Proposal for Renovation of Culinary Arts School at Los Angeles Trade Technical College

PBWS

Los Angeles Trade Tech College

RenovationSpace Programming

Arts and Culinary Arts Building

Phase 1 ProgrammingNeeds Assessment

April 27, 2007

2Los Angeles Trade Tech College

Arts & Culinary Arts BuildingNeeds Assessment & Programming

Executive Summary:

As part of the Proposition A and AA Bond Program, Los Angeles Trade Technical College commissioned a campus-wide master plan that was completed in 2002. The master plan, in addition to identifying campus-wide improvements, identified specific strategies for each building on campus as part of the grand vision for the revitalization of the campus.

PBWS was commissioned to specifically address the goals outlined in the 2002 master plan for the Arts and Culinary Arts Building as well as to take a more comprehensive look at the condition of the existing facility and the possible reprogramming and/or expansion of existing functions within the building based on the educational mission of the campus and the long term goal of modifying the existing building to be capable of housing a world class Culinary Arts program.

Key Findings

The existing building, which dates back to 1960, has remained largely intact with very few significant modifications. As such, its building systems, finishes, and appurtenances, though diligently maintained consistent with available funding, are typical of a building that is nearly 50 year old. It is not surprising that the building is deficient, based on current educational, functional and code based standards, in almost every area. It is the finding of this report that while the building can be modified to meet current standards, the scope and cost of doing so will be significant.

Owing to the construction of the South Campus project, the Arts programs that are currently housed within the Arts and Culinary Arts Building will be relocated, creating additional space on the Second and Third Floors of the Building for use by the Culinary Arts program. With perhaps the exception of the general classroom spaces, none of the existing spaces are remotely suited for the specific needs of a modern Culinary Arts program. Furthermore, based on the need to drastically modify existing spaces that were designed and constructed for the specific use of the original art programs, and the deficiencies of the existing general classrooms vis-à-vis current classroom standards, the interior partitions, finishes, appurtenances and building systems on the second and third floors of the building will need to be largely demolished and replaced. Similar demolition and reconstruction will be necessary on the ground floor, however, to a lesser degree.

All areas of the building should be brought up to current code standards. This will require demolition and reconstruction of all public toilet facilities; the replacement of all door hardware and signage; the introduction of new way-finding signage; signifi-cant modifications to the existing exiting (emergency egress) systems; the significant modifications to the existing elevator and the likely introduction of a new elevator within the building envelope; new energy efficient lighting throughout the building; and significant modifications to the existing heating, ventilation, and cooling systems (HVAC); and the introduction of a new fire detection and suppression system.

In keeping with the recommendations of the Structural Engineer, the scope of the anticipated building modifications will require that a thorough and comprehensive structural evaluation to be performed with the likely result that significant structural modifications will need to be undertaken contemporaneous with other planned modifications to the building.

Once the deficiencies of the existing building have been addressed, we are confident that the balance of the existing building can be reprogrammed and reconstructed to accommodate a Culinary Arts Program that meets the long term educational goals of Los Angeles Trade Tech College and the Los Angeles Community College District.

PBWS

�Los Angeles Trade Tech College


Index

Executive Summary 2

Section 1 Introduction 4

Programming Methodology 4

Section 2 General Code Analysis 7

Analysis of Existing Conditions

- Architectural 9

- Universal Design 11

- Kitchen Sanitation 12

- Structural 13

- Electrical 14

- Mechanical/Plumbing 16

Summary of Existing Conditions 18

Section 3 Culinary Arts Faculty Input 21

2002 Campus Plan Goals 21

for the Arts and Culinary Arts Building

Section 4 Culinary Arts Program Recommendations 24

- Conceptual Space Program 26

- Prototypical Space Diagrams & 38

Equipment Summaries

Appendix I Programming Questionnaire and Response Summary

II Existing Building Area Usage Summary

III Photographs of Existing Building Conditions

IV Original Floor Plans

- Basement Floor Plan

- First Floor Plan

- Second Floor Plan

- Third Floor Plan

PBWS



Section 1

Introduction

This report is organized into four major sections.

The first section generally describes the methodology that was used to prepare this report and the existing conditions of the Culinary Arts Building.

The second section provides a general analysis of building code related deficiencies based on existing conditions. These code implications include specific sub-cat-egories of the building, such as electrical issues or Universal (accessibility) Design issues.

The third section summarizes the 2002 Campus master Plan goals and the goals of the Culinary Arts Program, including the input from department faculty.

The fourth section describes the recommended program for the expanded Culinary Arts program in a revitalized building.

Programming Methodology

PBWS was commissioned to specifically address the goals outlined in the 2002 master plan for the Arts and Culinary Arts Building as well as to take a more compre-hensive look at the condition of the existing facility and the possible reprogramming and/or expansion of existing functions within the building based on the educational mission of the campus and the long term goal of modifying the existing building to be capable of housing a world class Culinary Arts program.

The project team, includes the following consultants:

College Program Manager: Anil Verma Associates Norm Ross, Project Director Ken Shah, Deputy Project Director Coomy Billimoria, Project Engineer

Architect: PBWS Architects Barton Anderson, AIA, Principal Greg Sun, AIA, Principal Jennifer MacIsaac, AIA, Project Manager

Structural Engineer: R.M. Byrd and Associates Jesus Torres, SE, Vice President

MEP Engineers: DCGA Engineers Marc Anderson, PE, Mechanical, Principal Keith Williams, Electrical, Principal Tony Ramirez, Plumbing, Principal

Food Service Consultant: Laschober+Sovich Larry Lannier, Principal Rick McHenry, Senior Project Manager

PBWS



In order to gather information and summarize parameters that will make up the proj-ect program, PBWS Architects performed a survey of existing building conditions and user needs/ideas for improvement. PBWS also obtained the original drawings of the Culinary Arts Building for informational purposes. All members of the project team visited the building and documented its features. Next, each team member analyzed information obtained from the original drawings and site visit(s) and com-pared existing conditions to current operational needs and code requirements.

On February 14th, 2007, key decision makers from the College, the College Program Manager, and the A/E team met to discuss the goals of the programming exercise. Attendees included: Dr. Roland "Chip" Chapdelaine, President, LATTC Mr. Cary Roth, Vice President, Administration, LATTC Ms Carol Morely-Mower, Dean, Academic Affairs, LATTC Mr. Steven Kasmar, Chair of the Culinary Arts Department Mr. Bill Smith, Director of Maintenance and Operations, LATTC Mr. Norm Ross, Project Director, Anil Verma Associates Mr. Ken Shah, Deputy Project Manager, Anil Verma Associates Ms Coomy Billimoria, Project Engineer, Anil Verma Associates Mr. Barton Anderson, AIA, Principal, PBWS Architects Mr. Rick McHenry, Senior Project Manager, Laschober+Sovich

Following the kick-off meeting, representatives from AVA, PBWS, and Laschober+Sovich met with Steven Kasmar and the Faculty of the Culinary Arts pro-gram to discuss the programming process and the desired outcomes as seen from the faculty's perspective. Those present included:

Mr. Steven Kasmar, Chair of the Culinary Arts Department Ms Nancy Berkoff, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Leroy Blanchard, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Joeseph Delrosario, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Ms Susan Feigenbaum, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Dave Hedley, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. James Kanemaki, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. James Lisanti, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. David Scherer, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Donald Warriner, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Robert Wemischner, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Norm Ross, Project Director, Anil Verma Associates Mr. Ken Shah, Deputy Project Manager, Anil Verma Associates Ms Coomy Billimoria, Project Engineer, Anil Verma Associates Mr. Barton Anderson, AIA, Principal, PBWS Architects Mr. Greg Sun, AIA, Principal, PBWS Architects Mr. Rick McHenry, Senior Project Manager, Laschober+Sovich

Subsequent to this meeting, further input from Culinary Arts faculty was solicited in the form of surveys. The surveys gave the faculty an opportunity to contribute their expertise, both as culinary arts professionals and as daily users of the building. The surveys were collected by AVA and tabulated by PBWS. (See Appendix I for a copy of the questionnaire and a summary of faculty responses.)

After the collection of the surveys, the project team met individually with faculty members from the department to gather additional information and to clarify ques-tionnaire responses. The result of the information provided in the questionnaires and the interviews provides a significant basis for the programming recommendations found in this report. The faculty members who were interviewed were:

PBWS



Mr. Steven Kasmar, Chair of the Culinary Arts Department Ms Nancy Berkoff, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Leroy Blanchard, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Joeseph Delrosario, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Ms Susan Feigenbaum, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Dave Hedley, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. James Kanemaki, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. James Lisanti, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. David Scherer, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Donald Warriner, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department Mr. Robert Wemischner, Faculty Member, Culinary Arts Department

On March 13th, 2007, the project team toured the Culinary Arts Building with repre-sentatives from AVA and a representative of LATTC’s Maintenance Department. The tour included the basement, roof penthouse and the first through third floors of the building. Pictures of existing conditions were taken and notes were made to docu-ment what was found. (See Appendix III for photographs from the site visit.) The project team analyzed the information gathered from the site visit and from available original construction documents.

PBWS



Section 2

General Code Analysis

(The findings contained in this report reference the 2001 California Building, Fire, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes, as well as the Los Angeles County Public Health Department Plan Check Construction Guidelines. It should be noted that while the codes referenced above are currently in effect and enforced by the Division of the State Architect, California is adopting the International Building Code with California amendments effective January 8, 2008. The implications of its adop-tion are not known at this time as the text of the new code has not been made avail-able as of the writing of this report.)

The history of Trade Tech College extends back to the founding of the Frank Wiggins Trade School on the same site in 1925. After World War II the institution became known as the Metropolitan Poly Technical High School and later Metropolitan College. In 1954, it joined the community college system as Trade-Technical Junior College. The original construction documents for the Culinary Arts Building were approved in December of 1959 as part of a master plan for Los Angeles Trade Tech College completed after the college became a community college. The building was completed in the early 1960's. The auditorium to the west of Culinary Arts existed at the time the building was built and was most likely part of the campus of the original Frank Wiggins Trade School.

When the Arts and Culinary Arts building was built, the Student Union to the south of Culinary Arts had not yet been constructed, but was part of the same master plan. The temporary buildings which exist to the east of Culinary Arts were not part of the master plan. In accordance with the current Campus Master Plan, Aesthetic Design Guidelines, March, 2006, it is assumed that these buildings will be removed and their uses relocated to other areas of the campus.

The building’s location in relation to neighboring structures on campus is relevant to its allowable floor area. The Culinary Arts Building has a side yard of 20’ or more on 3 sides of the structure (assuming temporary building removal). This allows a 68.7% increase in the allowable area of the building (Section 505.1.2).

The building is of mixed-use occupancy. The Dining Rooms, Kitchen and larger Classrooms, which comprise about 80% of the building floor area, are considered to be A2.1 Occupancies (Section 303.1.1). The Offices and smaller Classrooms (under 1,000 square feet) are B Occupancies (Section 304.1) while Storage Rooms are S Occupancies (Section 311.1). The building construction type is Type II, Fire Rated. The building base allowable area is 29,900 gross square feet. (Tables 5-B and 6-A). The base allowable area can be doubled for a multi-story building (Section 504.2), increasing the allowable area to 59,800 gross square feet. Finally, a 68.7% allowable area increase for separation on 3 sides of the structure increases the allowable area to 94,903 gross square feet. The existing building is 98,952 square feet or approxi-mately 4% over the allowable floor area. This overage may be accounted for by code changes occurring between the time the building was approved and present day. The square footage is considered an existing condition and it thus allowed to be maintained as long as the use of the building is not substantially changed.

The allowable height for the Culinary Arts building is four stories (Table 5-B). The existing building is a three story structure with a partial basement and is in compli-ance. Fire sprinklers may be installed in the building to double the allowable floor area (Section 505.3). This solution should be considered if an addition is made to the building.

7Los Angeles Trade Tech CollegePBWSPBWS



The California Building Code, Chapter 34 addresses additions, alterations and repairs to existing structures. This chapter allows a building that does not conform to current code to be added to, altered and repaired as long as it’s occupancy type remains unchanged and life safety features of the building are not downgraded.

The retail restaurant and bakery shop addition envisioned in the 2002 Campus Plan must be separated from the existing building by an area separation wall and have a separate exiting system if fire sprinklers are not utilized to increase the structure's allowable floor area.

Renovation of the existing building is allowed per code, however, any renova-tions that changes existing spaces such that the occupant load of the building is increased may not be allowed by the building official, or may necessitate additional life safety upgrades. For example, if photography darkrooms on the second floor are remodeled to create demonstration classrooms or kitchen laboratories, this may increase the occupant load of the building because the darkrooms (B Occupancy) are considered by current code to be less densely occupied than large classrooms (A2.1 Occupancy). Because the building is already slightly too large by current code standards, this conversion may trigger the addition of exit stairs and other exit-ing-related code required features to the structure. Additionally, the scope of the changes are likely to require that a full seismic analysis and retrofit of the building be performed. (See Section 4, Structural Analysis)

Repairs and finish material upgrades are allowed by the code. Any new equipment placed in the building would have to be installed to code standards and the build-ing's structural system could have to be upgraded to accommodate the equipment.

Quantifying the occupant load of the building is critical to evaluating its code per-formance. Unfortunately, the occupant load will vary widely depending on the Department of the State Architect’s determination of which occupant load factor is appropriate to use in relation to each of the building’s occupancies. For example, if DSA agrees that a Classroom occupant load factor of 20 s.f. per person from Table 10-A can be used to quantify the classroom spaces, the occupant load will be much smaller than if the Division of the State Architect (DSA) insists on using an Assembly Area, Concentrated Use occupant load factor of 7 s.f. per person.

DSA may insist on the higher, Assembly Area rating because this is the occupancy type of the larger classroom spaces according to Section 304.1. An alternative argument is that “Classroom” is a more specific and accurate use for the classroom spaces in Culinary Arts and therefore 20 s.f. per person is the more appropriate occupant load factor. Section 101.3 of the 2001 CBC states that “Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable.” This important determination is thus left to the Building Official’s discretion.

If an assembly occupant load factor is used to calculate the number of large class-room occupants, the exterior exit balcony and stair exit widths and the number of plumbing fixtures that serve the existing building are drastically undersized. For example, the second floor stair exit width would have to be increased 5 times over what it is now, and 68 new toilets would need to be added to serve the students. As referenced above, when altering a building only life safety related features must conform to current code. Therefore it is unlikely the this large number of plumbing fixtures to be added to the building would be enforced.

If a classroom occupant load factor (20 s.f. per person) and a commercial kitchen

PBWS



occupant load factor (200 s.f. per person) is used to quantify the number of building users, the building is still somewhat undersized but not nearly to the degree outlined in the paragraph above. For example, the second floor exit stair width would only need to be increased by 11' and only 19 new toilets would need to be added to the floor.

All floors of the building are accessed via open flights of stairs in the southwest and northeast corners of the building. These existing stairs suffer from several code deficiencies, namely they have open nosed treads, the spacing between the vertical supports for the handrails exceeds 4 inches, and the handrail configuration is does not meet current universal design standards. The degree of openness of the rails pose a serious safety issue (Section 509).

It will also be necessary to enclose the stair towers located off of the exterior exit balconies. The maximum distance that a user is allowed to travel on an exterior exit balcony before accessing an enclosed exiting system is 200 feet (Section 1006.2.3). This distance is exceeded if the stairs remain unenclosed.

Illuminated exit signage must be added to the building at every major exit leading to the exterior exit balconies, and at every interior room where the path to the exit is unclear (Section 1003.2.8). Room capacity signage must also be posted in all class-rooms over 1,000 s.f. and in the dining rooms (Section 1007.2.6).

The Culinary Arts building has not had a comprehensive code compliance upgrade for many years. Consequently, the amount of modification that the building must undergo to meet today’s code standards is considerable. Because code standards are open to interpretation by building officials, and because alterations/repairs are given more latitude than constructing new buildings or changing a building’s use, it is not possible to predict how extensive the code upgrade project will ultimately be.

Analysis of Existing Conditions

Architectural

The Arts and Culinary Arts Building (H) on the campus of Los Angeles Trade Technical College was approved for construction by the State Architect's office in 1959 and completed construction around 1960. The building has a concrete and steel structural frame. Exterior walls are non-bearing and are constructed of stucco over metal studs. Similarly, interior partitions are non-bearing and constructed on plaster over metal studs. The floor-to-floor height on the ground floor is 16 feet. It is 15 feet in the basement and on the second and third floors. The building contains approximately 78,717 gross square feet of enclosed space, including the basement and the penthouse. There is also 20,235 gross square feet of exterior exit balco-nies and unenclosed exit stairways. The total area of the building is approximately 98,952 gross square feet. (See Appendix II for existing floor area summary)

The building basement is 9,633 gross square feet. Approximately 80% of the base-ment is used for miscellaneous storage. The other 20% houses compressors for the kitchen refrigerators/freezers, electrical panels/transformers and a boiler system. The existing building elevator accesses the basement. There is a ventilation grille, approximately 7’ x 8’ in size, supplying outside air to the basement on the west side of the building. This grille is located between the elevator and street access and will impact the use of the west side of the building as a loading dock unless it is strengthened or relocated. There is a single flight of exit stairs from the basement that day-light in the same general vicinity as the ventilation grille. These stairs do not appear on the original construction documents and were either added during

PBWS



construction or at a later date. They terminate at grade in approximately the center of the loading zone and will limit the area available for truck loading/unloading unless relocated.

The ground floor of the building consists of a dining room, production kitchen and support spaces including office, small classroom and storage. The ground floor gross square footage is 30,790. The dining room floor is vinyl composition tile, the walls are plaster and the ceiling is glue-on acoustic ceiling tile. The light fixtures are 4 x 4 recessed fluorescent. The kitchen floor/base is tile. The walls are plaster and the ceiling is glue-on acoustical ceiling tile with surface mounted 2 x 4 fluorescent fixtures. The layout and equipment within the production kitchen are extremely antiquated and in some cases in flagrant violation of existing health regulations. It is assumed that any modernization of this area will require extensive renovation and replacement of existing equipment. (See Appendix IV for a graphic depicting the first floor plan.)

The layout and functions associated with the north end of the ground floor have changed since they were originally constructed. It is assumed that modifications to the original interior partitions were undertaken without approval from the State Architect and are therefore deemed non-conforming spaces. The original functions and layout of these spaces were not conducive to their current uses and result in operational inefficiency and/or under-utilization of the spaces. For example, Rooms 102 and 103 have been converted from a dining room to a demonstration kitchen. Similarly, Room 150 has been converted from a demonstration classroom to small equipment and dry storage. Counseling offices occupy the northeast corner of the building and the University Transfer Center offices occupy former Banquet Rooms 139 and 140. These offices are not associated with the Culinary Arts Department and are assumed to be part of the programs that will be leaving the building when the South Campus project is complete.

A number of critical building code provisions have changed since the building was constructed that render the existing toilet facilities to be inadequately sized. Even if this were not the case, the existing facilities are outdated and in need of replacement. As a general statement, it is safe to say that all toilet facilities and locker rooms throughout the building will need to be demolished and replaced with expanded facilities that provide and equal number of fixtures for men and women, separate facilities for faculty/staff use, and are universally accessible.

Almost all of the finishes on the first floor are original to the building, or have been in place for most of the building’s life span. The fluorescent lighting in the dining room has been replaced within the last few years, but this is a rare exception. All finishes are basic in nature, and most are very worn.

The exterior of the building is bounded by a public sidewalk on the north. There are no building openings on the ground floor opening to the public walkway. The street-level edge of the building is characterized by an undulating, 7'-2" high, concrete masonry unit wall. A first floor roof soffit covering the exterior circulation behind this wall extends out from the face of the building to the property line. The face of the building above this soffit is approximately 14 feet south of the property line. It is characterized by cantilevered exterior covered walkways that surround the building on the second and third floors. The third floor walkway is covered by a roof soffit that cantilevers from the face of the building.

The western side of the buildings has an small loading/unloading area at the north end, an under utilized patio area off the faculty dining room along the middle of the building, and an open area characterized by several planters and a small round foun-tain area identified as the campus memorial to the events of September 11, 2001.

PBWS



This area was observed to be utilized by students as a smoking area.

The south side of the building faces a plaza characterized by planter areas. An open walkway/bridge extends over this area from the Math and Science Building (K). This building element does not appear on the original construction documents and was constructed at a later date.

East side of the building faces existing relocatable buildings (R) which will be removed when the South Campus project is complete. The ground floor is char-acterized by a long exterior walkway that provides access to a number of building openings. The second and third floors are characterized by the cantilevered walk-ways that wrap the building.

The second floor of the buildings currently contains 8 classrooms averaging approxi-mately 1,750 gross square feet each. There are also smaller, supporting classrooms, offices, toilet rooms, storage and service spaces. There is a is a mechanical chase of approximately 200 gross square feet located in the in the central portion of the building that connects the exhaust hoods in the production kitchen with the mechan-ical penthouse on the roof. The total area is 26,964 gross square feet, including the exterior exit balcony and stairs. The typical finishes are vinyl tile, wood base, plaster walls and glue-on acoustic ceiling tile with surface mounted 2 x 4 fluores-cent fixtures. All finishes are original to the building or old and are very worn. (See Appendix IV for a graphic depicting the second floor plan.)

The third floor contains a commercial bakery of approximately 3,000 gross square feet. There are also three, 1,750 gross square foot classrooms at the south end of the building. The central area of the third floor contains a large area designed to support photography darkrooms. This area is presently under-utilized or not used at all. The floor also has offices, toilet rooms, storage areas and a men's locker room. The total gross square footage is 26,964 including the exterior exit balcony and stairs. There is a is a mechanical chase of approximately 200 gross square feet located in the in the central portion of the building that connects the exhaust hoods in the production kitchen with the mechanical penthouse on the roof. Finishes are the same in type and age as the second floor except that the bakery has a mono-lithic epoxy floor. The electrical service to the bakery is insufficient. There are no outlets in the center of the room where the worktables are, and more wall outlets are needed. (See Appendix IV for a graphic depicting the third floor plan.)

The roof contains a 4,171 gross square foot penthouse containing mechanical equip-ment.

Universal Design

A detailed Americans with Disabilities Act survey is beyond the scope of this report. What follows is a brief summary of accessibility related deficiencies currently extant within the Arts and Culinary Arts Building that will need to be upgraded if the build-ing is renovated.

Some of the toilet rooms in the Culinary Arts Building have been made partially accessible. Accessible water closets/lavatories have been installed. These facili-ties do not conform completely to present code, for example faucets on accessible lavatories do not comply or space requirements for accessible toilets are not met. Further renovation of the existing toilet rooms is necessary to ensure complete code compliance.

To bring the building up to current code, multiple new toilet rooms will need to be

PBWS



added to the building (see above). In these new toilet rooms, one out of every 6 stalls will have to be wheelchair accessible, and one out of every 6 stalls will have to be accessible to ambulatory disabled users (Section 1105.2.2). Accessible urinals, lavatories and toilet room accessories will also need to be included in the new facili-ties (Section 1105.2.3). Similarly, the existing locker rooms are non-compliant, owing to the specific access requirements now contained in the code for wheel chair turn-ing radius and other accessibility features, and given the age and condition of the exiting lockers, the most cost effective response will be to demolish and reconstruct the spaces.

The doors in the Culinary Arts building will require comprehensive renovation to meet disabled access code. Many doors to classrooms and other major rooms do not have 18” (or 24” at exterior doors) strike side clearance (Section 11333B.2.4.2). Many thresholds are more than ½” high (Section 1133B.2.4.1). Hardware does not meet disabled accessibility standards (Section 1133B.2.5 – 1133B.2.5.2).

The elevator in the structure will have to be replaced, or an additional, accessible elevator added to the building. The existing elevator is too small to accommodate a gurney (Section 3003.5a) and does not have required audible floor signal, braille button indicators and visual floor indicators (Section 1116B.1 – 1116B.1.15). If the existing elevator is replaced, at least one wall will have to be moved to enlarge the elevator shaft.

Drinking fountains will have to be replaced throughout the Culinary Arts Building with accessible drinking fountains (approximately 10, Section 1117B).

Food service lines in the dining room, aisles/work surfaces in the kitchen and stu-dent lockers must comply with accessibility guidelines. (Sections 1118B, 1122B and 1125B).

Kitchen Sanitation

(County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health Plan Check Construction Guide)

In order to deliver food stuffs to the upper floors using the existing elevator, the food must leave the building to access the elevator. This is not in keeping with health department guidelines and is likely to result in the need for a new interior elevator dedicated to the transportation of food throughout the building.

The existing trash dumpster is located on the east side of the auditorium across the alley from the Culinary Arts Building. It is likely that the expanded Culinary Arts pro-gram will require a larger trash enclosure in addition to storage space for a recycling program.

The floor/base in the kitchen must be of a non-absorbent, smooth and durable material. The base must be coved and of the same material as the floor. There can be no joint between the base and floor. The tile floor and base that exists in the kitchen must be replaced to meet these standards.

Kitchen equipment must be certified by the National Sanitation Foundation. The equipment must be mounted on rollers and easily movable, or mounted on a 4” high solid masonry island. Equipment shall overhang the island by at least 2” and gaps between the island and the equipment shall be sealed. Equipment backsplashes or flashings shall be sealed to the wall, or moved away from the wall 6” for every 4 lin-ear feet of frontal length. Aisles between equipment shall be 30” minimum in width (also subject to disabled access regulations).

PBWS

1�Los Angeles Trade Tech College


All equipment that produces liquid waste (condensate) shall have this waste con-veyed by a sewer line to an indirect connection to a floor sink or funnel drain. Floor sinks/funnel drains shall be accessible for inspection and cleaning. Drain lines shall not cross any aisle, traffic area or door opening. Dish washing machines shall con-nect directly to the drainage system. Grease traps shall be installed flush with the floor.

Existing kitchen equipment will be researched to see if NSF certification exists and to verify it’s age and estimated future lifespan. It is assumed that a large percent-age of the equipment will have to be replaced. Equipment islands do not exist in the kitchen and will have to be added. A new equipment layout, utilizing code required aisle widths, will be designed. Hand-washing sinks shall be provided within each food preparation area. The condensate drainage system/sewer system will have to be evaluated for compatibility with the new kitchen layout and compliance with the above-referenced requirements. Modifications will need to be made.

At a minimum, walls will be cleaned and painted with a washable paint. Ceilings shall be replaced with a durable, smooth, non-absorbent and washable surface. Vents and conduit shall be installed in the walls where practicable. If not installed in the walls, they shall be enclosed to facilitate cleaning.

Light fixtures shall provide 20 foot candles of light intensity, measured 30” above the floor, and shall be of shatterproof, readily cleanable construction. Existing light fix-tures will be tested to determine light intensity output. It is likely that these fixtures will be replaced.

All cooking equipment and high temperature dishwashers will require mechanical exhaust ventilation. Toilet and dressing rooms are required to have outside air ven-tilation.

There shall be a dedicated food storage area, excluding refrigeration, that is at least 25% as large as the kitchen area. A minimum of 96 lineal feet of shelving shall be provided for each 100 square feet of storage area.

Based on the requirements outlined above, it is apparent that a major kitchen reno-vation will be required.

Structural System

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the overall structural condition of the project above and illuminate any areas that might be of concern should a seismic retrofit/upgrade be necessary. In order to perform this evaluation, a job site visit was completed, as well as a review of the as-built structural drawings prepared by Kistner, Wright, and Wright, dated December 1959.

The building codes used in California had significant revisions starting with the 1994 Uniform Building Code and the introduction of Response Modification Factors and Omega Level loading. The additional establishment of near source factors produces an increased seismic design load, making the design of the entire structure’s lateral system suspect. The lateral system for the structure is a rigid concrete floor diaphragm with chevron brace frames; with two braces per frame as shown on the East and West elevations shown on S13. Because there are two braces sharing the same beam with no intermediate column support, a vertical irregularity occurs which creates a discontinuity in the load flow.

If this structure were to be evaluated based on the current 2001 California Building

PBWS



Code, the connections of the braced frames would require to be checked at the omega level. As this factor is close to 3 times the design value probably used in the initial design, it can be inferred that the connections will more than likely be inadequate by today’s standards. Furthermore, the current Code requires a “Special” braced frame design if the structure is more than 2 stories tall; in this example, the building would require special braced frame detailing due to the height. The design requirements for the special braced frame would need to be included throughout the lateral system of the structure, from the roof level to the foundation.

Sheet S19 illustrated masonry wall connection details to the roof assembly. There does not appear to be any positive out of plane anchorage at the roof level as required by Section 1633A.2.8.1 of the 2001 California Building Code.

The overall structure of this building appears to be what would be considered as “good” condition. Minor concrete cracking due to expansion and contraction from temperature variations were observed, but would not be considered a structural concern. The 2001 California Building Code requires a structural retrofit/modification per Section 1640A.2 if the structure in question changes occupancy category, if the cumulative construction cost throughout the history of the structure (not including fixtures and equipment, furnishings, maintenance) exceeds 25% of the initial construction cost, and if the changes in the live or dead loads result in a 5% increase in story shear. Within these restraints, remodeling of the interior space will not require further structural investigation. A complete seismic retrofit/modification will also be required if any lateral-resisting elements are removed, damaged, or otherwise jeopardized during any demolition or reconstruction, the extents of which are unable to be determined at this time without a much more elaborate analysis.

Electrical System

Introduction

The purpose of this report was to investigate the existing Fire Life Safety and Electrical Systems within the Arts and Culinary Arts Building for compliance with current Code and ADA guidelines. DCGA Engineers performed a site survey of the Building on March 13, 2007. The evaluation was for compliance with the 2001 California Building Code, 2004 California Electrical Code, 2001 California Fire Code, 1999 NFPA and the American Disabilities Act Guidelines (ADA). The survey and report does not address any asbestos related installation work or equipment, structural deficiencies or any system testing.

General Observations and SummaryThe building is multi-story with stairways and elevators providing access to the ground floor. A service elevator provided access to the basement level. The site fire alarm system is composed of a manual fire alarm system with supplemental smoke detectors added in various locations. The Main Fire Alarm Control Panel (FACP) is an EST 3 panel with a graphic annunciator manufactured by Edwards Systems Technology. The FACP is located in the Sheriffs office Lobby in Building D.

Fire Life Safety Observations and Recommendations

Fire Alarm System The building has a manual fire alarm system with exterior mounted manual pull stations at intervals compliant with NFPA 72 2-8 and exterior audible devices compliant with NFPA 72 4-3.5. Visual notification devices are located throughout all

PBWS



the interior spaces and appear to be compliant with NFPA 72 4-4. Emergency Egress Lighting Interior egress lighting of 1 foot candle appears to be non-existent as required per CBC 1003.2.9.1 except in the main kitchen and in the basement. Interior Exit signs noted are a combination of illuminated with battery backup and photo luminescent type and mounted on or above the exit doors . These exit signs require a minimum of 5 foot candles from a light source controlled only by authorized personnel, which was non-existent. Exterior egress lighting of 1 foot candle appears to be non-existent. Exterior Exit signs were noted at the exit stairs and appeared to have battery back-up as required by CBC 1003.2.9.2.

Fire Alarm RecommendationsThe existing system is currently compliant with State Codes for the majority of the building. There are a few locations where additional visual notification devices would need to be added, but nothing significant.

Egress Lighting RecommendationsWe recommend that all photo luminescent and paper exit signs be removed and replaced with self-luminous type. This method would allow exit signs to be placed at all the current locations without the need for rewiring existing lighting circuits or having to bring new 120v conduit and wiring circuits to each location. We recommend that all rooms greater than 1000 s.f. and exit corridors be provided with stand-alone battery back-up wall mounted lighting fixtures (bug-eye type) or existing fluorescent fixtures should be rewired/configured to house an emergency battery pack to power the existing fixture lamps in a power out condition. Electrical ADA Items Observations and RecommendationsThe building has ADA compliance problems, wall mounted receptacle outlets are mounted at +12” to center in lieu of the required +15” to center. And lighting control switches are mounted at +54” in lieu of the required +48”.

RecommendationsThere are not many ways to comply with ADA in regards to the receptacle and light switch heights. The most simple and cost effective way is to remove existing devices and provide surface mounted outlet boxes (Wiremold type) then provide “Wiremold” type surface raceway to another surface box location and install a new device at the proper height.

Power Distribution Observations and RecommendationsThe building was constructed in 1961 making the majority of the electrical equipment 46 years old except for two dry type transformers and two 5kV air disconnect switches that are approximately 15 years old (see photo #49). With the exception of the 500kVA and 750kVA transformers and the two 5kV air disconnect switches, all electrical equipment is in fair to poor condition and has exceeded the manufacturers recommended useful life of 30 to 40 years. This age makes is likely that the equipment will become more prone to failure due to circuit breaker malfunction. The building voltage is 240v. 3 phase and 120/208v. 3 phase 4 Wire.

The building has been provided with a 2500 amp bus duct from the basement level through a shaft up to each floor where distribution panels feed branch circuit panels (see photo #48). The condition and material of the bus duct could not be verified, but

PBWS



the nature and construction of the typical bus ducts, it is probably in good condition but in need of maintenance. It was noted in the basement that distribution panels on the secondary side of the transformers are missing main disconnect switches as required by the California Electrical Code Article 240.20.

It was brought to our attention that the 5kV feeder to the building was going to be replaced with new under a separate modernization project.

Recommendations We recommend that all electrical equipment and wiring over 40 years old be replaced with new with the exception the bus duct that should be cleaned and have all connections tightened to manufacturers recommendations.

Lighting Observations and Recommendations

Generally speaking, it appears the building has upgrading the fluorescent lighting system to electronic ballasts and T-8 lamps with automatic shut-off control via occupancy sensor controls (see pictures 6, 16, 20, 38 and 41) in compliance with current California energy guidelines. This lighting was installed approximately 5 years ago and is in good condition. However evenly distributed bi-level switching was not installed in almost all areas as required by 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards.

Recessed incandescent down lights were noted above the serving areas without protection from accidental breakage as required by typical health codes (see picture #16).

RecommendationsIf the ceiling systems are not replaced, we do not recommend that the Code required bi-level switching be installed because of the current building construction type and the impractical requirements necessary to re-circuit all lighting in all areas (most lighting conduit and wiring would require replacement.

If the ceiling systems are replaced, we would recommend that existing lighting fixtures be reused where possible and replaced where impractical. We would also recommend that bi-level switching be installed and additional occupancy sensors be installed.

We recommend that all down lighting fixtures in serving areas be replaced with fluorescent lighting with acrylic lenses.

Clock System Observation and RecommendationsEach common space was provided with an electric slave clock controlled by a master clock located in the maintenance building. Most seem to be functioning properly.

RecommendationWe recommend that malfunctioning clocks be replaced with new.

Voice/Data System Observation and RecommendationsVoice/Data outlets were noted throughout numerous areas in the building and appeared to be in good condition. Fiber Distribution panel was noted in the basement, however dedicated telecom closets were not observed as required by EIA/TIA Guidelines.

PBWS



Recommendation Voice/Data system outlets are based on the need of the space as required by the College. We have no recommendations for modification unless room spaces change size and function.

Plumbing and Mechanical

IntroductionThe purpose of this report was to investigate the existing Fire Life Safety and Electrical Systems within the Arts and Culinary Arts Building for compliance with current Code and ADA guidelines. DCGA Engineers performed a site survey of the Building on March 13, 2007. The evaluation was for compliance with the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), 2001 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2001 California Plumbing Code (CPC), 2001 California Fire Code (CFC) and the American Disabilities Act Guidelines (ADA). The survey and report does not address any asbestos related installation work or equipment, structural deficiencies or any system testing.

General Observations and SummaryThe building is multi-story with stairways and elevators providing access to the ground floor. A service elevator provided access to the basement level. The building appears to have been constructed in the early 1960's. There were limited as-built documents provided to assemble this report. All information presented is based on our site visit, conversations with personnel and “original” contract documents. These contract documents do not accurately reflect actual conditions. The existing HVAC System is a Dual Duct System with a Built-up Air Handler, Boiler, Cooling Tower and Chiller. There is an existing Energy Management System (EMS) for the campus but it was unclear how extensive or expandable it is.

The existing plumbing systems consists of a conventional cold water, waste and vent stack system, floor mounted, flush mount water closets, wall hung urinals and lavatories. Gas is brought from the meter into the building via an existing tunnel that terminates in the basement. The gas piping appears to be in satisfactory condition. The existing domestic hot and cold water piping system currently has galvanized pipe, which needs replacement. Exact condition could not be seen or verified although water pressure appeared to be satisfactory at fixtures. Sanitary waste and vent system is more that likely to be in adequate condition but its exact condition could not be seen or verified at this time.

HVAC System

Air Handling SystemThere are two Air Handlers located in a penthouse on the roof. Outside air is drawn thru exterior wall louvers and a large bank of filters located at the Air Handler. The air is drawn thru the room, which is a violation of CMC 602.2, which states “All materials exposed within a plenum shall meet the 25/50 flame spread rating”. (See Pictures 1 & 2) The equipment appears to be well maintained but is very inefficient. Current Title 24 Standards do not allow the use of Dual Duct Systems except in I Occupancies (Hospitals). The larger of the two units serves most of the building. Hot and cold ducts drop down in a shaft and distribute at each floor. Mixing dampers provide zonal control by mixing the hot and cold air to meet the room set point requirements. The damper motors are over 30 years old and are probably not very accurate or dependable. A number of walls were added in the classroom areas and there appears to be little or no control capability. The smaller Air Handler has six zones and serves

PBWS



the Color Lab located on the third floor. The building controls do not appear to be integrated with the EMS. Chilled and Hot Water SystemsThe Chiller, Cooling Tower and Pumps were replaced approximately seven years ago and appear to be in excellent condition. The water treatment for the Cooling Tower did not appear to be adequate and should be evaluated. The Heating Hot Water System is relatively new and is tied into the EMS.

Kitchen Exhaust SystemsThere is one large Grease Exhaust Fan located in the penthouse that serves the hoods located on the first floor. The fan is connected to a large shaft, which is constructed of lathe and plaster. The shaft is very dirty and does not comply with CMC 508.1, which requires “Grease Ducts to be constructed of carbon steel, or stainless steel, and all joints and seams shall be made with a continuous liquid-tight weld or braze”. There is a smaller Grease Hood and Fan located on the first floor, which appears to have been installed without Health Department approval. The hood appears to be located to high above the cooking appliances and the Exhaust Fan is located on the side of the building. The location of the Exhaust Fan does not comply with CMC 508.9, “Exhaust outlets shall be located a minimum 10’-0” from any opening into the building and 10’-0” above the adjoining grade.” (See Pictures 20 & 47)

Recommendations

Air Handling System The existing system does not comply with Title 24 Requirements and should be replaced. A new, more efficient Variable Air Volume System (VAV), which allows for better room control and is very flexible should the facility decide to move walls in the future. All of the duct work should be replaced and insulated per current Title 24 requirements. The System should also be tied into the EMS to provide for additional energy savings.

Chilled and Hot Water SystemsThe existing Systems appear to be in good condition. Chilled Water will be provided to the VAV Air Handler(s) and hot water will have to be piped to the VAV boxes. A review of the chemical treatment for the Cooling Tower is recommended but the treatment for the Hot Water System appears to be adequate.

Kitchen Exhaust SystemsThe current systems do not comply with current code and must be replaced. New Exhaust Fans UL 762 Certified for Cooking applications is to be provided. The Shaft will be replaced with a code compliant shaft of suitable construction.

Plumbing

Piping SystemsThe Piping Systems appear to need replacement based on the comments provided by the Maintenance personnel. Replacement is recommended if the building is to be remodeled.

Hot Water SystemThe Water Heaters, located in the basement, were replaced recently and are in very good condition. Replacement of the building distribution is recommended if the building is to be remodeled.

PBWS



Grease InterceptorThe Grease Interceptors should be replaced due to age.

Recommendations

Piping SystemsReplace galvanized piping with copper throughout the building.

Hot Water SystemReplace galvanized piping with copper throughout the building. Provide new Insulation as required.

Grease InterceptorProvide new Grease Interceptor. Size as required to handle additional loads.

Summary of Existing Conditions

The existing conditions detailed above have far-reaching implications for the renova-tion of the Arts and Culinary Arts Building and for the Culinary Arts program.

Architecturally, the most significant cost factors will involve demolishing non-bear-ing partitions to enable interior spaces to be reconfigured based on the needs of a Culinary Arts Program, and the attendant code-related upgrades that will be triggered as a result of making such extensive modifications to a building that is nearly 50 years-old. Regardless of the ultimate scope that is included in the first phase of the project, a new internal elevator will be required. The existing floor to floor heights should be able to accommodate the needs of the Culinary Program. However, the proposed amphitheatre-type seating in new lecture/demonstration classrooms will have only sufficient, as compared to optimal, head room at the top tier.

Another factor associated with an existing building that cannot be ignored is the fact that the existing floors will not allow for slabs to be depressed to accommodate sloped floors. As a result, required floor drains will only have localized depressions. We do not feel that this is an unacceptable condition, it is simply not the optimal condition.

The logical location for receiving supplies and foodstuffs is the paved area between the Auditorium (Building A) and the Arts and Culinary Arts Building (H). There is an existing opening, covered by a metal grill, in the middle of the paved area that is necessary for the make-up are serving the mechanical equipment in the basement. In the same area, there is a concrete exit stair leading up from the basement. The location of these features are likely to limit large delivery trucks from backing into the alley area to make deliveries and is likely to be the reason that the 2002 Campus Plan called for deliveries by trucks of 30 feet in length. The narrow throat width of the alley is also likely to be a factor in the ability of large trucks to maneuver into and out of the alley. If no changes are made to the limiting factors affecting this area, deliveries will have to be made at the new Campus receiving area associated with the warehouse currently under construction at the new "F" Ramp project. This will require perishable foodstuffs (refrigerated and frozen) to be stored and then trucked across campus.

Structurally, the building appears to be aging well, however, the original design has several inherent shortcomings that will need to be mitigated as part of extensive modifications to the building. Since a full structural analysis has not yet been com-pleted, it is impossible to state precisely what the full extent of the required seismic

PBWS



modifications will be. At present, the building does not appear to be beyond saving, at the same time, the structural mitigation needed will not be insignificant.

Electrically, the existing electrical service will not be adequate to service the expand-ed program. There is sufficient space in the basement to provide a new transformer to increase the service. Most of the internal sub panels and wiring within the build-ing will need to be replaced.

There have been fairly recent modifications to the mechanical system, including a chiller. These changes can be incorporated into the design of system upgrades that will be required to serve the expanded needs of the program. Depending on the precise layouts of labs and the equipment selected, some of the existing mechani-cal ducting may be saved. However, it prove to be the case that the ideal layout of spaces needed to optimize the program will make a complete replacement of the system desirable.

The existing water supply to the building appears to be adequate. However, there will need to be specific changes to the internal supply and waste lines as a result of the placement of new sinks, equipment, and toilet rooms. The complete reconstruc-tion and expansion of the toilet facilities within the building will likely prove to be the largest plumbing related expense. The introduction of a complete fire suppression system will also prove to be a major expense.

PBWS

Date post:	12-May-2015
Category:	Design
Upload:	jennifer-macisaac
View:	331 times
Download:	1 times