and relocation and/or removal of some walls.

b. At the third floor restroom vestibule, the sloped floor of the vestibule does not

comply with accessibility Codes for a level landing on either side of a door.

5. Recommendation - restrooms:

a. Complete the renovation of the first floor restrooms and entries to comply with

accessibility Codes.

b. Completely renovate the second and third floor restroom entries and restrooms to

comply with Code.

6. Recommendation - drinking fountains:

a. Provide dual height accessible drinking fountains.



42

b. Provide pedestrian protection at the drinking fountains to comply with Code.

I. Stair

1. The stair tread and risers dimensions are in compliance with Code.

2. Contrasting striping was missing from the stairs.

3. Handrail grip size was not in compliance with Code.

4. Recommendations:

a. Provide contrasting striping at the upper landing and lower tread of each stair

run.

b. Depending upon the total scope of work of a future project or projects.

compliance may be required.

J. Elevator

1. The elevator is generally in compliance with Code.

a. Some isolated components are not in strict compliance with Code such as the

cab handrail height and hall lantern height.

b. Use and time may have affected the timing and sound of the elevator.

2. Recommendation:

a. Contract with an elevator contractor to provide a full review of the elevator

mechanics and make adjustments and timing to bring the elevator into full

compliance.

Ill. Warranty and Limitations of this Report

The findings and conclusions in this report were prepared in accordance with general accepted

professional principles and practice in the field of architecture. This warrant is in lieu of all other

warranties, either expressed or implied.

: DLR Ciroup Science/Engineering/Math Building


43

STRUCTURAL

Cypress College SEM Building

Preliminary Structural Evaluation (ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1)

September 28, 2015

Table of Contents

1. Project Overview and Scope of Work ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Project Overview ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.2. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................. 2

2. Existing Conditions and Observations .................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Existing Structural Drawings ........................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Building Systems Description .......................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1. General ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2. Gravity System ....................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.3. Lateral Force Resisting System ........................................................................................... 13

2.2.4. Foundations .......................................................................................................................... 14

2.3. Site Visit and Observations ........................................................................................................... 14

2.3.1. General ................................................................................................................................. 14

2.3.2. Skylights. .............................................................................................................................. 16

3. Building Systems Evaluation (ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1) ....................................................................... 18

3.1. General .......................................................................................................................................... 19

3.2. Performance Objective .................................................................................................................. 19

3.3. Site Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.4. Required Checklists ...................................................................................................................... 21

3.5. Noncompliant Items ...................................................................................................................... 21

3.5.1. Basic Structural (Type C2) ................................................................................................... 21

3.5.2. Supplementary Structural (Type C2) ................................................................................... 22

3.5.3. Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations ............................................................................. 23

3.5.4. Basic Nonstructural .............................................................................................................. 23

3.5.5. Intermediate Nonstructural. .................................................................................................. 24

4. Recommendations and Next Steps ...................................................................................................... 25

5. References ............................................................................................................................................ 26


Appendix B - Seismic Design Parameters Appendix C - Selected Site Photos

75-15618-00 46

1. Project Overview and Scope of Work

75-15618-00

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Cypress College has expressed the desire to evaluate the existing Science, Engineering and Mathematics (SEM) building to determine if the building structural systems require upgrades. Ultimately, the objective of the preliminary structural study is to identify what upgrades are required and to estimate costs for the required upgrades.

The SEM building is a three story building constructed in 1970-71 on the Cypress College campus in Cypress, California. The building is approximately 100,000 square feet. The building program consists primarily of classrooms, laboratories and offices and also includes mechanical/electrical rooms. a two-story entrance lobby, a greenhouse and a central lecture hall that slopes from the second level to ground level. The SEM building is currently still used for instruction with the exception of some classroom spaces which are vacant.

Figure 1: Building South Elevation Exterior as seen from South Elevation

SCOPE OF WORK

This report details the preliminary structural seismic study conducted for the SEM building according to American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (31-03) Tier 1 criteria. A Tier 1 evaluation is a preliminary screening which determines whether or not the building requires seismic upgrades. It should be noted that the preliminary structural study does not identify what specific upgrades are required for the building and does not include a comprehensive analysis to determine the structural deficiencies in each member of the building. The Tier 1 study identifies only if

75-15618-00 48

structural upgrades are required based on an initial screening. If upgrades are recommended as a result of the Tier 1 evaluation, a Tier 2 evaluation should be performed to identify exactly what upgrades are required. A Tier 2 study is not included in the scope of this report.

ASCE/SEI 31-03 defines two levels of performance objectives for buildings being evaluated: Life Safety (LS) and Immediate Occupancy (10). The Tier 1 assessment detailed in this report assumes the Life Safety performance objective for the SEM building. This is consistent with guidelines recommended in ASCE/SEI 31-03 since the building is not an essential facility such as a fire station or hospital. An evaluation assuming Immediate Occupancy performance objective per ASCEISEI 31-03 is outside the scope of this report.

The Tier 1 evaluation was performed for the SEM building only and does not include an evaluation of the surrounding buildings. The attached elevated pedestrian bridge/piazza is not included in the Tier 1 evaluation detailed in this report.

The following tasks were performed as part of the preliminary structural Tier 1 study:

• Review of existing structural drawings (provided by Owner)

• Site visit by DLR Group structural engineer to visually inspect the existing building

structure (Note: Destructive and non-destructive testing of the existing structure was not

performed as part of the site visit; visual inspection only)

• Identify code mandated structure upgrades, if any, that apply to the building

• Perform a structural evaluation of the building in accordance with ASCE/SEI 31-03

including applicable structural checklists

• Summarize findings of ASCEISEI 31-03 Tier 1 evaluation and evaluate any non

compliant items

• Provide recommendations to Owner based on Tier 1 evaluation and information

gathered

75-15618-00

2. Existing Conditions and Observations

75-15618-00 5

EXISTING STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS

A set of structural drawings was provided by the Owner. The structural engineering firm listed

on the drawings is Martin & Associates of Los Angeles, California and the drawings are signed

by John A. Martin, the structural engineer of record, (Note: This firm is currently still practicing

as John A. Martin & Associates (JAMA) based in Los Angeles.) The Architect is listed as William

Blurock & Partners/Caudill, Rowlett, Scott Associated Architects. The drawings include a State

of California - Department of General Services Office of Architecture and Construction stamp

marked "Approved" and dated February 13, 1970.

The set appears to be an approved set of final construction drawings and does not indicate "as

built" anywhere on the set. No revision numbers or dates are listed on the set. The drawing set

includes two buildings: the SEM building (Building A), the Business building (Building B) and the

elevated pedestrian walkway piazza structure. Some structural details (e.g. joists, slabs and

foundations) apply to all buildings, as indicated on the sheets. The scope of this report is limited

to Building A.

The drawings provided are a partial set, missing the following sheets for Building A:

• General notes sheet(s)

• Sheet S-1T (slab-on-grade and foundation details)

• Sheet S-2T (foundation details)

• Sheet S-6A (stem walls under auditorium details)

Where information cannot be determined from the existing drawings (e.g. concrete strength not

available since the general notes not included in set), design assumptions will be made per

ASCE/SEI 31-03 recommendations.

BUILDING SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION

General

The SEM building is a three-story reinforced concrete (RC) building. The overall dimensions of

the building are approximately 150 feet in the East-West direction by 240 feet in the North-South

direction. The building footprint is rectangular at the roof and third floor with the exception of

some minor "notches" in the floorplate near the locations stairwell locations, and the stairwell

enclosures.

At the second floor, the east and west portions of the floorplate are stepped inward by

approximately 20 feet to create exterior double-height spaces. Exterior fin walls are provided at

these locations that span from the foundation to the third floor, oriented in the East-West

direction. The unbraced height of these exterior walls is approximately 24 feet. These walls are

exposed on the East and West exterior elevations and are a prominent architectural design

feature.

There are three main staircases located on the east, west and south sides of the building that

are enclosed by concrete walls. The stairwells are approximately 15 feet wide and 30 feet long

in plan. The outward facing ends of each stair are semi-circular in plan along the height of the

staircase structure and are a prominent design feature, visible from the building exterior.

75-15618-00 6

A balcony is located on the second floor of the south elevation of the building. The balcony is approximately 20 feet by 30 feet. At the second floor, the west side of the building connects to the piazza structure.

Figure 2:

75-15618-00 7

f.)!_F;....

if;;;:

Figure 3:

'"JV("

;-,h,JP

Figure 4: Roof Plan

75-15618-00 8

Gravity System

Waffle Slab Floor System

The gravity system consists of a waffle slab floor system supported by RC cruciform gravity columns and RC walls. Columns are spaced at approximately 30 feet on center in each direction, typical.

The waffle slab floor system consists of 4 W' thick concrete slab with 1O" thick, 2'-0" deep joists spaced at 5'-0" on center typical throughout the floor each way (2'-4 %" total structural floor depth). At column locations, the recessed voids between joists are infilled to create solid column drop caps. These solid drop caps extend for one bay in each direction typical at interior columns, centered on the column. The infilled bays around the columns are 2'-2 W' thick, typical (the drop caps include a 2" reveal at the bottom between joists).

Slab reinforcement consists of #3 bars at 12" on center (OC) each way (EW) at slab midheight. Joist reinforcement varies depending on location in the building. Typical joist reinforcement is as follows:

• Typical Middle Strip Joists (M-61):

o Bot Bars: (2)-#7 continuous

o Top Bars @ supports: (2)-#7

o Top Bars @ midspan: (2)-#5

o Ties @ support (5' bay closest to support): #3 @ 1O" OC

o Ties @ midspan: #3 @ 12" OC (2"' floor), #3 @ 18" OC (3''& Roof)

• Typical Column Strip Joists (C-61):

o Bot Bars: (2)-#8 continuous

o Top Bars @ supports: (4)-#7

o Top Bars @ midspan: (2)-#5

o Ties @ support (5' bay closest to support): #3 @ 1O" OC

o Ties @ midspan: #3 @ 12" OC (2"' floor), #3 @ 18" OC (3''& Roof)

• Column Drop Caps:

o Top & Bot Bars: (6)-#5 EW

75-15618-00 9

! t

! i i ' '--" -; L -

Figure 5: Typical Waffle Slab Plan

Figure 6: Typical Waffle Slab Floor Section

2ae £ il ,;;v,c

_

75-15618-00 10

i 4 '

l:.' r:.:7;

a/hX!::f, e t/C'l'-

. r·,·--"_J

r!!:J'.''

Figure 7: Typical Waffle Slab Joist Section

bor·.s .c.-'J/'' i'.'.

Figure 8: Typical Column Drop Cap Section

75-15618-00 11

Columns

Interior gravity columns are 30"x30" (outer dimension) cruciform sections, typical, The web thicknesses of the cruciform columns are 10" in each direction, typical, Columns around the building perimeter are either rectangular or L-shaped depending on the location, The perimeter columns are typically 1O" wide to match the perimeter wall thickness, Reinforcement for the columns varies depending on the location within the building, Typical reinforcement for the interior columns is as follows:

• Typical Interior Column (11E-14N):

o Longitudinal bars (Outer): (8)-#9 (2nd Floor), (8)-#8 (3"' & Roof)

o Longitudinal bars (Center): (4)-#5

o Ties: #3 @ 10" OC

9: Typical Drop Cap at Column

75-15618-00 12

·;

Figure 10: Typical Cruciform Gravity Column Section

75-15618-00 13

Bearing Walls

Bearing walls exist throughout the building, including the building perimeter, stairwells, elevator shaft and auditorium. These perimeter walls are typically 1O" thick. Reinforcement for all walls could not be determined based on the information provided since the typical wall reinforcing schedule (9/S-1T) was not provided in the existing drawing set. However, reinforcement configurations and attachments to floors is indicated for some of the perimeter walls as shown on sheets S-5A and S-9A

Lateral Force Resisting System

The lateral system consists of RC shear walls in both directions. The perimeter walls, stairwell walls, elevator core walls and auditorium walls will act as shear walls since they are tied directly into the floorplates at each level.

Due to the change in building floorplan at the second floor, the East and West perimeter shear walls are discontinuous at the second floor. The two shear walls in the North-South direction at each side of the auditorium extend from the foundation to the third floor (do not extend to roof)

Figure 11: Cruciform Gravity Column at Entrance Lobby Area

75-15618-00 14

creating partial-height shear walls. Drag steel is indicated on the existing plans, extending from the auditorium walls into the waffle slab floor system on either side of the walls. Drag steel extending into the floorplate is also indicated at various stairwell walls at each level.

Foundations

The building foundation consists of RC piles with RC pile caps and tie beams. Continuous footings are provided below the interior and exterior walls spanning between pile cap locations. Slab-on-grade (SOG) is 4" thick.

Exact sizes of the foundation elements were not indicated on the drawings since the foundation sheets were not included in the existing set. Scaled from the existing drawings, the sizes of the rectangular pile caps range from approximately 3'x5'-6" to 10'x12'. The sizes of the hexagonal shaped pile caps range from approximately 4'x5' to 8'x9' outer dimensions. Axial load values for the pile groups are indicated at each pile cap on the foundation plan. These axial loads range from 11O kip to 1070 kip.

Reinforcement for the main foundation elements such as the piles, pile caps, tie grade beams and slab-on-grade could not be determined based on the drawings provided since the foundation detail sheets were missing from the set.

SITE VISIT & OBSERVATIONS

A site visit was conducted on September 2, 2015 to visually inspect the existing building structure and verify conditions indicated on the existing structural drawings.

General

Overall, the building closely resembles the structure indicated on the construction drawings provided with the exception of the skylights (see below). Much of the building structure (columns, walls, waffle slab floor system) is exposed at hallways and main circulation areas which allowed the direct measurement of some structural elements at various locations throughout the building, including:

• Column-to-column dimensions

• Wall dimensions

• Member thicknesses (columns, walls, exposed waffle slab floor system)

Spot measurements were taken at various locations throughout the building to verify the building dimensions and member sizes listed on plan. The sizes and dimensions measured match the design drawings for the areas surveyed. Certain portions of the structure were concealed by ceilings and/or flooring and could not be verified, such as the roof to wall connections within the classrooms. Based on the observed exposed structural components, there is no indication that the classroom areas differ from the design drawings.

The general condition of the concrete elements observed was very good with little to no visible cracking and/or damage. Some minor cracks were observed in a select number of elements; however, these were deemed to be cosmetic and probably caused by incremental shrinkage of the concrete over the life of the building. The observed cracks do not indicate any structural

75-15618-00 15

damage. Very minor damage to column concrete surfaces was observed at the bases of some

gravity columns.

Figure 13: Minor Scratching on Concrete Surface at Base of Gravity Column

75-15618-00 16

Skylights

The original structural and architectural construction drawings indicate a skylight design feature on the roof of the building consisting of skewed 6" RC walls, approximately 10 feet square in plan, approximately 9 feet tall. The existing condition does not match the construction drawings for the skylights: the existing skylights are low-profile domed plastic or polyethylene skylights attached directly to the roof (no other structure is provided above the roof). It is not known whether the existing skylights were originally installed in place of the skylights indicated on the construction drawings or if the original skylights were installed and have been replaced since installation.

Figure 14: Skylight Locations at Roof

75-15618-00 17

f'i9ure ·15, originaTsi< 10 n per Exisiiri

Ii Drawin9s- -- - - ----

.YlT9h!Besi9 9

1-- - 3. Building Systems Evaluation (ASCE/SEI 31- 03 Tier 1)

75-15618-00

75-15618-00 19

TIER 1 ASSESSMENT

General

A preliminary seismic structural evaluation was performed according to ASCE/SEI 31-03 based

on building type, seismicity, and performance objective.

The Tier 1 assessment is based on information observed at the site during the site visit, the

existing structural plans provided by the Owner and other readily available resources, such as

building codes and seismic hazard maps. Where information could not be determined from any

of these sources, the checklist items are marked as "Noncompliant" indicating that further

investigation is required to determine whether these items meet the desired performance

objective. For example, wall reinforcement schedules were not provided in the existing structural

drawing set Since the reinforcement within the wall could not be observed in site, further

investigation is required to determine the bar sizes and spacing within the walls. Many non

structural items, such as ceiling attachments and light fixtures could not be determined since

they were not readily accessible during the site visit Further investigation is required for these

items to determine whether or not they are compliant per the Tier 1 analysis.

Performance Objective

A Life Safety (LS) performance objective was used for the SEM building Tier 1 assessment of

the structural and nonstructural components. This is consistent with ASCE/SEI 31-03

recommendations since the building is not deemed a critical/essential facility (e.g. fire station,

hospital). A Life Safety performance objective is defined by FEMA 356 as a post-earthquake

damage state that ensures partial or total structural collapse does not occur under the design

earthquake, and that damage to nonstructural items is not life-threatening. It should be noted

that the building is expected to sustain significant structural damage under a Life Safety

performance objective.

The SEM Building is classified as Type 9: Concrete Shear Walls with Stiff Diaphragms (C2) per

ASCE/SEI 31-03.

(With Stiff

Diaphragms)

Building Type 9: CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

These buildings have floor and roof framing that consists of cast-in-place

concrete slabs, concrete beams, one-way joists, two-way waffle joists, or flat slabs. Floors are supported on concrete columns or bearing walls. Lateral forces are resisted by cast-in-place concrete shear walls. In older construction, shear walls are lightly reinforced but often extend throughout the building. In more recent construction, shear walls occur In isolated locations, are more heavily reinforced with concrete slabs, and are stiff relative to the wails. Foundations consist of concrete spread footings, mat foundations, or deep foundations.

Site Seismicity

No existing site-specific geotechnical design information was available for the building site. Therefore, mapped spectral acceleration parameters were used to determine the design

spectral acceleration parameters per ASCE/SEI 31-03.

I

75-15618-00 20

Seismic acceleration parameters Sos and S01 were determined using the 2% probability of

exceedance mapped parameter values from American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural

Engineering Institute (ASCEISEI) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (7-

05), consistent with ASCEISEI 31-03 methodology. Since no existing geotechnical information

was provided for the site, Site Class D was assumed per ASCE/SEI 31-03 guidelines.

ASCEISEI 31-03 categorizes the site as Low, Medium or High seismicity based on the design

spectral response values:

Table 2-1. Levels of Seismicity Definitions

Moderate <:0.167g

<0.500g

"'...-...-.J

;o0.067g ,

<0.200g

High <:0.500g i <:0.200g i

The Cypress SEM building site is classified as High seismicity. The seismic design parameters

for the SEM Building Tier 1 assessment are summarized below:

!

i I !

!

I

I

i, , I

Table 1: Se1sm1c Design Parameters per ASCEISEI 31-03 & 7-05

! Seismic Parameter Value

I Site Latitude 33.8289

! Site Longitude -118.0244

Occupancy Category 111

Site Class D

· Short-Period Mapped MCE Response Acceleration (Ss), g 1.422

1-Second Mapped MCE Response Acceleration (S1), g 0.513

Short-Period Site Coefficient (F,) 1.0

1-Second Site Coeff1c1ent (Fv) ! 1 5

I Adjusted Short-Period Mapped MCE Response Acceleration (SMs), g 1.422

j Adjusted 1-Second Mapped MCE Response Acceleration (SM1), g 0.770

Design Short-Period Response Acceleration (Sos), g 0.948

Design 1-Second Response Acceleration (S01), g 0.513

Seismic Design Category D

Level of Seismicity per ASCEISEI 31-03 High

Level of Seismici ty1

Sos So1

Low <0.167g <0.067g i

'-- ,..

! Low I LS I i

I

I

!

Required Checklists

ASCE/SEI 31-03 requires the following checklists for the building based on seismicity and

performance level (High Seismicity, Life Safety performance objective):

• Basic Structural

• Supplemental Structural

• Geologic Site Hazard and Foundation

• Basic Nonstructural

• Intermediate Nonstructural

Table 3-2. Checklists Required for a Tier 1Evaluation 1

I I i Required Checkllsts

j Leve! I I I ' of Geologic Site

Leve! Level l Low j Basic Supplemental Hazard and Basic Intermediate Supplemental of of Seisrnicity Structunil Structural Foundation Nonstructural Nonstructural . Nonstructural

Seismtcity Periormancil 'I (Sec. 3.6) I {Sec. 3.7) (Sec. 3.7} {Sec. 3..S) (Sec. 3.9.1) (Sec, 3.9.2} (Soc. 3.9.3)

10 i ,.. ,.. i ,.. Moderate LS

10

,.. ,.. ",.". i ,.. ,.. ,.. ...

High LS I ,.. i ,.. ,.. ,.. ,..

' 10 ,.. I ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. '

1A checkmark ( ) des'1gnates the checklist that must he completed for a Tier 1 Evaluatmn as a function of the level of seismrclty and level

of performance.

'ts = Ufe Safety;. 10 = Immediate Ot.-cupancy fdefined rn Section 2-4}. 3 Defmed in Section 2.5.

NoncompliantItems

Based on the Tier 1 evaluation, the following items were found to be noncompl'lant. These items

do not meet the required Life Safety performance objective and require further

investigation/action.

Basic Structural Checklist (Type C2)

Building System - Weak Story

• The shear wall strength of the North-South walls below the 3'' Floor is less than 80% of

the North-South walls below the Roof

• The shear wall strength in the East-West walls below the Roof is less than 80% of the

East-West walls below the 3'' Floor

o Recommendation: A Tier 2 dynamic analysis should be performed to evaluate

the capacity of the shear walls at locations of strength discontinuities.

Building System - Soft Story

• The shear wall stiffness of the North-South walls below the 3'' Floor is approximately

70% of the North-South walls below the Roof


the potential for soft-story failure of the shear walls below the 3'' Floor.

75-15618-00

75-15618-00 22

Building System - Geometry

• The horizontal dimension of the East-West shear walls below the 3'd Floor is greater

than 30% of the East-West walls below the Roof


any uneven distributions of seismic forces which may lead to unexpected higher

mode effects and demand concentrations.

Building System - Vertical Discontinuities

• Portions of the North-South shear walls at gridlines SE and 13E are discontinuous at the

3'd Floor

o Recommendation: A Tier 2 analysis should be performed to check the 3"' Floor

diaphragm for the transfer of shear forces from the walls below the Roof to the

adjacent North-South auditorium walls below the 3'd Floor. Drags/collectors at

wall elements should also be checked for adequate embedment into diaphragms.

Lateral-Force-Resisting System - Reinforcing Steel

• Wall reinforcement could not be determined based on the existing drawings

o Recommendation: Wall reinforcement should be determined using destructive or

non-destructive testing on the walls in order to verify size and spacing of bars.

Supplemental Structural Checklist (Type C2)

Diaphragms - Diaphragm Continuity

• Internal expansion joints occur at the 2nd Floor diaphragm on the West side of the

building near the attached piazza structure

o Recommendation: A Tier 2 analysis should be performed to ensure a lateral load

path is provided around the expansion joints at the 2nd Floor.

Diaphragms - Openings at Shear Waifs

• Openings greater than 25% of the wall length occur immediately adjacent to many shear

walls throughout the building

o Recommendation: Shear transfer from diaphragms to walls (and walls to

diaphragms at transfer levels). including embedment of drags/collectors into

diaphragms should be checked via a Tier 2 analysis.

Connections - Uplift at Pile Caps

• Pile cap reinforcement could not be determined based on the existing drawings

o Recommendation: Pile cap reinforcement should be determined using

destructive or non-destructive testing in order to verify top bars and anchorage to

pile caps.

75-15618-00 23

Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Checklist

Geologic Site Hazards - Liquefaction

• The site is located in a potential liquefaction zone as defined by the State of California

Seismic Hazard Zones maps (see Reference 5)

o Recommendation: A geotechnical evaluation should be performed to identify

liquefaction potential at site and building susceptibility to liquefaction, if

applicable.

Geologic Site Hazards - Surface Fault Rupture

• The site is located within a mile of the Anaheim fault (Fl D: 363) as documented by

Caltrans (Reference 6)

o Recommendation: A geotechnical/seismicity evaluation should be performed to

determine the seismic hazard including near-fault effects and site conditions. A

Tier 2 analysis of the structure should be performed including the updated

geotechnical/seismic study.

Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist

The following nonstructural items were found to be noncompliant based on the Tier 1

assessment. Some of the following items could not be observed during the initial site visit. For

these ·items, assumptions are made based on building age.

The ceiling was removed at one location to observe attachments for the ceiling system and any

exposed ducts, piping and lighting. The observed conditions were assumed to apply at all

ceiling locations.

Light Fixtures - Emergency Lighting

• Light fixtures are not braced

o Recommendation: Braces for the light fixtures should be installed.

Building Contents & Furnishing - Tall Narrow Contents

• Not all contents over 4 feet tall are anchored to slabs or adjacent walls

o Recommendation: Anchors/straps should be installed on items such as file

cabinets and storage racks to affix these items to floors and walls to prevent

overturning during the Life Safety design earthquake.

Mechanical and Electrical Components - Deterioration

• Indoor equipment is compliant; outdoor equipment is rusted

o Recommendation: Replace/retrofit equipment per Mechanical recommendations.

Piping - Fire Suppression Piping

• Bracing/anchorage for fire suppression piping was not observed

o Recommendation: Replace/retrofit piping with compliant anchorage per

Mechanical recommendations.

75-15618-00 24

Piping - Flexible Couplings

• Flexible couplings were not observed

o Recommendation: Provide flexible couplings capable of undergoing expected

building movement/drift based on a Tier 2 analysis. If required, retrofit or replace

existing piping to include flexible couplings.

Hazardous Materials and Storage Distribution - Toxic Substances

• Toxic substances were not observed

o Recommendation: Provide additional restraints for storage of toxic substances as

required using latched doors, shelf lips, wires or other methods to achieve Life

Safety performance objective. Follow manufacturer/supplier recommendations

for safe storage and restraint.

Intermediate Nonstructural Component Checklist

Ceiling Systems - Lay-In Tiles

• Clips were not observed

o Recommendation: Lay-in tile ceilings should be retrofitted with clips or replaced

with a new system that is compliant.

Ceiling Systems - Suspended Lath and Plaster

• Existing suspended plaster ceiling supports and anchorage could not be determined

o Recommendation: A Tier 2 analysis should be conducted to determine the

capacity of the ceiling system under the required nonstructural seismic forces for

Life Safety.

Light Fixtures - Independent Support

• Attachment of light fixtures to structure and/or ceiling could not be determined

o Recommendation: If lights are connected to ceilings only, the light system should

be retrofitted or replaced with compliant support/anchorage that attaches directly

to the building structure.

Cladding and Glazing - Glazing

• Based on the age of the structure, it is unlikely safety glazing is provided

o Recommendation: The glazing should be replaced with a compliant glazing

system per architectural recommendations.

75-15618-00 25

. 4. Recommendations and Next Steps

75-15618-00 26

RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Based on the ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1 assessment the building in its current condition is not

compliant for the Life Safety performance objective. Further investigation and analysis is

required to ensure the building will perform as desired in the event of an earthquake.

Recommendations are listed for each noncompliant item in Section 3: "Building Systems

Evaluation (ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1)" in this report. These recommendations should be pursued

by the building Owner if it is desired to maintain the building for future use. It should be noted

that the Tier 2 analysis may indicate that no upgrades/retrofits are required for some items;

however, the Tier 1 screening evaluation requires a Tier 2 analysis be conducted in order to

determine which items require upgrades/retrofits.

The following items are required for the existing SEM Building:

• Further investigation including destructive and/or non-destructive testing of structural

elements, including walls and foundations as noted in this report

• A geotechnical investigation and report should be prepared for the existing structure that

includes site-specific seismic hazards, near-source fault effects and liquefaction potential

• Tier 2 dynamic analysis of existing building including explicit modeling of lateral force

resisting system (walls, diaphragms) and incorporating seismic hazard from geotechnical

report

• Further investigation and/or upgrades to nonstructural systems including light fixtures,

suspended ceilings, furniture and glazing as noted in this report

REFERENCES

1) "Cypress Junior College, North Orange County Junior College District, Science Building"

Structural Drawings, Martin & Associates (Los Angeles, California), 1970. (Existing SEM

Building Structural Drawings)

2) "Cypress Junior College, North Orange County Junior College District, Science Building"

Architectural Drawings, William Blurock & Partners/Caudill, Rowlett, Scott (Corona del

Mar, California), 1970. (Existing SEM Building Architectural Drawings)

3) American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI),

Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (31-03) , 2003.

4) American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI),

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (7-05), 2005.

5) "Seismic Hazard Zones Map - Los Alamitos Quadrangle," State of California

Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999,

htto:/lgmw.consrv.ca.govl shmpldownload/pdf/ozn ialmLpdf. (Liquefaction Maps)

6) "Caltrans Fault Database (V2a) for ARS Online," Excel and KML files, California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans), October 13, 2012,

htto: l dap3.dotca.gov/ARS Online/technical.php. (Caltrans Fault Maps)

75-15618-00 27

1--- - Appendix A: Completed ASCE/SEI 31-03 Checklists

3 - 62 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE 31-03 28

Screening Phase (Tier 1)

3.7.9 Basic Structural Checklist for Building Type C2: Concrete Shear Walls with

Stiff Diaphragms

This Basic Structural Checklist shall be completed where required by Table 3-2.

Each of the evaluation statements on this checklist shall be marked Compliant (C), Non-compliant

(NC), or Not Applicable (N/A) for a Tier l Evaluation. Compliant statements identify issues that are

acceptable according to the criteria of this standard, while non-compliant statements identify issues

that require further investigation. Certain statements may not apply to the buildings being evaluated.

For non-compliant evaluation statements, the design professional may choose to conduct further

investigation using the corresponding Tier 2 Evaluation procedure; corresponding section numbers

are in parentheses following each evaluation statement.

Building System

NC NIA LOAD PATH: The structure shall contain a 1nlnl1nu1n of one complete load path for Life Safety

and hnmediate Occupancy for seismic force effects fro1n any horizontal direction that serves to

transfer the inertial forces from the 1nass to the foundati on. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.1.I )

NC NIA MEZZAN INES: Interior mezzan ine levels shall be braced independently fro1n the main structure,

or shall be anchored to the lateral-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3. 1.3)

WEAK STORY: The strength of the lateral-force-resisti ng system in any story shall not be less

than 80 percent of the strength in an adjacent story, above or below, for Life Safety and Immediate

Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.l )

SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the lateral-force-resisting system in any story shall not be less than

70 percent of th e lateral-force-resisting systen1 stiffness in an adjacent story above or below, or less

than 80 percent of the average lateral-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above or

below for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.2)

NC NIA GEOM ETRY: There shall be no changes in horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-resisting

system of more than 30 percent in a story relative to adjacent stories for Life Safety and lmmediate

Occupancy, excluding one-story penthouses and 1nezzanines. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.3)

C NIA VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: AH vertical elements in the lateral-force-resisting syste1n shall

be continuous to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.4)

NC NIA MASS: There sha!I be no change in effective mass more than 50 percent fro1n one story to the next

for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. Light roots, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be

considered. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.5)

C3.7.9 Basic Structural _Checklist for Building Type C2

These buildings have floor and roof framing that consists of cast-in-place concrete slabs, concrete

beams, one-wayjo,ists, tocway waffle joists, or flat slabs. Floors are supported on concrete columns

or bearing walls. Later.ilforces are resisted by cast-in-place concrete shear walls. Inolder

construction, shear walls are lightly reinforced but often extend throughout the building. Inmore

recent construction, shelll' walls occur in i_solated locations and are more heavily reinforced with

boundary elements anddosely spaced ties to provide ductile perfonnance. The diaphragms consist of

concrete slabs and are stiff relative to the walls. Foundations consist of concrete spread footings, mat

foundations, or deep foundations. . .· ...

ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings 3 - 63 29


NC NIA

NC NIA

C NC

NC NIA

NC NIA

NC NIA

NC NIA

c NIA

NC NIA

NC NIA

TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of 1nass and the stol)' center of rigidity shall be l ess than 20 percent of the building width in either plan di1nension for Life Safety

and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.6)

DETERI ORATJ ON OF CONCRETE: There shall be no visible deterioration of concrete or

reinforcing steel in any of the vertical- or lateral-force-resisting elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.3.4)

POST-TENSIONING ANCHORS: There shall be no evidence of corrosion or spalling in the vicinity of post-tensioning or end fittings. Coil anchors shall not have been used. (Tier 2: Sec. 433.5 )

CONCRETE WALL CRACKS: All existing diagonal cracks in wall elements shall be Jess than 1/8 inch for Life Safety and 1116 inch for Immediate Occu pancy, shall not be concentrated in one

location, and shall not fonn an X pattern. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.3.9)

Lateral-Force-Resisting System

COMPLETE FRAMES: Steel or concrete frames classified as secondary components shall form a complete vertical-load-carrying systein. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.1 .6.l )

REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction shall be greater

than or equal to 2 for Life Safety and lm1nediate Occu pancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2. l .J )

SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls, calculated using the Quick

Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.3, shall be less than the greater of I 00 psi or 2 ,{i; for Life

Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2. l )

REINFORCI NG STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing steel area to gross concrete area shall be not iess than 0.0015 in the vertical direction and 0.0025 in the horizontal direction for Life Safety and I mmediate Occupancy. The spacing of reinforcing steel shall be equal to or less than l 8 inches for Life Safety and Immediate Occu pancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.2}

Connections

TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms shall be connected for transfer of l oads to the

shear walls for Life Safety and the connections shall be able to develop the l esser of the shear strength of the walls or diaphragms for l mmediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.2.1 )

FOUNDATI ON DOWELS Wal l reinforcement shall be doweled into the foundation for Life Safety, and the dowels shall be able to develop the lesser of the strength of the walls or the uplift capacity of the foundation for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.3.5)



3.7.9S

Supplemental Structural Checklist for Building Type C2: Concrete Shear

Walls with Stiff Diaphragms

This Supplemental Structural Checklist shall be completed where required by Table 3-2. The Basic

Structural Checklist shall be completed prior to completing this Supplemental Structural Checklist.

Lateral-Force-Resisting System

NC N/A

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C N/A

C NC

C NC

DEFLECTION COM PATIBILI1Y: Secondary components shall have the shear capacity to develop the flexural strength of the co1nponents for Life Safety and shall meet the requirements of

Sections 4.4.1.4.9, 4.4. l .4.I 0, 4.4.1.4.1 1, 4.4.1.4.1 2 and 4.4.1.4.1 5 for Immediate Occupancy.

(Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.l.6.2)

FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs/plates not part of lateral-force-resisting system shall have continuous botto1n steel through the column joints for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2:

Sec. 4.4.1.6.3)

COUPLING BEAMS: The stirrups in coupling beams over means of egress shall be spaced at or

less than d/2 and shall be anchored into the confined core of the bun with hooks of I 35° or more

for Life Safety. AJI coupling beams shall comply with the requirements above and shall have the

capacity in shear to develop the uplift capacity of the adjacent wall for Immediate Occupancy.

(Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.3)

OVERTURNING: All shear wal ls shall have aspect ratios less than 4-to-1 . Wall piers need not be considered. This statement shall apply to the lmmediate Occupancy Perfom1ancc Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.4)

CONFINEMENT REINFORCING: For shear walls with aspect ratios greater than 2-to-- l , the boundary elements shall be confined with spirals or ties with spacing less than 8d1r This statement

shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.5)

REINFORCING AT OPENINGS: There shall be added tri1n reinforcement around all wall openings with a dimension greater than three times the thickness of the wan. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Perfonnance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.6)

WALL THICKNESS: Thickness of bearing walls shall not be less than l /25 the unsupported height or length, whichever is shorter, nor less than 4 inches. This state1nent shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. {Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.7)

Diaphragms

DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms shall not be composed of split-level floors and shall not have expansion joints. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.l.l )

OPENJNGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls sha11 be less than 25 percent of the wa11 1ength for Life Safety and 15 percent of the wall length for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5.1 .4)

PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There shall be tensile capacity to develop the strength of the diaphragm at re-entrant comers or other locations of plan irregularities. This stateinent shall apply to the lmmediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.5. I .7)

DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEM ENT AT OPENINGS: There shall be reinforcing around all

diaphragm openings larger than 50 percent of the building width in either major plan dimension.

This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2:

Sec. 4.5.1.8)

3 - 65 ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings 31


Connections

c NIA UPLIFT AT PI LE CAPS: Pile caps shall have top reinforcement and piles shall be anchored to the

pile caps for Life Safety, and the pile cap reinforcement and pile anchorage shall be able to develop

the tensile capacity of the piles for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.3. l 0)

Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE 31-03 32

,


3.8 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Checklist

This Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Checklist shall be completed where required by

Table 3-2.


(NC), or Not Applicable (N/A) for a Tier l Evaluation. Compliant statements identify issues that are






Geologic Site Hazards

The foll_owing statements shall be completed for buildings in levels of high or 1noderate seismicity.

C ( NC; NIA LlQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize

iffe· the building's seismic peifonnance shall not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 feet

under the building for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.L l )

NC NIA SLOPE FAl LURE: The building site shall be sufficiently remote from potential earthquake

induced slope failures or rockfalls to be unaffected by such failures or shaH be capable of

accommodating any predicted movements without failure. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.1 .2)

C NIA SURFACE FA ULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displace1nent at the building site

is not anticipated. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.1.3)

Condition of Foundations

following statement shall be completed for all Tier 1 bu i1ding evaluations.

NC NIA FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE: There shall be no evidence of excessi ve foundation movement

such as settlement or heave that would affect the integrity or strength of the structure. (Tier 2:

Sec. 4.7.2.1)

The following statement shall be completed for buildings in levels of high or 1noderate seis1nicity being evaluated to the

Immediate 0 upancy Perfonnance Level.

C NC DETER10RATION: There shall not be evidence that foundation elements have deteriorated due to

corrosion, sulfate attack, material breakdown, or other reasons in a manner that would affect the

integrity or strength of the structure. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.2.2)

C NC

Capacity of Foundations

statement shall be completed for all Tier 1 bu ilding evaluations.

POLE FOUNDATIONS: Pole foundations shall have a minimum embedment depth of 4 feet for

Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.3. 1)

The following statements shall be completed for buildings in levels of moderate seismicity being eval uated to the

!mediate Occupancy Perfonnance Level and for buildings in levels of high seismicity.

t_ C l NC NIA OVERTURNING: The ratio of the horizontal dimension of the lateral forceresisting sysrem at the

foundation level to the building height (base/height) shall be greater than 0.6S0 • (Tier 2:

Sec. 4.7.3.2)



NC NIA TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEM ENTS: The foundation shall have ties adequate to resist

seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified

as Class A, B, or C. (Section 3.5.2.3. J , Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.3.3)

C NC DEEP FOUNDATI ONS: Piles and piers shall be capable of transferring the lateral forces between

the structure and the soil. This statement shall apply to the Immedi ate Occupancy Performance

Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.3.4)

C NC SLOPING SITES: The difference in foundation embedment depth from one side of the building to

another shall not exceed one story in height. This state1nent shall apply to the lmmediate Occupancy Performance Level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4. 7.3.5)

3 - 122 Seismic Evaluation Standard ASCE 31-02 34


3.9.l Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist

This Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist shall be completed where required by Table 3-2.


(NC), or Not Applicable (N/A) for a Tier IEvaluation. Compliant statements identify issues that are






Partitions

C NC UNREI NFORCED MASONRY: Unreinforced masonry or hollow clay tile partitions shall be

braced at a spacing equal to or less than I 0 feet in levels of low or moderate seismicity and 6 feet in

levels of high seismicity. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.l .l )

Ceiling Systems

NC NIA SUPPORT: The integrated suspended ceiling system shall not be used to laterally support the tops

of gypsum board, masonry, or hollow clay tile partitions. Gypsorn board partitions need not be

evaluated where oniy the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required by Table 3-2. (Tier

2: Sec. 4.8.2.1 )

Light Fixtures

c NIA EMERGENCY LIGHTING: Emergency lighting shall be anchored or braced to prevent falling

during an earthquake. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.3.1 )

Cladding and Glazing

C NC CLADDING ANCHORS: Cladding components weighing more than J 0 psf shall be mechanically

anchored to the exterior wall framing at a spacing equal to or less than 4 feet. A spacing of u p to 6

feet is pennitted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required by Table 3-2.

(Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.1 )

NC NIA DETERJORA TJON: There shall be no evidence of deterioration, damage or corrosion in any of

the connection elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.2)

C NC CLADDING lSOLATION: For moment frame buildings of steel or concrete, panel connections

shall be detailed to accommodate a story drift ratio of 0.02. Panel connection detail ing for a story

drift ratio of 0.0 l is permi tted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required

by Table 3-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.3)

C NC M ULTI-STORY PANELS: For multi-story panels attached at each floor level, panel connections

shall be detail ed to accommodate a story drift ratio of 0.02. Panel connection detailing for a story

drift ratio of O.Ol is pennitted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required

by Table 3-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.4)

C NC BEARI NG CONNECTIONS: Where bearing connections are required, there shall be a minimum

of two bearing connections for each wall panel. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.5)

ASCE 31-03 3 - 123 Seismic Evaluation of Ex'1sting Buildings 35


C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC

C NC i

INSERTS: Where inserts are used in concrete connections, the inserts shall be anchored to

reinforcing steel or other posi tive anchorage. (Tier 2; Sec. 4.8.4.6)

PANEL CONNECTIONS: Exterior cladding panels shall be anchored out-of-plane with a

minimum of 4 connections for each wall panel. Two connections per wall panel are permitted

where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required by Table 3-2. (Tier 2:

Sec. 4.8.4.7)

Masonry Veneer

SHELF ANG LES: Masonry veneer shall be supported by shelf angles or other ele1nents at each

floor 30 feet or more above ground for Life Safety and at each floor above the first floor for

Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.5. l )

TI ES: Masonry veneer shall be connected to the back-up with corrosion-resistant tics. The ties

shall have a spacing equal to or less than 24 inches with a minimum of one tie for every 2-2/3

square feet. A spacing of up to 36 inches is permitted where only the Basic Nonstructural

Component Checklist is required by Table 3-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.5.2)

WEAKENED PLANES; Masonry veneer shall be anchored to the back-up adjacent to weakened

planes, such as at the locations of flashing. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.5.3)

DETERJORA TION: There shall be no evidence of deterioration, damage, or corrosion in any of

the connection elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.5.4)

Parapets, Cornices, Ornamentation, and Appendages

URM PARAPETS: There shall be no laterally unsupported unreinforced masonry parapets or

cornices with height-to-thickness ratios greater than 1 .5. A height-to-thickness ratio of up to 2.5 is

pennitted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required by Table 3-2. (Tier

2: Sec. 4.8.8.I )

CANOPIES: Canopies located at building exits shall be anchored to the structural framing at a

spacing of 6 feet or less. An anchorage spacing of up to l 0 feet is pennitted where only the Basic

Nonstructural Co1nponent Checkl ist is required by Table 3-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.8.2)

Masonry Chimneys

URM CHJMNEYS: No unreinforced masonry chimney shall extend above the roof surface more

than twice the least dimension of the chimney. A height above the roof surface of up to three times

the least dimension of the chimney is permitted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component

Checklist is required by Table 3-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.9.1)

Stairs

URM WALLS: Walls around stair enclosures shall not consist of unbraced hollow clay tile or

unreinforced masonry with a height-to thickness ratio greater than 12-to- l. A height-to-th ickness

ratio of up to l 5-to-J is permitted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is

required by Table 3-2. (Tier 2; Sec. 4.8.10.1 )

STAIR DETAI LS: I n moment frame structures, the connection between the stairs and the stru cture

shall not rely on shallow anchors in concrete. Alternatively, the stair details shall be capa ble of

accommodating the drift calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.I without

including tension in the anchors. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.10.2)

3 -124 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE 31-03 36

Screening Phase (Tier i)

c

C NC

NIA

Building Contents and Furnishing

TALL NARROW CONTENTS: Contents over 4 feet in height with a height-to-depth or height-to

width ratio greater than 3-to-l shall be anchored to the floor slab or adjacent structural walls. A

height-to-depth or height-to-width ratio of up to 4-to- I is pennitted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required by Table 3-2. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8. l l. l )

Mechanical and Electrical Equipment

EMERGENCY POWER: Equipment used as part of an emergency power system shall be mounted

to maintain continued operation after an earthquake. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8. l 2. l )

NC NIA HAZARDOUS MATERIAL EQUIPMENT: HVAC or other equipment containing hazardous

material shall not have damaged supply lines or unbraced isolation supports. (Tier 2:

Sec. 4.8.12.2)

C NC

c

c

c

NIA

NIA

NIA

NIA

DETERlORATION: There shall be no evidence of deterioration, dmnage, or corrosion in any of

the anchorage or supports of mechanical or electrical equipment (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.1 2.3)

indoor outdoor

ATTACHED EQUIPMENT: Equipment weighing over 20 lb that is attached to ceilings, walls, or

other supports 4 feet above the floor level shal l be braced. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.12.4)

Piping

FI RE SUPPRESSION PIPING: Fire suppression p1p1ng shall be anchored and braced in

accordance with NFPA- l 3 (NFPA, 1 996). (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.1 3. I )

FLEXIBLE COUPLI NGS: Fluid, gas, and fire suppression piping shall have flexible couplings.

(Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.13.2)

Hazardous Materials Storage and Distribution

TOXIC SUBSTANCES: Toxic and hazardous substances stored in breakable containers shall be

restrained from falling by latched doors, shelf lips, wires, or other methods. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.15. l )

ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings 3 -125 37


3.9.2 Intermediate Nonstructural Component Checklist

This Intermediate Nonstructural Component Checklist shall be completed where required by

Table 3-2. The Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist shall be completed prior to completing

this Intermediate Nonstructural Component Checklist.

Ceiling Systems

LAY-I N TILES: Lay-in tiles used in ceiling panels located at exits and corridors shall be secured

with clips. (Tier 2: See. 4.8.2.2)

l NTEGRATED CEI LINGS: Integrated suspended ceilings at exits and conidors or weighing 1nore

than 2 pounds per square foot shall be laterally restrained with a minimum of four diagonal wires or

rigid 1nembers attached to the structure above at a spacing equal to or less than 12 feet. (Tier 2:

Sec. 4.8.2.3)

C NIA SUSPENDED LATH AND PLASTER: Ceilings consisting of suspended lath and plaster or

gypsum board shall be attached to resist seismic forces for every l 2 square feet of area. (Tier 2:

Sec. 4.8.2.4)

c

c

C NC

C NC

C NC

NIA

NIA

Light Fixtures

INDEPENDENT SUPPORT: Light fixtures in suspended grid ceilings shall be supported

independently of the ceiling suspension system by a minimum of two wires at diagona11y opposite

comers of the fixtures. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.3.2)

Cladding and Glazing

GLAZlNG: Glazing in curtain walls and individual panes over 16 square feet in area, located up to

a height of l 0 feet above an exterior walking surface, shall have safety glazing. Such glazing

located over 1 0 feet above an exterior walking surface shall be laminated annealed or laminated

heat-strengthened safety glass or other glazing system that wiH remain in the frame when glass is

cracked. (Tier 2: See. 4.8.4.8)

Parapets, Cornices, Ornamentation, and Appendages

CONCRETE PARAPETS: Concrete parapets with height-to-thickness ratios greater than 2.5 shall

have vertical reinforcement. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.8.3)

APPENDAGES: Cornices, parapets, signs, and other appendages that extend above the highest

point of anchorage to the structure or cantilever from exterior wall faces and other exterior wall

ornamentation shall be reinforced and anchored to the structural system at a spacing equal to or less

than 10 feet for Life Safety and 6 feet for Immediate Occupancy. This requirement need not apply

to parapets or cornices compliant with Section 4.8.8.l or 4.8.8.3. (Tier 2: Sec, 4.8.8.4)

Masonry Chimneys

ANCHORAGE: Masonry chimneys shall be anchored at each floor level and the roof. (Tier 2: Sec.

4.8.9.2)

3· 126 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE 31-03 38


NC NIA

C NC

Mechanical and Electrical Eqnipment

VIBRATION ISOLATORS: Equipment mounted on vibration isolators shall be equipped with

restraints or snubbers. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.12.5)

Ducts

STAIR AND SMOKE DUCTS: Stair pressurization and smoke control ducts shall be braced and

shal l have flexible connections at seis1nic joints. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8. 14.l )

75-15618-00 39

-

9/23/2015 Design Maps Summary Report

USGS Design Maps Summary Report

User-Specified nput

LVtlre;;s LOll<,ge SEM

Classifh ation Site Cass - "Stiff Soi!"

:·zoorned Vlevv Area Location

USGS-Provided Output

g :::: 1 = 0.948 g

" 0 13 g = (I g = 0 ,513 g

°!Ji'

l.50

l.?5

1.20

1.. 05

0.7S

0.i (;

MCE Response Spectrum Design Response Spectrum 1.10 -;-

!:ti D.C0

0.SG

OAO

<:1.20 r G.10

Q_ QC -r---+--+--, -+--+-4- + --- i 1.2() ?,1)G t.00 O..?i> ()_ 4( 0.GO D.90 L(,0

41

http://ehp1-earthquake.cr. usgs.gov/des ignmaps/us/sum mary.php?tem plate= minimal&Iatitude= 33.8289&1ongitude=- i18.0244&sitec!ass= 3&riskcategory= O&edit.. 1/i

http://ehp1-earthquake.cr/

9/23/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report

ilUSGS Design Maps Detailed Report

ASCE 7-05 Standard (33.8289°N, 118.0244°W)

Site Cl21ss D - "Stiff Soil",

Section 11.4.1 - Mapped Accelera tion Pa rameters

Classes are as rieeo,ea, in Section 11.4,3 .

Section 11.4.2 - Site Class

L 422

SITE

CLASS PROFILE

NAME

Standa rd oenetn•foo11 Soil 1mdrained shear

f\ Hard rock vs > 5,ooo N/A ..................••.......•

N/A

6 Rock 2,soo < vs :<; s,ooo N/A N/A ······ ··· ··· ·· · ··········

dense

soi! and soft

rock

1,200 < -;'.'> :$ 2,500 N > 50

E Stiff soil Ti < 15

1. Plasticity index Pl > 201

2. Moisture content vv 2: 40°10 , and

3. Undrained shear S ,, < soc psf

the characterlstics.

F t'\ny profile containing soHs having one or rr1ore of the

1. SoHs vulnerable to potential failure or

soils,. qutck and highly sensit\\re

characteristics:

such as

cemented

soils.

2, Peats and/01 highly organic c!ays

clay vvhere ::: thickness of

> 10 f eet of peat and/or

Very ( f-f > 25 feet with plasticlty index PI >

thick soft/medium stiff

42

http://ehp1-earthquake.cr. usgs.gov/des ignm aps/us/report.php?ternplate=minimal&!atitude= 33.8289&1ongi tude=-118.0244&si tec!ass= 3&riskcategory= O&edition.. 1/5


912312015 Design Maps Detailed Report

Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Cl".1.<:::S:.l

Spectra l Response Accelera tion Parameters

Tab!e 1.4- : Site Coefficient F,,

Class Ma: pped Met= Soectra l Reso'"";c• Acceleratron Pa ra m eter· Short Penod

.s 0.25 0.50 = 0.75 = 1.00 2:'. 1.25

f\ 0.8

0.8 0.8

s LO

1.0 1.0 1.0

c i.2.

1.2 1,1 LO

D .6 1.4 1.2 1.

E 2,'.) 0.9 0.9

F See Seci:ion 1l.4.7 of /\SCE 7

Note: Use

For Site Class = D and

Tabie 11.1.1 2. Site Coefficient F

0.8

1.0 1.0

----

0.8 0.8 () .8

LO 1.0 .0

• 7

""'

1.5 "• ·4 :i".3

D 2.4 2.0 1.8

•·'

1.5

35 3.2

2.8 2.4 2.4

See Section 11,4 .7 of P,SCE 7

Note: Use stra1c1hr -line 111te1·c,oir1tic:n for" interrr:edate va!ues

IPor Site Cass :::: D and ::;; 0.513 !fll r Pv :=:.· 1,,500

43

1.6 c

http://ehp1-earthquake.cr .usgs.gov/desi gnm aps/us/r eport.php?ternplate= minimal&Iatitude:::: 33.8289&1ongi tude=-i18.0244&si tedass= 3&riskcategory= O&edition.., 215


9/23/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report

L OOO x L 422 g - 1.422 g

1 = = LSOO x 0.513 = 0.770

Section 11.4.4 - Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters

( = % % x 1.422 g - 0.948 g

{ x. 0.770 g 0.513

Section 11.4.5 - Design Response Spectrum

T, = 8 seconds

Figure 11,4-1: Design Response Spectrum ID.4 i· 0.6 T lT,, )

!T

44

http://ehp1-earthquake.cr .usgs.gov/designm aps/us/r eport.php?tem plate= minimal&Iatitude= 33.8289&1ongi tude=- 118.0244&sitecl ass= 3&riskcategory= O&edition. . 3/5



Section 11.4.6 - Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Response Spectrum

The MCE Resp onse Spectrurn is determined by rnuitipiying the design response spectrurn by 1.5.

-

T0 = 0.108

Period, T {sec}

45

http://ehp1-earthquake.cr .usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php ?tern plate=minimal&Iatitude= 33.8289&1ongltude= -i18.0244&sitedass= 3&riskcategory= O&edition. . 415

l_,QQ(;


1


Section 11.6 - Seismic Design Category

Tab e. 11. .6-1 Seisrnic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Paramete1·

OCCUPANCY CATEGORY VALUE OF

Ior I! III IV

B c

c c D

For Occu pancy Category = I and

D D D

= 0948 g, Seismic Design = D

Note: When S J. is rm0n!"PC or

to the Seismic Design Catet1orv

for

buildings in

irrctsp,2ctive of the above,

and III and f fo1· those in Category IV,

Seismic - \\the rn ore severe in accordance with

Ta b!e 11.6-1 or 11.6-2fl = D

Nole: See Section 11.6 for alternative to calculating Seisrnic Desfgn Cate<iory

References

1 22 -1 : http://earthquake,usgs,gov/hazards/design maps/downloads/pdfs/ ASCE7 .,zoo 2, 22-2:

3, 22-15 :

46

http://ehp1earthquake.er .usgs.gov/desl gnmaps/us/report.php?tern plate=minimal&latitude= 33.8289&1ongitude=-118.0244&siteclass= 3&rlskcategory= O&edition. . 515

= Category = D

B B c

c c D

D D D

http://ehp1earthquake.er/

''""'""ML'oOLJOLOG>OO£Dm"""·"''

''''·"" MAeOXPLANAf'<)N

2Dhe,of!leqdn<l i"""'' "°"

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES

LOS ALAMITOS QUADRANGLE

OFFICIAL MAP

Released: March 25, 1999

Tt<l\'10'""'''"'"''''"n<['°''""''''"

'"=.c'•'l"m'"m"o'w''""'""""·o°'<'''"o"!""'"'''"'°""'""'"''""m"'""''°"''"""''''"""'''-''·"'""'''°''°"""''"'"'"'"'"'•'""'

,_,,. ,...""'"°"""""" ·"''"''""'""'""'"'- '""""'''"'"""""""''''""'"'""'"'

Anahein1 FJD:363.

LlaQ •3 .1 T:re p.,.-,- Cir: r 1

r>:redic·n !l'? T·)r. ·Jf Rue ., 8

Ee,\ c:f r•J p- 1 J ;: "1'? H

Source "Caltrans Fault Database (V2a) for ARS Online," California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), October 13, 2012,

http://dap3.dotca.govIARS_Online/technical. php 48

75-15618-00 84

75-15618-00 49

South 2na Floor Balcony Exterior

75-15618-00 86

75-15618-00 51

Entrance Lobby interior

75-15618-00 88

East Interior Hallway

75-15618-00 53

MECHANICAL



1

1. Mechanical Overview

California Climate Zone CZ-08

latitude 33.8°

lon.gitude 118.0°

Elevation 75 ft

92°F 70°F

38"F

Air Distribution System

The building is served by six air handling units, two per floor located in opposing corners of the building. The Air Handling Units will handle all cooling/heating and ventilation needs of each space. Each air handling unit has a direct exhaust connection and utilizes the Mechanical Room as an OSA plenum.

The building is divided into thermal control zones, and zone temperature control appears to be via a constant-temperature/variable-volume method. Air volume to individual thermal control will be modulated via a bank of Belimo actuated valves located in the Mechanical room located directly on top of each air handling unit.

Hydronic System

The chilled water system is connected to the campus Chilled Water loop. The point of connection is located adjacent to the chiller room in the south western corner of the first floor, and the connection pipe runs to the campus central plant via underground piping. The building has a redundant chiller and chilled water pumping system.

The building has in independent Heating Hot Water system, the heating hot water plant is located on the

Third Floor South West Mechanical room. There are two boilers with two primary circulation pumps and a

single Heating Hot Water pump for building distribution. The heating hot water system operation was not

observed.

Building Management System

The Building Management System is provided by Automated Logic Corporation.



2

2. Mechanical Equipment

A Air Handling Units:

Tag Number: AH-5

Manufacturer: Model Number: Nominal Airflow: Initial Startup Date: Estimated Life Span:

Remarks:

Alliance 4NN-33,4-MB-AF-PF-HW-CW-AS

16,480 cfm 6/19/2009 15-20 years

Air Handling Unit is in good operational

condition. Mechanical room containing AH-5 also contains the Main Natural Gas Valve and an Electrical Switchboard in the same room.

Tag Number: AH-6

Manufacturer: Model Number: Nominal Airflow: Initial Startup Date:

Estimated Life Span: Remarks:

Alliance 4NN-11.6-20.8-AF-PF-HW-CW

10,120 cfm 6/19/2009 15-20 years

Air Handling Unit is in good operational condition.



3

_I _ag Number: Manufacturer: Model Number: Initial Startup Date: Nominal Airflow: Estimated Life Span:

Remarks:

AH-7

Alliance 4NN-33.2- MB-PF-FF-HW-CW-AS 6/19/2009 18,440 cfm 15-20 years

Air Handling Unit is in good operational condition_

OSA Louver is rusty_

Ducting in the mechanical room shows signs of rust



4

Tag Number: AH-8

Manufacturer: Model Number: Initial Startup Date: Estimated Life Span: Nominal Airflow: Remarks:

Alliance 4NN-31.2-MB-PF-FF-HW-CW-AS 6/19/2009 15-20 years

16.480 cfm

Air Handling Unit is in good operational condition. Crack in Mechanical Room wall with air leakage due to the negative pressurization of the Mechanical Room.

Cypress College, Cypress, Callfornia

5

Tag Number: AH-9

Manufacturer:

Model Number:

Initial Startup Date:

Estimated Life Span:

Nominal Airflow:

Remarks:

Alliance

4NN-37.9-AF-PF-HW-CW-AS

6/19/2009

15-20 years

20.540 cfm


condition; however there appears to be a

leak of condensation water in the

Mechanical Room.

Electrical Switchgear located in this

room.

Noted that AHU switches are 'hand'

mode as opposed to 'auto' mode.

Tag Number: AH-10

Manufacturer:

Model Number:



Nominal Airflow:

Remarks:

Alliance

4NN-20.8-38.2-AF-PF-HW-CW

6/19/2009

15-20 years

20.090 elm


condition.

DLR Croup Science/Engineering/Math Building



6

B. Chiller:

Tag Number: CH-1

Manufacturer: Model Number: Initial Startup Date:

Estimated Life Span: Nominal Tonnage: Remarks:

Carrier 19XL4142465CN 8/22/1994 15-20 years 20,090 elm Chiller appears to be in Standby mode. Building Service CHW appears to be

coming from the campus central plant located outside the scope of this project. Operation not verified.



7

C. Chilled Water Pump

Tag Number: P-2

Manufacturer:

Model Number:



Nominal Capacity:

Remarks:

Tag Number:

Manufacturer:

Model Number:



Nominal Capacity:

Fuel:

Remarks:

Weinman

4"LI - 665GPM

Unknown

Motor replaced 9/3/1997

5-1O years

665 gpm

Chilled Water Pump appears to be in

Standby mode. Building Service CHW

appears to be coming from the campus

central plant located outside the scope of

this project. Operation not verified.

B1 & B2

Patterson Kelly

N2000-MFD

Unknown

15-20 years

1,700.000 btu/hr

Natural Gas

Boiler appears to be in normal operating

condition. Operation not verified.

DLR Group Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

8

B. Heating Hot Water Pump:

Ta Number: P-1

Manufacturer: Model Number: Initial Startup Date: Estimated Life Span: Nominal Capacity: Remarks:

Bell & Gossett

1510 BF 8.75BF Unknown 15-20 years

180 gpm Heating Hot Water Pump appears to be

in normal operating condition. Operation not verified.



9

C. Boiler Circulation Pump:

Manufacturer: Model Number:

Initial Startup Date: Estimated Life Span:

Remarks:

Patterson Kelly

5882-95

Unknown 15-20 years Boiler Circulation Pump appears to be in normal operating condition. Operation not verified.


10

D. Exhaust Fans

Manufacturer:

Model Number:



Remarks:

ILG Industries

Various

Unknown

0-2 years

Significant rust build up on fan casing

and fan wheels (where visible and not

operating).

Science/Engineering/Math BuHding


11

E. Make Up Air Units

Manufacturer: Model Number: Initial Startup Date: Estimated Life Span:

Remarks:

Trane Various

Unknown

0-2 years Significant rust build up on fan casing.

::.. DLR Clroup Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

12

F. Misc. Items

• Rooftop exposed ducting is in serviceable condition. There is only minor rusting on the

surface.

• Rooftop exposed piping insulation requires replacement. It has show significant weathering and damage.


13

• Louvers show significant rusting and is close to the end of service life.

lilli_Dl.R Ciroup Science/Engineering/Math Building

ELECTRICAL


1

ELECTRICAL ASSESSMENT

1. ELECTRICAL SITE DISTRI BUTION SYSTEM

The campus has 4.16KV electrical power loop distribution with medium voltage feeders #3 and #4. The

service is routed thru manhole #9 and into the Main Electrical Room at the south east corner of the

building.

2. ELECTRICAL BUILDING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

The building has two transformers, 1000KVA, 4160V-480/277V and 300KVA, 4160V-208/120V. The

1000KVA transformer supply power to a 1600A Main Switchboard "MSB-1''. The 300KVA transformer

supply power to a 2500A Main Switchboard "MSB-2''. The transformer and main switchboards are in good

condition. There is no emergency generator to serve this building.

t ·.DLR (ffoup Science/Engineering/Math Building

DLR Croup Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

2

A. FINDINGS

The Main Electrical room houses the two transformers, two main switchboards, and a fire alarm paneL

The room is congested has multiple working clearance violations, There are other code violations and

installation issues seen in other rooms,


3

There is a cabinet behind the transformer with 28"

clearance only, it should be 48". Provide clearance to meet NEC 110.26 (A)(1) table - typical to all

clearance non-compliance.

The ductwork is within electrical dedicated space. Provide clearance to meet NEC 110.26 (E)(1)

section.

The clearance of the fire alarm panel behind the 300KVA transformer is 28", it should be 36".

The switchboard cover panels are not installed or missing. Wires are exposed to damage.

f: - , DLR Ciroup Science/Engineering/Math Building


4

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

i. There are code violations on working clearances related to the medium voltage transformers in the Main Electrical room. Removing these transformers and install new outdoor transformers.

ii. There are ductwork and water pipes above electrical switchboard which are code violations on dedicated clearance spaces. Remove and re-route ductwork and pipes to clear up dedicated space above the electrical switchboards. Providing a pan underneath the pipe only should be verified with local inspector.

iii. Install new cover panels on electrical switchboard and distribution boards to protect the live parts of the equipment and reduce the risk of foreign objects to make contact with the live parts. Provide guard to live parts to meet NEC 110.27 (A) & (B).

Piping over switchboard is in dedicated electricalspace also blocking front clearance. Provide

clearance to meet NEC 110.26 (E)(1) section.


5

3. LIGHTING SYSTEMS

The interior lighting system in the building uses fluorescent and incandescent lights, controlled with

manual switching. The condition of the light fixtures are good, however there are some controls that are

not operational. In the classroom, we noticed the lights above the projector screen is not separately

switched, therefore, the teachers had to place some plastic on the light fixture lens.

A. FINDINGS

DLR Ciroup Science/Engineering/Math Building Cypress College, Cypress, California

6

Exit sign

Time clock and lighting relay controls

Skylight with a crack.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

i. The lighting controls in the Lecture Hall do not seem to work. Replace existing controls with new. The cellular screen on the ceiling should be removed to eliminate the shadow pattern.

ii. Replace incandescent lights with LED to comply with Title 24 requirements.

iii. Repair skylights to enable more daylighting to pass thru. Utilize photocells to turn off light fixtures while there are sufficient daylights in the space and reconfigure switching controls accordingly.

iv. Re-wire lights in the classrooms to provide separate switchleg for lights above the projector screen to provide the correct controls that will turn off the lights in front of the classroom while leaving the back of the classroom lights turned on.

L.oLR Science/Engineering/Math Building


7

4. POWER AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS

Power panels are distributed within Mechanical rooms and Electrical/Janitorial closets. The panels are in

good condition. The power outlets are also in good condition.

The fire alarm panel is in good condition as well as the devices.

A. FINDINGS

Mounting heights of the devices are not consistent Below are the listed mounting heights that are not

compliant with ADA requirements

• Power outlets - 12" above finished floor on center.

• Light switches - 54" above finished floor on center.

Working clearances m front of

L" DtR Ciroup Science/Engineering/Math Building


8

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

L There are code violations on working clearances related to the panels in the Electrical rooms. Keep the clearance in front of panels clear of any obstacles. Provide 36" working clearance depth to meet NEC 110.26 (A)(1) table.

ii. Re-install devices at proper mounting heights to meet ADA requirements. Mount convenience outlets minimum at +15'" at bottom of device and light switches and pull sections maximum at +48" at top of device. Provide proper mounting height to meet CBC 11B-308 section.

Ill. Re-work telecom wiring installation to meet proper cable management set-up.

Fire alarm horn/strobe and pull station Wall mounted occupancy sensor/light switch combo

DLR Group Architecture

Engineering

Planning

Interiors

1 650 Spruce Sireet Suite 308

F"ive1-side, CA 92507



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Overview

Executive Summary

Architectural

Architectural Assessment .. ···················........... 1

Observations

Roof..

Roofing System Building Enclosure .. ............

Interior Observations .............. ............. .................... ..............

Accessible Parking ...

Accessible Path of Travel to East Building Entry

General Interior Accessible Path of Travel ....

Accessible Restrooms ..

Stair

Elevator........ ........ ............

.......2

....................... .4

......6

..... 10

..... .. .. . ..... 12

.. 14

.. ............... 15 .................20

. ................ 33

.......35

Analysis and Recommendations Roof .. ................ .................. ..

Roofing System .... ...................... .............

Building Enclosure .................. .

Interior Observations ....... ................................ ..

.38

.38

.39

.39

Accessible Parking .... ............. ......

Accessible Path of Travel to East Building Entry .. ..................... ..

General Interior Accessible Path of Travel.. .....................

Accessible Restrooms.. .......................... ............................ ..

Stair ...... ........................ ............................ .........

Elevator.. ............. .............. .............................. ..

.. ........ ..... ... .40

...................... .40

..................... .40 ........41

........................ 43 .43

Warranty and Limitations of this Report ................................................................................................... 43

Structural

1. Project Overview and Scope of Work ...............

1.1. Project Overview .. ...............

1.2. Scope of Work ............. . ... . ....... . ......... ............. ....................

2. Existing Conditions and Observations .. ...............

2.1. Existing Structural Drawings ... .............. ....... ..... ........................... .

2.2. Building Systems Description........... . ......... . .... ............

2.2.1. General ...... . . ..................... . .......... . ... ......

2.2.2. Gravity System ................

..... ...1

..... . ....2

............ 2

...4

..5

......5

..4

............8

2.2.3. Lateral Force Resisting System .

2.2.4. Foundations.... .................. ..

... . .. . ........ 13

··············· . . ... .... 14



2.3. Site Visit and Observations .... .................... ........ .... . ........ ....................

2.3.1. General ............ .............. ....................

.14

......14

2.3.2. Skylights ................................ ..

3. Building Systems Evaluation (ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1) ..

3. 1. General. ... .... ....... ............. ................................ .

3.2. Performance Objective... ... .. . ....

3.3. Site Seismicity ...

3.4. Required Checklists ..

3.5. Noncompliant Items..

3.5.1. Basic Structural (Type C2) . . .......... ..

3.5.2. Supplementary Structural (Type C2)

3.5.3. Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations .............

3.5.4. Basic Nonstructural .................. ...... .....

3.5.5. Intermediate Nonstructural ... ........................ ..............

4. Recommendations and Next Steps ..

5. References .. ................................... ........ ........

.......... .... . ....... 16

. . . ....... 18

............ 19

. ......... 19

..19

····· ..........21

...........21

.........21

.....22

................. .....23

..........23

.... . . . ... .....................24

..25

..26




Mechanical

Mechanical Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1

Mechanical Equipment ................................................................................................................................ 2

Electrical

Electrical Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 1

Electrical Systems ....................................................................................................................... 1

Electrical Recommendations ...4

Lighting Systems ....................................................................................................................... 5

Lighting Recommendations .... ........... .. .... ..........6

Power and Other Miscellaneous Systems .............................................................................................. 7

Power and Other Miscellaneous Systems Recommendations ...................................................... 8

Cost Estimate


PROJECT OVERVIEW






access some of the existing facilities. Can they be retrofitted to meet tomorrow's needs, can they be








greenhouse and two central lecture halls that slope from the second level to ground level. The building is / currently still used for instruction with the exception of some classroom spaces which are veeant" t""U.AR ,,

'.,,. l c!:}fu:- The study was to determine the condition of the building enclosure, structural, mechanical, plumbing and

electrical systems as it currently stands and what is necessary or recommended to _r:paintainJQe facility for

current uses. The study also addressed accessibility issues as it relates to existing'





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ARCHITECTURAL





since then some provisions had been made, primarily on the first floor.




have been updated.

The roofing system has served it's useful life and should be removed and replaced. When the roofing

system is replaced, the various components that are connected and impacted by the roofing should be

addressed. The skylights should be replaced, roof access door and frame replaced, metal copings

installed, roof overflow drains installed, sheet metal equipment pad covers installed, cracks in the


installed.




All the window gasketing should be removed and replaced as it has shrunk with age. Window weep

holes should be drilled into the window sill. Landscaping irrigation should be checked, adjusted and

redirected to avoid spraying the windows.



Building Code. Code compliant accessible p rk· Q-aFlys·. Sible path of travel to an entry should be provided as any work to the building requirin a building permi)wi ill require this.

'- 7 Accessibility issues have generally not been addressedwithin th§ building with the exception of the first

floor restrooms. The first floor restrooms have been modified to comply with most but not all the

accessibility requirements and require additional work.





percent of the construction cost. At that situation, compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent

possible without exceeding 20 percent. In general the accessible parking and the path of travel to the






Group Science/Engineering/Math Building


STRUCTURAL















I

I:

* A "nonconforming" building is defined by CAC as any building that has not been certified by DSA as a school building.



Trinner

CAC Ch. 4 Section Applicability to Cypress SEM

Building


converted for use as a school building* CAC Section 4-307 Does not apply to the SEM building

which is already a DSA Certified school building.




building**

CAC Section 4-309(c) ft is not anticipated that the

alterations will exceed 50% of the

replacement value; however, this will

need to be confirmed by the cost .

COnSUiiant for the a/terotions versus new buildinq construction costs.






• Increase the effective seismic weight or wind force in any story by more than 10%

• Decrease the design capacity of any existing structural




CAC Section 4-309(c) This will need to be confirmed once / the specific proposed alterations tc/ the SEM building have been / /

identified. /

It is not anticipated that structural









in this report. desian forces


If none of the above conditions apply, a seismic rehabilitation is not required but may be performed on a

voluntary basis at the school's discretion. All structural deficiencies need not be addressed if voluntary

upgrades are performed, whereas all structural deficiencies must be addressed if seismic upgrades are

required by CAC. Voluntary seismic upgrades should not make the building worse.

At this time the estimated cost of the replacement building is not known; however, the alterations to the

existing SEM building are not anticipated to exceed 50% of the replacement value. Specific

alterations/additions to the existing SEM building have not yet been proposed, so it cannot be said

definitively at this time whether seismic rehabilitation will be required per CAC. Once the specific

alterations are identified, the changes in seismic weight and/or member capacities can be estimated by

the Structural Engineer.


The seismic hazard value referenced in this report is established by the USGS. The USGS Design Maps






MECHANICAL





ELECTRICAL


condition. There are_§§lyfilQJ codE?.,JLiQlations Q!JJb.e...regJJJf Dces for electrical equipment which are

the most problematic. The other issues are simpler which are related to mounting heights of devices and

lighting control functionality. The code violations regarding the clearances will require relocation of

electrical equipment which is complicated and requires further planning since it will impact the electrical

service and power distribution. Correction of the lighting controls should be implemented with Title 24

regulations which utilizes dimming controls and LED energy efficient fixtures. The simplest corrections are

the relocation of outlets and devices to be accessible since the impacts are localized and isolated. The

extent of the renovation is dependent of the future plans and shall require a separate in-depth study.

COST ESTIMATE ()c&f;, Cost estimatesf9f two scenarios were developed. The first was to renovat xisting building as it

currently existS)\Jhe second was to construct a completely new building es! e location where the

existing building stands. In today's costs, the renovation work will cost approximately $19.4 million dollars

while a new building will cost approximately $46.5 million dollars.



accessible restrooms on each fioor would be addressed. Code issues involving electrical requirerrients

and clearances would be addressed. Additionally, electrical revisions required to comply wjtl:l-en-et1J)·..•... •.

conservation requirements will be implemented such as providing all new energy compliaflt LED light )

fixtures. Since renovation work exceeding $23.3 million - or half the replacement value - oMhe'1lU11aTilgTs

not anticipated, structural upgrades would not be triggered. Changes to the layout of the classrooms,

offices and lecture halls are not included with the exception of modifications required to accommodate

accessible restrooms. .)/!'l'Cd. UJlt;"

A new building of the same size would comply with all current Codes and standards including seismic

requirements. The cost includes the demolition of the existing building but does not include addressing

the displacement of the current programs housed in the building.

In both cases, the estimated cost is only for the hard cost sometimes referred to as the "brick and mortar




BUILDING EFFICIENCY






Proposal Approval for this building, is inherently inefficient due to the difficulty in being able to "right-size"

particular spaces locked within the building's envelope or structure. The push within spaces requiring

accessible upgrades (toilet rooms, elevators, stairs for egress/circulation, etc.), can result in spaces that

are inherently compromised, and ultimately the programming suffers as it attempts accommodate the

specific curriculum and academic needs. For example, the restrictions of the existing building make it

impossible to increase the number of specific laboratory sections that can be offered or accommodated.

Inefficiency can also be a result of the specific requirements of the educational specification that cannot r!il 5 ·' be accommodated within the parameters of the building structure, or as a result of the inability to provide ., .• 1vJ I additional space required by the physical sciences - a planetarium, for example - due to the State Capital ';;JV' Outlay Program limitations on space additions for modernization projects. The desired addition of a



manner as well.

Finally, efficiency. uilding needs to be reviewed in the context of the campus. The SEM Building,

even with an inability to beCOiiiem" ore efficient than its potential, can still be beneficial to the campus for


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Overview

Executive Summary

Architectural

Architectural Assessment ............ ····················· ················· ............ 1

Observations

Roof ............. ................. .............. .............. .. ............. ....

Roofing System .................. .

Building Enclosure .... ................

Interior Observations .. ...................... .

Accessible Parking ............ .. . .......

Accessible Path of Travel to East Building Entry ............... ..

General Interior Accessible Path of Travel .. ........... .............

..2

..4

.....6 ............... ... 10

. ....... 12

.. .. ' ... ...... 14 .... ....... .. 15

Accessible Restrooms .. ....................... ..... . .................... .

Stair .......... ........................ .. .. ............ ..................... ............

Elevator... ................ .... ................ ......................... .

..........20

. ...33 ...35

Analysis and Recommendations

Roof.. ............ ............ ...... ............. .38

Roofing System .. ................ ........ . .. .... ............... ............ .38

Building Enclosure.... ................ ............ ............. ....39

Interior Observations ................... ............... .39

Accessible Parking ................... ....... .............. ............................. .............. ........40

Accessible Path of Travel to East Building Entry ............. ...................... .40

General Interior Accessible Path of Travel... .................. ...................... .40

Accessible Restrooms .... ................. ................... .......41

Stair . ........... ...................... .... ... ............ ....................... .........43

Elevator. ........................................................................................................................... 43

Warranty and Limitations of this Report ··············· ············ ... 43

Structural

1. Project Overview and Scope of Work ................. .

1.1. Project Overview ..... ........... .......................... ................. .

1.2. Scope of Work..... ........... ............

2. Existing Conditions and Observations .. ............................ .

2.1. Existing Structural Drawings ...

2.2. Building Systems Description

2.2.1. General ... .................... .

2.2.2. Gravity System ..

2.2.3. Lateral Force Resisting System

2.2.4. Foundations ......... ...............

............. ' 1

....... .......2

.....2

...............4

' . ..............5

.. . ....5

...4

... ... .. ....... . ......8

. ....13

....... ......... .... 14


2.3. Site Visit and Observations

2.3.1. General . .............. .. ... .. . ....

2.3.2. Skylights ... .............. .............

3. Building Systems Evaluation (ASCE/SEI 31-03 Tier 1) ..... ............. .

3.1. General. ................ ...................... ...................... .....................

3.2. Performance Objective ..... . ...... .. . ......... ..

3.3. Site Seismicity ..

3.4. Required Checklists .... .............

3.5. Noncompliant Items........... . . ........... ...............

3.5. 1. Basic Structural (Type C2) ............ ..

3.5.2. Supplementary Structural (Type C2) ...

3.5.3. Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations

3.5.4. Basic Nonstructural ..............

3.5.5. Intermediate Nonstructural

4. Recommendations and Next Steps

5. References .. .............

. ........... 14

. .....14

. ..... 16

. ........... 18

............ 19

.....19

......19

.21

.....21

............21

.......22

............23

.23

' ..24

. ....25

............26




Mechanical

Mechanical Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1

Mechanical Equipment ............................................................................................................................... 2

Electrical

Electrical Assessment .. . 1

Electrical Systems ..

Electrical Recommendations ...... .................. . .... " ....... 4

Lighting Systems ............................................................................................................................. 5

Lighting Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 6

Power and Other Miscellaneous Systems .................... . ....... ..?

Power and Other Miscellaneous Systems Recommendations....................................................... 8

Cost Estimate

PROJECT OVERVIEW






access some of the existing facilities. Can they be retrofitted to meet tomorrow's needs, can they be








greenhouse and two central lecture halls that slope from the second level to ground level. The building is

currently still used for instruction with the exception of some classroom spaces which are vacant.

The study was to determine the condition of the building enclosure, structural, mechanical, plumbing and

electrical systems as it currently stands and what is necessary or recommended to maintain the facility for

current uses. The study also addressed accessibility issues as it relates to existing buildings.




Group Science/Engineering/Math BuHding


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ARCHITECTURAL





since then some provisions had been made, primarily on the first floor




have been updated.

The roofing system has served it's useful life and should be removed and replaced. When the roofing

system is replaced, the various components that are connected and impacted by the roofing should be

addressed. The skylights should be replaced, roof access door and frame replaced, metal copings

installed, roof overflow drains installed, sheet metal equipment pad covers installed, cracks in the


installed.




All the window gasketing should be removed and replaced as it has shrunk with age. Window weep

holes should be drilled into the window sill. Landscaping irrigation should be checked, adjusted and

redirected to avoid spraying the windows.



Building Code. Code compliant accessible parking and an accessible path of travel to an entry should be

provided as any work to the building requiring a building permit will require this.

Accessibility issues have generally not been addressed within the building with the exception of the first

floor restrooms. The first floor restrooms have been modified to comply with most but not all the

accessibility requirements and require additional work.





percent of the construction cost At that situation, compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent

possible without exceeding 20 percent In general the accessible parking and the path of travel to the






STRUCTURAL
















Triaoer CAC Ch. 4 Section Applicability to Cypress SEM

Buildin11


converted for use as a school building* CAC Section 4-307 Does not apply to the SEM building

whichis already a OSA Certified

school building.




building** -·

CAC Section 4-309(c) It is not anticipated that the

alterations will exceed 50% of the

replacement value; however, this will

need to be confirmed by the cost

consultant for the alterations versus

new building construction costs.

This will need to be confirmed once

the specific proposed alterations to

the SEM building have been

identified.

Itis not anticipated that structural









in this report.






• Increase the effective seismic weight or wind force in any story

by more than 10%

• Decrease the design capacity of any existing structural




desiQn forces

CAC Section 4-309(c)

* A "nonconforming" building is defined by CAC as any building that has not been certified by OSA as a

school building.



If none of the above conditions apply, a seismic rehabilitation is not required but may be performed on a

voluntary basis at the school's discretion. All structural deficiencies need not be addressed if voluntary

upgrades are performed, whereas all structural deficiencies must be addressed if seismic upgrades are

required by CAC. Voluntary seismic upgrades should not make the building worse.

At this time the estimated cost of the replacement building is not known; however, the alterations to the

existing SEM building are not anticipated to exceed 50% of the replacement value. Specific

alterations/additions to the existing SEM building have not yet been proposed, so it cannot be said

definitively at this time whether seismic rehabilitation will be required per CAC. Once the specific

alterations are identified, the changes in seismic weight and/or member capacities can be estimated by

the Structural Engineer.


The seismic hazard value referenced ·rn this report is established by the USGS. The USGS Design Maps






MECHANICAL





ELECTRICAL


condition. There are several code violations on the required clearances for electrical equipment which are

the most problematic. The other issues are simpler which are related to mounting heights of devices and

lighting control functionality. The code violations regarding the clearances will require relocation of

electrical equipment which is complicated and requires further planning since it will impact the electrical

service and power distribution. Correction of the lighting controls should be implemented with Title 24

regulations which utilizes dimming controls and LED energy efficient fixtures. The simplest corrections are

the relocation of outlets and devices to be accessible since the impacts are localized and isolated. The

extent of the renovation is dependent of the future plans and shall require a separate in-depth study.

COST ESTIMATE

Cost estimates for two scenarios were developed. The first was to renovate the existing building as it

currently exists. The second was to construct a completely new building in the same location where the

existing building stands. In today's costs, the renovation work will cost approximately $19.4 million dollars

while a new building will cost approximately $46.5 million dollars.



accessible restrooms on each floor would be addressed. Code issues involving electrical requirements

and clearances would be addressed. Additionally, electrical revisions required to comply with energy

conservation requirements will be implemented such as providing all new energy compliant LED light

fixtures. Since renovation work exceeding $23.3 million - or half the replacement value - of the building is

not anticipated, structural upgrades would not be triggered. Changes to the layout of the classrooms,

offices and lecture halls are not included with the exception of modifications required to accommodate

accessible restrooms.

A new building of the same size would comply with all current Codes and standards including seismic

requirements. The cost includes the demolition of the existing building but does not include addressing

the displacement of the current programs housed in the building.

In both cases, the estimated cost is only for the hard cost sometimes referred to as the "brick and mortar




BUILDING EFFICIENCY






Proposal Approval for this building, is inherently inefficient due to the difficulty in being able to "right-size"

particular spaces locked within the building's envelope or structure. The push within spaces requiring

accessible upgrades (toilet rooms, elevators, stairs for egress/drculation, etc.), can result in spaces that

are inherently compromised, and ultimately the programming suffers as it attempts accommodate the

specific curriculum and academic needs. For example, the restrictions of the existing building make it

impossible to increase the number of specific laboratory sections that can be offered or accommodated.

Inefficiency can also be a result of the specific requirements of the educational specification that cannot

be accommodated within the parameters of the building structure, or as a result of the inability to provide

additional space required by the physical sciences - a planetarium, for example - due to the State Capital

Outlay Program limitations on space additions for modernization projects. The desired addition of a



manner as well.

Finally, efficiency of one building needs to be reviewed in the context of the campus. The SEM Building,

even with an inability to become more efficient than its potential, can still be beneficial to the campus for


l N N S IR Ii N S T A A E M E N T

FEASIBILITY STUDY

CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE

for

Science I Engineering I Math Building

Cypress College

Prepared for :

DLR Group

1650 Spruce Street, Suite 300

Riverside, CA 92507

November 9, 2015

# 14-2382

30423 CANWOOD STREET, SUITE 133 ·AGOURA IIILLS, CA 91301-4315 ·T 805-494-3703 ·F 805-497-7721 ·WWW.CPOHALLORAN.COM

http://www.cpohalloran.com/


Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15

Feasibility Study Construction Estimate

Basis of Estimate

The estimate is based on feasibility study report dated September 2015 and existing plans. Estimated unit costs

include average union labor rates with prevailing wages and competitive bid conditions. Competitive bid

conditions generally occur when bids are received from a minimum of four general contractors and three

subcontractors for each trade. The estimate includes allowances and assumptions for materials, building

systems, specifications and construction schedule, these assumptions should be confirmed at the next design

stage and prior to completion of bid documents. The estimate includes general contractor markups for general

conditions, bonds, insurances, profit, estimate contingency and cost escalation to mid-point of construction.

Project soft costs are not included.

The estimated construction cost represents our best judgment as a professional consultant familiar with the

construction industry. We have no control over the cost or supply of labor, materials and equipment, a

contractor's methods of determining bid prices and market conditions. We cannot and do not warranty or

represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from the estimated construction cost.

Estimate Exclusions

Professional design, testing, inspection and management fees.

Fire and all risk insurance.

Legal and financing costs.

Building permits and fees.

Construction, project or staging contingencies.

Furnishings and movable equipment.

Independent commissioning.

Commtmications, technology and security equipment.

Construction phasing.

( I)

C. P. ()'Halloran Associates Inc.

Construction Cost Management

Science I Engineering J 1\lath Building

Cypress College

Renovated Building

Feasibility Study Con:slruction Estimate

Feasibility Study Final PrQject Tota!

Remediation Scope Progranuning (PPP) Scope

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15

I

!Interiors (6 - ?) 30.31 2,997,232 34.50 3,411,774 64.81 6,409,006 I

8. Fixed Equiprnent, Casework, Specialties 4.53 448,175 20.00 1,977,840 24,53 2,426,015

9. Stairs and Elevators uo 128,880 4,00 395,568 5.30 524,448

! Equipment, Stairs and Elevators (8 - 9) 5.84 577,055 -------z4.-0o- 2,373,408 29.84 2,950,463 l

10. Plu1nbing 2.18 215,218 28,00 2,768,976 30.18 2,984,194

11. Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning 15,93 1,575,755 49.00 4,845,708 64,93 6,421,463

12. Electrical 1[,33 1,120,759 45,00 4,450,140 56.33 5,570,899

13. Fire Protection 2.32 229,627 2.00 197,784 4.32 427,411

jJ Jechanical and Electrical (Jfi:-]3) --- -- -3,141,360 124.00 12,262,608 155.77 15,403,968 I

14. Site Preparation and Selective Demolition 15.93 l,575,116 6.00 593,352 21.93 2,168,468

15. Site Development 0.45 44,250 0.45 44,250

16. Site Utilities [Sitework (l 4 - 16) 16.38 1,619,366 6.00 593,352 22.38 ----2,2i2:718--]

!SUBTOTAL 118.86 ll,753,982 214.50 21,212,334 333.36 32,966,316 I

General Conditions and General Requirements 9.0% 10,70 1,057,858 19,31 1,909,110 30.00 2,966,968

Bonds and Insurances 2.2% 2.85 281,860 5,[4 508,672 7.99 790,532

Overhead and Profit 4.0% 5.30 523,748 9.56 945,205 14.85 1,468,953

!SUBTOTAL ---- 137.70 13,617,449 248.51 24,575,320 386.21 38,192,770 I

Design I Estimate Contingency 15.0% 20.66 2,042,61 7 37.28 3,686,298 57.93 5,728,915

[TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 1 1/2015 !58.36 $15,660,067 285.78 $28,261,619 444, 14 $43,921,6851

Cost Escalation to Mid Point of Construction 04/2018 @ 5% Per Year l2.5o/o

19.79 1,957,508 35.72 3,532,702 55.52 5,490,211

ITOTAL CONSTRUCTKiN ESC/\ l.ATED 178. 1 5 $17,617.575 321 .51 $31,794,321 499.66 - $49,41 1,8961

( 2 _) C. P. O'Hallor1111 Associates lac.

Cou;trucliou Cost '.\Ian:1ge111e11t

COMPONENT SUMMARY

I. Foundations

98,892 SF

$ / GSF

98,892 SF

$ $ / GSF

98,892 SF

$ $ / GSF

$

2. Vertical Structure 3. Floor and Roof Structure 20.96 2,073,242 6.00 593,352 26,96 2,666,594

4. Exterior Cladding 4,62 457,336 18.00 1,780,056 22.62 2,237,392

5. Roofing and \Vaterproofing 8.98 888,391 2,00 197,784 10,98 1,086,175

ls1' 11 ;f :si- 34.57 3,418,969 26.00 2,511,1n 60.51 5,990,161

6. Interior Partitions and Doors 9.70 959,658 28.00 2,768,976 37.70 3,728,634

7. Interior Finishes - Floors, Walls, Ceilings 20.60 2,037 ,574 6.50 642,798 27.10 2,680,372

Science I Engineering I ;\lath Building

Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15

New Constr uction

Final Project Programming

Feasibility Study Construction Estimate (FPP) Replace1nent Planetarium Tota!

Building

98,892 SF 3,500 SF 102,392 SF

COMPONENT SUMMARY $ / GSF $ $ / GSF $ $ / GSF $

1. Foundations 9.00 890,028 35.00 122,500 9.89 1,012,528

2. Vertical Structure 22.00 2,175,624 65 00 227,500 23.47 2,403,124

3. Floor and Roof Structure 48.00 4,746,816 125.00 437,500 50.63 5,184,316

4. Exterior Cladding 63.00 6,230,196 175.00 612,500 66.83 6,842,696

5. Roofing and Waterproofing 8.00 791,136 65.00 227,500 9.95 l,018,636

1s11eili1 - s) 150.00 14,833,800 465.oo T,627,500· 160.n 16,461,300 1

6. Interior Partitions and Doors 36.00 3,560,112 70.00 245,000 37.16 3,805,112

7. Interior Finishes - Floors, Walls, Ceilings 28.00 2,768,976 65.00 227,500 29.26 2,996,476

! Interiors (6 - 7) 64.00 6,329,088 135.00 472,500 66.43 6,801,588 1

8. Fixed Equipment, Casework, Specialties 25.00 2,472,300 750.00 2,625,000 49.78 5,097,300

9. Stairs and Elevators 6.00 593,352 25.00 87,500 6.65 680,852

[Eq;p; ient, Stairs and EieVGtOrS cB - 9) 31.00 3,065,652 775.00 2,712,500 56.43 5,778,152 I

10. Pluinbing 32.00 3,164,544 30.00 105,000 31.93 3,269,544 11. Heating, Ventilalion, Air Conditioning 65.00 6,427,980 85.00 297,500 65.68 6,725,480

12. Electrical 56.00 5,537,952 70.00 245,000 56.48 5,782,952

13. Fire Protection 4.50 445,014 15 00 52,500 4.86 497,514

fMidianical and ElectriC T?Tii- -13) 157.50 ls,5·?"5;490 200.00 700,000 158.95 16,275,490 I

14. Site Preparation and Selective Demolition 1.50 148,338 20.00 70,000 2.13 218,338

15. Sile Development 18.00 1,780,056 150.00 525,000 22.51 2,305,056

16. Site Utilities 4.00 395,568 60.00 210,000 5.91 605,568

ls;tework (14 - 16) 23.50 2,323,962 230.00 805,000 30.56 3,128,962 I lSUBTOTAL 426.00 42,127,992 1,805.00 6,317,500 473.14 48,445,492 l

General Conditions and General Requirements 9.0% 38.34 3,791,519 5.75 568,575 42.58 4,360,094

Bonds and Insurances 2.2% 10.22 l ,010,229 43.28 151,494 1135 1,161,723

Overhead and Profit 4.0% 18.98 l,877,190 2.85 281,503 21.08 2,158,692

lsiJBTiJTAL 493.s4 4s:s06; --2,09[16 1,319,011 548.15 56,126,oo:z 1

Design I Estimate Contingency 12.5% 61.69 6,100,866 925 914,884 68.52 7,015,750

!TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ! t!20_i_5," 555_2]-- $54,907,796 2352_56 $8,233,955 616:67 $63T4I752J

Cost Escalation to Mid Point of Construction 04/2018 @ 5% Per Year 12.So/o 69.40 6,863,475 1041 l,029,244 7708 7,892,719

!T()TAJ ·coN-ITRlJCi·10N"ESCALA·rT:D 624.63 $6!,77!,2-'il 2,646.63 $9,263)00 693.75 $71Jij4,47 ij

Additional Cost:

Building Demolition $800,000

( 3 )

C. P. O'llalloran Assudate Inc.

Comtruction Cost l'-iauagcmenl


Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15

Feasibility Study Remediation Scope

Component Description Quantity Unit Cost $

1. Foundations

$

2. Vertical Structnre

$

3. Floor aud Roof Structure

Allowance for structural upgrades 98,892 SF 18.20 1,800,000

Provide ADA access to raised platfonns, classrooms I

lecture halls 30 EA 6,600.00 198,000

Core and repair roof slab for new roof drains 10 EA 816.00 8,160

Replace all roof wood support under piping and conduit

runs with metal support trapezes or rubberized blocks

compatible with the roofing system 300 LF 45.60 13,680

Miscellaneous metals, concrete and anchorage 98,892 SF 0.54 53,402

$ 2,073,242

4. Exterior Cladding

Exterior concrete wall, apply clear liquid waterproofing 39,012 SF 5.10 198,961

Concrete equipment screen wall at roof

Seal vertical cracks, 2 locations LS 1,800.00 1,800

Apply clear liquid waterproofing, 2 sides 4,918 SF 5.10 25,082

( 5 ) C. P. O'Halloran Associates Inc.



Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15


Component Description Quantity

Unit Cost $

4. Exterior Cladding

Provide new door hardware to existing exterior doors

Glazed doors 12 EA 1 ,020.00 12,240

Hollow metal door EA 870.00 870

Aluminum framed glazing

Remove and replace all window gasketing or provide a combination of gasketing and wet sealing glass 7,103 SF 24.00 170,472

Provide weep holes in the window system sill 50 EA 264.00 13,200

Soffit - patch, repair and paint 6,428 SF 5.40 34,711

$ 457,336

5. Roofing and Waterproofing

Built-up asphalt roofing system with granule-surfaced

including insulation 36,696 SF 17.40 638,510

Skylight, 1O' x 10' 4 EA 18,000.00 72,000

Roof hatch and access

EA 5,040.00 5,040

Roofi ng upstands and sheet metal

Cants and upstands 1,012 LF 14.76 14,937

Flashing 1,012 LF 23.46 23,742

Parapet metal coping 934 LF 91.20 85,181

Metal flashing at pipe penetration, allowance 20 EA 336.00 6,720

Sheet metal equipment pad covers, allowance 300 SF 22.20 6,660

Caulking and sealants 98,892 SF 0.36 35,601

$ 888,391


Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15



Unit Cost $

6. Interior Partitions and Doors

New partition wall, allowance 1,200 LF 319.20 383,040

Patch, repair and paint partition surfacing 112,000 SF 3.30 369,600

Provide new door hardware 147 EA 750.00 110,250

Repair and paint door and frame 147 EA 420.00 61,740

Patch, repair and stain wood railing at glass wall 20 LF 75.60 1,512

Guardrail, second floor

Add decorative sloped cap to the top of curb to prevent the appearance of step and make it more difficult to stand on.

Add an additional picket fence or infill panel between

105 LF 67.20 7,056

tbe pickets, 42-1/2" high to comply with the clear space req uirement of 4", Existing space is 6". 105 LF 252.00 26,460

$ 959,658

7. Interior Finishes - Floors, Walls, Ceilings

Flooring

95,678

SF

l l.40

1,090,729

Base 12,61 1 LF 4.50 56,750

Walls, ceramic tile - allow 8' high 1,328 SF 27.60 36,653

Ceiling

Suspended acoustic ceiling tile 90,178 SF 7.98 719,620

Gypsum board, painted 3,500 SF 19.80 69,300

Gypsum board soffits and details, painted 875 SF 25.74 22,523

Exposed concrete coffer structure, painted 2,000 SF 3.00 6,000

( 7 ) C. P. O'Halloran Associates Inc.



Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15



7. Interior Finishes - Floors, Walls, Ceilings

Accessibility - correct finished at area I items tbat are non

compliant along the accessible path of travel and in the

area or space of work 1 LS 36,000.00 36,000

$ 2,037,574

8. Function Eq uipment, Casework and Specialties

Casework, allowance

Relocate or protect equipment and furniture, allowance

Code signage

Accessi bil ity

General interior accessible path of travel

Remove projecting wall sharpeners or provide barrier

to comply with Code to alert someone of the

projection, allowance

20

EA

1 44.00

2,880

Remove projecting fire extinguisher and cabinet or

provide barrier to comply with Code to alert someone

of the projection, allowance

15

EA

180.00

2,700

Provide barriers to comply with Code to alert someone of the reduced overhead clearance at Stair #4 first floor mid-landing EA 960.00 960

Raise suspended television to provide minimum vertical clearance, second floor study cubicles EA 720.00 720

Provide pull strings and handles for suspended maps, charts and projection screen within the accessible reach range - classrooms 50 EA 90.00 4,500

400 LF 540.00 21 6,000

95,678 SF 0.30 28,703

98,892 SF 0.54 53,402


Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15

Feasibility Study Remediation Scoee


8. Function Egnipment, Casework and Specialties

Accessibility

Restrooms

Men and women's restroom, first floor (303 SF total) 2 EA 7,800.00 15,600

Relocate door signage

Provide and locate proper wall signage

Correct water closet stall door to self-close

Replace latching mechanism

Relocate coat hook

Reverse location of flush handle to the wide side of

the stall

Relocate toilet paper dispenser

Relocate seat cover dispenser

Relocate lavatory

Men and women's restroom, 2nd and 3rd floor (606 SF

total) 4 EA 9,150.00 36,600

Toilet partitions

Relocate door signage

Provide and locate proper wall signage

Correct water closet stall door to self-close

Replace latching mechanism

Relocate coat hook

Reverse location of flush handle to the wide side of

the stall

Relocate toilet paper dispenser

Relocate seat cover dispenser

Relocate lavatory

Seismic bracing of existing casework, equipment and

storage of toxic substances 95,678 SF 0.90 86,110

$ 448,1 75

( 9 ) C. P. ()'Halloran Associates Inc.



Cypress College


Component Description Quantity Unit Cost

9. Stairs and Elevators

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15

$

Stair upgrades - Existing handrails and guardrails to be

modified. Provide contrasting strips of each stair run.

Stair No. 1, 2 and 3 - 2 floor flights each

Stair No. 4 - 1 floor flight

Elevator, 3 stops 3 opening - allowance

3 EA

EA

EA

19,200.00

21 ,600.00

49,680.00

57,600

21,600

49,680

$ 128,880

JO. Plumbing

Provide new ADA compliant restrooms, 2 EA - 2nd and

3rd floors 4 EA 23,400.00 93,600

Provide new ADA compliant drinking fountain 3 EA 9,000.00 27,000

Provide flexible coupling and fix all leaking valves and

equipment 1 LS 24,000.00 24,000

Rainwater drainage

Add roof and overflow drains, allow

J O

EA

891.00

8,910

Piping 210 LF 47.82 10,042

Seismic bracing of existing equipment and piping 95,678 SF 0.54 51,666

$ 215,218

U. Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning

Replace I retrofit roof mounted equipment

Make-up air units

Exhaust fans

1 LS 210,000.00 210,000

Piping insulation 50 LF 33.60 1,680


Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15



Unit Cost $

11. Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning

Provide flexible coupling and fix all leaking valves and

equipment

LS

24,000.00

24,000

Air distribution and return, reconfigure existing 95,678 SF 9.60 918,509

Diffusers, registers and grilles 95,678 SF 2.70 258,331

Exterior louver, allow 8' x 4'

EA 4,200.00 4,200

Relocate thermostats at proper mounting height, allow 50 EA 540.00 27,000

Testing and balancing 95,678 SF 0.78 74,629

Seismic bracing of existing equipment and piping 95,678 SF 0.60 57,407

$ 1,575,755

12. Electrical

New outdoor transfonner, 300 KVA I EA 78,000.00 78,000

Install new cover panels on electrical switchboards and

distribution boards to protect l ive parts of the equipment

and reduce the risk of foreign objects to make contact with

live parts. Provide guard to live parts.

95,678

SF

0.30

28,703

Provide working clearances to electrical equipment 95,678 SF 0.18 17,222

Lighting system

Lighting control at Lecture Hall (3,737 SF) 1 LS 9,000.00 9,000

Re-wire lights to provide separate switch legs for lights above projector screen to provide correct controls, classrooms 33, 120 SF 3.60 I I 9,232

Replace incandescent lights, mechanical room (2,017 SF) 10 EA 750.00 7,500

Relocate switches at proper mounting hei ght 95,678 SF 0.78 74,629

( 11 ) C. P. 01Halloran Associates Inc.



Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15



Unit Cost $

12. Electrical

Communications conduit and outlets

Relocate outlets at proper mounting height

95,678

SF

2.40

229,627

Re-work telecom wiring installation to meet proper

cable management set-up

95,678

SF

4.20

401,848

Relocate fire alarm devices at proper mounting height 95,678 SF 0.90 86,1 10

Seismic bracing of existing equipment and lighting fixtures 95,678 SF 0.72 68,888

$ 1,120,759

13. Fire Protection

Automatic fire sprinkler wet pipe system, reconfigure

existing

Enclosed area 95,678 SF 2.40 229,627

Covered area - existing

$ 229,627

14. Site Preparation and Selective Demolition

Site protective construction, dust and noise control

95,678

SF

0.54

51,666

Selective interior demolition

Structural demolition 95,678 SF 1.80 172,220

Roofing and skylight demolition 36,696 SF 1.44 52,842

Architectural demolition 95,678 SF 6.00 574,068

Plumbing demolition 95,678 SF 0.42 40,185

HVAC demolition 95,678 SF 0.72 68,888

Electrical demol ition 95,678 SF 0.60 57,407

Fire sprinkler demolition 95,678 SF 0.24 22,963

Debris removal 1 LS 118,628.77 118,629

Selective site demolition I LS 14,400.00 14,400


Cypress College

# 14-2382

9-Nov-15



14. Site Preparation and Selective Demolition

Hazardous material abatement - allowance 95.678 SF 4.20 401,848

$ 1,575,1 16

15. Site Development

Accessible parking

Redesign parking layout

Revised accessible parking stall depth from 14' 6" to

1 8' deep

4

EA

90.00

360

Revised northern loading I unloading striping depth from 16' to 18' deep 3 EA 150.00 450

Provide code compliant parking signage and directional signage

Grade accessible path to sidewalk to comply with Code

LS 6,000.00 6,000

allowed sloped and cross slopes LS 14,400.00 14,400

Accessible path of travel to East Building entry

Reconstruct perpendicular curb ramp to comply with

Code EA 9,000.00 9,000

Identify an accessible path to the building entry or

regrade wal kway for the slopes to comply with Code l LS 7,200.00 7,200

Adjust direction oflandscape irrigation away from

building exterior windows LS 5,400.00 5,400

Adjust strength of sprinkler irrigation spray LS 1,440.00 1,440

$ 44,250

16. Site Utilities

$

( 12 ) C. P. O'HaJloran Associates Inc.


table of contentsnews.cypresscollege.edu/documents/2017... · commonly-used seismic hazard...

Documents