Property Condition Assessment Marx Okubo

Marx|Okubo Associates, Inc. | 444 Spear Street, Suite 205 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | 415.957.9240 | FAX 415.957.8732 | WWW.MARXOKUBO.COM

PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT

390 MAIN STREET

390 Main Street San Francisco, California 94105

Prepared for:

CB Richard Ellis Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 100

Palo Alto, California 94306 Mr. Kenneth Gilbert

Marx|Okubo Job No. 11-9116

September 13, 2011

Atl

an

ta |

Da

lla

s |

De

nv

er |

Ha

rtf

ord

| H

ou

sto

n |

Irv

ine

| P

as

ad

en

a |

Sa

n F

ra

nc

isc

o |

Se

att

le |

Wh

ite

Pla

ins

390 MAIN STREET San Francisco, California

Marx/Okubo Associates, Inc. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 1

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 2

III. OBSERVATION INFORMATION ............................................................................... 10 A. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 10 B. SITE OBSERVATION ..................................................................................................... 11 C. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ............................................................................................. 11

IV. SITE ..................................................................................................................... 12 A. UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDERS ..................................................................................... 12 B. STORM DRAINAGE ...................................................................................................... 12 C. TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 12 D. PARKING ...................................................................................................................... 12 E. PAVING AND SIDEWALKS ........................................................................................... 13 F. LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION ........................................................................................... 13 G. EARTHWORK/GRADING/EROSION CONTROL ........................................................... 13 H. RETAINING WALLS ...................................................................................................... 13 I. FENCING ...................................................................................................................... 13 J. SIGNAGE ...................................................................................................................... 14 K. LOADING DOCKS AND RAMPS ................................................................................... 14 L. SITE AMENITIES ........................................................................................................... 14 M. TRASH ENCLOSURES ................................................................................................... 14 N. ALTA SURVEY .............................................................................................................. 14

V. STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................... 15 A. GENERAL ..................................................................................................................... 15 B. FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 15 C. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING FRAMING SYSTEM ................................................. 15 D. DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 16 E. SEISMIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................................... 16 F. EVALUATION OF THE LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS ................................... 19 G. SEISMIC LOSS ESTIMATION ........................................................................................ 21 H. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 23

VI. ENVELOPE AND EXTERIOR ..................................................................................... 27 A. ROOFING ..................................................................................................................... 27 B. EXTERIOR WALLS ........................................................................................................ 28 C. THERMAL INSULATION ............................................................................................... 28 D. EXTERIOR DOORS/FRAMES ........................................................................................ 28 E. EXTERIOR SOFFITS AND TRIM .................................................................................... 29 F. EXTERIOR LANDINGS, STAIRS, AND RAILINGS .......................................................... 29 G. EXTERIOR DECKS AND PATIOS .................................................................................. 29

VII. INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................... 30 A. INTERIOR WALLS ......................................................................................................... 30 B. INTERIOR DOORS/FRAMES ......................................................................................... 30 C. CEILINGS ..................................................................................................................... 30 D. FLOORS ....................................................................................................................... 30 E. RESTROOMS ................................................................................................................ 31 F. UTILITY ROOMS .......................................................................................................... 31 G. INTERIOR STAIRS ........................................................................................................ 31


Marx/Okubo Associates, Inc. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

VIII. MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL .................................................................................... 32 A. HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING ................................................. 32 B. PLUMBING ................................................................................................................... 37 C. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM .................................................................................................. 38 D. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 40

IX. BUILDING EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 42 A. VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................... 42 B. WINDOW WASHING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 44 C. SECURITY SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 45 D. COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 45

X. CODE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 46 A. CODE CLASSIFICATION .............................................................................................. 46 B. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY/BUILDING PERMITS ................................................ 46 C. GOVERNMENT AGENCY REVIEW ................................................................................ 46 D. MEANS OF EGRESS ...................................................................................................... 46

XI. DISABLED ACCESSIBILITY ...................................................................................... 47

XII. REPAIRS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND OPINIONS OF COSTS ..................................... 49 A. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 49 B. METHOD OF DETERMINING COSTS ........................................................................... 49 C. ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED ........................................................................................... 49

XIII. EXHIBITS .............................................................................................................. 52 A. VICINITY MAP B. FLOOR PLANS C. HKA ELEVATOR EVALUATIONS D. PHOTOGRAPHS

Mr. Kenneth Gilbert (electronic copy, two final reports)

DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Randy Ackerman (electronic copy)


Marx|Okubo Associates, Inc. 1

I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

Property: 390 Main Street San Francisco, California 94105 Age: Reportedly constructed in 1942, ±69 years old. Substantial renovation reportedly in 1991. Site Area: 75,713 square feet or ±1.738 acres. Zoning: According to the San Francisco Planning Department the

property is zoned RC-4 RH DTR (Residential-Commercial Combined District High Density, Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District). There are no setbacks for commercial use.

Flood Plain: The City of San Francisco does not participate in the National

Flood Insurance Program. Therefore, no flood hazard classification is available. Due to the site's location in San Francisco, it is not believed to be in an area of potential flooding.

Building Area: ± 517,661 gross square feet ± 497,204 rentable square feet Legal Description: Assessor's Block Number AB 3746 Management Contact: Howard Ishida, Facilities Services Manager

United States Postal Service 390 Main Street, Suite 404 San Francisco, California 94105 415.680.0830

Design/Construction Project Team: Original Team Unknown 1991 Renovation: General Contractor: Unknown

Architect-of-Record: RM+W

Structural Engineer: Cygna Consulting Engineers

Mechanical Engineer: Marion, Cerbatos, and Tomas

Electrical Engineer: Unknown

Landscape Architect: Unknown

Civil Engineer: Bissell and Karn, Inc.



II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Based upon our observations and information received from interviews, Marx|Okubo Associates, Inc. (Marx|Okubo) has prepared the following opinions of probable costs to repair or correct deficiencies or items of deferred maintenance:

Description Immediate Years 1-3 Years 4-6 Years 7-10

SITE 0 0 225,500 0

STRUCTURE 0 2,588,000 0 0

ENVELOPE & EXTERIOR 6,000 173,000 0 165,000

INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 0 18,000 0 0

MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL 0 2,129,800 50,000 0

BUILDING EQUIPMENT 6,000 1,630,000 0 20,000

CODE REVIEW 26,500 0 0 0

DISABLED-ACCESSIBILITY 34,000 6,000 0 0

Total Costs $72,500 $6,544,800 $275,500 $185,000

* Refer to Section XII, Repairs, Recommendations, and Opinions of Costs for a detailed breakdown.

The project consists of a ± 517,661 gross square foot eight-story office/distribution building with a grade level parking lot reportedly constructed in 1942. The property is located in downtown San Francisco, California, along Main Street, north of Interstate 80. Adjacent properties consist of a combination of older low and mid-rise office/warehouse buildings and newer high-rise residential developments. The building occupies the whole site with ± 41 feet along the north elevation of the building that supplies surface parking and loading docks. Vehicular access to the north of the building is provided through the adjacent parking lot. The site is in good overall condition. Public sidewalks are in generally good condition. The City may require improvement of these sidewalks and streets at the time of capital improvements or upgrades. There is a small seating area outside the main building entry. The parking lot to the north of the property is a separate parcel and will most likely be developed in the future with high-rise buildings common to the area. Site improvements to the main building entrance and along the building frontage may need to be conducted including demolition of existing improvements, new access from adjacent streets, concrete and landscape. The building is a cast-in-place reinforced concrete structure. The foundation system consists of individual spread footings beneath interior columns and a continuous strip footing at the perimeter. Three rows of columns are supported on reinforced concrete belled caissons. The lower level of the building has reinforced concrete slab-on-grade. Vertical loads are carried by concrete slabs and columns. The building was originally designed as a military warehouse and slab and column dimensions are larger when compared to a typical office building. The lateral force resisting system consists of reinforced concrete slabs acting as diaphragms to transfer inertial forces to exterior wall frames. The walls are rectangular reinforced concrete pier walls constructed monolithically with thickened rectangular column sections. Spandrel beams connect the frames at the levels above Floor 1; solid walls typically exist at the lower level. There is also an 8" thick wall at the center of the building that runs in the direction parallel to Harrison Street.



In general, the foundations appear to carry existing loads with no significant visible indication of settlement, movement, or deflection noted, although diagonal top of slab cracks at the fourth floor and minor exterior wall cracks near the ground floor were noted at the corner of Beale and Harrison Streets. Such cracking may be indicative of differential settlement, however excessive floor sloping was not observed and these cracks are not anticipated to adversely affect the performance or use of the building. We recommend that the exterior cracks are sealed to prevent moisture intrusion and to protect the underlying steel reinforcement from corrosion as part of routine maintenance. The structure appears to be in general conformance with the codes and standard practices in effect at the time of construction. The materials and construction methods employed are of reasonable quality and appear adequate for their intended use. The building structure was generally found to be in good condition with no significant issues noted. Visible corrosion or water damage to structural members and connections was not apparent. Excessive settlement cracking of the slab-on-grade was not noted. The current lateral force resisting system is inadequate to transfer the magnitude of lateral forces generated by ASCE 31 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings standards without damage. A shear stress analysis using ASCE 31 reveals that shear stresses in the exterior walls produced by a relatively large seismic event are much greater than what is allowed by the ASCE 31 evaluation criteria. In such cases, primary lateral force resisting elements can be expected to exhibit cracking and distress. The original seismic design was based on a coefficient of 0.1g, as shown on the drawings. According to a "Preliminary Seismic Evaluation" by URS in 1994, evaluating the building for compliance with the 1991 Uniform Building Code and using a coefficient of 0.116g, stresses in most walls are 1.5 to 2.2 times above the allowable load levels in that code. We anticipate that the structure will likely maintain the vertical load carrying capacity during a code level seismic event; however, the building is anticipated to perform below average (with somewhat greater damage) during an earthquake when compared to other mid-rise reinforced concrete shear wall buildings of similar age under similar ground motions. The City of San Francisco currently does not have mandatory seismic upgrade requirements for this type of building. To improve building performance and reduce risk of material damage during a Building Code level design basis earthquake (DBE), analogous to the 475-year return period seismic hazard level and ASCE 41-06 BSE-1 Earthquake Hazard Level, a voluntary seismic strengthening could be considered. This building is extremely regular and the building geometry presents many opportunities for locations to construct new shotcrete structural shear walls in a variety of locations with nominal impacts to the building function. Exterior walls that require strengthening could be overlain with a supplementary shotcrete layer as well as maximizing new shear wall effectiveness by infilling only a few selected wall openings. Floor and roof diaphragms appear likely to be adequate with little or no modification except for the potential need for strengthened collector/chord and drag elements. New foundation components will likely be necessary to resist overturning effects at new and/or strengthened shear wall components. A schematic retrofit design was developed by Murphy Burr Curry, Inc. Structural Engineers (MBC) in June 2011 to meet the ASCE 41-06 Life-Safety performance objective. MBC is a well established local structural engineering firm, respected within the engineering community, and fully capable to perform this type of work. The retrofit primarily entails adding new and strengthening existing concrete shear walls. Typically two bays of existing exterior wall in each direction at each corner from the basement to Floor 6 and four bays of centrally located interior wall in the would receive shotcrete strengthening.



In addition four bays of new centrally located interior wall shotcrete shear walls would be constructed in the perpendicular direction. The interior shear walls are typically full-height, however the number of shear wall bays reduces to two from the roof to Floor 6. Reinforced piers and spandrels would be utilized at the exterior retrofit shear walls to preserve existing wall openings, however, two bays of dock loading doors would in-filled along the Beale Street elevation from the basement to the second floor. No information was provided regarding the proposed retrofit foundation work that would be required to accompany such a seismic rehabilitation. Based on the schematic retrofit described above, we anticipate the cost of seismic rehabilitation to be approximately $3-$5 per square foot. The current building vacancy and unfinished interior condition, robust nature of the slabs, and regular geometry provide efficient opportunities to introduce seismic strengthening elements. However, no information was provided regarding the scope and extent of potential foundation work related to the seismic upgrade, which can only be determined through a full seismic rehabilitation analysis and design using valid geotechnical engineering recommendations. Uncertainties also exist regarding the amount of preparation and epoxy rebar doweling required at the shotcrete shear wall overlays. According to ASTM Standard E2026-07 "Standard Guide for the Estimation of Building Damageability in Earthquakes", the scenario loss estimates for the 475-year seismic hazard level (both scenario expected loss (SEL) and scenario upper loss (SUL) are as follows:

390 Main Street 475-year Return Period

SEL SUL

Existing Structure (in the building's current condition)

14% 22%

Retrofitted Structure (per proposed MBC ASCE 41-06 Life-Safety schematic retrofit) 10% 16%

The building appears to be a good candidate for seismic strengthening based on the sound current condition of the structure. The schematic retrofit design appears reasonable and appropriate for this type of building. MBC's proposed seismic retrofit utilizes a commonly employed method of achieving such a strengthening. Assuming the seismic rehabilitation is designed, detailed, and completed per currently accepted guidelines, the retrofitted structure would likely meet or exceed a life-safety performance level according to ASCE 41-06, and conform to building code life safety criteria for existing buildings. In our experience, this level of performance would meet the generally accepted industry standards for institutional investment, financing, and insurance. The building exterior walls are reinforced cast concrete with an acrylic paint finish. Windows have dual pane insulative glazing in factory-finished aluminum frames set in punched openings and were reportedly installed as part of the 1991 renovation. The main building entry is a factory-finished storefront system with full height, tempered glazing. Secondary exit doors are glazed aluminum doors in aluminum frames. The building exteriors generally appear in good overall condition. Regularly scheduled crack repair, prep, and repaint of exterior walls should be anticipated in the next few years, and then approximately every ±seven to ten years thereafter. The hollow metal louver doors at the penthouse are corroded and do not close properly; these should be removed and replaced for proper operation. The site and exterior metals are weathered and should be prepped and repainted to prevent corrosion; work should include the rooftop steps, parapet railings, and rooftop equipment support steel.



According to property management, the roofs were replaced in 2005. No destructive testing was performed during the inspection. Floor 7 roof is an Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly (IRMA) system that consists of a 2-ply, modified bitumen, built-up membrane installed over a concrete deck. The roofing membrane is manufactured by Siplast. A drainage mat, filter fabric, and 2" tongue and groove Dow Corning-Lightguard insulation has been installed over the membrane. There are concrete pavers at the building perimeter, around mechanical equipment, and in heavy traffic areas. River rock has been installed to fill voids between the insulation, parapets, supports, and drains. This roof is in good condition. Localized surface cracking is noted at several insulation panels; this condition should be monitored in the future and corrected as necessary. Vegetation needs to be removed from the roof and the drainage areas need to be cleaned periodically. These two items would be considered maintenance. Based on industry standards, the IRMA system would have an intended life of 25+ years. With annual maintenance and recommended repairs, this roof could continue to perform for another 10+ years. The Penthouse and upper roofs consist of a 2-ply, modified bitumen, built-up membrane with a granule surface installed over concrete decks. There are two corrugated metal roofs around the center penthouse. All of the built-up membranes are cold applied roofing systems. These roofs are in good condition. No deficiencies were noted during the inspection. These roofs would have an intended life of 20 to 25 years. With annual maintenance and repairs performed as needed, these roofs could continue to perform for another 10+ years. At the time of this updated observation, the building had one tenant in occupancy on the seventh floor. Interior improvements generally consist of a variety of finishes typical for office or distribution spaces, with wear and tear consistent with the various ages of the improvements. Office and common area corridor finishes typically consist of commercial-grade carpet, vinyl flooring or epoxy paint on concrete slab, painted or vinyl-covered gypsum board walls, and lay-in acoustic tile or exposed concrete ceilings with a paint finish. Warehouse/distribution spaces have sealed concrete floors. There are separate, multiple occupancy men's and women's restrooms on each floor. Cooling is provided to the building by a chilled water system that consists of three centrifugal chillers, one cooling tower, four air handling units (AHU's) and associated chilled and condenser water pumps all located on the roof. The three chillers are located in a rooftop penthouse mechanical room and are connected to common chiller water supply/return lines that deliver chilled water to the AHU's. Each AHU serves ±25% of the building, which encompasses ±one quarter of the basement through the seventh floor of the building; however, the fourth floor is currently not air conditioned and is partially heated. Three natural gas-fired boilers provide heating. Heating hot water is circulated to coils in the four AHUs and to perimeter zone level variable air volume (VAV) boxes with re-heat coils. There is a building management system (BMS) for control and monitoring of the major base building equipment. VAV boxes and AHU economizer dampers and chilled/hot water control valves are controlled by pneumatic actuators. There are multiple rooftop cabinet and utility fans for building, toilet, and stairwell supply and/or exhaust. There are additional spot cooling equipment including a roof-mounted 25-ton split system, three 200-ton air-cooled chillers, one 6-ton heat pump package unit, and one 40-ton water cooled package unit located on Floor 7. The 40-ton package unit rejects heat via condenser water lines tied to the main cooling tower. Heating hot water lines connected to the base building boilers are connected to hot water coils in the 40-ton package unit.



The mechanical systems are in good condition with no major issues observed or reported. Based on the ±430,000 square feet of the total building area reportedly served by the base building mechanical equipment, the total building cooling capacity is ±573 square foot per ton. This level of cooling capacity is on the low side of industry standards ( ±400 sf/per ton); however, and additional cooling will likely be required. The auxiliary cooling equipment was not included in the calculation (three 200-ton air cooled chillers, one 40-ton water cooled package unit and one 25-ton split system); this would raise the cooling capacity well above industry standards if included. The three 2,100,000-Btu/hr input capacity boilers provide approximately 15 Btu/hr/square foot which is about the minimum amount according to industry standards for heating in office buildings in this geographical area. It is unlikely that they can be de-rated to below the 2,000,000 Btu/hr threshold for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and still heat the building. Heating water distribution to the individual floors appears to be inadequate and increase in the size of the heating water risers is recommended. The boilers may not require replacement if their usage can be proved to comply with the minimum usage as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). If their low usage cannot be proven, their replacement will be required. The majority of the building mechanical equipment and systems were installed as part of a major building retrofit in 1991. This includes all zone level supply air distribution ductwork, VAV boxes, chilled and hot water piping, main roof AHU's, and the heating hot water boilers. The chillers and cooling towers were installed in 2004. The zone level VAV boxes are a Trane Varitrane model that consists of a cone type actuator. The actuator hardware is located within the VAV box and not accessible for service. These types of VAV boxes provide very good control; however, they have been known to be prone to a certain failure of the internal components and are very difficult to access and service. Replacement of the entire VAV box internal control hardware is the recommended repair method. Due to the extensive work necessary to complete this work, another possible option is to replace the VAV box completely with a traditional type that has external actuators that can be easily serviced. Based on the age of the VAV boxes (±20 years) and the known potential problem with these units, we recommend a reserve for VAV box repair/replacements as required to deal with potential future anticipated failures. More VAV boxes will likely be needed on each floor to accommodate the increased loads anticipated and to meet industry standards (±400 sf/per ton). The three air-cooled chillers are used to cool the data center and operate 24/7; therefore, their expected service life is likely reduced from the standard 15-20 years for typical office operations to 10-15 years. Due to the age of the air-cooled chillers, the decrease in availability and increase in costs of R-22, and the fact that R-22 is an ozone depleting refrigerant, we recommend that the air-cooled chillers be replaced early in the term. Assuming the current spot cooling equipment (25-ton split system, three 200-ton air-cooled chillers, a 6-ton heat pump package unit, and the 40-ton water cooled package unit located on Floor 7 serving DEA) remains dedicated to tenant specific needs (data centers and labs), the current base building conditioning system (three centrifugal chillers, cooling tower, four air handling units) capacity of ±533 square foot per ton (400,000 square feet/750 tons) is not considered adequate to serve future office demands. To bring the building to industry standard (±400 sf/per ton) nominal cooling capacity, an additional 325 tons needs to be added. The exposed duct work at the roof level serving the cabinet and utility fans show signs of weathering and corrosion; they should be prepped and repainted to maintain service life. The roof-mounted outside air supply fan serving the lab on Floor 7 is in poor condition and its replacement is recommended early in the term.



Control valves on the roof serving the four air conditioning unit were noted to be severely corroded and their replacement is recommended. Some components in the four roof-mounted air handing units are corroded and should be prepped and painted to extend the life of the air handling units. Some of the piping on the roof has rust spots and it is recommended that they be sanded and painted with a rust inhibiting paint. Some interior components of the four main roof-mounted air handling units are corroded and they should be chipped, sanded, and painted with a rust inhibiting paint to extend the life of the equipment. Existing heating and cooling systems have efficiencies typical for systems designed and installed in the early 1990s and mid-2000s. VFDs have been added to the four main air handling units. The boilers are about 80% efficient and air-cooled chillers are about 1.25 kW/ton. The water-cooled chillers are estimated to be about 0.50 kW/ton. New chillers may be about 0.40 kW/ton. The air distribution system VAV boxes are pneumatically controlled and the automation system in the building has limited energy management functions. It was reported that the boilers will be replaced with high efficiency boilers, new air-cooled chillers will be installed, and a new direct digital control system will be installed to control the VAV boxes and to perform other energy management functions. New high efficiency lighting fixtures will be installed. These measures will bring the building's HVAC systems to a level competitive with modern office buildings. Domestic water is provided to the building by a single 3" main line. Water meters are located at the public right of way. Domestic water is delivered to the building through two booster pumps and a pressurized bladder expansion tank. The majority of the domestic water piping at the booster pumps and branch line piping appear to be copper tubing of an unknown type. The main domestic water riser from the booster pumps and the building risers are galvanized piping. Domestic hot water is provided by a 100-gallon water heater. The building has a single natural gas main with one meter and an earthquake shut off valve. Restroom plumbing fixtures include a combination of low-flow and non-low flow wall-mounted urinals and water closets. Based on the age of the galvanized pipe and signs of current and prior leaks, we recommend removing and replacing the remaining galvanized piping. We recommend installing a backflow prevention device on the domestic water main which could be required at any time by the water purveyor based on the potential risk of water backflow into the city system. The domestic water booster pumps appear to be in fair condition with no issues observed or reported; however, based on their age (±30 years), we recommend a reserve to replace the booster pumps early in the assessment period. Power is provided by dual 12,470-volt feeders to a 1,200-amp, 12,470-volt building-owned main switchboard with eight 600-amp, 12,470-volt sections. Two of the 600-amp sections feed two building-owned substations that step the power down for distribution to the building through two 4,000-amp, 277/480-volt switchboards. Floor 6 computer room and associated equipment are served through two 600-amp, 12,470-volt sections in the main switchboard (leaving four 600-amp sections unused). Power available to the building is ±42.9 watts per square foot. Power connected for use is half of that available or 21.4 watts per square foot, which is on the high side of industry standards (±10-12 watts/square foot) for typical office use. Power is delivered to the tenant floors through three bus risers and provides an average of 4.9 watts per square foot for Floor 7 and 9.3 watts per square for floors one through six which should be adequate for typical office use.



The 4.9 and 9.3 watts per square foot are averages and the total to each floor can vary greatly as long as the capacity of the busses are not exceeded. If more power is needed than what the bus risers are designed to deliver, the system can provide as much as ±42.9 watts per square foot over the entire building. The bus risers serving the tenant floors do not appear to be set up to serve the basement, that is, no plug-in capability was observed in the bus ducts in the basement. This is readily achievable by adding distribution panels and circuits as part of future tenant improvement, given the main electrical service switchgear location in the basement. Emergency power is provided to the building by a 1,500-kW diesel-driven generator. The generator provides back up power to emergency egress lighting, elevators, and the electric fire pump. Battery backed up exit signs and lighting fixtures are also provided for egress lighting. A second 2,200-kW diesel driven generator with 660-gallon base mounted fuel tank is dedicated for tenant use. Two 10,000-gallon below-grade diesel fuel storage tanks are located on the site. The electrical systems appear to be in good condition with no major issues observed or reported. The building appears to be fully fire sprinklered. Two fire pumps provide pressurized fire sprinkler distribution throughout the building. The first fire pump is electrically driven by a 125-hp motor. The second fire pump is a powered by a diesel-driven engine. Both fire pumps are rated for 1,250 gpm. There is a 10,000-gallon above-grade fire water reservoir for back up supply to the fire pumps. Fire department hose connections are located along the surrounding streets, in stairwells and at the roof. Fire sprinkler design criteria were not posted at the fire pumps, fire risers or located in the drawings. The building has an EST 3 addressable fire system to monitor activation devices and to activate notification devices located throughout the building. The fire alarm panel includes a public address (PA) system and a remote annunciator panel. The fire sprinkler and alarm systems appear to be in good condition with no major issues observed or reported. The fire alarm system was replaced in 2006 and included a new front end panel and activation and notification devices. There was no indication of when the last annual fire sprinkler or annual fire alarm tests were completed. The building has a total of 11 elevators. Elevator Nos. 1 and 2 are traction passenger elevators which were installed in 1949 and are still the original equipment. They are separate units located on the opposite sides of the building and not being used at the present time. Elevator Nos. 3 and 4 are traction freight elevators which were installed in 1949 and then modernized in 1990. They are located together in the center of the building, but operate as single units with bi-parting freight doors. The capacity of freight Elevator No. 3 is 25,000 pounds and freight Elevator No. 4 is 4,000 pounds. Both are operational, Elevator Nos. 5-7 are hydraulic freight elevators with bi-parting doors which were installed in 1991. They do not travel the full height of the building with Elevator No. 5 having two stops (B, 1), Elevator No. 6 having four stops (B, 1-3) and Elevator No. 7 having three stops (B, 1, 2). These elevators are located side by side in the southern part of the building and are not operational. Elevator Nos. 8-11 are the main passenger elevators in the building. They were installed by US Elevator in 1991 having a capacity of 3,500 pounds and traveling at 250 feet per minute. The main passenger elevators (Elevator Nos. 8-11) and the freight elevators (Elevator Nos. 3 and 4) are in fair condition. The equipment is dirty with excessive carbon dust in the motors, door operation is rough and noisy and machines are leaking oil. The ride quality is considered fair. There are some code issues which should be addressed. The elevator permits have expired on April 30, 2011. However, we were told that the inspector has re-inspected the elevators and the permits are in the process of being issued.



There is a monthly requirement by code to test the fire recall system and a record of these tests be kept in the machine room. We could not find any record of these tests. By code, when elevators are no longer being used they are to be decommissioned. Depending on how the building will be used in the future, there may not be a use for Elevator Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. These could be decommissioned or torn out and the area on each floor be part of the rentable area. The maintenance is being provided by Schindler Elevator Corporation and is considered to be fair to poor. They are not spending enough time on the job doing the routine service consisting of cleaning, lubricating and minor adjusting. Also, major repairs are being deferred. In general, the main passenger elevators are in compliance with ADA/CA Title 24 Accessibility requirements. There are two areas which need to be corrected for full compliance. The Braille markings on the car operating panel need to be changed to white on black numerals. The hall button fixtures need to be relocated to the proper height. We generally assessed what the vertical transportation needs would be if this building were completely leased out as an office building. Presently, there are four passenger elevators which travel to all the floors. They have a capacity of 3,500 pounds, travel at 250 feet per minute and have 3'-6" wide center opening doors. Based on a brief elevatoring analysis these existing elevators could only handle approximately 950 people in the building. Given the gross square feet of occupied space above the ground floor, we would estimate approximately 2,000 people if fully occupied. Based on this population, there would need to be a six passenger elevator group having a capacity of 3,500 pounds, traveling at 350 feet per minute and center opening doors. One elevator should have a 4,000 pound capacity to carry a stretcher and could also function as a service cab. The existing four main passenger elevators should be removed and replaced with six machine roomless elevators. This requires new hoistways across from the existing hoistways where the large freight elevators currently are located to create a six car group. There are various options that should be studied further, but without doubt, the existing four elevators will not provide proper service to the building if it is fully occupied. The building has a window washing rigging system with roof-mounted davit anchors used with portable davit arms and a powered suspended scaffold system. The powered scaffold is stored offsite by the window washing company and brought to the building only when in use. The rigging systems appear to be in good condition with no major issue observed or reported. The required operational procedure outline sheet (OPOS) is provided. According to property management, the Harrison Street elevation of the building is too close to the power lines for safe and OSHA approved use of the scaffolding system; however the OPOS outlines the proper use of the rigging system at this elevation. It is unclear how the OPOS was created and approved without addressing this issue. We recommend contacting the engineer of record who created the OPOS to have a better understanding of this issue in greater detail and to perform any required modifications as necessary. The property generally complies with ADA guidelines with some minor issues noted. The slope, width, and length of the disabled-accessible public access ramp from Main Street complies with ADA guidelines. The railings of this ramp should have a maximum diameter of 1-1/2" and should extend 12" past the top landing. The restroom entry doors do not comply with the required 12" minimum push side strike clearance; we recommend reviewing these locations during tenant improvements and installing automatic door openers or reconfiguring doors to correct issue. Some core area restrooms do not comply with standard accessibility guidelines and should be modified at the time of tenant improvements. Work should include lowering sink counters to a maximum height of 34", raising toilet seats from 17" to 19", installing coat hooks at or lowering coat hooks to 48", removing and replacing twist-type door hardware, providing knee protection at uninsulated sink pipes, and installing Braille signage at all restroom entries.



III. OBSERVATION INFORMATION

A. INTRODUCTION

Marx|Okubo has completed a Property Condition Assessment of 390 Main Street, located in San Francisco, California for CB Richard Ellis. This survey consists of a review of the physical conditions; architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical components accessible or visible during the site visit; and the quality of construction. Marx|Okubo completed a prior PCA Report No. 08-9053 for RPHO Associates and Cornish & Carey, and this current assessment is for the purpose of updating that prior report. In addition, limited information was provided regarding the potential conversion of the building use to an office occupancy, and we have performed selective additional more detailed assessments regarding the potential for the existing improvements to serve such a future office occupancy. This review has been performed using the same degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised for this type of service by licensed professionals who review projects and present judgment assessments regarding the current condition of the improvements and development or construction feasibility. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice in this report. It is not the intent of this office to assume any part of the design responsibility, but rather to report our findings to the Client to whom this report is addressed. The purpose of this project review is for Marx|Okubo and its consultants to provide an overview for CB Richard Ellis, and in no way infers that every aspect of the project has been reviewed. The sole purpose of this report is to observe the major aspects of the property and evaluate their condition. The use of this report is limited to the client to whom it is addressed In order to evaluate the condition of the building and to identify the potential costs of correcting deferred maintenance items, each of the identifiable deferred maintenance items were noted in the field, and opinions of probable cost have been compiled to make the required repairs. A representative group of photographs has been taken depicting the conditions and components of the property, and also to identify the problem areas. The opinions of probable cost are based upon quantity take-offs and a unit pricing method to arrive at line item totals. Unit prices are based upon historical data compiled by this office and in no way imply that bids were received from trade subcontractors. No bid documents or corrective drawings were produced. The scope of this review is to provide a general overview of building components, as well as related ADA and code requirements. This Property Condition Assessment has been conducted in general accordance with industry standards and the type and level of services defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 2018-01 Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessment: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process.



B. SITE OBSERVATION

Observation Team: Marx|Okubo is an employee-owned firm established in 1982, with a professional staff of approximately 60 architects and engineers. We provide a wide variety of real estate services to national and international clients, including architectural, engineering, and construction management. We are also involved in a full spectrum of owner representation, facility assessment, preparation of construction documents and specifications, as well as LEED-related services. Marx|Okubo's corporate office is located in Denver, Colorado, with regional offices in Irvine, Pasadena, and San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Houston and Dallas, Texas; Hartford, Connecticut; Atlanta, Georgia; and White Plains, New York. Observation Information: The project observation was conducted on August 8, 2011 by a Marx|Okubo team of four including Phillip Helms, RA, NCARB, Senior Vice President. Jason Coray, PE, SE, Senior Associate of Marx|Okubo reviewed the structural systems, and Robert Ice, P.E., LEED AP, Senior Associate of Marx|Okubo reviewed the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and life/safety systems. Bruno Jahn of Kelleher, Boyd & Associates reviewed the roofing systems and Tom Wendt and Brendan Kildunne of Hesselberg, Keesee & Associates, Inc. reviewed the conveying systems. The walk-through incorporated a review of site improvements, building shell components, fire and life safety systems, plumbing, HVAC, electrical systems, and interior spaces, as well as a cursory review of accessibility requirements for the disabled. Access to the property was provided by Howard Ishida, the building Operations Manager.

C. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

• Seismic Retrofit Design • ALTA Survey, dated August 2011 • Construction Drawings for USPS Renovation, dated July 31, 1990 • Original Shell Building Drawings dated November 4, 1942



IV. SITE

A. UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDERS

Water: City and County of San Francisco

Sanitary/Sewer: City and County of San Francisco

Electric: Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)

Gas: PG&E

Telephone: Various

Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

B. STORM DRAINAGE

Description: Storm drainage from the adjacent parking area consists of surface sheet flow to catch basins located at the north of the building. Roof drainage is surface sheet flow from the low-slope roofs to interior drains and overflows that are tight lined to the underground storm drainage system. Penthouse roof drainage is surface sheet flow to gutters with downspouts that discharge to splash blocks at the main roof.

Condition: No significant issues were noted. Since the parking lot to the north of the property is a separate parcel and will most likely be developed in the future with high rise buildings common to the area, site improvements to the main building entrance and along the building frontage may need to be conducted. These improvements could including demolition of existing improvements, new access from adjacent streets, concrete, landscape, and other miscellaneous improvements.

C. TRAFFIC CONTROL

Description: A secured entry with a motorized chain link gate at the adjacent parking lot is provided off Beale Street for loading docks and parking at the north of the building. Truck loading areas are also provided off Beale Street. Signalization: All public street intersections have traffic lights. No signalization is required or provided on site. Condition: No significant issues were noted.

D. PARKING

Description: There are 18 parking stalls at the north of the building that are accessible through the adjacent parking lot. Lighting: Wall-mounted HID light fixtures mounted along the ground floor soffit provide lighting around the building along with decorative wall-mounted fixtures at the main entrance stairs off of Main Street.



D. PARKING (cont.)

Condition: No significant issues were noted.

E. PAVING AND SIDEWALKS

Paving: There is concrete paving along the truck loading areas and main entrance of the building. Curbing: Concrete curb and gutter combinations and curbs only are provided along the public streets. Sidewalks: Pedestrian walkways are concrete with an exposed aggregate finish. Public sidewalks are broom finished concrete. Condition: No significant issues were noted.

F. LANDSCAPE/IRRIGATION

Landscape: No landscaping provided on site. Irrigation: None provided. Condition: Not applicable.

G. EARTHWORK/GRADING/EROSION CONTROL

Description: The site area is flat; however, surrounding Main and Harrison Streets have a slight upward slope. All areas of the site and adjacent properties are fully improved with sidewalk or building improvements. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

H. RETAINING WALLS

Description: Portions of the northeastern elevation of the building are partially below-grade and have cast concrete retaining walls. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

I. FENCING

Description: There is ±10'-0" chain link curved fencing that separates the main entrance and loading area at the north of the building. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.



J. SIGNAGE

Description: A project monument sign is provided along Main Street and consists of a metal building identification sign wall-mounted on the concrete retaining wall. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

K. LOADING DOCKS AND RAMPS

Description: Three 18'-0" x 14'-0" loading doors are provided along the north elevation of the building and provide access to a covered loading area with nine dock levelers. There are eight loading doors along Beale Street (six 20'-0" x 24-0" doors and two smaller doors) with access to 12 dock levelers. Loading doors are typically painted, uninsulated sectional metal doors. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

L. SITE AMENITIES

Description: There is an outdoor seating area at the main building entry with concrete tables and seats. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

M. TRASH ENCLOSURES

Description: Trash collection is located in the loading area. There is an onsite trash compactor. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

N. ALTA SURVEY

The ALTA Survey provided to Marx|Okubo is prepared by Martin M. Ron Associates, updated August 10, 2011, and is stamped and signed by Benjamin B. Ron, a State of California Licensed Land Surveyor. According to the survey, public utility, sidewalk easements are located along Beale, Harrison, and Main Streets. Vehicular access to the parking and loading areas at the north of the building is through the adjacent parking lot north of the property. No ingress/egress easement is identified in the ALTA Survey. A portion of the concrete entry ramp, gas meter, and air vents for the diesel fuel tanks at the northeast of the property is located beyond the property line in the adjacent parking lot. No easement is identified at these locations in the ALTA Survey. There are also three catch basins located at the north of the building that collect sheet flow rain water from the parking lot area.



V. STRUCTURE

The following documents were available for review in preparation of this report:

• Original building structural plans entitled "Annex to Storehouse – Marine Corps Depot of Supplies, San Francisco, California," dated April 24, 1942, prepared by Austin Willmott Earl, Consulting Engineer

• Retrofit structural plans entitled "390 Main Street Conceptual Seismic Retrofit," dated June 23, 2001, prepared by Murphy Burr Curry, Inc., Structural Engineers

A. GENERAL

Project Description: 390 Main Street consists of an eight-story office building, including the basement level, with a footprint of ±64,350 square feet. It was constructed in 1942 as a Marine Corp supply depot storehouse according to the as-built drawings. Selective renovation work was done between 1990 and 1993, including structural modifications to add elevators, relocate loading docks, and infill certain window openings with reinforced concrete masonry.

B. FOUNDATIONS

Geotechnical Report: No geotechnical report was provided for review. Description: According to the original shell drawings, the building foundation system consists of individual spread footings beneath interior columns and a continuous strip footing at the perimeter. The three rows of columns closest to Folsom Street are supported on reinforced concrete belled caissons. The lower level of the building (basement) is a 6" thick reinforced concrete slab-on-grade.

Condition: In general, the foundations appear to carry existing loads with no significant visible indication of settlement, movement, or deflection noted, although diagonal top of slab cracks at the fourth floor and minor exterior wall cracks near the ground floor were noted at the corner of Beale and Harrison Streets. Such cracking may be indicative of differential settlement, however excessive floor sloping was not observed and these cracks are not anticipated to adversely affect the performance or use of the building. We recommend that the exterior cracks are sealed to prevent moisture intrusion and to protect the underlying steel reinforcement from corrosion as part of routine maintenance.

C. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING FRAMING SYSTEM

Vertical Load System: Vertical loads are carried at each upper level by conventionally reinforced concrete slabs and columns. Originally designed for a military supply depot warehouse with heavy loading, slab and column dimensions are larger when compared to a typical office building. Floor slabs are typically 10-1/2" thick. Interior columns vary from 36" to 40" in diameter at the basement level to 18" in diameter at Floor 7 and are typically constructed on a 23'-2" x 23'-9" grid. Lateral Force System: Lateral forces result primarily from wind pressure and earthquake inertia forces acting on structural and non-structural elements.



C. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING FRAMING SYSTEM (cont.)

Lateral Force System: (cont.) Out-of-plane forces acting on exterior walls and forces induced by the self-weight and tributary mass of the diaphragms are transferred by the concrete slabs, acting as horizontal diaphragms, to the vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system. The vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system consist of perimeter reinforced concrete pier walls which deliver lateral forces to the foundation. The shear wall system is a regular series of pier walls at each level linked by spandrel elements. The pier walls are separated by significant amounts of window openings on each face of the building. Condition: Building evaluations are limited to the available construction documents and to the level of access possible for observation of structural elements of the building. None of the foundation and only a portion of the building framing elements were exposed to view during our site visit. The building structure was generally found to be in good condition with no significant issues noted. Visible corrosion or water damage to structural members and connections was not apparent. Excessive settlement cracking of the slab-on-grade was not noted. Based on our limited review, the structure appears to be in general conformance with the codes and standard practices in effect at the time of construction. The materials and construction methods employed are of reasonable quality and are adequate for their intended use, except as noted below.

D. DESIGN CRITERIA

Description: According to the 1942 structural drawings, a 250 psf live load was used in the original building design on Floors 2 through 7, and 350 psf was used for Floor 1. The typical design live load used for office buildings is 50 psf. An "earthquake factor" of 0.1g was used for seismic design.

E. SEISMIC HAZARDS

Seismic Sources: San Francisco, California is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The San Andreas Fault system, which separates the North American Plate from the Pacific Plate, is located to the west of the site. This same area was near the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. The other major fault in the Bay Area, the Hayward Fault, is located east of San Francisco passing through Oakland and Berkeley. A number of moderate to large earthquakes are of significance to the historical seismicity of the area. Three nineteenth century earthquakes – two on the Hayward Fault in 1836 and 1868, and one on the San Andreas Fault in 1838 – are estimated to have been Magnitude 7 earthquakes. They were followed by the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (M

S = 8.3).

Between 1906 and 1989, the region did not experience any earthquakes of Magnitude 6 or greater. In 1989, the Magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta Earthquake occurred south of San Francisco between San Jose and Santa Cruz. This type of pattern, with a series of moderate earthquakes followed by a major earthquake and then relative inactivity, is believed to have been repeated a number of times in the history of this fault region. There is additional speculation that the 1989 Loma Prieta signals the beginning of another one of these cycles.



E. SEISMIC HAZARDS (cont.)

Seismic Sources (cont.): The seismicity in San Francisco is also influenced by the known faults in the area, their potential faulting length and relative orientation. The known, near-site faults are listed below:

Controlling Fault Estimated MCE (MW) Distance to Site (km)

San Andreas (Peninsula) 7.9 14

Hayward 7.1 15

San Gregorio 7.3 19

The proximity of these faults is of special note because of the near field effects on ground motion from an earthquake located along the fault. These near field effects extend out approximately 10 miles on either side of the fault zone. Near field effects are fairly well acknowledged and have only recently been incorporated into the building code.

The additional issue of sub-surface faulting is currently being studied. The topic has come to light in the wake of a number of recent earthquakes in California – namely Coalinga, Whittier Narrows, and Northridge. The implication of sub-surface faulting to any particular site in Northern California is somewhat in doubt; however, a moderate to large earthquake centered even closer to the site cannot be completely ruled out. Near Field Effects: According to the 1998 UBC mapping, this building is located within the 15-kilometer boundary of a Type-A fault. Although, according to the 2007 CBC, the design forces are now related directly to mapped ground accelerations and soil types unique to the site. Estimated PGA and MMI: The 475-year return period seismic hazard level is used for determining the building code required design minimum seismic forces to protect life safety for new construction. In addition, this hazard level is typically used to calculate the generally accepted insurance industry standards of excessive seismic risk (i.e. damageability loss based on the 475-year return period seismic hazard level less than 20%). Based on the recent USGS mapping, the 475-year peak ground acceleration for the site (based on latitude and longitude) is 0.43g. Based on the source information and site conditions, we estimate that the 475-year return period seismic hazard level (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) would have a Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI) of VIII. For a definition of the MMI values, see below:

MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE

Intensity Value and Description I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.

Delicately suspended objects may swing. III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings.

Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motorcars may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck.

IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motorcars rocked noticeably.

V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.




MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE

Intensity Value and Description VI. Felt by all; many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of

fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII. Damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to

moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motorcars.

VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls. Heavy furniture overturned.

IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structure thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.

XI. Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.

XII. Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects are thrown into the air.

Adapted from ATC-13

Surface Rupture Potential: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act maps the major, known faults in California. The closest of these faults to the site is the San Andreas Fault, which at its closest distance is 14 kilometers from the building. This facility is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone designated by the Alquist-Priolo Act; therefore surface fault rupture is not predicted at the site during a seismic event. 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake: The maximum ground accelerations at the site during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake were likely on the order of 0.05g to 0.15g, based on records taken at similar nearby sites in San Francisco. Minor diagonal shear cracking was noted at various locations on the exterior concrete walls of the building that are possibly attributable to the Loma Prieta event. Although these cracks will slightly reduce the stiffness of the structure, they will not significantly affect the ultimate strength of the shear walls. Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a physical phenomenon that can occur when certain types of soils become saturated and are subjected to strong ground motion. A given site needs three particular factors to be susceptible to liquefaction:

• Sandy and/or silty soils • A relatively shallow groundwater table, where water can work its way into

the shallow layers of soil, can saturate the soils • Strong ground motion

When liquefaction occurs, it causes a loss of bearing strength, lateral spreading, sand boils, flow failures, ground oscillation, flotation, and/or settlement of the site. Any of these effects can have a significant impact on the damageability of a building.




Liquefaction (cont.): Geotechnical reports for the properties were not available for review. This site is not located within an area that has been designated as a zone of potential liquefaction as part of the California Seismic Hazard Mapping Act prepared by the California Department of Conservation. However, based on the Association of Bay Area Governments - Graphical Information Systems website, the liquefaction susceptibility for the site was found to be non-existent near Harrison Street, generally moderate over most of the central portion of the building, and very high below the exterior wall adjacent to the Folsom street parking lot. Future development at the site, if any, should have a site-specific liquefaction hazard analysis and mitigation if deemed necessary. The site is located at the base of Rincon Hill and the Harrison Street side of the building appears to be founded directly on competent material. We have assumed that the potential for liquefaction is low to moderate at the site. Similarly, the extent of dynamic settlement and the potential of lateral spreading are also estimated to be low. The site is not on a steep slope; therefore the potential for seismically induced landslides is likely to be low at the site. Landslide Hazard: A landslide is defined as, the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope (Cruden, 1991). Landslides are a type of "mass wasting" which denotes any down slope movement of soil and rock under the direct influence of gravity. The term "landslide" encompasses events such as rock falls, topples, slides, spreads, and flows (Varnes, 1996). For purposes of this evaluation, the potential for landslides are limited to those that could be induced by seismic activity. Based on the topology at the site and surrounding area, the potential for damage due to seismically induced landslides is considered low. Other Site Seismic Hazards: Other site seismic hazards that can affect a given site include, flooding from dam or dike failure, tsunami, or seiche. Based on the property location, flooding from dam or dike failure may be considered low. A tsunami is a wave that can be generated by an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, or even a large meteor. These waves can move at a rate exceeding 500 miles per hour. In smaller non-ocean water bodies like inland seas and lakes, tsunamis are most commonly formed by underwater landslides. A seiche is a wave generated in an enclosed body of water, such as a swimming pool, lake, or bay.

According to maps, produced by California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) and California Geological Survey (CGS), the property is not located within a zone of potential inundation by tsunami/seiche waves. The potential for damage due to tsunami or seiche could be considered low.

F. EVALUATION OF THE LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS

Methodology: It should be noted that with each building code cycle (every ±three years), building codes for new design are typically modified to some extent in order to enhance structural performance during seismic events; however, engineering standards developed to evaluate existing buildings have lagged behind in development. ASCE/SEI 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings was recently completed and is intended to replace previous evaluation guidelines FEMA-178 (1992) as the standard of practice for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings.



F. EVALUATION OF THE LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS (cont.)

Methodology (cont.): As described in the introductory scoping section of ASCE/SEI 31-03, one of the primary goals of the document was to include lessons learned from earthquakes that occurred subsequent to the development and publication of FEMA-178, most notably the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in the Los Angeles area and the 1995 Hyoko-ken-Nanbu Earthquake in the Kobe, Japan area.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether significant seismic deficiencies exist, to determine the potential seismic risk, and to provide general recommendations for reduction of seismic risk through mitigation. ASCE/SEI 31-03 was used as a tool in assisting the engineer with this review. The ASCE31 Basic Structural and Supplemental Structural checklists were utilized where applicable and when deemed necessary. The analysis methodology of ASCE31 employs a quick check methodology (Tier 1 analysis) and a more intensive Tier 2 analysis methodology. The Tier 1 quick check employs a set of checklists for each building type, which contain evaluation statements that help identify areas of concern with regard to the structure's ability to adequately transmit earthquake forces to the foundation and supporting grade. This evaluation utilized the Tier 1 checklists. The findings in this report are tempered with engineering judgment in determining whether the building may maintain its vertical load capacity during a significant (475-year) earthquake. Findings: Concrete shear wall structures have had reasonably good performance in past earthquakes (with some exceptions). The building codes for concrete shear walls are periodically modified to implement more stringent design codes for this category of structure. The major deficiencies noted for this type of structure have been large height-to-width ratios, limited shear wall lengths, poor overturning capability, and connections to the shear walls. The lateral force resisting system is inadequate to transfer the magnitude of lateral forces generated by ASCE 31 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings standards without damage. A shear stress analysis using ASCE 31 reveals that shear stresses in the exterior walls produced by a relatively large seismic event are much greater than what is allowed by the ASCE 31 evaluation criteria. In such cases, primary lateral force resisting elements can be expected to exhibit cracking and distress. The original seismic design was based on a coefficient of 0.1g, as shown on the drawings. According to a "Preliminary Seismic Evaluation" by URS in 1994, evaluating the building for compliance with the 1991 Uniform Building Code and using a coefficient of 0.116g, stresses in most walls are 1.5 to 2.2 times above the allowable load levels in that code. We anticipate that the structure will likely maintain the vertical load carrying capacity during a code level seismic event; however, the building is anticipated to perform below average (with somewhat greater damage) during an earthquake when compared to other mid-rise reinforced concrete shear wall buildings of similar age under similar ground motions. Based on the available information, the following items are of significance in our seismic evaluation, and are reflected in our scenario loss estimates.



F. EVALUATION OF THE LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS (cont.)

Positive Features: • A complete load path exists to transfer inertial forces from the mass,

concentrated at each floor level, to the foundation.

• The building structure is extremely regular in plan and elevation.

• The floor slabs are relatively thick and will function well as diaphragms to transmit inertial forces to the perimeter wall systems. They are connected to the walls with reinforcing dowels for shear transfer.

• The walls are well reinforced and detailed, typically including horizontal shear reinforcing at 12" on center. Additional bars are included around openings.

• The lateral load resisting system is somewhat redundant, with a series of wall panels of similar stiffness to share loading equally. Redundant systems improve the expected building performance in an earthquake by reducing the possibility of local or global collapse due to the failure of any single element.

Negative Features: • The primary lateral force resisting system does not meet current code

standards and will be highly overstressed in the event of a moderate to large earthquake.

• Large openings exist at the ground level on both the Beale Street and Folsom Street (parking lot) sides of the building. Shear resistance is especially limited at these locations. On typical floors, window openings comprise more than 60% of the wall length; therefore, the amount of shear wall available to resist lateral forces is very limited.

Expected Performance: According to our review, the building is anticipated to have below average performance (with somewhat greater damage) when compared to standard construction for these building types as defined by ATC-13 under similar ground motions. Based on our review of analysis results summarized above, it is our opinion that the structure is likely to sustain damage but would maintain its vertical load carrying capacity during a code-level seismic event.

G. SEISMIC LOSS ESTIMATION

Methodology: The potential losses to a building in an earthquake can be expressed in terms of percent of replacement value providing that, (1) seismic hazards that affect the building and site can be estimated, and (2) the vulnerability of the structure to those hazards are known or estimated. Typical seismic hazards include strong ground motion, liquefaction, landslide, and surface fault rupture. These hazards are discussed in the section below. The vulnerability of the structure is assessed from the building and document review (described in the previous sections) and is compared with damage to similar structures during previous earthquakes.



G. SEISMIC LOSS ESTIMATION. (cont.)

Methodology (cont.): The principal data base for earthquake damage estimates was developed through a consensus of expert opinions gathered from professionals primarily from California and is known as ATC-13 Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. In any attempt to apply ATC-13, it is important to recognize the basis and limitations of this document. ATC-13 is a collection of expert opinions gathered through a variety of interview techniques with professionals in seismology, structural engineering, and architecture. ATC-13 was published in 1985 and thus does not represent data developed following either the Loma Prieta or Northridge events. It represents the impressions of experts on expected damage to California buildings based on a variety of MMI. It is not based on actual earthquakes. The impressions or opinions of these experts have been averaged and correlated in such a way as to present a statistical basis useful in making distinctions between various building types. The methodology used in this analysis is based on correlating the seismicity in the San Francisco area for the various events of interest to MMI. Knowing these intensities, along with the building type, the ATC-13 database is used to estimate the base scenario losses. These figures are then adjusted in an attempt to account for the most significant, building-specific characteristics. Engineering judgment and experience coupled with the positive and negative features determined from the seismic evaluation of this building – not generic computer algorithms – is used as the basis for modifying ATC-13 data. Scenario Loss Estimates: The primary factors that contribute to the loss estimates indicated above are the structure's size, shape, and relative mass, the design Building Code edition, the type of structural systems used, the characteristics of the site soils response to strong ground motion, the general seismicity, and the building's proximity to mapped faults. Based on the earthquake intensity given above and the lateral load-resisting system described in the previous section, According to ASTM Standard E2026-07 "Standard Guide for the Estimation of Building Damageability in Earthquakes", the scenario loss estimates for the 475-year seismic hazard level (both scenario expected loss (SEL) and scenario upper loss (SUL)) are as follows:

390 Main Street 475-year Return Period

SEL SUL

Existing Structure (in the building's current condition)

14% 22%

Retrofitted Structure (per proposed

MBC Life-Safety schematic retrofit) 10% 16%

The Level of Study would be defined as Level 1 (BS1, G0, SS1, and D1). Note that the SEL and SUL estimates represent the mean and 90th percentile scenario loss, respectively, which could be experienced by buildings of this type when compared with their replacement value.



G. SEISMIC LOSS ESTIMATION. (cont.)

Scenario Loss Estimates (cont.): These scenario loss values are rough estimates – as demonstrated by the wide range between the mean and 90th percentile values. These loss values are rough estimates as demonstrated by the range between the mean and 90th percentile values. When averaging these figures, we believe excessive precision is placed on the rough estimates of the experts. No such precision was asked of them in the development of this document. While a scenario loss analysis is an important tool for comparing buildings, it does not attempt to determine the real losses in a particular building for a particular event. The damage estimates given in this report are limited to physical damage and do not include loss of business or goods.

H. RECOMMENDATIONS

General: The City of San Francisco currently does not have mandatory seismic upgrade requirements for this general building type. We are not aware of any plans by the City to adopt such requirements in the near future. Therefore, Marx|Okubo does not have any recommendations to enhance life-safety or reduce the damageability of the structure. To improve building performance and reduce risk of material damage during an earthquake, a voluntary seismic strengthening could be considered as part of likely future building modifications. For routine maintenance of the building, we recommend that the exterior cracks be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion and to protect the underlying steel reinforcement from corrosion as part of routine maintenance.

Seismic Rehabilitation: It should be noted that there are usually many different techniques to seismically retrofit a particular building and that the most appropriate method may not be readily apparent and can only be deduced after extensive evaluation and calculation. Most retrofit designs entail techniques to globally or locally stiffen, strengthen, or reduce the demand on a given lateral force-resisting system and its elements. As a voluntary effort to reduce the 475-year SUL estimate for the building to 20% or lower, a seismic upgrade according to current standards would be required. Such voluntary seismic upgrades can be applied to the buildings with the intention of meeting or exceeding a prescriptive or performance based set of predetermined standard seismic rehabilitation criteria. Acceptable guidelines include meeting the requirements of the current CBC/IBC Chapter 34, complying with the International Existing Building Code (IEBC), or conducting a performance-based evaluation and design in accordance with "SEI/ASCE 41 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Building." ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, is a state-of-the-art national standard that offers alternative retrofit criteria, acceptable for use in conjunction with current building codes. Compared with the building code, ASCE 41 directly accounts for obsolete, even archaic, conditions and addresses a range of performance objectives. While ASCE 41 and its predecessors have been used for many voluntary retrofits, especially in California, only now, with adoption of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), is the standard approved explicitly for work triggered by alteration, addition, repair, or change of occupancy.



H. RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.)

Seismic Rehabilitation (cont.): The citation comes through a provision in IBC Chapter 34 that allows the use of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) as an approved alternate; the IEBC explicitly references ASCE 41. The 2010 California Building Code (CBC), and by extension the SFBC, are based on the 2009 IBC. ASCE 41 defines ranges for performance levels for structural and non-structural elements that serve as the basis of a rehabilitation objective. Unlike the prescriptive requirements for new buildings, ASCE 41 makes recommendations for basic safety, enhanced, and limited performance levels, and detailed options can be applied as needed to match the project needs. Performance levels are defined that range from "collapse prevention" to "operational" in ASCE 41 that, when combined with hazard levels, yield the rehabilitation objective. This chart illustrates the range from minimum safety to high performance:

This building is extremely regular and the building geometry presents many opportunities for locations to construct new shotcrete structural shear walls in a variety of locations with nominal impacts to the building function. Exterior walls that require strengthening could be overlain with a supplementary shotcrete layer as well as maximizing new shear wall effectiveness by infilling selected wall openings. Floor and roof diaphragms appear likely to be adequate with little or no modification except for the potential need for strengthened collector/chord and drag elements. New foundation components will likely be necessary to resist overturning effects at new and/or strengthened shear wall components. A schematic retrofit design was developed by MBC in June 2011 to meet the ASCE 41-06 LS performance objective. Murphy Burr Curry, Inc. is a well established local structural engineering firm, respected within the engineering community, and fully capable to perform this type of work.




Seismic Rehabilitation (cont.): The retrofit primarily entails adding new and strengthening existing concrete shear walls. Typically two bays of existing exterior wall in each direction at each corner from the basement to the sixth floor and four bays of centrally located interior wall in the would receive shotcrete strengthening. In addition four bays of new centrally located interior wall shotcrete shear walls would be constructed in the perpendicular direction. The interior shear walls are typically full-height, however the number of shear wall bays reduces to two from the roof to Floor 6. Reinforced piers and spandrels would be utilized at the exterior retrofit shear walls to preserve existing wall openings, however, two bays of train loading doors would in-filled along the Beale Street elevation from the basement to the second floor. No information was provided regarding the proposed retrofit foundation work that would be required to accompany such a seismic rehabilitation. The schematic retrofit design appears reasonable and appropriate for this type of building. Assuming the seismic rehabilitation is designed, detailed, and completed per currently accepted guidelines, the retrofitted structure would likely meet or exceed a Life-Safety (LS) performance level according to ASCE 41-06, and conform to Building Code life safety criteria for existing buildings. Based on the schematic retrofit described above, we anticipate the cost of seismic rehabilitation to be approximately $3-$5 per square foot. The current building vacancy and unfinished interior condition, robust nature of the slabs, and regular geometry provide efficient opportunities to introduce seismic strengthening elements. However, no information was provided regarding the scope and extent of potential foundation work related to the seismic upgrade, which can only be determined through a full seismic rehabilitation analysis and design. Uncertainties also exist regarding the amount of preparation and epoxy rebar doweling required at the shotcrete shear wall overlays. Seismic Upgrades Required by the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC): For the knowledge of the building owner, we note that seismic upgrades may be mandatory if significant alterations to the project building structure or use occur. As we understand, the current proposed building modification includes a voluntary seismic strengthening that would not typically trigger such a rehabilitation requirement. Section 3404 of the SFBC requires seismic upgrade of buildings submitted for permit prior to May 21, 1973 per the requirements of Section 1605.4.3 when any of the following occur: Substantial Change, Structural Alteration, Horizontal Additions, Vertical Additions, Change in Use or New Storage, or Warehouse Live Loads. These triggers would apply to the building based on dates of permit application. Triggers relating to "Substantial Change" and "Structural Alteration" are of possible interest to the subject buildings. These triggers in the SFBC have been the subject of significant interest and sometimes varying interpretation. The specific application of the "Substantial Change" trigger indicates that a seismic upgrade would be required if more than 50% of the walls or ceilings on two-thirds of the floors are altered within any two-year period.




Seismic Upgrades Required by the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) (cont.): The "Structural Alteration" trigger occurs when more than 30% of the floor and roof areas of the building are altered due to repairs, strengthening, or similar structural changes. If significant structural modifications were proposed or required for the building, it is recommended that a pre-application meeting be made with the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to help clarify how this code provision would be applied to this building. A subsequent letter confirming the DBI's interpretation, similar to that described above, should then be prepared and sent to the DBI for their concurrence. Limitations: Marx|Okubo has performed this structural/seismic evaluation for the purpose of evaluating the general conditions of the structural systems and to determine the seismic risk at the project. The site observation consisted of limited visual observations of both interior and exterior areas. Limited construction documents were provided for review. Physical testing was not performed and is outside the scope of this assignment. Intrusive testing was neither authorized nor performed. Deficiencies may exist which were not observed. The findings contained in this report are intended to provide input for business decisions regarding risk retention or transfer for the acquisition or financing of properties. This structural assessment primarily addresses the risk associated with one peril (hazard), that of earthquake, although gravity and wind are also considered. Loss estimation techniques for earthquake are poorly defined and correlated; however, some consensus documents exist which can provide a benchmark (as opposed to a determination of exact loss). The probable maximum loss is given for real property loss only, and noted where personal injury losses are high (i.e., life-safety). Personal property and economic losses are not included. Any opinions of probable costs provided are generally based on a rough estimate of construction costs based on our past experience. The costs are considered to account for construction costs only and should be used for rough budgeting purposes. Seismic renovation and structural repair costs are highly dependent upon the performance objective desired, as well as tenant impacts, etc. Additional costs are often incurred for system improvements (architectural, mechanical, electrical, ADA, etc.), hazardous materials removal, project management, architectural and engineering costs, testing and inspection, relocation costs, permits, and sales tax and may be significantly more than the construction costs stated. This report has been prepared with respect to proposed investment or financing of the subject property. The information and opinions of probable cost presented in this report have been developed in accordance with the above limitations, using the degree of professional care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by structural engineers in this region. No other warranty, express or implied, is made to the findings and recommendation of this report.



VI. ENVELOPE AND EXTERIOR

A. ROOFING

Description: According to property management, the roofs were replaced in 2005. Floor 7 Roof:

This roof is an Inverted Roof Membrane Assembly (IRMA) system. The roofing membrane consists of a 2-ply, modified bitumen, built-up membrane installed over a concrete deck. The roofing membrane is manufactured by Siplast. A drainage mat, filter fabric, and 2" tongue and groove Dow Corning-Lightguard insulation has been installed over the membrane. There are concrete pavers at the building perimeter, around mechanical equipment, and in heavy traffic areas. River rock has been installed to fill voids between the insulation, parapets, supports, and drains.

Penthouse and Upper Roofs:

These roofs consist of a 2-ply, modified bitumen, built-up membrane with a granule surface installed over concrete decks.

There are two corrugated metal roofs around the center penthouse. All of the built-up membranes are cold applied roofing systems. No destructive testing was performed during the inspection. Flashing: The parapets are concrete with an elastomeric coating. The perimeter and parapet flashing consist of a modified bitumen granulated flashing sheet that terminates at the wall with a surface-mounted, sheet metal counter flashing. A sheet metal gravel stop is provided in select areas. The mechanical equipment is mounted on flashed curbs, platforms or sleepers. Penetrations are flashed with lead jacks. Expansion/Contraction: None provided or required. Slope/Drainage: These roofs are designed with adequate slope and drainage. The roof areas drain to interior drains with interior overflows. The penthouse roofs drain to through-wall scuppers or gutters to downspouts that drain to the main roof. Warranties: According to information provided by the Siplast representative, there is a 20-year manufacturer's warranty for the IRMA system. According to the building engineer, there is a warranty for the leak repair this past rainy season. Condition: Floor 7 Roof:

This roof is in good condition. There was one leak this past rainy season. The insulation board was removed and the entire area was inspected and resealed. The insulation boards need to be reinstalled as part of the repair. The roofing contractor should address this when it is confirmed that the leak has been resolved after the next rainy season. Localized surface cracking is noted at several insulation panels; this condition should be monitored in the future and corrected as necessary. Vegetation needs to be removed from the roof and the drainage areas need to be cleaned periodically. These two items would be considered maintenance. Based on industry standards, the IRMA system would have an intended life of 25+ years. With annual maintenance and recommended repairs, this roof could continue to perform for another 10+ years.



B. EXTERIOR WALLS

Description: The building exterior walls are reinforced smooth or board form cast concrete with a two-tone elastomeric acrylic paint finish. The lower penthouse level has cement plaster walls with a paint finish; the upper penthouse has painted reinforced concrete walls. Portions of the exterior wall openings have been infilled with concrete masonry unit (CMU), and select vertical shafts have an exterior insulation finishing system (EIFS), all with a paint finish. Eyelet hook embeds or guy anchors are noted at select elevations. Windows are fixed, awning, or hopper units with lightly tinted dual pane insulative glazing in factory-finished aluminum frames set in punched openings. They were reportedly installed as part of the 1991 renovation. Condition: The building exteriors are generally in good condition. As part of regularly scheduled maintenance, crack repair, prep, and repaint of exterior walls should be anticipated in the next few years, and then approximately every ±seven to 10 years thereafter.

C. THERMAL INSULATION

Roof: Where visible, no insulation was observed at the underside of the roof structure. Exterior Walls: No insulation was observed at the interior face of exposed cast concrete perimeter walls. The interior faces of the exterior walls at other areas are typically concealed by interior finishes and the presence of thermal insulation could not be determined. Condition: No significant reports of thermal discomfort were disclosed.

D. EXTERIOR DOORS/FRAMES

Description: The main building entry has a factory-finished aluminum storefront system with dual leaf, fully-glazed doors. Secondary exit doors are glazed aluminum doors set in aluminum frames. The lower penthouse has hollow metal louver doors in metal frames. Weather Tightness: All doors appeared to be properly weather-striped. Condition: The hollow metal louver doors at the penthouse are corroded and do not close properly; these should be removed and replaced in the immediate term for proper operation. The site and exterior metals are weathered and should be prepped and repainted to prevent corrosion; work should include the rooftop steps, parapet railings, and rooftop equipment support steel.



E. EXTERIOR SOFFITS AND TRIM

Description: There is a concrete awning over the main building entry with exterior-mounted can-type light fixtures. Condition: No significant issues were noted.

F. EXTERIOR LANDINGS, STAIRS, AND RAILINGS

Description: There are concrete stairs and an accessible ramp with metal railings on Main Street that leads to the main building entry. Condition: No significant issues were noted. See the Accessibility section for more information.

G. EXTERIOR DECKS AND PATIOS

Description: There are no decks or patios. Condition: Not applicable.



VII. INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

A. INTERIOR WALLS

Description: Interior partition walls at the office spaces is typically gypsum wallboard over conventional light gauge metal stud framing. At spaces with an open floor plan, the inside face of the exterior walls are painted or furred out. Finishes: Walls typically have a paint finish with a vinyl or rubber-molded wall base. The main building lobby and common area corridors also have paint-finished walls and vinyl or rubber-molded wall bases. Distribution spaces have wood base boards and protective wood bumpers. Condition: Interior improvements generally consist of older finishes typical for office or distribution spaces, with wear and tear consistent with the various ages of the improvements. Interior finishes and improvements at the warehouse/distribution areas are older and worn, but in serviceable condition. Initial design intent for these warehouse/distribution areas were not intended for traditional leasable office use. Interior improvements will be needed to convert these spaces to the proposed conceptual floor plans reviewed. No costs are included to repair/restore these improvements as the issues are primarily cosmetic in nature, and do not impact the overall performance or operation of the property.

B. INTERIOR DOORS/FRAMES

Description: Interior doors consist of solid core wood doors hung in metal frames. Door hardware is typically lever style. Finishes: Doors typically have a paint finish. Condition: No significant issues were noted.

C. CEILINGS

Description: Office spaces have 2'x2' or 2'x4' suspended acoustical tiles. Ceilings at common area corridors are 2'x2' or 2'x4' suspended acoustical tiles. Ceilings at warehouse/distribution spaces are exposed to the underside of the concrete ceilings with a paint finish. Condition: No significant issues were noted.

D. FLOORS

Description: Flooring at common areas and office spaces is a combination of sealed concrete, commercial-grade carpeting, sheet vinyl, and vinyl composition tile (VCT) and localized areas of epoxy paint on concrete slab Condition: No significant issues were noted.



E. RESTROOMS

Description: The basement and office floors have multi-occupancy men's and women's restrooms. Restroom finishes consist of ceramic tile floors and wet walls, and painted gypsum board at the remaining walls and ceilings. Partitions are painted metal. Standard commercial-grade plumbing fixtures and accessories are provided. The office floors have laminated countertops. Shower stalls are provided in the level three and level five restrooms. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

F. UTILITY ROOMS

Description: Utility rooms have painted or sealed concrete floors, painted gypsum board walls, and painted or exposed concrete ceilings. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

G. INTERIOR STAIRS

Description: Interior stairs are typically cast concrete with painted metal pipe railings. Condition: No significant issues were noted. See Means of Egress section of this report for more details.



VIII. MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL

A. HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING

Description: Cooling is provided to the base building by a chilled water system with three centrifugal chillers, one cooling tower, four air handlers (AHU's) and associated chilled and condenser water pumps, all located on the roof. The three chillers use refrigerant R-134A and are located in a rooftop penthouse mechanical room and are connected to common chiller water supply/return lines which deliver chilled water to the AHU's. Heating is provided by three natural gas-fired boilers located in the penthouse mechanical room. Additional spot cooling equipment includes a roof-mounted 25-ton split system, three 200-ton air cooled chillers that use refrigerant R-22, one 6-ton heat pump package unit that uses refrigerant R-22, and one 40-ton water cooled package unit located on the seventh floor. For heat rejection, the 40-ton package unit has condenser water lines tied to the main building cooling tower. Heating hot water lines connected to the base building boilers are connected to hot water coils in the 40-ton package unit. Refrigerant R-134A is a non-ozone depleting refrigerant and has a Global Warming Potential of 1300 to 1320. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol puts R-134a as one of the six greenhouse gases that must be reduced. There is no phaseout date for this refrigerant and it is expected to be highly used in the HVAC industry. Refrigerant R-22 is a Class II ozone depleting substance. According to the Montreal Protocol, refrigerant R-22 will be available until 2020 for servicing of existing systems. Current plans are to completely phase out the production of R-22 by 2030. However, some manufacturers reportedly ceased making new R-22 compressors as of January 1, 2011. Therefore, replacement R-22 compressors will become more costly and eventually un-obtainable as production of this equipment is phased out; however, compressor components are not included in the equipment phase out. The following is a table of the major base building mechanical equipment:

EQUIPMENT MNFR AGE MODEL SIZE AREA SERVED

Chiller #1 York 7 years TKAAABP2 250 tons (4) AHU unit's Chiller #2 York 7 years TKAAABP2 250 tons (4) AHU unit's Chiller #3 York 7 years TKAAABP2 250 tons (4) AHU unit's

Cooling Tower BAC 7 years 15385-2 774 nominal tons (3) chillers and

40 ton York unit AHU #1 Haakon 20 years PentPak 95,000 CFM ±25% of bldg. AHU #2 Haakon 20 years PentPak 95,000 CFM ±25% of bldg. AHU #3 Haakon 20 years PentPak 90,000 CFM ±25% of bldg. AHU #4 Haakon 20 years PentPak 90,000 CFM ±25% of bldg.

Boiler #1,2,3 Bryan 20 years CL210 2,100 MBH input AHU's, VAV's Water cooled package unit

York 7 years DVW048 40 tons Floor 7 space

Air-cooled chillers (3)

Trane 11 years RTAA270 200 tons Floor 6 space

Air cooled split system

Trane / Greenheck

7 years RAUCC304 25 tons Floor7 space

Air cooled heat pump

package unit Trane 9 years WSC072 6 tons Floor 7 space



A. HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING (cont.)

Description: (cont.) Each chiller is served by one primary circulation pump rated for 410 gpm with 15-hp motors. These primary pumps are controlled by VFDs. There are also two secondary return water pumps, each rated for 430 gpm with 5-hp pumps. There are two condenser water pumps, each rated for 690 gpm with 20-hp motors. There are three heating hot water pumps for the boilers, each rated for 170 gpm with 7.5-hp motors. The cooling tower provides heat rejection for the three main chillers and the seventh floor water-cooled unit. The tower is predominantly stainless steel two-cell unit. A Lakos filter/separator is provided for filtration of condenser water. A water treatment station is located in the main penthouse mechanical room near the condenser water pumps. The cooling tower fans are controlled by VFD units. The three 2,100,000-Btu/hr input capacity boilers provide approximately 15 Btu/hr/square foot which is about the minimum amount according to industry standards for heating in office buildings in this geographical area. It is unlikely that they can be de-rated to below the 2,000,000 Btu/hr threshold for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and still heat the building. Heating water distribution to the individual floors appears to be inadequate and increase in the size of the heating water risers is recommended. The boilers may not require replacement if their usage can be proved to comply with the minimum usage as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). If their low usage cannot be proven, their replacement will be required. Ventilation: Each AHU has two supply fans with variable frequency drive (VFD) control, six propeller type return/exhaust fans and an economizer damper system. Each AHU is zoned to serve ±25% of the building, which is ±one quarter of the basement through Floor 7 of the building. In addition to chilled water coils, the AHUs also have hot water coils for heating of supply air during building warm up control sequences. Zone level air distribution is provided by pneumatically controlled VAV boxes. Interior zones are cooling only while perimeter zones have hot water reheat coils. VAV boxes are Trane Varitrane units, which consist of actuator components located inside the VAV box. Supply air from the AHU's to the floor is delivered from main vertical duct risers with horizontal taps at each floor for service to the VAV boxes. Return air back is through an open plenum system. Isolation dampers are installed at supply and return main ducts. Ceiling hung fan units with hot water coils are provided in select basement areas. Multiple rooftop cabinet and utility fans are provided for general building, toilet, and stairwell supply and/or exhaust. The stairwells each have one supply and one exhaust fan for smoke exhaust and/or pressurization sequences during an activated fire alarm. Stair vestibules are also served by the supply/exhaust fans. One fan delivers 100% outside air to the 40-ton water cooled package unit located on the seventh floor; this unit has pneumatically controlled inlet vane dampers and provides outside air to a mechanical room were the package unit is located.




Controls: A Johnson Metasys building management system (BMS) provides control and monitoring of the major base building mechanical equipment. VAV boxes and AHU economizer dampers and chilled/hot water control valves are controlled by pneumatic actuators. A computer front end for the BMS is located in the engineer's office. Each VAV box has wall-mounted pneumatic thermostats. Two control air compressors in the basement serve the pneumatic actuators and controls. A duplex tank mounted air compressor in the mechanical penthouse provides back up for the main control air compressors. Age: The majority of the building mechanical equipment and systems were installed as part of a major building retrofit in 1991. This includes all zone level supply air distribution ductwork, VAV boxes, chilled and hot water piping, main roof AHU's and the heating hot water boilers. The chillers and cooling towers were installed in 2004. Maintenance: The base building mechanical systems is serviced by an in house engineering department; a third party contractor services the equipment on an as needed basis. Chillers are maintained monthly by Johnson Controls Inc. Condition: The mechanical systems are in good condition with no major issues observed or reported. Based on the ±400,000 square feet of the total building area reportedly served by the base building mechanical equipment, the current total building cooling capacity is ±533 square foot per ton. This level of cooling capacity is on the low side of industry standards; however, it appears to be adequate for the current use and occupancy of the building given the high insulating properties of the buildings construction. The auxiliary cooling equipment serving specific tenant lab and data areas was not included in the calculation (three 200-ton air cooled chillers, one 40-ton water cooled package unit and one 25-ton split system); this would raise the cooling capacity well above industry standards if included. If the three 200-ton chillers are considered as base building equipment, the cooling capacity becomes 296 square feet per ton, which is more than adequate for an office building. Supply air is delivered to the building at the rate of ±0.86 cfm per square foot, which is also on the low side of industry standards; this does not include the auxiliary mechanical equipment. No significant issues with respect to cooling capacity or supply air delivery to the building were reported. The three air cooled chillers are used to cool the data center and operate 24/7; therefore, their expected service life is likely reduced from the standard 15-20 years to 10-15 years. Due to the current age and decrease in availability and increase in costs of R-22, the air-cooled chillers likely will need to be replaced early in the term. The zone level VAV boxes are a Trane Varitrane model that consists of a cone type pneumatic actuator. The actuator hardware is located within the VAV box and not accessible for service. This type of VAV box provides good control; however, they have been known to be prone to a certain failure of the internal pneumatic assembly and are very difficult to access and service. Replacement of the VAV box internal control hardware is the recommended repair method. No major control problems have been reported to date regarding the VAV boxes, and the typical failure does not appear to be occurring currently; however, based on the age of the VAV boxes (±20 years) and the known potential problem with these units, we recommend a reserve for VAV box repair as required to deal with potential future anticipated failures.




Condition (cont.): The roof-mounted outside air supply fan serving the lab on the seventh floor is in poor condition and its replacement is recommended early in the term. Other roof-mounted fans serving general building toilet exhaust and stairwell supply and /or exhaust systems appear to be of adequate capacity, are of commercial quality, and appear to be adequate for the function intended. Control valves on the roof serving the four air conditioning unit were noted to be severely corroded and their replacement is recommended. The exposed duct work at the roof level serving the cabinet and utility fans show signs of weathering and corrosion; they should be prepped and repainted to maintain service life. Some of the piping on the roof has rust spots and it is recommended that they be sanded and painted with a rust inhibiting paint. Some interior components of the four main roof-mounted air handling units are corroded and they should be chipped, sanded, and painted with a rust inhibiting paint to extend the life of the equipment. Modernization: We understand that the building will likely be modernized as part of the upcoming conversion to office use. Assuming the current spot cooling equipment (25-ton split system, three 200-ton air-cooled chillers, a 6-ton heat pump package unit, and the 40-ton water cooled package unit located on Floor 7) remains dedicated to tenant specific needs (data centers and labs). The current base building conditioning system (three centrifugal chillers, cooling tower, four air handling units) capacity of ±533 square foot per ton (six floors at 60,500 square feet, Floor 1 at 30,000 square feet, and basement at 7,000 square feet/750 tons) is not considered adequate to serve future office demands. To bring the building to the industry standard of ± 400 square feet per ton cooling capacity (based on the mild climate, shading from adjacent buildings, high building thermal mass and low proportion of fenestration) an additional 325 tons would need to be added to the base building system. This can be accomplished by converting two of the three 200-ton air-cooled chillers to base building use. The need for additional tonnage is partly necessary because, previously, the building operated 24/7. If the building is operated 10 hours per day, five days per week, more cooling capacity is required. This is because during off hours the building structure and furnishings warm up and act as heat sources during morning cool down. Supply air is delivered to the building at the rate of ±0.98 cfm per square foot, which is adequate according to industry standards; this does not include the auxiliary mechanical equipment. A more detailed evaluation of the areas served by the base building systems and the building auxiliary mechanical equipment would need to be completed to calculate more accurate levels of cooling capacity and supply air rates. The four vertical shafts that supply the cooling air are located generally close to the outside walls, which is somewhat of an advantage over buildings that have a single center core vertical shaft. Multiple shafts will allow more and smaller main distributions ducts where as a single core supply will have much larger ducts which have to carry more air to the entire floor.

The ductwork on the floors that have open floor layouts will likely need modification to a floor layout that has office cubes and private offices. Private offices will need more VAV boxes for the more thermostats that are needed for multiple office temperature control. If conference rooms are planned they too will require individual VAV boxes. Interior zone VAV boxes will likely need heating coils to prevent over cooling caused by the minimum air supply set-points.




Condition (cont.): Some floors do not have ceilings. If ceilings are added on the floors, the short floor to floor clearances (typically 10' floor-to-floor) will present challenges in locating ductwork, VAV, boxes, recessed light fixtures, and fire sprinkler piping, etc. It is likely that lower ceilings in some areas will be necessary to accommodate truck ductwork and larger VAV boxes. Multi-tenant floors will cause special problems with getting return air from each tenant's space to the return air risers. If dropped ceilings are used a common return air return plenum may be adequate. We recommend at that a new direct digital control (DDC) system be installed to support future tenant VAV boxes. A front end computer with a communications back bone may be installed and made available for future tenants to connect their VAV boxes to. Tenants will need to know the requirements of the base building DDC system to assure their VAV boxes are compatible. Cooling to the typical floors is provided by four air handling units on the roof that each supply cooled air through four main duct risers with branch ducts to each floor. Based on the design documents the amount of cooling air designated to each floor ranges from ± 925,600 Btu/hr (77 tons/784 square feet per ton) to 1,220,000 Btu/hr (102 tons/595 square feet per ton) of cooling.

AIR CONDITIONING CAPACITY SUMMARY

Floor Total CFM Btu/hr

available Tons Square Feet Square

Feet/Ton CFM/SF 7* 61,900 1,337,040 111 60,500 543 1.02 6 56,500 1,220,400 102 60,500 595 0.93 5 56,440 1,219,104 102 60,500 596 0.93 4 55,000 1,188,000 99 60,500 611 0.91 3 55,300 1,194,480 100 60,500 608 0.91 2 53,470 1,154,952 96 60,500 629 0.88 1 42,850 925,560 77 60,500 784 0.71 B 5,400 116,640 10 7,000** 720 0.77

TOTAL 386,860 8,356,176 696 400,000 574 0.98

*The cfm, cooling capacity, and cfm/sf to the seventh floor calculated assuming activation of the unused riser that is in the lab area.

**Estimated

Air from the four handling units' risers that serves the basement, Floors 1 and 2 might be diverted to serve Floors 3 through 7 to increase the cooling capacity to those floors. Air handing units served by chilled water from the air-cooled chillers might be added in the four quadrants of each of the basement, Floors 1 and 2 to meet tenant needs and industry standard cooling and ventilation standards. Heating to the typical floors is provided by three boilers on the roof that supply four hot water risers with branch pipes to each floor. Based on the design documents the amount of heating to each floor ranges from ± 337,500 Btu/hr (5 Btu/hr/sf) to 1,672,000 Btu/hr (24 Btu/hr/sf).




Condition (cont.):

HEATING CAPACITY SUMMARY Floor Total GPM Btu/hr available Square feet Btu/hr/sf

7 111.5 1,672,500 60,500 28 6 50 750,000 60,500 12 5 40 600,000 60,500 10 4 40 600,000 60,500 10 3 22.5 337,500 60,500 6 2 30 450,000 60,500 7 1 90.5 1,357,500 60,500 22

Based on a minimum heating requirement of 15 btuh/sf, there is inadequate heating water supply to most of the floors and larger or supplementary heating water pipes will likely be needed. Energy Efficiency: Existing heating and cooling systems have efficiencies typical for systems designed and installed in the early 1990s and mid-2000s. VFDs have been added to the four main air handling units. The boilers are about 80% efficient and air-cooled chillers are about 1.25 kW/ton. The water-cooled chillers are estimated to be about 0.50 kW/ton. New chillers may be about 0.40 kW/ton. The air distribution system VAV boxes are pneumatically controlled and the automation system in the building has limited energy management functions. It was reported that the boilers will be replaced with high efficiency boilers, new air-cooled chillers will be installed, and a new direct digital control system will be installed to control the VAV boxes and to perform other energy management functions. New high efficiency lighting fixtures will be installed. These measures will bring the building's HVAC systems to a level competitive with modern office buildings.

B. PLUMBING

Water Service: Domestic water is provided by a single 3" main line. Water meters are installed at the public side walk. Domestic water is delivered through two booster pumps and a bladder expansion tank in the basement level. Two dedicated air compressors provide air to the bladder tank. There is a single natural gas main with one meter and an earthquake shut off valve. Domestic Water Piping: The majority of the domestic water piping at the booster pumps and branch line piping at the various floors appear to be copper tubing of an unknown type. The main domestic water riser coming from the booster pumps and up into the building is original galvanized piping. Water Heaters: An A.O. Smith, 275-mbh input capacity, 100-gallon, gas-fired, tank-type water heater in the penthouse mechanical room provides domestic hot water to the typical floor restrooms. Individual domestic hot water heaters on the seventh floor are dedicated to tenant industrial hot water use. Plumbing Waste and Vent Lines: Where visible, waste, storm, and vent lines are cast iron. All sanitary waste is gravity fed to drain. Sump pumps are reportedly located in the elevator pit and at a tenant neutralization tank system. No sewage ejection or lift stations were noted.



B. PLUMBING (cont.)

Fixtures: Restroom plumbing fixtures are non-low flow wall-mounted urinals and water closets. Age: The age of the fixtures vary according to tenant improvement work. Restroom fixtures and finishes at certain spaces appear to have been upgraded within the past several years; others appear to have been installed prior to or during the major renovation in 1991. The A.O. Smith domestic water heater was installed in 2007. Condition: We noted localized rusting and pipe clamps on the main galvanized domestic water piping. Based on the age of the galvanized pipe and signs of current and prior leaks, we recommend removing and replacing the remaining galvanized piping. We recommend installing a backflow prevention device on the domestic water main which could be required at any time by the water purveyor based on the potential risk of water backflow into the city system. The domestic water booster pumps appear to be in fair condition; however, based on their age (±28 years), we recommend a reserve to replace the booster pumps within the assessment period. Toilets and urinals in the public restrooms are not the low flow type and do not comply with San Francisco's Water Conservation Requirements for Commercial Buildings. The aerators on the faucets in the public restrooms were noted to be 2.0 gpm which do comply. According to the requirement on or before January 1, 2017, all owners of commercial buildings must obtain a water conservation inspection to be completed and have a Certificate of Compliance on file with the Department of Building Inspection Plumbing Inspection Division for the entire building or the entire portion of the building subject to Chapter 13A if the SFBC. After the fixtures have been replaced, the owner must obtain a final compliance from the DBI's Plumbing Inspection Division. To comply, the toilets/flush valves that use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush will have to be installed and the flush valves on the urinals will need to be replaced with flush valves that use no more than 1.0 gallons per flush.

C. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

Description of Service: Power is provided by dual 12,470-volt feeders, each with 1,200-amp fuse, to a 1,200-amp, 12,470-volt, 3-phase, 4-wire building-owned main switchboard with eight 600-amp sections. Two of the 600-amp sections feed two 12-kVA building-owned substations that step the power down to 480/277-volt, 3-phase, 4-wire for distribution to the building through two 4,000-amp switchboards. Step down transformers are located throughout the building in sub main electrical rooms for general plug load power distribution. A walker duct system for power and data cable distribution was identified on the fifth floor. Power available to the building is ±42.9 watts per square foot. Power connected for use is half of that available or ±21.4 watts per square foot, which is on the high side of industry standards for typical office use. Power is supplied to the tenant floors through three bus risers; two 1,600-amp, 3-phase, 4-wire buses that serve up through the seventh floor, and a 2,500-amp bus riser that serves up through the sixth floor.



C. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM (cont.)

Description of Service (cont.): Based on a prorated capacity of the buses, average power equal to approximately 9.3 watts per square foot is available to each Floors 1 though 6, and approximately 4.9 watts per square foot is available to the seventh floor. Power to each floor may vary as long as the total amperages of the busses are not exceeded.

ELECTRICAL CAPACITY SUMMARY Floor Average Amperes

Available Average Watts

Available Square

Feet Average Watts/

Square Feet 7 450 298,944 60,500 4.9 6 850 564,672 60,500 9.3 5 850 564,672 60,500 9.3 4 850 564,672 60,500 9.3 3 850 564,672 60,500 9.3 2 850 564,672 60,500 9.3 1 850 564,672 60,500 9.3

California Title 24 limits the lighting loads in an office building to 0.9 watts per square foot and receptacle and miscellaneous power consumption is approximately 3.5 watts/sf based on past experience and industry standards. No code could be found that dictates minimum power service levels for receptacles and miscellaneous tenant loads. Floor 6 electric room associated with the data center contains a 3,000-kVA substation served by two fuses in two of the eight 12,470-volt, 600-amp sections in the main switchboard (leaving four 600-amp sections unused). This 3,000-kVA substation serves a 4,000-amp, 277/480-volt, 3-phase, 4-wire switchboard in the same room that serves the data center as well as the three 200-ton chillers on the roof, and associated pumps, and computer room air conditioning units. Type of Lighting: Interior lighting consists of 2' x 4' or 2' x 2' lay in T-8 fluorescent fixtures using with electronic ballasts. Emergency lighting fixtures are tied to the backup power circuits; egress and exit lighting have integral battery backed up fixtures. There are motion sensors for zone level lighting control at select areas; however, the majority of interior lighting is controlled by wall-mounted switches. Exterior lighting consists of wall and pole-mounted HID fixtures. Exterior lighting is controlled by time clocks. Emergency Power: Emergency power is provided to the building by a 1,500-kW diesel-fired generator. The generator provides back up power to emergency egress lighting, elevators, and the electric fire pump. Emergency power is supplied to the typical floors through two 600-amp, 277/480-volt, 3-phase, 4-wire bus risers located in two electrical rooms. Battery backed up exit signs and lighting fixtures are also provided for egress lighting. A second diesel-fired emergency generator is dedicated for tenant use. A 2,200-kW diesel driven generator with 660-gallon base-mounted fuel tank serves the sixth floor. Two 10,000-gallon below-grade diesel fuel storage tanks are located on the site, each dedicated to one of the two emergency generators.



C. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM (cont.)

Condition: The electrical systems appear to be in good condition with no major issues observed or reported. The 12-kVA service was installed in 2002. Predictive maintenance, including infrared testing and harmonics surveys, is completed on the main switchgear every five years with the last service completed in 2003. No major issues were identified during the last service. Electrical maintenance services do not appear to include a major service on the 12 kVA switchgear; we recommended completing a major service on the 12 kVA switchgear as part of the predictive maintenance program. It is important to note that the 4,000-amp 277/480-volt main switchboard in the electrical room on Floor 6 (computer room floor) that serves the computer floor also serves the three roof-mounted Trane air-cooled chillers, their associated pumps, and appurtenances. If this main switchboard is removed all the chillers, etc. will need to be re-fed from one of the basement switchboards or a new switchboard. The three electric 277/480-volt bus risers are plug-in type risers and allow capacity to be added easily by installing plug-in disconnects anywhere along the risers to serve either 277/480-volt equipment or to serve step down transformers for 120/208-volt equipment. Due to this feature of plug-in busses it is a very flexible and adaptable system.

D. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Automatic Sprinklers: The building appears to be fully fire sprinklered. Fire department hose connections are located along the surrounding streets, in stairwells, and at the roof. Fire sprinkler design criteria were not posted at the fire pumps, fire risers or located in the drawings. The data center has multiple local fire suppression systems of unknown type. Standpipes: The building has a single wet standpipe system which provides fire water to branch lines and ceiling hung sprinkler heads through the building. The wet standpipe is served by the fire pumps through the city water supply at the basement level and the 10,000-gallon backup storage reservoir. Fire Pump: Two fire pumps provide pressurized fire sprinkler distribution throughout the building. The first fire pump is electrically driven by a 125-hp motor. The second fire sump is a powered by a Cummings Model 6BTA diesel-driven engine. Both fire pumps are rated for 1,250 gpm and are a horizontal split type case manufactured by Peerless Pumps. There is a 10,000-gallon above-grade fire water reservoir for back up supply to the fire pumps. Fire Extinguishers: The building has class ABC fire extinguishers throughout. A sampling of inspection tags indicate that the fire extinguishers were last service in February 2011.



D. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS (cont.)

Fire Alarm: The building has an Edwards EST 3 addressable fire system with area smoke detectors at elevators lobbies, pull stations at stairwells and building entry/exit locations, duct detectors in the main supply/return air distribution system, and water flow switches on the fire sprinkler risers. Fire sprinkler isolation valves have tamper switches. Horn/strobe devices appear to be installed throughout the building. The fire alarm panel includes a public address (PA) system and a remote annunciator panel is located at the guard desk at the main entry. The fire sprinkler and alarm systems appear to be in good condition with no major issues observed or reported. The fire alarm system was replaced in 2006 and included a new front end panel and activation and notification devices. The data center has a Fike VESDA under floor fire detection system. Condition: The fire sprinkler and alarm systems appear to be in good condition with no major issues observed or reported. The last five-year test was completed November 2008. There was no indication of when the last annual fire sprinkler or annual fire alarm tests were completed. Annual inspections and tests will be required. No recalled heads were observed during our site visit.



IX. BUILDING EQUIPMENT

A. VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION

Description: The building has a total of eleven (11) elevators. A description of these elevators is as follows:

Elev. No.

Type Manufacturer Installation

Date Modernized

Date Capacity (Pounds)

Speed (fpm)

Floors Served

Door Type

1 & 2 Geared

Passenger Otis Elevator Co. 1949 N/A 2,500 350 B, 1-7

Center Opening

3 Geared Freight

Otis Elevator Co. 1949 1990 25,000 150 B, 1-7 Bi-Parting

4 Geared Freight

Otis Elevator Co. 1949 1990 4,000 150 B, 1-7 Bi-Parting

5 Hydro Freight

US Elevator Co. 1991 N/A 6,000 - - - B, 1 Bi-Parting

6 Hydro Freight

US Elevator Co. 1991 N/A 6,000 - - - B, 1-3 Bi-Parting

7 Hydro Freight

US Elevator Co. 1991 N/A 6,000 - - - B, 1-2 Bi-Parting

8-11 Geared

Passenger US Elevator Co. 1991 N/A 3,500 250 B, 1-7

Center Opening

The main passenger elevators in the building are Elevator Nos. 8-11 which provide the major portion of vertical transportation. There are two single elevators, Nos. 1 and 2 which are located at the ends of the building. There are two freight elevators, Nos. 3 and 4, which have limited use in the building as they were used to move large, heavy materials when the post office and social security departments were in the building. There are three hydraulic freight elevators, Nos. 5-7, that had very specific uses in this building which are no longer needed. The maintenance is being provided by Schindler Elevator Corporation. Condition: In general, the elevator equipment is in fair condition. This is based on a limited survey of Elevator Nos. 1, 2, 5-7 as they were not operational. The other Elevator Nos. 3, 4, 8-11 were operating. However, they need cleaning, door adjustment, sealing oil leaks, ride quality adjustments and correcting noisy operations.



A. VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION (cont.)

Code Compliance: As best as we could determine, the elevator permits expired on April 30, 2011. Because this building has been owned by the Federal government and more recently operated by the US Post Office, the permits have been issued by elevator inspectors for the Post Office. If this building is no longer used by the Federal government, then the State of California becomes the governing authority and the elevators will need to be inspected and a permit issued by the State of California. The fire recall systems are required to be tested monthly and a log kept in the machine rooms. The logs are not in the machine rooms. At the present time, Elevator Nos. 1, 2, and 5-7 are not being used nor are there plans for them to be used in the future. By code, if an elevator is not being used then it is to be decommissioned. This requires the car and counterweight to be landed in the pit, the fuses removed in the mail line disconnect and the feeder wires between the controls and disconnect removed. Depending on the future needs of the building, it may be more profitable to remove the elevators completely. Fill in the hoistways at each floor to gain more rental area. Accessibility Requirements: The freight elevators do not have to comply with ADA/CA Title 24 Accessibility requirements nor are Elevator Nos. 1 and 2 as they are not being used. Elevator Nos. 8-11 meet the accessibility requirements with a couple of exceptions. The hall button fixtures are not at the correct height, the hall jamb Braille plates don't comply and the car operating panels do not meet the Braille plate requirements. Maintenance: The quality of maintenance being provided by Schindler Elevator Corporation is considered to be fair to poor. They are not doing the routine cleaning, lubrication and minor adjusting as well as deferring repairs. In general, Schindler is not spending the appropriate amount of time on the job doing the preventative maintenance. Upgrade/Repair Recommendation: There are three items listed below which need to be repaired or upgraded: 1) Repair leak in machine room roof above Elevator No. 9's hoisting machine.

(Cost: Unknown)

2) ADA/CA Title 24 Accessibility requirements for Elevator Nos. 8-11. Deficient items are as follows:

a) Hall button fixtures not at proper height.

b) Braille plates on hoistway entrances have incorrect Braille location.

c) Braille plates on car operating panels are not white on black. (Cost: $6,000)

3) Elevator Nos. 1, 2, and 5-7, if not used, are to be decommissioned by code. (Cost: $30,000)



A. VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION (cont.)

Remaining Useful Life: The main passenger Elevator Nos. 8-11 and the two freight Elevator Nos. 3-4 have approximately one to three years of remaining useful life. However, it may not be wise to modernize these elevators based on the future use of the building as described by Brian Talbot of CB Richard Ellis. The future use was described as an office building with multiple tenants. Based on this scenario, we looked at the gross square feet, developed an estimated building population and then ran an elevatoring analysis. The analysis determined how many elevators, size and speed that would be required to meet the vertical transportation needs of the building. The analysis shows that a group of six elevators having a capacity of 3,500 pounds and traveling at 350 feet per minute would provide very good service. It would be more cost effective to provide six new machine roomless-type elevators than modernize the existing four passenger elevators and add two new elevators to create a six car group. Budget figures were based on six new machine roomless elevators. The elevator shaft of the existing large freight Elevator No. 3 is not big enough to hold two elevators. Two new shafts would need to be created across from the four main passenger elevators. They would replace the elevator shafts of freight Elevator Nos. 3 and 4. There would be major costs to create new hoistways and meet the electrical and mechanical needs for additional elevators. This is just a preliminary study. The exact number and arrangement of elevators should be studied further. The cost of the two new hoistways would be constant, whether the existing four passenger elevators were modernized or replaced with new machine roomless elevators.

B. WINDOW WASHING EQUIPMENT

Description: The building has a window washing rigging system with roof-mounted davit anchors used with portable davit arms and a powered, suspended scaffold system. The powered scaffold is stored offsite by the window washing company and brought to the building only when in use. Condition: The rigging systems appear to be in good condition with no major issues observed or reported. The powered scaffold was not at the building during our walkthrough. The required operational procedure outline sheet (OPOS) is provided. The Harrison Street elevation of the building is too close to the power lines for safe OSHA approved use of the scaffolding system; however, the OPOS outlines the proper use of the rigging system at this elevation. It is unclear how the OPOS was created and approved without addressing this issue. We recommend contacting the engineer of record who created the OPOS to have a better understanding of this issue in greater detail and to perform and required modifications as necessary.



C. SECURITY SYSTEMS

Description: The building has multiple closed circuit security cameras installed in various locations throughout the building including the main lobby, elevators and in corridors. The cameras are reportedly monitored and recorded at the Floor 3 security station. There is a Siemens base building access control system with proximity type card readers located at the main lobby entrance, elevators, and floor entrances at elevator lobbies. Condition: No significant issues were noted or reported.

D. COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Description: There appears to be ±1,200 pairs of copper phone lines; however, the number of phone lines was difficult to determine at the minimum point of entry (MPOE). Multiple strands of fiber optic cable were identified in the MPOE. Condition: The services appear to be adequate for the building's current use. The incoming 1,200-pair of copper phone lines is normally adequate for a typical office building of this size. No significant issues were noted or reported.



X. CODE REVIEW

A. CODE CLASSIFICATION

The building was constructed in 1942 and was likely designed under the provisions of the local municipal building code in effect at the time of construction. According to the 1991 renovation construction drawings, the occupancy classification is B-2 (Office), A-3 (Assembly), and B-1 (Storage). The construction type is Type I.

B. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY/BUILDING PERMITS

Marx|Okubo has contacted the City of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection; however, there are reportedly no copies of the original Certificate of Occupancy.

C. GOVERNMENT AGENCY REVIEW

Marx|Okubo has contacted the following governmental agencies for the purpose of determining if any outstanding building, fire, or zoning code violations are on record, and if any retroactive codes affect the property. Building Department: Marx|Okubo conducted research at the City of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection's website (http://services.sfgov.org/dbipts/) for information regarding permit history and outstanding building code violations. There are a number of expired permits that should be properly closed out. Fire Department: Marx|Okubo contacted the City of San Francisco Fire Prevention Bureau on August 16, 2011 to inquire about fire department inspections and violations at the property. According to a representative, the property is scheduled for an inspection around mid September. Planning Department: Marx|Okubo conducted research at the City of San Francisco Planning Department (http://sf-planning .org) for information regarding the zoning status of the property. The property is zoned RH-DTR (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District). There are no current violations or complaints on record. Residential-Commercial Combined District High Density Zone – Minimum lot size is 25' wide and 2,500 square feet. The basic floor area ratio is 4.8 times the lot area. There is no front or rear setback requirement for commercial use.

D. MEANS OF EGRESS

Description: The building has four primary sets of cast concrete exit stairs. Egress from tenant spaces is along rated corridors or the open floor plan to one of four sets of stairs. Stairs 1, 2, and 3 serve all levels from Floor 7 to the basement level (ground floor) and discharges directly to grade level along Main Street, Beale Street, and the parking lot respectively. Stair 4 serves Floors 7 through 2 and discharges to the level two secondary lobby at Harrison Street. Condition: No significant issues were noted.

http://services.sfgov.org/dbipts/�



XI. DISABLED ACCESSIBILITY

In July 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law, extending civil rights protection to persons with disabilities. The intent of the ADA is to provide accommodations to persons with disabilities and access equal to, or similar to, that available to the general public. Effective January 26, 1992 (reference Federal Register 36.508, Friday, July 26, 1991), the ADA requires that for buildings occupied prior to January 26, 1993, architectural and communication barriers be removed from existing public accommodations, provided that it is "readily achievable" to do so. "Readily achievable" measures may include, but may not be limited to: installing ramps; making curb cuts in sidewalks and entrances; rearranging furniture; installing flashing alarm lights; widening doors, and many other items to make public accommodations more accessible. The Americans with Disabilities Act sets forth "recommended priorities for public accommodation." In general, the four priorities are as follows: 1) Access from public sidewalks, parking or public transportation to a building entrance; 2) Access to any areas or goods or services that are made available to the public; 3) Access to restroom facilities; and, 4) Access in remaining ways to goods and services provided. We wish to point out that alterations to existing buildings are required to comply "if an altered space or area is an area of the facility that contains a primary function." Primary function is defined as "a major activity for which the facility is intended." The statute further requires that "to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area, and the restrooms, telephones and drinking fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheel chairs, unless the cost and scope of such alterations is disproportionate to the cost of the overall alteration. "The authorities have defined "disproportionate" as when the cost of alterations of the accessible path of travel exceeds 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area The project does not currently comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines, with the following issues noted. Based on the five parking stalls counted, one standard disabled-accessible parking stall should be provided. Modifications should be performed at ramp and stair along Main Street to provide an accessible route into the building. Railings should have a maximum diameter of 1-1/2". Ramp railings should extend 12" past the top landing. Accessible paths of travel to the main building lobby should be restriped or provided where not currently striped. The restroom entry doors do not comply with the required 12" minimum push side strike clearance; we recommend installing automatic door openers or reconfigure doors during tenant improvements. Some core area restrooms do not comply with standard accessibility guidelines and should be modified at the time of tenant improvements. Work should include lowering sink counters to a maximum height of 34", raising toilet seats from 17" to 19", lowering coat hooks to 48", removing and replacing twist-type door hardware, providing knee protection at uninsulated sink pipes, and installing Braille signage at restroom entries. Access at tenant spaces is considered part of the individual tenant improvements, and was therefore not reviewed. The elevators were not reviewed for accessibility compliance.



This limited ADA review was done to identify major barriers and costs associated with a possible removal scenario. There may be other scenarios. This is not to be construed as a barrier removal plan. The ADA and ADAAG should be thoroughly reviewed prior to implementing a barrier removal plan. Please note that the obligation to remove barriers is a continuing one. The 2010 ADA became "effective" six months after publication (March 15, 2011), which was September 15, 2010, and compliance will be required 18 months after publication (March 15, 2012). In the period between the effective date and the compliance date, covered entities may choose between the 1991 Standard and the 2010 Standard. Covered entities that should have complied with the 1991 Standards during any new construction or alteration of facilities or elements, but have not done so by 18 months after the date of publication, must comply with the 2010 Standards. There are some differences between the 1991 and 2010 ADA that may affect this property. The 2010 ADA does not require detectable warnings at transitions between pedestrian to vehicular paths of travel. While the 1991 ADA requires one in eight accessible parking stalls to be van-accessible, the 2010 ADA requires one in six to be van-accessible



XII. REPAIRS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND OPINIONS OF COSTS

A. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for remedial work addressing all significant building deficiencies are included in this section. Recommendations presented over ten years fall into the following general categories: Immediate: All safety and life threatening situations and/or code violations. Also

included are problems, which, if left uncorrected over the next year, would result in serious damage to the building or its contents.

Years 1-10: All items currently in good condition, which are approaching the end

of their economic life and will require major repairs or replacement over the term.

Conceptual opinion of probable costs estimates are provided for each recommendation. Costs are based on Marx|Okubo's experience with projects of a similar type, known construction industry average costs per square foot, and/or historical cost data. Cost information is inclusive of labor, material, design fees, and appropriate overhead, general conditions, and profit. It is exclusive of any local taxes that may be assessed on this project. It is assumed that remedial work will be performed by outside contractors.

B. METHOD OF DETERMINING COSTS

The opinions of probable cost are based on certain repair methods conceptualized by this office and could greatly be affected by the final corrective solution employed. The costs have been assembled for budgetary purpose only and should not be considered final costs to repair items identified in this report. The methods of repair and details and specifications required for corrective work will require further study by an expert in each field. It should be clearly understood that these are only suggested repair costs.

C. ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED

It should be noted that items, such as tenant improvement repairs and ADA requirements within tenant spaces, have not been included as part of the deferred maintenance, as these items are typically addressed during the tenant build-out. Items considered to be routine maintenance were not considered, such as replacement of hardware, or items costing less than $1,000 in value, unless they are repeated throughout the project. Routine maintenance items are considered to consist of cleaning, replacement of miscellaneous parts, changing filters, and other repairs that are performed typically by a building engineer and maintenance contractors.

390 MAIN STREETSan Francisco, California

Prepared by Marx|Okubo Associates, Inc.50

OPINION OF PROBABLE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL COSTS

Description Immediate Years 1-3 Years 4-6 Years 7-10 CommentsSECTION V - SITE

1.No significant issues were noted. Building occupies substantially the entire site area.

Small remaining site after parking lot becomes separate parcel.

2.

Reserve for future site improvements to address changes at north boundary. 225,500

Estimated Lump sum assumes new construction on the adjacent parking lot.

Site - Subtotal $0 $0 $225,500 $0

SECTION VI - STRUCTURE

3.

Voluntary seismic strengthening to improve building performance and reduce risk of damage during a code level earthquake. 2,588,000

No regulatory requirement. Generally based on Murphy Burr Curry Life Safety conceptual design.

Structure - Subtotal $0 $2,588,000 $0 $0

SECTION VII - ENVELOPE & EXTERIOR

4.

Regularly scheduled crack repair, prep, and repaint of exterior walls. Typically necessary every ±seven to 10 years. 165,000 165,000

The Harrison Street elevation has not been repainted due to proximity of overhead power lines.

5.Remove and replace hollow metal louver doors at penthouse. 6,000

Doors are corroded and do not close properly.

6.

Prep and repaint site and exterior metals including roof steps, parapet railings, and equipment support steel. 8,000

Metals are weathered and should be repainted to prevent corrosion.

Roofs

7. No significant issues were noted. 0 0 0 0Good current condition, expected 10+ year remaining service life.

8. Regularly scheduled annual maintenance. maintenance maintenance maintenance maintenance Recommend budget $0.05/sf/yr.

9. Envelope & Exterior - Subtotal $6,000 $173,000 $0 $165,000

SECTION VIII - INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

10.No significant issues were noted. Only one tenant in occupancy on the 7th Floor. 0

We understand the intention is to modernize the interior for multi-tenant office use.

11.

Replace damaged and delaminating countertops at restrooms throughout. 18,000

These repairs can be conducted during tenant improvements.

Interior Improvements - Subtotal $0 $18,000 $0 $0

SECTION IX - MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL

12.Replace three ten-year-old 200-ton air-cooled chillers. 900,000

Based on EUL of 10-15 years and the phase out of R-22.

13.

Add 325 tons of air distribution cooling to bring the building total to 400 square feet per ton. 650,000

Assumes the use of two of the 200-ton roof-mounted chillers and pumps currently serving the sixth floor computer space.

14.Replace roof-mounted outside air supply fan serving sixth floor DEA space. 10,000 Fan is severely corroded.

15.Replace chilled water control valves serving four roof-mounted air handling units. 10,000 Control valves are severely corroded.

16.Install DDC front end computer and backbone communications. 150,000

17.Reserve to convert VAV box pneumatic control to external actuators. 50,000 50,000

Reserve a contingency based on known potential failures of these type of VAV boxes.

18. Derate three boilers and install new boiler. 65,000Assume new boiler just under 2,000-mbh.

19.Install four larger heating water supply and return water risers. 40,000

Existing risers are undersized for new office use.

20.

Reserve for treatment of rust and painting of AHU interior components, piping on the roof, and rooftop duct work at cabinet and utility fans . 5,000

Includes treatment of rusted areas, preparation and painting of exposed ductwork.

21.

Reserve to replace domestic water booster pumps based on age, wear and tear, and end of estimated useful life 9,000

Includes two new pumps, motors, controls, piping and fit up as required.

22.Install backflow prevention device on domestic water main. 5,800

Assumes installation inside building near booster pumps. May be required by water purveyor based on California Health and Safety Code.

23.

Reserve to replace galvanized domestic water piping main riser from pumps to top floor due to rust/corrosion and leaks. 100,000

Assumes branch line piping at floors have not been replaced.

24.Replace plumbing fixtures with low flow fixtures to meet SF requirements. 115,000

Assume W.C.s fit bolt pattern, faucets replaced , urinals replaced, and flush valves replaced.

25.

Reserve for maintenance on main electrical switchgear. Recommended every three to five years at the time of infrared testing. 20,000 20,000

Includes all main electrical switchgear and maintenance and service on 12 kVA equipment.

Mechanical/Electrical - Subtotal $0 $2,129,800 $50,000 $20,000

390 MAIN STREETSan Francisco, California

Prepared by Marx|Okubo Associates, Inc.51

OPINION OF PROBABLE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL COSTS

Description Immediate Years 1-3 Years 4-6 Years 7-10 Comments

SECTION X - BUILDING EQUIPMENT

26.Main Passenger Elevator Nos. 8-11: ADA/CA Title 24 Accessibility. 6,000

Braille in car operating panel. Relocate hall buttons.

27.Elevator Nos. 1, 2, 5-7: Decommission per code. 30,000

If these elevators are to be torn out, the cost would be $100,000.

28.

Elevator Nos. 1, 2, 5-7: Future vertical transportation systems, 6 machine roomless elevators. 1,600,000

This includes tear out of existing 4 elevators. This does not include building costs.

Building Equipment - Subtotal $6,000 $1,630,000 $0 $0

SECTION XI - CODE REVIEW

29.

An OPOS is posted at the entry to the roof for operation of the rooftop window washing system. 0

No separate tie-downs were noted to provide for independent safety line tie-offs.

30. Perform annual fire alarm tests. 25,000 No inspections tags were posted and no information was provided.

31. Perform annual fire sprinkler inspections. 1,500

No inspections tags were posted and no information was provided.

Code Review - Subtotal $26,500 $0 $0 $0

SECTION XII - DISABLED ACCESSIBILITY

32.Provide one disabled-accessible parking stalls; includes proper signage and striping. 1,000

As required by accessibility guidelines.

33.

Perform modifications at ramp and stair along Main Street to provide an accessible route into the building. 2,000

Railings should have a maximum diameter of 1-1/2". Ramp railings should extend 12" past the top landing.

34.Provide automatic door opening devices at main restroom entry doors. 28,000

Push side strike clearance is noted to be ±8". Automatic door openers or door reconfiguration is needed to accommodate accessibility guidelines.

35.

Lower solid surface counters at elevated floor restrooms to comply with 34" maximum height. Noted to be ±36". 6,000

Work was in progress during time of assessment. 4 restrooms remain. Complete at time of future tenant improvements.

36.

Perform miscellaneous restroom modifications to comply with accessibility guidelines. 3,000

Includes raising seat height, providing coat hooks, replacing twist-type door hardware, insulating exposed pipes, and providing Braille signage at entries.

Disabled Accessibility Compliance $34,000 $6,000 $0 $0

GRAND TOTAL $72,500 $6,544,800 $275,500 $185,000



XIII. EXHIBITS

A. VICINITY MAP

B. FLOOR PLANS

C. HKA ELEVATOR EVALUATIONS

D. PHOTOGRAPHS


DUE DILIGENCE SURVEY PAGE 1

ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT SURVEY – DUE DILIGENCE

HESSELBERG, KEESEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 221 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1580

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

BUILDING ADDRESS: 390 Main Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

CLIENT: Marx/Okubo Associates, Inc.

SURVEY DATE: August 1, 2011

MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR: Schindler Elevator Corporation

SURVEY NO: 1 of 3

TRACTION ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT INFORMATION

ELEVATOR NO. 1 2 3 4

MANUFACTURER Otis Otis Otis Otis

MFGR. ID NO. 230679 230678 230680 230681

CITY / STATE ID NO. - - - - - - - - - - - -

PERMIT EXP. DATE - - - - - - - - - - - -

INSTALLED BY Otis Otis Otis Otis

DATE INSTALLED 1949 1949 1949 1949

MODERNIZED DATE N/A N/A 1990 1990

MODERNIZED BY N/A N/A US Elevator US Elevator

TYPE Passenger Passenger Freight Freight

OPERATION Simplex Collective Simplex Collective Simplex Collective Simplex Collective

CONTROL VVMG VV VV VV

CAPACITY (LBS.) 2,500 2,500 25,000 4,000

SPEED (FPM) 350 350 150 150

ENTRANCE TYPE Single Speed

Center Opening Single Speed

Center Opening Bi-Parting Bi-Parting

ENTRANCE SIZE 8-ft. 0-in. x 7-ft. 0-in. 8-ft. 0-in. x 7-ft. 0-in. - - - - - -

FLOORS SERVED B, 1-7 B, 1-7 - - - - - -

STOPS / OPENINGS 8/8 8/8 - - - - - -

EARTHQUAKE SENSOR* No No Yes No

EQ. CWT. DERAILMENT* Single Single Single Single

FIREFIGHTERS’ SERVICE* Phase I & II Phase I & II Phase I & II Phase I & II

SPECIAL OPERATIONS Security Security

* Systems not tested so that building operations would not be interrupted.

390 MAIN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105


TRACTION MACHINE ROOM EQUIPMENT CONDITION


MACHINE


MODEL 330 W 330 W 72 / MOD 330 W

TYPE Geared Geared WHH / Gearless Geared

OVERALL CONDITION Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

BRAKE Good Good Good Good

GEAR WEAR Good Good Good Good

DRIVE SHEAVE Fair-Good Fair-Good Good Good

SEALS Fair Fair Good Fair

OIL LEAKS Yes Yes Minimal Yes

MOTOR

BRUSHES & RIGGINGS Fair Fair Good Fair-Good

COMMUTATOR Fair Fair Good Fair-Good

ARMATURE Fair Fair Good Fair-Good

FIELDS Fair Fair Good Fair-Good

HOIST ROPES

NUMBER 6 6 8 6

SIZE 5/8-in. 5/8-in. 3/4-in. 5/8-in.

CONDITION Good Good Good Good

MOTOR GENERATOR


OVERALL CONDITION Fair Fair Fair Fair

BRUSHES & RIGGINGS Good Good Fair Good

COMMUTATOR Good Good Fair Fair-Good

FIELDS Good Good Fair Fair-Good

BEARING SEALS Good Fair Good Fair

NOISE Unknown Fair Good Fair

VIBRATION Unknown Fair Good Good

CONTROLLER

MANUFACTURER Otis Otis Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc.

MODEL 20 UBL - - - MCLVV MCLVV

TYPE Relay Relay Programmable

Solid State Programmable

Solid State

OVERALL CONDITION Poor-Fair Poor-Fair Fair Fair

RELAYS Fair Fair Fair Fair

WIRING Fair Fair Good Good

CONTACTORS Fair Fair Fair Fair

CONNECTIONS Fair Fair Fair Fair

TEMPORARY JUMPERS No No No No



TRACTION MACHINE ROOM EQUIPMENT CONDITION (CONT.)


SELECTOR

MANUFACTURER Pacific Pacific Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc.

TYPE Cable Cable Cable Cable


CONTACTS Fair Fair Fair Fair


WIRING Fair Fair Fair Fair


PIE PLATES No No No No

CABLE Fair Fair Fair Fair

GEARS Fair Fair Fair Fair

TAPE N/A N/A N/A N/A


GOVERNOR


MODEL Flyball Flyball Flyball Flyball

CONDITION Fair Fair Fair-Good Fair-Good

GOVERNOR ROPE

NUMBER 1 1 1 1

SIZE 1/2-in. 1/2-in. 1/2-in. 1/2-in.


MACHINE ROOM

LOCATION Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead

HOUSEKEEPING Good Good Good Good

CHECK CHARTS No No No No

SPARE PARTS Good Good Minimal Minimal

FIRE SERVICE TESTING RECORDS

No No No No

SERVICE RECORDS No No No No

SPRINKLERS Yes Yes Yes Yes

SMOKE DETECTORS Yes Yes Yes Yes



LOBBY - HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS


DIRECTION LANTERNS Non-Compliant Non-Compliant N/A N/A

TYPE: HALL / CAR None None N/A N/A

MINIMUM 2 ½-IN. No No N/A N/A

SINGLE AUDIBLE UP No No N/A N/A

DOUBLE AUDIBLE DN. No No N/A N/A

72-IN. ABOVE FLOOR No No N/A N/A

ENTRANCE JAMB PLATES Compliant Compliant N/A N/A

2-IN. HIGH CHARACTER Yes Yes N/A N/A

BRAILLE BELOW Yes Yes N/A N/A

BOTH JAMBS Yes Yes N/A N/A

60-IN. ABOVE FLOOR Yes Yes N/A N/A

HALL BUTTONS Non-Compliant Non-Compliant N/A N/A

MECHANICAL PUSH Yes Yes N/A N/A

CA. ILLUMINATED WHITE OVER COMPLETE FACE

No No N/A N/A

RAISED/FLUSH/ RECESSED

Yes Yes N/A N/A

¾-IN. MIN. DIAMETER Yes Yes N/A N/A

42-IN. ABOVE FLOOR Yes Yes N/A N/A

DOOR DWELL

CAR CALL (MIN. 5 SEC.) N/A N/A

HALL CALL (MIN. 5 SEC.) N/A N/A

LEVELING Compliant Compliant N/A N/A

± ½-IN. Yes Yes N/A N/A

DISTANCE BETW. SILLS Compliant Compliant N/A N/A

MAX 1 ¼-IN. 1-1/4-in. 1-1/4-in. N/A N/A



IN-CAR - HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS


CAR OPERATING PANEL Non-Compliant Non-Compliant N/A N/A

MECHANICAL PUSH Yes Yes N/A N/A

ILLUMINATED Yes Yes N/A N/A

CA. RAISED 1/8-IN. ± 1/32-IN.

No No N/A N/A

CA. WHITE CHARACTER ON BLACK BACKGROUND

No No N/A N/A

BRAILLE TO LEFT OF BUTTON

Yes Yes N/A N/A

BRAILLE PINS BELOW CHAR.

Yes Yes N/A N/A

35-IN. MIN. TO ALARM Yes Yes N/A N/A

48-IN. MAX. TO TOP Yes Yes N/A N/A

CAR POSITION INDICATOR Non-Compliant Non-Compliant N/A N/A

MINIMUM ½-IN. Yes Yes N/A N/A

FLOOR PASSING SIGNAL No No N/A N/A

COMMUNICATIONS Compliant Compliant N/A N/A

TYPE Handsfree Handsfree N/A N/A

CORD 29-IN. MIN. FOR HANDSET

N/A N/A N/A N/A

LOCATION ID Yes Yes N/A N/A

VISUAL INDICATOR Yes Yes N/A N/A

MAX. 48-IN. ABOVE FL. Yes Yes N/A N/A

BRAILLE IDENTIFIED Yes Yes N/A N/A

HANDRAILS Compliant Compliant N/A N/A

32-IN. ± 1-IN. ABOVE FLOOR

Yes Yes N/A N/A

1 ½-IN. FROM WALL Yes Yes N/A N/A

DOOR PROTECTION Compliant Compliant N/A N/A

DOOR DETECTOR Yes Yes N/A N/A

SAFETY EDGE N/A N/A N/A N/A

LIGHT RAY (5-IN. & 29-IN.)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

CAB INTERIOR SIZE Compliant Compliant N/A N/A

DIMENSIONS 5-ft. 8-in. x 4-ft. 0-in. 5-ft. 8-in. x 4-ft. 0-in. N/A N/A



HESSELBERG, KEESEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 22 MAIN STREET, SUITE 580 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105






SURVEY NO: 2 of 3

HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT INFORMATION

ELEVATOR NO. 5 6 7

MANUFACTURER US Elevator US Elevator US Elevator

MFGR. ID NO. None None None

CITY / STATE ID NO. N/A N/A N/A

PERMIT EXP. DATE 4/30/11 4/30/11 4/30/11

INSTALLED BY US Elevator US Elevator US Elevator

DATE INSTALLED 1991 1991 1991

MODERNIZED DATE N/A N/A N/A

MODERNIZED BY N/A N/A N/A

TYPE Freight Freight Freight

OPERATION Group Automatic Group Automatic Group Automatic

CONTROL Selective Collective Selective Collective Selective Collective

CAPACITY (LBS.) 6,000 6,000 6,000

SPEED (FPM) - - - - - - - - -

ENTRANCE TYPE Bi-Parting Bi-Parting Bi-Parting

ENTRANCE SIZE 7-ft. 8-in. x 8-ft. 0-in. 7-ft. 8-in. x 8-ft. 0-in. 7-ft. 8-in. x 8-ft. 0-in.

FLOORS SERVED B, 1 B, 1-3 B-12

STOPS / OPENINGS 2/2 4/4 3/4

EARTHQUAKE SENSOR* N/A N/A N/A

EQ. CWT. DERAILMENT* N/A N/A N/A

FIREFIGHTERS’ SERVICE* Phase I Phase I Phase I

EMERGENCY LIGHT* Yes Yes Yes

SPECIAL OPERATIONS Card Reader Card Reader Card Reader




HYDRAULIC MACHINE ROOM EQUIPMENT CONDITION

ELEVATOR NO. 5 6 7

POWER UNIT

MANUFACTURER U.S. Elevator U.S. Elevator U.S. Elevator

TYPE Dry Dry Dry

OVERALL CONDITION Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

MOTOR Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

VALVE Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

BELTS Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

OIL LEAKS Yes Yes Yes

5-YR. LOAD TESTED No Tag No Tag No Tag

CONTROLLER

MANUFACTURER Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc.

MODEL PLC PLC PLC

TYPE Programmable Programmable Programmable

OVERALL CONDITION Good Good Good

CONTACTORS Good Good Good

RELAYS Good Good Good

WIRING Good Good Good

CONNECTIONS Good Good Good

BATTERY LOWERING No No No

TEMPORARY JUMPERS No No Yes

MACHINE ROOM

LOCATION Basement Basement Basement

HOUSEKEEPING Good Good Good

CHECK CHARTS No No No

SPARE PARTS Good Good Good


No No No

SERVICE RECORDS No No No

SPRINKLERS Yes Yes Yes

SMOKE DETECTORS Yes Yes Yes



HYDRAULIC HOISTWAY EQUIPMENT CONDITION

ELEVATOR NO. 5 6 7

DOOR OPERATOR EQUIP.

MANUFACTURER Harris Prebble Harris Prebble Harris Prebble

MODEL Freight Freight Freight

OVERALL CONDITION Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Fair-Poor

BELTS/CHAINS Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Fair-Poor

INTERLOCKS Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Fair-Poor




ELEVATOR NO. 5 6 7

DIRECTION LANTERNS N/A N/A N/A

TYPE: HALL / CAR N/A N/A N/A

MINIMUM 2 ½-IN. N/A N/A N/A

SINGLE AUDIBLE UP N/A N/A N/A

DOUBLE AUDIBLE DN. N/A N/A N/A

72-IN. ABOVE FLOOR N/A N/A N/A

ENTRANCE JAMB PLATES N/A N/A N/A

2-IN. HIGH CHARACTER N/A N/A N/A

BRAILLE BELOW N/A N/A N/A

BOTH JAMBS N/A N/A N/A


HALL BUTTONS N/A N/A N/A

MECHANICAL PUSH N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A

¾-IN. MIN. DIAMETER N/A N/A N/A


DOOR DWELL N/A N/A N/A

CAR CALL (MIN. 5 SEC.) N/A N/A N/A

HALL CALL (MIN. 5 SEC.) N/A N/A N/A

LEVELING N/A N/A N/A

± ½-IN. N/A N/A N/A

DISTANCE BETW. SILLS N/A N/A N/A

MAX 1 ¼-IN. N/A N/A N/A




ELEVATOR NO. 5 6 7

CAR OPERATING PANEL N/A N/A N/A

MECHANICAL PUSH N/A N/A N/A

ILLUMINATED N/A N/A N/A

CA. RAISED /8-IN. ± /32-IN. N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A

35-IN. MIN. TO ALARM N/A N/A N/A

48-IN. MAX. TO TOP N/A N/A N/A

CAR POSITION INDICATOR N/A N/A N/A

MINIMUM ½-IN. N/A N/A N/A

FLOOR PASSING SIGNAL N/A N/A N/A

COMMUNICATIONS N/A N/A N/A

TYPE N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A

LOCATION ID N/A N/A N/A

VISUAL INDICATOR N/A N/A N/A

MAX. 48-IN. ABOVE FL. N/A N/A N/A

BRAILLE IDENTIFIED N/A N/A N/A

HANDRAILS N/A N/A N/A

32-IN. ± -IN. ABOVE FLOOR

N/A N/A N/A

1 ½-IN. FROM WALL N/A N/A N/A

DOOR PROTECTION N/A N/A N/A

DOOR DETECTOR N/A N/A N/A

SAFETY EDGE N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A

CAB INTERIOR SIZE N/A N/A N/A

DIMENSIONS N/A N/A N/A



HESSELBERG, KEESEE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 221 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1580

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105






SURVEY NO: 3 of 3

TRACTION ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT INFORMATION



MFGR. ID NO. - - - - - - - - - - - -

CITY / STATE ID NO. - - - - - - - - - - - -

PERMIT EXP. DATE 4/30/11 4/30/11 4/30/11 4/30/11

INSTALLED BY US Elevator US Elevator US Elevator US Elevator

DATE INSTALLED 1991 1991 1991 1991

MODERNIZED DATE N/A N/A N/A N/A

MODERNIZED BY N/A N/A N/A N/A

TYPE Passenger Passenger Passenger Passenger

OPERATION Group Group Automatic Group Group

CONTROL Simplex Collective VVMG Simplex Collective Simplex Collective

CAPACITY (LBS.) 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500

SPEED (FPM) 250 250 250 250

ENTRANCE TYPE Single Speed Side Opening

Single Speed Center Opening

Single Speed Side Opening

Single Speed Side Opening

ENTRANCE SIZE 3-ft. 6-in. x 7-ft. 0-in. 3-ft. 6-in. x 7-ft. 0-in. 3-ft. 6-in. x 7-ft. 0-in. 3-ft. 6-in. x 7-ft. 0-in.

FLOORS SERVED B, 1-7 B, 1-7 B, 1-7 B, 1-7

STOPS / OPENINGS 7/7 8/8 7/7 7/7

EARTHQUAKE SENSOR* No Yes No No

EQ. CWT. DERAILMENT* Single Single Single Single

FIREFIGHTERS’ SERVICE* Phase I & II Phase I & II Phase I & II Phase I & II

EMERGENCY LIGHT* Yes Yes Yes Yes

SPECIAL OPERATIONS No No No No




CAR PERFORMANCE


RIDE QUALITY

UP START Good Fair Good Good

UP ACCELERATION Good Fair Good Good

UP DECELERATION Good Fair Good Good

UP STOP Good Fair Good Good

DOWN START Good Fair Good Good

DOWN ACCEL. Good Fair Good Good

DOWN DECEL. Good Good Good Good

DOWN STOP Good Fair Good-Fair Good

PERFORMANCE TIME UP 11.3 Seconds 13.9 Seconds 11.5 seconds 13.7 seconds

PERFORMANCE TIME DN 12.7 Seconds 13.9 Seconds 11.9 seconds 13.5 seconds

FL. TO FL TIME UP 5.6 Seconds 7.8 Seconds 7.2 seconds 8.4 seconds

FL. TO FL. TIME DOWN 5.6 Seconds 7.8 Seconds 6.8 seconds 7.0 seconds

OVERALL RIDE QUALITY Good Fair Good Good

NOISE LEVEL Good Good Good Good

LEVELING ± 1/4-in. ± 1/4-in. ± 3/8-in. ± 1/4-in.

STOP SWITCH Key Key Key Key

DOOR OPERATION & PERFORMANCE

DOOR OPEN TIMES 2.4 Seconds 2.1 Seconds 3.8 Seconds 2.3 Seconds

DOOR CLOSE TIMES 4.3 Seconds 3.7 Seconds 1.4 Seconds 3.9 Seconds

OVERALL OPERATION

OPEN Good Fair Good-Fair Good

CLOSE Good Fair Good-Fair Good

NOISE LEVEL Fair Fair Fair Fair

DOORS FULLY OPEN No Yes Yes Yes

STALL PRESSURE < 30 lbs. < 30 lbs. < 30 lbs. < 30 lbs.

PRE-OPENING No No No No

REDUCED DOOR TIME No No No No

NUDGING TIME (SEC.) 15.4 13.7 15.8 15.5

AUDIBLE SIGNAL Yes Yes Yes Yes

CLOSING Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOOR HOLD OPEN

CAR CALL OPEN 6.1 Seconds 2.3 Seconds 5.3 Seconds 5.3 Seconds

HALL CALL OPEN 6.1 Seconds 2.3 Seconds 5.2 Seconds 5.4 Seconds

DOOR DETECTOR Yes Yes Yes Yes

SAFETY EDGE N/A No N/A N/A

PHOTO EYES N/A No N/A N/A



TRACTION MACHINE ROOM EQUIPMENT CONDITION


MACHINE

MANUFACTURER Hollister Whitney Hollister Whitney Hollister Whitney Hollister Whitney

MODEL 53 OH - - - - - - - - -

TYPE Geared Geared Geared Geared

OVERALL CONDITION Good Good Good Good

BRAKE Good Good Good Good

GEAR WEAR Good Good Good Good

DRIVE SHEAVE Good Good Good Good

SEALS Fair Fair Fair Fair

OIL LEAKS Yes Yes Yes Yes

MOTOR

BRUSHES & RIGGINGS Good Good Good Good

COMMUTATOR Good Good Good Good

ARMATURE Good Good Good Good

FIELDS Good Good Good (Note Vibration) Good

HOIST ROPES

NUMBER 5 5 5 5

SIZE 5/8-in. 5/8-in. 5/8-in. 5/8-in.


MOTOR GENERATOR

MANUFACTURER Imperial Imperial Imperial Imperial


BRUSHES & RIGGINGS Fair Fair Fair Fair

COMMUTATOR Fair Fair Fair Fair

FIELDS Fair Fair Fair Fair

BEARING SEALS Fair Fair Fair Fair

NOISE Noisy Noisy Fair Fair

VIBRATION Fair Fair Fair Poor-Fair

CONTROLLER

MANUFACTURER Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc.

MODEL MCLVV MCLVV MCLVV MCLVV

TYPE Solid State Solid State Solid State Solid State




CONTACTORS Fair Fair Fair Fair





TRACTION MACHINE ROOM EQUIPMENT CONDITION (CONT.)


SELECTOR

MANUFACTURER Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc. Virginia Controls, Inc.

TYPE Solid State Solid State Solid State Solid State


CONTACTS Fair Fair Fair Fair




PIE PLATES N/A N/A N/A N/A

CABLE N/A N/A N/A N/A

GEARS N/A N/A N/A N/A

TAPE Fair Fair Fair Fair


GOVERNOR

MANUFACTURER Hollister Whitney Hollister Whitney Hollister Whitney Hollister Whitney

MODEL 201 201 201 201

CONDITION Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

GOVERNOR ROPE

NUMBER 1 1 1 1

SIZE 3/8-in. 3/8-in. 3/8-in. 3/8-in.

CONDITION Good Fair Good Good

MACHINE ROOM

LOCATION Overhead Overhead Overhead Overhead

HOUSEKEEPING Good-Fair Good-Fair Good-Fair Good-Fair

CHECK CHARTS No No No No

SPARE PARTS Yes Yes Yes Yes


No No No No

SERVICE RECORDS No No No No

SPRINKLERS Yes Yes Yes Yes

SMOKE DETECTORS Yes Yes Yes Yes



TRACTION HOISTWAY EQUIPMENT CONDITION


DOOR OPERATOR EQUIP.

MANUFACTURER GAL GAL GAL GAL

MODEL MOH MOH MOH MOH

OVERALL CONDITION Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

HANGERS & TRACKS Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

CLUTCH/BAYONET Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

PICK-UP ROLLERS Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

CHAIN Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

INTERLOCKS Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good Fair-Good

CAR TOP EQUIPMENT


HOUSEKEEPING Fair-Good Fair-Good Good Good

INSPECTION STATION Fair Fair Fair Fair

LIGHT Fair-Good Good Good Good

OUTLET Fair Good Fair Fair

FAN Fair Fair-Good Good Good

HOISTWAY EQUIPMENT


CAR FRAME Good Good Good Good

PLATFORM Good Good Good Good

COUNTERWEIGHT Good Good Good Good

GUIDE SHOES CAR Good Good Good Good

GUIDE SHOES – CWT. Good Good Good Good

PIT EQUIPMENT


BUFFERS Good Good Good Good

STOP SWITCH Good Good Good Good

COMPENSATION Good Good Good Good

PIT LIGHT Good Good Good Good

CAR SIGNALS

OPERATING PANEL Good Good Good Good

PUSH BUTTONS Fair Fair Fair Fair

POSITION INDICATORS Good Good Good Good

CAR LANTERNS N/A N/A N/A N/A

HALL SIGNALS

PUSH BUTTONS Fair Fair Fair Fair

POSITION INDICATOR Good Good Good Good

HALL LANTERNS Good Good Good Good





DIRECTION LANTERNS Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

TYPE: HALL / CAR Hall Hall Hall Hall

MINIMUM 2 ½-IN. Yes Yes Yes Yes

SINGLE AUDIBLE UP Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOUBLE AUDIBLE DN. Yes Yes Yes Yes

72-IN. ABOVE FLOOR Yes Yes Yes Yes

ENTRANCE JAMB PLATES Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Non-Compliant

2-IN. HIGH CHARACTER Yes Yes Yes Yes

BRAILLE BELOW No No No No

BOTH JAMBS Yes Yes Yes Yes

60-IN. ABOVE FLOOR Yes Yes Yes Yes

HALL BUTTONS Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Non-Compliant

MECHANICAL PUSH Yes Yes Yes Yes


No No No No


Yes Yes Yes Yes

¾-IN. MIN. DIAMETER Yes Yes Yes Yes

42-IN. ABOVE FLOOR No No No No

DOOR DWELL - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAR CALL (MIN. 5 SEC.) - - - - - - - - - - - -

HALL CALL (MIN. 5 SEC.) - - - - - - - - - - - -

LEVELING Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

± ½-IN. Yes Yes Yes Yes

DISTANCE BETW. SILLS Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

MAX 1 ¼-IN. 1-1/4-in. 1-1/4-in. 1-1/4-in. 1-1/4-in.





CAR OPERATING PANEL Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Non-Compliant

MECHANICAL PUSH Yes Yes Yes Yes

ILLUMINATED Yes Yes Yes Yes

CA. RAISED 1/8-IN. ± 1/32-IN.

Yes Yes Yes Yes


No No No No


Yes Yes Yes Yes


Yes Yes Yes Yes

35-IN. MIN. TO ALARM Yes Yes Yes Yes

48-IN. MAX. TO TOP Yes Yes Yes Yes

CAR POSITION INDICATOR Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

MINIMUM ½-IN. Yes Yes Yes Yes

FLOOR PASSING SIGNAL Yes Yes Yes Yes

COMMUNICATIONS Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

TYPE Handsfree Handsfree Handsfree Handsfree


N/A N/A N/A N/A

LOCATION ID Yes Yes Yes Yes

VISUAL INDICATOR Yes Yes Yes Yes

MAX. 48-IN. ABOVE FL. Yes Yes Yes Yes

BRAILLE IDENTIFIED Yes Yes Yes Yes

HANDRAILS Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

32-IN. ± 1-IN. ABOVE FLOOR

Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 ½-IN. FROM WALL Yes Yes Yes Yes

DOOR PROTECTION Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

DOOR DETECTOR Yes Yes Yes Yes

SAFETY EDGE N/A N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A N/A

CAB INTERIOR SIZE Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant

DIMENSIONS 6-ft. 8-in. x 5-ft. 4-in. 6-ft. 8-in. x 5-ft. 3-in. 6-ft. 8-in. x 5-ft. 4-in. 6-ft. 8-in. x 5-ft. 4-in.



MAINTENANCE COMMENTS

ELEVATOR NO. COMMENT

3 Replace worn motor generator brush.

8-11 Vacuum excessive carbon dust from motor generators / motors.

8-11 Clean down hoist machines. Replace leaking seals.

8-11 5th

floor down hall button between No. 10 & 11 does not illuminate, correct.

8-11 Clean machine room and controllers.

9 Adjust doors for smooth, quiet operation.

10 Correct hoist motor vibration.

10 Adjust door open time to 2.2 seconds and door close time to 3.7 seconds with smooth operation.



UPGRADE / REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS

ELEVATOR NO. COMMENT COST

1, 2, 5-7 Decommission elevators per code. $30,000

8-11 ADA/CA Title 24 Accessibility requirements. $6,000

9 Repair machine room roof above hoist machine. Unknown

REPLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

ELEVATOR NO. COMMENT COST

8-11 Remove four existing elevators and replace with a six car machine roomless type elevator group.

$1,600,000


Photograph #1 Overview of 390 Main off Main Street.

Photograph #2 Project monument signage at Main Street.


Photograph #3 Main entry to basement lobby with exterior seating area.

Photograph #4 Main entry stairs and disabled-accessible ramp off of Main Street.


Photograph #5 Main loading dock off of adjacent parking lot.

Photograph #6 Trash compactor adjacent to loading dock.


Photograph #7 Typical fireproofed penthouse column/beam connection.

Photograph #8 Typical underside of penthouse roof structure.


Photograph #9 Top of main floor slab at enclosed mechanical penthouse in good condition.

Photograph #10 Typical underside of main roof slab.


Photograph #11 Typical flared column capital to roof slab connection.

Photograph #12 Typical first story concrete column.


Photograph #13 Typical interior reinforced concrete structural elements.

Photograph #14 Typical exterior wall piers and spandrels with integral columns.


Photograph #15 Diagonal 4th Floor slab crack at corner of Main and Harrison.

Photograph #16 Minor lower story diagonal wall cracks on Main Street elevation at Harrison.


Photograph #17 Overview of the roof.

Photograph #18 Typical parapet and perimeter detail.


Photograph #19 Typical drainage detail.

Photograph #20 Typical Davit arm at parapet wall.


Photograph #21 The insulation boards need to be reinstalled.

Photograph #22 Surface cracks have started to develop in the insulation boards.


Photograph #23 Overview of the metal roof.

Photograph #24 Overview of a penthouse.


Photograph #25 Rusted metal louver doors at mechanical penthouse.

Photograph #26 Typical window installation at formed concrete wall.


Photograph #27 Security entrance at main lobby.

Photograph #28 Elevator lobby.


Photograph #29 Typical vacant office finishes.

Photograph #30 Raised floor at data center.


Photograph #31 Typical vacant floor with no finishes.

Photograph #32 Common area restroom finishes.


Photograph #33 One of the water cooled chillers.

Photograph #34 Cooling tower.


Photograph #35 One of the air handing units.

Photograph #36 Condition of the drain pan in one of the air handling units.


Photograph #37 Three air cooled chillers.

Photograph #38 Typical VAV box.


Photograph #39 Air handling unit serving the 7th floor DEA Lab

Photograph #40 Condition of the fan in the above photograph.


Photograph #41 Domestic water pneumatic tank and booster pumps.

Photograph #42 Condition of the pumps in the previous photograph.


Photograph #43 Domestic water heater.

Photograph #44 Some of the replaced galvanized domestic water piping.


Photograph #45 Natural gas service.

Photograph #46 One of the main switchboards.


Photograph #47 Interior of a typical floor electrical room.

Photograph #48 Base building emergency generator.


Photograph #49 Generator backing the data center.

Photograph #50 Some of the UPS equipment on Floor 6.


Photograph #51 Fire alarm control panel.

Photograph #52 Fire and life safety devices.


Photograph #53

Fire sprinkler water backflow preventer.

Photograph # 54 Fire sprinkler system riser.


Photograph #55 Fire pumps.

Photograph #56 One of the fire suppression systems in the data center.


Photograph #57

Elevator cab finish.

Photograph #58 Elevator car operating panel.


Photograph #59 Elevator hoisting machines.

Photograph #60 Elevator controller.


l

Photograph #61 Telephone MPOE.

Photograph #62 Typical exit route and stairs.


Photograph #63 Railings along accessible ramp from public right of way to main entrance do not comply with ADA guidelines.

Photograph #64 No designated disabled-accessible parking stall at main entrance.


Photograph #65 Restroom countertop above 34” do not comply with ADA guidelines.

Photograph #66 Disabled-accessible restroom stall.

Date post:	20-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rainbowdirect1185
View:	31 times
Download:	3 times

Property Condition Assessment Marx Okubo

Documents