HomeMy WebLinkAboutAtt. 2 - Orange Library Preschool Feasibility Study 2019PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
NEW PRESCHOOL
FEASIBILITY STUDY
840 WEST ORANGE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
MARCH 05, 2019
SIM ARCHITECTS INC
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
433 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 620SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIA 94104
SIM
ARCHITECTS
PREPARED BY:
+
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [1 page] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART 1 INTRODUCTION [1 page] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART 2 PROJECT UNDESTANDING [8 pages] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 STRUCTURAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 MECHANICAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 ELECTRICAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 PLUMBING ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 SITE DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8 CHILDREN’S SPACE DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9 STAFF WORKSPACE DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.10 PROGRAMMING ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART 3 PROJECT APPROACH [16 pages] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 OPTION 1 - RENOVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SCHEME 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SCHEME 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SCHEME 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RENOVATION CHALLENGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 OPTION 2 - NEW CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SCHEME A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SCHEME B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SCHEME C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SCHEME D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART 4 CONCLUSION [2 pages] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 PREFERRED SCHEMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 FOR OPTION 1 - RENOVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 FOR OPTION 2 - NEW CONSTRUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 NEXT STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX [68 pages] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.1 WORKING DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.2 CONSULTANT CREDITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4 LIMITATIONS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.5 COST ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.6 TOPOGRPAHIC SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.7 SITE OBSERVATION REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.8 CIVIL COMMENTARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.9 STRUCUTRAL COMMENTARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.10 MECHANICAL COMMENTARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.11 ELECTRICAL COMMENTARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.12 MEETING MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3
3
3
4 - 11
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
10 - 11
12 - 27
12
13 -14
15
16
17
18
19
20 - 21
22 - 23
24 - 25
26 - 27
28 - 29
28
28
28
29
30 - 98
30
30
30
31
32 - 52
53 - 56
57 - 69
70
71 - 73
74 - 79
80 - 84
85 - 98
TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SIM Architects conducted a Feasibility Study for developing a pre-school on the site of the Main
Public Library Building on West Orange Avenue. The Program required a facility capable of serving
between 60 and 200 children or more between the ages of 2 ½ to 5 years. Two alternate approaches
were explored:
OPTION 1 – Converting the existing library building to pre-school use.
OPTION 2 – Construction of a new pre-school building on the site.
Several schemes were presented for review. The City chose one Scheme from each approach to
explore and analyze with an appending probable cost estimate.
Choices are as follows:
OPTION 1
RENOVATION
OPTION 2
NEW CONSTRUCTION
• Convert the existing Library Building’s Main
Level for pre-school use.
• Create a facility able to serve 60 to 200
children with minimal modifications to the
existing façade and site.
• Construct a new two-story facility in the
existing upper parking area of the site.
• Locate a new parking lot and pick-up/drop-
off loop in the area of the existing Library’s
footprint. Capacity: 280 children.
Cost: $ 7,735,113.00*Cost: $ 37,132,971.00*
The following pages outline some of the existing conditions along with the varied opportunities
and constraints associated with each scheme and approach.
(Note: (*) denotes cost estimate. Refer to Appendix A.5 Cost Estimate on pages 32-52 for details)
3
+
1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of South San Francisco
commissioned SIM Architects to conduct
a Feasibility Study for the development of
a pre-school facility at the present site of
the Main Public Library located at 840 West
Orange Avenue in South San Francisco.
SIM Architects was tasked to explore two
alternates:
OPTION 1 - Analyze the potential of
converting the existing Library Building for
use as a pre-school
OPTION 2 - Determine some of the
possibilities of constructing a new pre-school
facility on the existing site
The following Study addresses different
approaches within each Option and discusses
some of the opportunities and challenges
offered by each possibility. Viable solutions
are based on the State of California’s
requirements for early childhood facilities
in conjunction with the City’s Program
of enrollment goals and amenities for
children aged 2 ½ to 5 years. Each scheme
is conceptually illustrated and analyzed in
general respect to its unique features. An
informational cost estimate is provided for
one scheme in each Option as selected by the
City.
1.2 GOALS
The City’s vision is to provide a safe, secure
facility which bridges a child’s personal
and social worlds. The intent is to explore
opportunities for the development of a
center which serves as a nurturing, yet
dynamic hub for preschoolers.
The City’s goal is to provide a center which
can accommodate 60 to 200 children or more
and operate during weekday business hours.
An additional objective is that the facility’s
design is flexible enough to allow for after-
hours and weekend use for other community
groups and functions.
Vicinity Map
Existing Building - view from Orange Avenue
Aerial Site View
+
42. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Street View, Looking South along Orange Avenue toward Existing Library
Topographic Map of Project Site
Street View, Looking South along Orange Avenue toward surrouding neighbhood
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing library on West Orange Avenue
is located in the Southwood residential
neighborhood. The “L”-shaped site is
approximately 1.5 acres in area. The north
and west boundaries are lined with mature
cypress trees & the California Golf Course.
Baden High School and the Southwood
Playground lie to the south. The only site
access is from West Orange Avenue. A drive-
aisle leads to dedicated surface parking.
The natural terrain of the area slopes
downward from northwest to southeast. The
rear, or west portion of the site is relatively
level. The Library building is nested into the
shorter, more steeply sloping front stub of
the “L”-shaped site. The property is open and
elevated above street level. It affords day-
long sunshine, shade and protection from
prevailing winds.
The site and neighborhood are in close
proximity to local retail and banking as
well as grocery shopping, transportation
and emergency services. El Camino Real
and Westborough Boulevard are less than ¼
mile away. Sam Trans provides a bus stop at
the foot of the Building’s entry drive. While
access is direct and easy, the Southwood
California
Golf Course
California
Golf Course
Existing
Residential
Subdivision
Baden
High School Orange AvenueN
neighborhood benefits as a periphery
residential pocket with low traffic volume.
(Refer to Appendices A.7 Site Observation Report on
pages 57- 69 and A.8 Civil Commentary on pages 70
for details)
+
52. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2.2 ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES
The naturally sloping land has been cut and
filled to allow the building to nest into the
hillside and provide for level parking areas at
the upper (rear) of the site.
The land itself appears stable, but the
installed surface drainage is in disrepair.
The v-ditches are segmented and uplifted.
Conduit size appears insufficient to
accommodate the runoff. These types
of deficiencies have caused backup and
overflow into the parking lot. The lack of
properly designed area-drainage below grade
will continue to tax the existing system and
possibly misdirect runoff into the building.
Many site accessibility modifications do
not appear to meet current code. Parking,
entrances, signage and access ways require
further analysis to determine the extent of
non-compliance and required repair.
There is neither a hydrant or back-flow
preventer on site. Both will be required for
conversion to Pre-school use.
Evidence of concrete failures in the form
of cracking, lifting and ponding. Pavement
and concrete should be repaired or replaced
and grading should be revised to prevent
ponding.
Exterior Side Elevation at Entrance Shows Sloping Site
W. ORANGE AVE
Exterior Stair at Existing Library
Existing Exterior Improvements
+
62. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2.3 STRUCTURAL ISSUES
The foundation appears to be a concrete slab
surrounded by retaining walls nested into
the sloping site. Concrete columns support
the concrete slab of the Main Floor above.
An array of square columns on the Main Floor
support the low-slope roof. The columns are
likely steel, given their relative slenderness
compared to the heavy sonotube-formed
supports in the basement.
Since observations are constrained to visual
analysis of existing conditions, it cannot
be confirmed if the exterior walls are
independent of the structural support system
or integral to a framed cavity wall. Yet, given
the age of the building, one safe assumption
may be that the design does not include
sufficient shear to meet current seismic
requirements.
The 5-foot high fascia suggests that the roof
is comprised of a deep-span support system.
The main horizontal members may be glue-
laminated timbers, steel I-beams or open
web trusses. Typical infill members are likely
wood 2-by joists secured to plywood decking.
The subtle, but regular sagging indicates this
type of construction.
(Refer to Appendix A.9 Structural Commentary on
pages 71-73 for details)
2.4 MECHANICAL ISSUES
The main upper floor library is heated and
ventilated by a central air handler. A hot
water coil warms the space at a rate of 21,200
cfm. Return air is minimally mixed with
outside air, but ventilation is sufficient for
the present use. Portions of both the supply
and return ducts are imbedded in concrete.
The central air handler functions adequately
in a larger open space. But this distribution is
not efficient for a divided classroom layout.
A new design will require ductwork from the
basement which could minimize headroom
and render much of that space unusable.
The pre-school will also require cooling,
not presently supplied to the Library. The
existing system is capable of being modified,
but the occupant load and layout will need
to be given careful consideration as to the
extent of effective adaptability.
(Refer to Appendix A.10 Mechanical Commentary on
pages 74-79 for details)
Diagram of Concrete Deck System
Photo of Ductwork in Mechanical Room
Photo of Ductwork in Mechanical Room
+
72. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2.5 PLUMBING ISSUES
No hard data was available for evaluation
and few exposed conduits were observed.
There are 5 existing Toilet Rooms on the Main
Level – two for adults, two for children and
one dedicated room adjacent the Librarian’s
office. Most of the toilet rooms have been
upgraded to accessibility standards. Although
the system seems to operate well, more
facilities will be required for future use as a
pre-school. The supply and drainage systems
will require study to determine capacity in
order to assure a proper level of service.
(Refer to Appendix A.10 Mechanical Commentary on
pages 74-79 for details)
2.6 ELECTRICAL ISSUES
The existing system complies with Code
and is able to service the current load
requirements. But the equipment is nearing
the end of its useful life and will need to be
replaced. Upgrades in service and changes
in lighting design will need to accommodate
the change in use.
(Refer to Appendix A.11 Electrical Commentary on
pages 80-84 for details)
Photo of Plumbing Equ ipment in Mechanical Room
Photo of piping in Mechanical RoomPhoto of Electrical equipment in Mechanical Room
+
82. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2.7 SITE DESIGN CRITERIA
A pre-school’s primary objective is to
maintain a safe and healthy environment
for children. Access must be limited to only
those locations which are monitored and/or
supervised. Pick-up and drop-off areas must
enable an uninterrupted exchange of charge
from one adult to another. Play areas are
required to be level, soft-floored and provide
a mix of sun-exposed and shaded areas.
Potable water must be made available. Active
and passive play provisions are encouraged
with an allocation of 75 square feet per child.
All outdoor children’s yards must be enclosed
by a minimum 4-foot-high fence with
supervised entry and exit during any activity.
2.8 CHILDREN’S SPACE DESIGN
CRITERIA
The State of California requires a minimum
of 35 square feet of activity area per child
with one toilet and hand-washing sink for
every 15 children. Hot and cold running
water is mandatory and potable water must
be readily available. In addition to shared
play and learning areas, children must be
afforded napping provisions, age-appropriate
equipment and space for personal storage.
Food preparation and pantry type of space,
including heating and refrigeration, are also
needed for very young children.
Special consideration is given to keeping
the indoor environment safe and healthy.
Temperatures must be between 65 and
85 degrees Fahrenheit. First aid materials
must be in ready reach by staff, but special
medications, chemicals, cleaners, etc.
cannot be accessible to children. Attractive
nuisances, such as pools, ladders and ledges
are discouraged. In addition to providing
barrier-free access throughout the facility,
children with special needs should also be
given consideration for play equipment,
learning tools, lighting and sound. Children
who become ill or afflicted with conditions
which may adversely affect others must be
isolated from the group and provided space
which permits individual attention and care.
(Refer to California Community Care Licensing
Division – Child Care Advocate Program (Child Care
Center or Pre-school) 2004 for details on Site Design
Criteria and Children’s Space Design Criteria)
Genentech Daycare Facility at 342 Allerton Ave in
South San Francisco. SIM visited on June 12, 2018.
Genentech Daycare Facility at 342 Allerton Ave in
South San Francisco. SIM visited on June 12, 2018.
Genentech Daycare Facility at 342 Allerton Ave in
South San Francisco. SIM visited on June 12, 2018.
+
92. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
A pre-school is staffed according to the
size of enrollment. California’s ratio is one
adult per every 15 children. A typical facility
may employ 15 persons or more, including
care-givers, assistants, administrators and
maintenance personnel. The pre-school is an
adult’s workplace. As such, it’s expected that
2.9 STAFF WORKSPACE DESIGN CRITERIA
Communal Table
Administrative Spaces
Meeting Table
Collaboration Space
the facility will provide offices and conference
rooms, break spaces, a cafeteria or lounge,
personal storage, toilet rooms and parking.
(Refer to California Community Care Licensing Division
– Child Care Advocate Program (Child Care Center or
Pre-school) 2004 for details.)
+
102. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2.10 PROGRAMMING ISSUES
Both the renovation approach and the new
construction approach present their own
unique set of benefits and challenges.
Either scenario will alter the use of the
existing environment and generate impacts
on the immediate neighborhood. Some
considerations are:
HOURS OF OPERATION
The existing library operates daily from mid-
morning through evening and weekends.
Its impact on local traffic and noise is
minimal. Conversely, the pre-school’s hours
of operation are intended to coincide more
with a workday schedule. An increase in
local vehicle trips may be anticipated at
peak times. Traffic studies and management
plans are recommended in order to prevent
or mitigate congestion in nearby streets and
intersections, particularly during pick-up and
drop-off hours. Noise levels from outdoor
play are anticipated to be higher at certain
regular hours of the day. The neighboring
row of single-family homes has open back
yards which share a continuous border with
the site. Careful acoustical consideration
should be given as to where active play areas
are located. Outdoor design may require
sound buffers or deflectors.
OCCUPANCY DURATION
The current library use is fluid. Patrons
typically spend from a few minutes to
several hours in the building. Times are
normally staggered. But pre-school hours
are regimented and may be anticipated to
coincide with an adult professional’s working
hours. Regardless of the Option, occupancy
is “time-condensed”. Water and sewer are two
utilities which are expected to receive more
intense and prolonged use. Investigation and
studies are recommended to determine if the
present water pressure and sewage system
are sufficient or whether upgrades may be
required. Electrical use and indoor climate
control for pre-schoolers also differs in
duration and intensity from that of existing
library patrons. Although current power
supply may be considered adequate for the
existing facility, an increase in occupancy
will likely require additional service. And
regardless of which Option is chosen, it is
recommended that the gas system is tested
and upgraded for the anticipated change in
occupancy.
Group Interaction Area
Learning Area
Play Area
Group Learning Area
+
112. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
CELLULLAR TOWER
There is a transmission tower at the existing
building’s northwest corner. It is currently
protected by a fence and accessed by
authorized persons only. It is not owned
by the City, but does provide a source of
revenue from the cellular tenants. The
structure appears to be about 100-feet high.
The cross-bracing of steel struts is considered
by many as a blight to the landscape and
is perceived by some as a health hazard.
While the scale is imposing and the design
is incompatible with the neighborhood, the
tower’s only function is as an antenna, or a
relay for cellular signals. It does not transport
overhead high-voltage transmission lines.
There is no specific programmatic mandate
to remove or retain the tower. It will be
incorporated into any scheme and masked or
camouflaged wherever practical.
EXISTING LIBRARY BUILDING
The Library’s visage is a signature of public
building design of the mid 20th century.
Yet, the heavy battered-brick facades and
prominent concrete cap are not compatible
with the expected light and inviting
atmosphere of a children’s facility.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
A change in occupancy will cause a change
to the environment. Whereas physical
factors can be readily tabulated or mitigated
if necessary, some impacts on the local
community are not always quantifiable.
SIM Architects understands the value of
community opinion and encourages input
and feedback. Community outreach will be
required to mitigate neighborhood concerns
and issues.
Cellular Tower Adjacent to Existing Library
Facade of Existing Library Building
Street View of Neighborhood Context looking along Orange Avenue
+
123. PROJECT APPROACH
3. PROJECT APPROACH
(Note: (*) denotes basement not included
(Note: Lower figures apply to the renovation option
of the existing 14,400 square foot building. Space is confined to the existing building footprint and a small
existing portion of the residual site area. Higher figures anticipate construction of a new building. Space is
more generous as may be permitted in a larger facility.)
3.1 PROGRAM
The City of South San Francisco presented
SIM Architects with a Program designed to
meet the State licensing requirements for a
fully-qualified and operational pre-school.
The City’s Program also included provisions
to meet its own specific requirements aimed
at enhancing the pre-school experience for
children and adults alike.
ROOM /
AREA TYPE
PROPOSED
AREA in SF
PROPOSED
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
TOTAL AREA REMARKS
Foyer/Waiting/Pick-up/Drop-off 100 - 500 1 100 - 500 Single point of entry
Manned Control
Center at Foyer 100 1 100 Best if included in Foyer layout.
Classroom 1,200 each 4 - 15 3,600 -
18,000
Sizes may vary slightly. 2 sinks &
counter in each.
Children’s Toilet
Room 100 each 3 - 15 300 - 1,500 Adjacent classrooms can share room.
Adult Toilet Room 150 each 1 - 4 150 - 600 For Staff & Public
Children’s Dining
Area
1,000 -
12,000 TBD 1,000 -
12,000 min
Communal space or part of classrooms.
Min 60 children, 6 adults. Max 300
children, 30 adults
Indoor Multi-
purpose Area
3,000
- 10,000 1 min 3,000 -
10,000 Community space
Office: Admin Head 150 1 150 min
Office: Asst. Admin
Head 120 1 120 min
Admin Asst.100 1 100 or
integral May be incl in drop-off/pick-up area.
Additional Office
Workstations 100 - 500 1-5 100 - 500 Supervisory and janitorial staff
increases w/ no. of children.
Conference 400 1 200 May be used for private adult-child
time-out.
Conference niches TBD TBD 100 - 500 Private, adult-child or parent-staff. Can
use Staff offices.
Adult Break Room(s)1 - 4 Rooms 400 min
each 400 - 1,600
Including kitchenette & personal
storage area. 1 rm per bldg. wing or
story.
Interactive
Children’s Kitchen 200 - 500 1 per wing
or per floor 200 - 1,500 May be included in Common Rec Area.
Circulation/shaft
encl’s.2,600 min -5,000 min Assume 15% - 20% of gross interior
area.
Storage 3,600 min -No Max Assume min of 25% (+/-) beyond rooms.
TOTAL INTERIOR SPACE, EXISTING BLDG* 14,400 sf maximum
TOTAL INTERIOR SPACE, NEW BLDG *50,000 sf maximum
EXTERIOR SPACE 6,000 - 20,000 As needed 6,000- 20,000 75 sf / child min or
1,500 sf min / classroom
TOTAL REQUIRED EXTERIOR SPACE 6,000 - 20,000 SF
+
133. PROJECT APPROACH
3.2 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 1 RENOVATION
3.2 OPTION 1 - RENOVATION
The renovation option offers the potential
to apportion the 14,400 square foot Main
Level of the Library building into 3 to
6 classrooms with 15 to 20 children per
classroom, or a maximum of 120 children.
Space is afforded for dedicated toilet rooms,
storage and supervisory stations. Adequate
accommodations are available for offices,
facilities and a single-point of secure entry.
The building’s space-frame design readily
allows for a large open common area without
structural walls. The parking area behind the
building is a level, fenced enclave surrounded
by greenery, and may prove suitable for
conversion to an attached play yard.
The building’s Basement is almost equal in
area to the Main Upper Level. It currently
houses informal offices and archival
storage, utility rooms, toilet rooms and a
full employee kitchen. It contains a loading
dock accessed by a steep drive from the rear
parking area.
SIM does not recommend converting the
Basement to pre-school use. This level is
completely below grade. There is neither
natural light nor natural ventilation.
Bubble Diagram
The existing elevator is antiquated and egress
ways do not comply with code requirements
for educational or assembly occupancy.
Retrofit would require extensive modifications
to both the site and building. Any usable
space gained would be relegated to limited
administrative functions, maintenance or
storage only.
Existing Site Plan
Orange Avenue
+
143. PROJECT APPROACH
3.2 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 1 RENOVATION
SCHEME 1
This scheme is the most conservative
approach with minimal changes, both
interior and exterior. The existing façade
is retained and the structural system
remains intact wherever possible. The more
noticeable changes are those required for
code compliance – namely, enclosing the
existing interior stair and adding an exit.
The scheme’s 4-classroom layout can safely
accommodate 80 children. Outdoor play
space is confined to the north side of the
loading drive. Ample parking is located in the
existing narrow portion of the lot.
Classrooms are arranged symmetrically about
the central multi-purpose core. The existing
Library foyer has been converted to the
secure child drop-off station. Administrative
offices and adult spaces are relegated to
peripheral areas. The existing elevator
remains, but is not meant for public or school
use.
SCHEME 2
Differs slightly because it offers greater
flexibility. It also proposes some façade
changes in the rear to allow more light and
flow-through space. There are two general
multi-purpose areas in addition to the four
stationary classrooms. Either of the open
rooms can be used for a casual or more
regulated layout. Access to the rear yard is
also integrated into the interior space.
SCHEME 3
Differs slightly because it offers greater
flexibility. It also proposes some façade
changes in the rear to allow more light and
flow-through space. There are two general
multi-purpose areas in addition to the four
stationary classrooms. Either of the open
rooms can be used for a casual or more
regulated layout. Access to the rear yard is
also integrated into the interior space.
Scheme 1 Floor Plan
Scheme 2 Floor Plan
Scheme 3 Floor Plan
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
153. PROJECT APPROACH
3.2 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 1 RENOVATION
No. of
Classrooms
Children per
Classroom
Total
Children
Total
Adults
Gross
Building Area
(in SF)
Outdoor Area
(in SF)Parking
4 20 80 11 14,400 7,500 76 Spaces
Scheme 1 Floor Plan
SCHEME 1
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
163. PROJECT APPROACH
3.2 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 1 RENOVATION
No. of
Classrooms
Children per
Classroom
Total
Children
Total
Adults
Gross
Building Area
(in SF)
Outdoor Area
(in SF)Parking
4 20 80 11 14,400 7,500 76 Spaces
Scheme 2 Floor Plan
SCHEME 2
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
173. PROJECT APPROACH
3.2 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 1 RENOVATION
No. of
Classrooms
Children per
Classroom
Total
Children
Total
Adults
Gross
Building Area
(in SF)
Outdoor Area
(in SF)Parking
3 20 60 9 14,400 7,500 76 Spaces
Scheme 3 Floor Plan
SCHEME 3
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
183. PROJECT APPROACH
3.2 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 1 RENOVATION
RENOVATION CHALLENGES
Programmatically, the usable interior space
is limited to the Library’s Main Level. The
potential number of classrooms is between 3
and 6, or an enrollment between 60 and 120
children. Although the existing building and
infrastructure can be retrofit in situ, there are
factors to consider with this older building:
• Asbestos and lead are likely present.
Testing is required and abatement is
mandatory prior to any reconstruction.
• Code upgrades are needed. The building
envelope, including the glazing does not
meet current energy efficiency standards.
Seismic upgrade was not observed.
Electrical, mechanical and plumbing
systems require modifications for the
change in use.
• A sprinkler system will need to be
installed in the Main Level.
• A fully accessible front entrance is not
obtainable. A concrete ramp from the
municipal sidewalk has been installed.
Although the existing stairs can be
striped and equipped with intermediate
handrails, extensions are not feasible. The
intersecting walk is narrow and cannot be
widened without decreasing the width of
the traffic lane.
• Basement level cannot afford accessible
entrance/egress without extensive re-
contouring of the site. The level is
completely below grade and is nested
into a substantial slope. The loading dock
access drive bisects the rear yard. The
driveway is steep and must be isolated
from the children’s access. The central
location dictates the parameters of the
rear play area.
• Design. The Library’s visage is a
signature public building of the mid-20th
century. The battered-brick facades and
prominent concrete bands relay a heavy,
somber impression. Such an image is
not compatible with the expected light
and inviting atmosphere of a children’s
facility.
Exterior Envelope of Library requires upgrades
Difficulty making Front Entrance accessible
Design of Library reflects mid-20th century
architecture
+
193. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
3.3 OPTION 2 -
NEW CONSTRUCTION
This approach offers the potential to explore
the site’s use to its most practical advantage.
If the existing building footprint were used,
a superstructure of several stories above
may be considered. Basement-level parking
with occupied upper stories is a conventional
urban scheme. The approach conserves land
use and offers an array of variations on
any given theme. This vertical concept can
potentially house a facility serving over 200
children.
There are other approaches which minimize
land impact and maximize occupancy. One
possibility is to locate a new two-story
building in the existing rear parking area.
This portion of the site is relatively level
and does not require extensive excavation,
site retention or drainage diversion. Surface
LEGEND
Classroom Landscape Multi-Purpose Storage Restroom Kitchen
NOT TO SCALE 36
NEW CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY4 /
SCHEME A SCHEME B
SCHEME C SCHEME D
Scheme A - Floor Plan
parking can replace the existing building’s
slab and be accessed directly from the street.
Four different Schemes are proposed. The
goal is to explore possibilities for developing
a facility which can best serve the greatest
number of children while treating the existing
site and environment with sensitivity and
respect. Each scheme adheres to the State’s
regulations for both indoor and outdoor
spaces. Each also responds to the City’s
additional Program requirements for amenities
and provisions.
LEGEND
Classroom Landscape Multi-Purpose Storage Restroom Kitchen
NOT TO SCALE 36
NEW CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY4 /
SCHEME A SCHEME B
SCHEME C SCHEME D
Scheme C - Floor Plan Schemes D - Floor Plan
Scheme B - Floor Plan
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
203. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
SCHEME A
DESCRIPTION:
1 Story, 2 Wings, Sub-grade Parking on Existing Basement Location
No. of
Classrooms
Children per
Classroom
Total
Children
Total
Adults
Gross
Building Area
(in SF)
Outdoor Area
(in SF)Parking
8 20 160 19-20 38,000 7,500 20 Spaces
1 Tot-Lot
per Building
Wing
Enclosed
Garage
Scheme A - Basement Floor Plan
Scheme A - Ground Floor Plan
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
213. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
Scheme A - Perspective at Entrance
OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES
Maximizes use of site.Building may encroach upon front setback.
Development respects contours.Difficult to disguise cell tower.
2 wings break up larger mass.Requires elevator/stairs from garage to grade.
Secure, dedicated yard for ea. Classroom.
Possible noise issue with some play yards & neigh-
bors.
Focused, secure entry despite 2 separate wings.Administration not focalized. Requires more space.
Equity in Classroom apportionment.Double loaded corridors appear “regimented”.
Readily available Toilet facilities.Fewer, but larger toilet rooms are more efficient.
Centralized Kitchens for both wings.Two wings require doubling up on facilities.
Bldg wings can serve different age groups.Access drive may bottle-neck traffic.
Localized storage for each Classroom.Insufficient on-site parking.
Ample common outdoor play for each wing.
Bldg wings can serve different age groups.
Strong street presence.
Concealed parking.
Scheme A - Aerial Perspective
SCHEME A
+
223. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
SCHEME B
DESCRIPTION:
1 Story, Condensed Space, 2 Wings, Surface Parking & Loding Along North Boundary
No. of
Classrooms
Children per
Classroom
Total
Children
Total
Adults
Gross
Building Area
(in SF)
Outdoor Area
(in SF)Parking
12 20 240 28-30 31,000 16,000 21 Spaces
1 Large
Tot-lot Sloping Surface
Scheme B - Ground Floor Plan
Scheme B - Perspective at Play AreaScheme B - Perspective at Entrance
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
233. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES
Concentrated use. Confines building to minimal
footprint Setbacks are not fully considered.
Double-loaded corridor is efficient.Double-loaded corridor may feel “regimented”.
Secure, focalized entry.Minimal parking. May prove too tight for emergency
access.
Secure, dedicated yard for ea. Classroom.Sloping parking increases drainage design challeng-
es.
Classroom size, facility and storage equity through-
out.Utility Rooms have primary presence.
Equity in Classroom apportionment.Special agreement required for shared space w/HS.
Multi-purpose area is key to the experience.Exit stairs not desirable.
Centralized Kitchens for both wings.
Well planned and allocated administration area.
Localized storage for each Classroom.
Circulation is afforded w/o corridor walls.
Main play areas separated from neighboring
residences.
Well integrated indoor and outdoor play areas.
Parking is surface, yet concealed.
Generous vehicular access minimizes congestion.
SCHEME B
+
243. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
SCHEME C
DESCRIPTION:
2 Stories, Building Confined to Flat Upper Area. Parking Located in Existing Library Footprint
No. of
Classrooms
Children per
Classroom
Total
Children
Total
Adults
Gross
Building Area
(in SF)
Outdoor Area
(in SF)Parking
14 20 280 30-34 44,000 12,000 18 Spaces
Ground +
Upper Level Sloping Surface
Scheme C - Ground Floor Plan
Scheme C - Aerial PerspectiveScheme C Aerial Perspective
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
253. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES
Minimal distrubance to (E) contours.2 stories required both stairs & elevator.
Maximum use of minimum footprint.Retaining walls likely for drainage control.
Most practical access to (E) utilities.Foot traffic from street - constant up-slope.
Most respectful of front setback.Kitchen is minimal.
Accepts most economical structural system.View from street adversely changed by bldg..
Provides generous classroom equity for maximum
number of classrooms.Upstairs outdoor play area poses safety concerns.
All Classrooms have view of trees & golf course.Insufficient administration space.
Generous sense of secure entry.Lobby area is too generous for bldg’s use.
Parking and drop/off are separate.2 stories requires doubling up play equipment &
kitchen.
Sufficient isolation of Classrooms from neighbors.Intense use predicts noticeable impacts to existing
conditions.
SCHEME C
Scheme C - Perspective at Rear Scheme C - Perspective at Entry
+
263. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
SCHEME D
DESCRIPTION:
2 Stories, Building Confined to Flat Upper Area. Parking Located in Existing Library Footprint
No. of
Classrooms
Children per
Classroom
Total
Children
Total
Adults
Gross
Building Area
(in SF)
Outdoor Area
(in SF)Parking
14 20 280 30-34 44,000 12,000 18 Spaces
Ground +
Upper Level Sloping Surface
Scheme D - Ground Floor Plan
Scheme D - Aerial PerspectiveScheme D - Aerial Perspective
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
273. PROJECT APPROACH
3.3 PROJECT APPROACH - OPTION 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION
OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES
Uses existing conditions: footprint, drive, MPOE,
storage parking
Massing: Approximiately twice the height of the
existing libary
Minimal contour/drainage disturbance.Most intense use of space, highest occupancy.
Affords incorporation of cellular tower.Greatest environmental impact.
Offers solar panel and green roof possibilities.Multi-level facility is not ideal for tots.
Avoids bottleneck of drop-off/pick up.Sun and views blocked for neighboring apt bldg.
Ample employee and guest parking.Scale may prove too urban for low key residential
neighborhood.
Most versatile for community uses during non-pre-
school hours.
Offers ability to use existing kitchen in basement.
Offers ability to incorporate laundry in basement.
Least infringement to existing setbacks.
Very secure play areas.
Safety, economy and convenience are key.
SCHEME D
Scheme D - Exterior PerspectiveScheme D - Perspective at Entrance
+
284. CONCLUSION
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 PREFERRED SCHEMES
Per the original agenda, the City reviewed
the schemes within each of the Options and
selected one scheme from each Option for a
cost estimate.
4.2 PREFFERED OPTION 1
SCHEME (RENOVATION)
The City’s choice is Scheme 1 - the proposal
to use the existing space to the greatest
extent possible with minimal alteration to
the building.
4.3 PREFFERED OPTION 2
SCHEME (NEW CONSTRUCTION)
The City’s choice is Scheme C - the linear,
2-story concept located on the relatively
level upper area of the site.
In conjunction with SIM’s architectural
concepts, engineering consultants also
performed analyses of the City’s chosen
Schemes regarding the site, structural
issues, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
considerations. Their analyses and
commentary have been integrated into the
assessment.
Preferred New Construction: Scheme C - Ground Floor Plan
Preferred Renovation: Scheme 1 - Ground Floor Plan
LEGEND
CLASSROOM
LANDSCAPE
MULTI-PURPOSE
STORAGE
RESTROOM
KITCHEN
+
294. CONCLUSION
4. CONCLUSION
4.4 NEXT STEPS
Together with the cost estimate, the exhibits
contained in this Feasibility Study represent
a cursory review of some of the design and
development opportunities along with
discussion of some of the challenges and
constraints for transforming the West Orange
Library site into a State-qualified pre-school
for children 2 ½ to 5 years of age.
SIM Architects greatly appreciates the
opportunity to contribute to the continuing
progress of community design and
development. We share in the City’s vision
of providing a quality environment for the
very young which will benefit the broader
community fabric for the present and future.
We look forward to assisting the City of South
San Francisco with further exploration and
refinement of the key areas identified by the
City and to partnering with the community to
determine the optimal solution to this matrix
of possibilities.
Existing Building - view from street level
Scheme C Aerial Perspective
+
30A. APPENDIX
A. APPENDIX
A.1 WORKING DATA
• Civil Engineering Data
• Recommended Mechanical Equipment
• Records of Meeting Minutes
A.2 CONSULTANT CREDITS
• Topographic Survey by North Star Engineering
• Site Observation Report by North Star Engineering
• Civil Commentary by North Star Engineering
• Structural Commentary by Universal Structural Engineers
• Mechanical Commentary by H & M Mechanical Group
• Electrical Commentary by Zeiger Engineers
• Conceptual Cost Estimate by Cummings Cost Consultants
A.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY
California Department of Social Services Manual (DSS– CCL-98-11)
Child Care Design Guide GSA PBS 140 2003: Chapter 5 – Planning for Space and Location,
Chapter 7 – Interior Space Design, Appendix F - Accessibility
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Standard: Standard 9 –
Physical Environment
California Community Care Licensing Division – Child Care Advocate Program (Child Care
Center or Pre-school) 2004
2016 California Building Code
2016 California Plumbing Code
2016 California Fire Code
2013 California Disabled Access Guide (CalDAG)
+
31A. APPENDIX
A. APPENDIX
A.4 LIMITATIONS OF DATA
The original construction drawings and building infrastructure design were not available.
Exterior architectural elevations and sections were derived from visual extrapolations of
photographs and general field measurements taken by SIM personnel. The structural system
and its components could not be determined since no exploratory deconstruction was
conducted. Accounts of the existing mechanical equipment and plumbing fixtures were made
from site observations only. The majority of the supply and delivery is concealed within
building floors and chases. Ductwork details and drain-waste-vent sizes and routes could not
be determined.
An abbreviated set of selected interior renovation drawings from 1993 was available. The
documents included changes to the lighting and power as well as to the library casework and
furnishings. The set served as a basis for general interior dimensions and the current electrical
service.
Drawings and diagrams not supported by historical data are based as closely as possible on
the observed conditions and on the experience of SIM Architects and its Consultants with
buildings of similar construction type, occupancy, size, design and age.
Existing Libary - Front Elevation
Existing Libary - Side Elevation
Existing Libary - Rear Elevation
+
32A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
33A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
34A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
35A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
36A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
37A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
38A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
39A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
40A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
41A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
42A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
43A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
44A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
45A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
46A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
47A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
48A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
49A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
50A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
51A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
52A. APPENDIX
A.5 APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
+
53A. APPENDIX
A.6 APPENDIX - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
+
54A. APPENDIX
A.6 APPENDIX - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
+
55A. APPENDIX
A.6 APPENDIX - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
+
56A. APPENDIX
A.6 APPENDIX - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
+
57A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 1 of 13
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
OBSERVATION REPORT
MAY 18, 2018
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LIBRARY
+
58A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 2 of 13
Specific Areas of Concern (see photos)
1.Evidence of pavement and concrete failures in the form of cracking, lifting, and ponding.
Pavement and concrete should be repaired or replaced and grading should be revised so no
ponding occurs.
2.Accessible parking stalls do not meet accessible requirements; slopes should not exceed 2%
maximum any direction within parking stall.
3.Cross‐slope exceeds accessibility requirements.
4.Door thresholds may not meet accessibility requirements; architect should review along with
door swings.
5.Truncated domes are needed where paving is flush with the concrete walk.
6.Existing storm drain system may not be sized appropriately to accommodate flow.
7.Not all appropriate accessible signage is installed.
8.Existing pipes are exposed and should be located below grade.
9.Steep slope for future accessible path of travel; retaining walls maybe required for proposed
improvements.
10.Existing masonry wall and stairway to be improved for future accessible path of travel. Existing
floor drain discharge location will need to be verified. Retaining walls may be required for
proposed improvements.
11.Knox boxes should be installed on gates for emergency access.
12.Existing channel damaged and will need to be replaced if system is to remain.
13.Trash bin should be stored in an enclosed area with an accessible path of travel.
14.Survey did not identify a fire hydrant within the project limits or near the existing fire
department connection (FDC). However, a fire hydrant is located across the street and should be
reviewed by the fire department if it is still acceptable.
15.Survey did not identify any backflow preventer devices on domestic water system; one should
be installed to protect public water main.
+
59A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 3 of 13
1.Evidence of pavement and concrete failures in the form of cracking, lifting, and ponding.
Pavement and concrete should be repaired or replaced and grading should be revised so no
ponding occurs.
+
60A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 4 of 13
2.Accessible parking stalls do not meet accessible requirements; slopes should not exceed 2%
maximum any direction within parking stall.
+
61A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 5 of 13
3.Cross‐slope exceeds accessibility requirements.
+
62A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 6 of 13
4.Door thresholds may not meet accessibility requirements; architect should review along with
door swings.
5.Truncated domes are needed where paving is flush with the concrete walk.
+
63A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 7 of 13
6.Existing storm drain system may not be sized appropriately to accommodate flow.
7.Not all appropriate accessible signage is installed.
+
64A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 8 of 13
8.Existing pipes are exposed and should be located below grade.
+
65A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 9 of 13
9.Steep slope for future accessible path of travel; retaining walls may be required for proposed
improvements.
+
66A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 10 of 13
10.Existing masonry wall and stairway to be improved for future accessible path of travel. Existing
floor drain discharge location will need to be verified. Retaining walls may be required for
proposed improvements.
+
67A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 11 of 13
11.Knox boxes should be installed on gates for emergency access.
12.Existing channel damaged and will need to be replaced if system is to remain.
+
68A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 12 of 13
13.Trash bin should be stored in an enclosed area with an accessible path of travel.
14.Survey did not identify a fire hydrant within the project limits or near the existing fire
department connection (FDC). However, a fire hydrant is located across the street and should be
reviewed by the fire department if it is still acceptable.
+
69A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
Observation Report Prepared by NorthStar Engineering Group, Inc.
South San Francisco Library Page 13 of 13
15.Survey did not identify any backflow preventer devices on domestic water system; one should
be installed to protect public water main.
+
70A. APPENDIX
A.8 APPENDIX - CIVIL COMMENTARY
+
715. APPENDIX
A.9 APPENDIX - STRUCTURAL COMMENTARY
Universal Structural
Engineers, LLC
1660 S. Amphlett, Suite 335 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone 650-312-9233 ~ Fax 650-312-9229 e-mail: [email protected] Page 1
November 18, 2018 SIM Architects, Inc. 433 California Street, Suite 620 San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: SFF Main Library/Pre-School Feasibility Study 840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 USE Job Number: 201812 Universal Structural Engineers has review the 3 existing renovation concepts and 4 new construction concepts presented by Sim Architects for the “SSF Main Library/Pre-School Feasibility Study”. The following is our structural pros and cons for each scheme.
Existing Renovation Concepts Scheme 01, 02 and 03
Existing schemes 01, 02, and 03 leave the existing building intact but have different architectural layouts
PROS CONS Limited structural costs A change of occupancy may require the building to be seismically retrofit to the current code. The lower story has concrete shear walls and a concrete slab forming the floor above which will most likely require little to no retrofit. The upper story does not appear to have an adequate seismic resisting system. A retrofit with new braced frames or shear walls at the outer walls would most likely be required. Braced frames/shear walls over the exterior concrete basement walls may not require footing retrofit.
Upper level has only 4 columns leaving spacing
planning flexibility
+
725. APPENDIX
A.9 APPENDIX - STRUCTURAL COMMENTARY
Universal Structural
Engineers, LLC
1660 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 335 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone 650-312-9233 ~ Fax 650-312-9229 e-mail: [email protected] Page 2
New Construction Scheme A This scheme removes the upper story of the existing library but leaves the existing lower story intact for
parking. The classrooms would be one story wood framed spread around the site including over the
existing library lower portion.
PROS CONS Saves on structural costs for parking. The 2nd floor of the existing library would have been designed for library live loads but my require reinforcement of the concrete slab to support new wood building since walls of that building do not line up with the existing concrete walls below.
One story wood buildings are relatively
inexpensive compared to other types of
construction.
Existing lower floor column layout may not be
efficient for parking drives lanes and parking
stalls.
Distance from the stairs/elevator to the existing lower level would require an underground tunnel to connect the two.
New Construction Scheme B This scheme removes the existing building and realigns the site with a one story building.
PROS CONS
Building could be wood which is relatively
inexpensive compared to other types of
construction. One story is also relatively
inexpensive.
Will required retaining walls.
Could use balance out the soil on the site such that soil does not need to be exported or imported, saving on costs.
Would require compaction or other mitigation of the exiting soil where the existing basement occurs since buildings on existing soil versus soil fill will settle differently. Since the structure is new it would be designed to the current building code eliminating uncertainty in construction costs compared to using existing structure.
One story building and parking limits the occupancy of the site.
The existing concrete could be crushed and use for
a base of the building and the driveway.
+
735. APPENDIX
A.9 APPENDIX - STRUCTURAL COMMENTARY
Universal Structural
Engineers, LLC
1660 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 335 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone 650-312-9233 ~ Fax 650-312-9229 e-mail: [email protected] Page 3
New Construction Scheme C This scheme removes the existing building and realigns the site with a two story building in the back.
PROS CONS
Building could be wood which is relatively
inexpensive compared to other types of construction.
Will required retaining walls.
Since the structure is new it would be designed to
the current building code eliminating uncertainty
in construction costs compared to using existing
structure.
Would require compaction or other mitigation of
the exiting soil where the existing basement occurs
to minimize settlement.
The existing concrete could be crushed and use for a base of the building and the driveway. Back of the building near the golf course may have to be excavated and a retaining wall constructed.
Two story construction is more expensive than one
story construction.
New Construction Scheme D This scheme removes the existing building and realigns the site with a three story building at the side.
PROS CONS
The existing basement would not have to be back filled and compacted but would become the ground floor of the 3 story building.
Will required retaining walls.
Since the structure is new it would be designed to
the current building code eliminating uncertainty
in construction costs compared to using existing
structure.
Building might have to be constructed of steel or
concrete as opposed to wood due layout and fire
rating issues, which is typically has a more
expensive building cost than wood.
The existing concrete could be crushed and use for a base of the building and the driveway. Three story construction is more expensive than one or two story construction. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely,
Kevin O’Keefe, S.E.
Universal
Structural Engineers, LLC
1660 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 335 San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone 650-312-9233 ~ Fax 650-312-9229 e-mail: [email protected] Page 4
President
+
74A. APPENDIX
A.10 APPENDIX - MECHANICAL COMMENTARY
SSF MAIN LIBRARY / PRE-SCHOOL
840 WEST ORANGE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
Mechanical Assessment Report
Prepared by:
October 25, 2018
+
75A. APPENDIX
A.10 APPENDIX - MECHANICAL COMMENTARY
H&M Mechanical Group | SSF Main Library / Pre-School 1
Survey Date: May 7, 2018
Vicinity Map:
Existing Site: Aerial View (source: Google Maps).
Overview of Mechanical Systems
The approximately 25000 SF building consists of two levels. The upper level is the main
library and the lower level consist of the mechanical room, offices, breakrooms, conference
rooms and multi-purpose room. The mechanical system located in the mechanical room
consists of the following:
1. 96.6% high efficiency hydronic heating boiler with 750 Kbtuh heating capacity,
replaced in 2014.
2. The original 1965 air handling unit with hydronic heating coil delivers 21,200 cfm to
serve the main library.
3. A 20-ton DX split fan coil unit, replaced in 2017, with 4 original hydronic reheat zone
coils. The outdoor condenser is located at the back of the building.
4. A central exhaust fan serves the lower floor.
Upper level (Main Library): The central hydronic boiler provides heating hot water to the
hydronic heating coil in the air handling unit. The air handling unit delivers heated air to the
main library. There is no cooling system for the main library. Outside air to the main library is
provided by the air handler thru the outside air louver. According to the as built, the amount of
+
76A. APPENDIX
A.10 APPENDIX - MECHANICAL COMMENTARY
2 H&M Mechanical Group | SSF Main Library / Pre-School
outside air delivered to the main library is 50% more than code minimum resulting in waste of
energy to reheat the excessive outside air. The supply air is distributed by the overhead round
ceiling diffusers and sidewall grilles throughout the library. Two larger return air grilles are
centrally located, and several smaller ones are located along the perimeter of the space. The
return air grille along the perimeter are floor mounted. This large single zone system is
designed to serve large open space with one single control. To configure a 33-year-old system
to serve a multizone classroom environment is not recommended. Toilet rooms have
individual ceiling mount exhaust fan. Each fan is controlled by toilet room light switch.
The lower level: A 20-ton split DX fan coil unit (cooling only) delivers cooled air to all the spaces
in the lower level. One zone thermostat controls the cooling of the space. The central hydronic
boiler provides heating hot water to four hydronic reheat zone coils within the ducted system
of the DX fan coil unit. Reheat coil 1 serves the perimeter offices. Reheat coil 2 serves the
interior open office. Reheat coil 3 serves the interior break room. Reheat coil 4 serves the
multipurpose space. The reheat coils are individually controlled by a heating thermostat in
each zone. The DX fan coil unit delivers the heated air to all these spaces in the lower level.
Outside air is delivered to the varies spaces by the DX fan coil unit thru the outside air louver.
This system setup of a single zone cooling only system mixed with four separate zone reheat
system could result in a waste of energy when both cooling and reheating of the air occurs. A
central exhaust fan serves all the toilet rooms, janitor’s room etc. in the lower level.
Both mechanical systems have a standalone control by Honeywell control. There is no Energy
management or Building automation system for the building.
Recommendation:
We believe the combination of rooftop system and VRF serves the application, and provide a
balance of simplicity, ease of maintenance and best comfort level with a budget in view.
Design concept Scheme 1:
Our recommendation is to remove existing air handling unit to its entirety. Design new rooftop
gas heat/electric cool package unit for each classroom and the multipurpose room. If budget
allows, Variable Refrigerant Flow system (VRF) shall be used to provide dedicated individual
system control for individual offices, conference rooms and breakroom. Otherwise, these
rooms can be served by one of the nearby rooftops packaged unit.
Design concept Scheme C:
This concept is to develop a brand-new building and remove the entire existing library building.
This is a new 2 story building. Our recommendation is to design new rooftop gas heat/electric
+
77A. APPENDIX
A.10 APPENDIX - MECHANICAL COMMENTARY
4 H&M Mechanical Group | SSF Main Library / Pre-School
Photos Gallery:
Boiler Boiler nameplate
Air Handler with heating coil
+
78A. APPENDIX
A.10 APPENDIX - MECHANICAL COMMENTARY
H&M Mechanical Group | SSF Main Library / Pre-School 5
Library overhead diffusers
Sidewall grilles
+
79A. APPENDIX
A.10 APPENDIX - MECHANICAL COMMENTARY
6 H&M Mechanical Group | SSF Main Library / Pre-School
Floor mount return grille along perimeter
Honeywell thermostat control
+
80A. APPENDIX
A.11 APPENDIX - ELECTRICAL COMMENTARY
The SSF Library on W Orange Street South San Francisco CA was surveyed on the 26th of January 2018. The following is the observations of the site and comments.
The existing building is served from an underground service from a pole mounted PG & E transformer to
a 600 amp 120/208 volt three phase four wire meter switchboard located in the basement level of the library. The site is also support by a 100kw generator via a manual switch and a 10kw generator via an
automatic transfer switch. Both of these generator are the original equipment and could not confirm it
reliability under operation. The main switchboard is also the original and has not been tested since its installation around 1970s. It is a product by a Sierra Switchboard Company, which has been out of
business since early 1990s. It is strongly suggest that the system be tested and re-certified if it is to be
reused in the new renovation.
If any upgrade is done to the site, the existing pole mounted transformer will not be acceptable under the current PG & E standards. We would need to provide a pad mounted transformer for any renovation
which is at least a 600 amp service. The pole mounted transformer is located adjoining the parking lot.
+
81A. APPENDIX
A.11 APPENDIX - ELECTRICAL COMMENTARY
The site lighting is via some cobra heads for the parking lot area. This installation probably does not
provide the necessary light levels for safety or exiting under the current code requirements. The interior lighting is mainly surface fluorescent light fixtures with some pendant decorative with fluorescent bulbs.
The fire alarm system is a Silent Knight hard wired system. The manual pull stations are not installed at
the correct code required heights but is not required per current code if building is fully sprinklered. This will need to be verified as a fully sprinklered building, then the manual pull station can be removed and
wiring abandon in place. The elevator is only a single stop but could not confirm if the breaker has a
shunt trip to coordinate with the Fire Alarm Panel for remote shut down in an alarm situation. The site
has smoke/heat detectors but does not have them in all rooms for full coverage. The system is a hard wired and not an addressable system which is easier to expand.
+
82A. APPENDIX
A.11 APPENDIX - ELECTRICAL COMMENTARY
+
83A. APPENDIX
A.11 APPENDIX - ELECTRICAL COMMENTARY
6/25/2018
4
EXISTING RENOVATION CONCEPTS
A B E FCD
1
2
3
4
CLASSROOM#11200 SQFT
CLASSROOM#21200 SQFT
CLASSROOM#41200 SQFT1200 SQFTMULTIPURPOSERM.1000 SQFT
OFFICE#1277 SQFT
FRONTDESK90 SQFT
CONFERENCE222 SQFT
STORAGE#1180 SQFT
STORAGE#2180 SQFT
STORAGE #3 CLASSROOM#3220 SQFT
STORAGE#4220 SQFT
INTERACTIVE CHILDRENKITCH.195 SQFT
MULTIPURPOSERM.3122 SQFT
(E)RADIOTOWER 308 SQFT
OFFICE#2242 SQFT
CIRCULATION1649 SQFT
RESTROOM155 SQFT TOILETRM.95 SQFT
OUTDOORPLAY AREA5825 SQFT
STORAGE192 SQFT
TOILETRM.95 SQFT
TOILETRM.95 SQFT
BREAKRM.168 SQFTSTORAGE48 SQFT
TOILETRM.126 SQFT
TOILETRM. 95 SQFT
SERVICE165 SQFT
SERVICE177 SQFT
STORAGE192 SQFT
FUTURE AREA OFREFUGE304 SQFT A B E FCD
1
2
3
4
CLASSROOM#21200 SQFT CLASSROOM#31200 SQFTCLASSROOM#11200 SQFT
STORAGE215 SQFT
STORAGE215 SQFT
STORAGE175 SQFTBREAKRM.445 SQFTOFFICE1+2382 SQFTFRONTDSK.164 SQFT
MULTIPURPOSE4692 SQFT
KITCHEN632 SQFT
OUTDOORPLAY AREA5825 SQFT
(E)RADIOTOWER308 SQFT
TRASH ENCLOSURE395 SQFT
TOILETRM.150 SQFT
STORAGE208 SQFT
STORAGE208 SQFT
TOILETRM.150 SQFT
TOILETRM.150 SQFT
CIRCULATION2426 SQFT
SERVICE188 SQFT
FUTURE AREA OFREFUGE304 SQFT
A B E FCD
1
3
4
CLASSROOM#11200 SQFT
CLASSROOM#21200 SQFTFRONTDESK90 SQFT
STORAGE#1180 SQFT
STORAGE#2180 SQFT
BREAKROOM413 SQFT
CONFERENCE288 SQFT
CLASSROOM#41200 SQFT
CLASSROOM#31200 SQFT
STOR.269 SQFT
MULTIPURPOSERM.991 SQFT
MULTIPURPOSE2984 SQFT
KITCHEN200 SQFT
STOR.139 SQFT
OUTDOORPLAY AREA5825 SQFT
(E)RADIOTOWER308 SQFT
OFFICE2277 SQFT
2
OFFICE1242 SQFT
CIRCULATION436 SQFT
CIRCULATION1002 SQFT
TOILETRM.126 SQFT
STORAGE54 SQFTSTORAGE48 SQFT
TOILETRM.100 SQFT
STORAGE192 SQFT
STORAGE192 SQFT
TOILETRM.100 SQFT
TOILETRM.100 SQFT
TOILETRM.155 SQFT
SERVICE165 SQFT
TOILETRM.100 SQFT
FUTURE AREAOFREFUGE304 SQFT
SERVICE177 SQFT
SCHEME 01
4 CLASSROOMS / 80 CHILDREN
SCHEME 02
4 CLASSROOMS / 80 CHILDREN
SCHEME 03
3 CLASSROOMS / 60 CHILDREN
NEW CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS
SCHEME A
8 CLASSROOMS
160 CHILDREN
ONE-STORY BUILDING
PARKING BELOW
EXTENSIVE GRADING
FRAGMENTED PLAYAREA
SCHEME B
12 CLASSROOMS
240 CHILDREN
ONE-STORY BUILDING
SURFACE PARKING
MEDIUM GRADING
DE-CENTRALIZED PLAY AREA
SCHEME C
14 CLASSROOMS
280 CHILDREN
TWO-STORY BUILDING
SURFACE PARKING
MINIMUM GRADING
DE-CENTRALIZED PLAYAREA
SCHEME D
15 CLASSROOMS
300 CHILDREN
THREE-STORY BUILDING
SURFACE PARKING
MINIMUM GRADING
CENTRALIZED PLAYAREA
+
84A. APPENDIX
A.11 APPENDIX - ELECTRICAL COMMENTARY
6/25/2018
12
EXISTING VS. SCHEME C
EXISTING CONDITONS SCHEME C
14 CLASSROOMS / 280 CHILDREN
+
85A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 2018
+
86A. APPENDIX
A.7 APPENDIX - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT
+
87A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2018
+
88A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2018
+
89A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2018
+
90A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 2018
+
91A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 2018
+
92A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 2018
+
93A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - MAY 19, 2018
+
94A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - MAY 19, 2018
+
95A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2018
+
96A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2018
+
97A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2018
+
98A. APPENDIX
A.12 APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 25, 2018