STONEMAN STONEMAN 1560 Pasqualito Drive San Marino, CA 91108 - - PDF document

stoneman stoneman
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

STONEMAN STONEMAN 1560 Pasqualito Drive San Marino, CA 91108 - - PDF document

STONEMAN STONEMAN 1560 Pasqualito Drive San Marino, CA 91108 MASTER PLAN STUDY MASTER PLAN STUDY for the for the SAN MARINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SAN MARINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Board Pres Board Presentation entation January


slide-1
SLIDE 1

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 1

STONEMAN STONEMAN

1560 Pasqualito Drive San Marino, CA 91108

MASTER PLAN STUDY MASTER PLAN STUDY

for the for the SAN MARINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SAN MARINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Board Pres Board Presentation – entation – January 22 anuary 22, 2008 2008

Prepared by:

slide-2
SLIDE 2

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 2

OVERVIEW OVERVIEW

STONEMAN STONEMAN was originally designed and

constructed for use as an el elementary sch ementary school in

  • ol in

1929 1929. Closed for school us r school use in 1983 in 1983, due to decrease in enrollment Now houses both Dist District p rict progra rams ms and a portion is leased by the City of San Marino City of San Marino for their recreational programs and services. Was not not upgrade upgraded as a part of the District-wide Modernization Program. Other than recent upgrades to the electrical service and some regular maintenance work, the Stoneman Stonem

Stoneman ha an has not not been upgraded or modernized in the upgraded or modernized in the last last 40 40 years years. Improv Improvements are needed ements are needed, primarily……

 to upgrade the facility to a condition equivalent to that of the other District school sites,  to add air conditioning,  to bring the facility into compliance with current codes,  to minimize long term maintenance costs,  and to protect the District’s investment in the facility.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

STONEMAN SITE PLAN STONEMAN SITE PLAN

Yellow = City Leased Space Green = District Programs & Uses

slide-4
SLIDE 4

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 4

OVERVIEW OVERVIEW

The MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN……

……

 do docume cument nts the s the asse assessme ment nt o

  • f t

the condi ndition ion

  • f the existing facility

 makes recom kes recommendatio tions fo s for r upgra grades es and/o and/or i impro provement ements anticipated to be needed to extend the life of the building for the next 30 years.  provides an Estim Estimate of Prob te of Probable Cost Cost for purposes of establishing a MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN BU BUDGET DGET

The RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS are based on……

 Limited site Limited site investigation vestigation and observed conditions by the Architect and Engineers  Input Input from District Maintena District Maintenance an nce and Staff d Staff  Review Review of drawings and rep awings and reports rts.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 5

CONTRIBUTING ENGINEERS CONTRIBUTING ENGINEERS

STRUCTURAL STRUCTURAL JOHN A. MA

  • A. MARTIN & AS

RTIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. OCIATES, INC. ENGINEER ENGINEER 950 South Grand Avenue, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 Phone (213) 483-6490 Contact: “I “Ike ke” Ike keda da, MECHANICAL/ MECHANICAL/ CEDG INC. CEDG INC. PLUMBING PLUMBING 2725-A West Burbank Blvd. ENGINEER ENGINEER Burbank, CA 91505 Phone (818) 566-7755 Cont Contacts: Cirillo Ga acts: Cirillo Gatilao tilao Jimmy mmy Wunno Wunno ELEC ELECTRICAL TRICAL TURPIN & RATTAN TURPIN & RATTAN EN ENGINEERING ENGINEER ENGINEER 2441 Honolulu Ave. Montrose, CA 91020 Phone (818) 249-0444 Cont Contact: K act: Ken n Kraut Kraut

slide-6
SLIDE 6

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

1 INTRODUCTION…………………………… 4-5 2 HISTORY ………………………………… 6 3 LIST OF PROJECTS………………………… 7-8 4 EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Upgrades………………… 9-11 ADA Upgrades…………………… 12-17 Abatement …………………………18-19 Roofing…………………………… 20-21 Windows…………………………… 22-23 Doors…………………………………24 Building Exteriors………………… 25-26 Building Interiors………………… 27-28 Cabinetry…………………………… 29 HVAC………………………………… 30-32 Plumbing…………………………… 33-35 Electrical…………………………… 36-41 Site Issues/Needs………………… 42-50 5 MASTER PLAN ESTIMATE …………………51-53 6 ATTACHMENTS: a. Estimate of Probable Cost ………24 pages b. Diagrams #1 thru 7……………… 7 pages c. Abatement Reports …… Bound Separately d. DSA Application History… Bound Separately

slide-7
SLIDE 7

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 7

ADA UPGRADES ADA UPGRADES

Drinking Fountains Drinking Fountains: Do not comply with ADA To Toile ilet R t Rooms: Are not ADA accessible and are in need of upgrading.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 8

ADA UPGRADES ADA UPGRADES

St Stairs and Ramps airs and Ramps: Do not comply with ADA St Stairs Between Low airs Between Lower and r and Main Lev Main Level Approximately 5 ½ ft. of vertical elevation - requires long ramp or possibly even an elevator, depending on DSA review.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 9

ROOFING ROOFING

Gutt Gutters & Fl ers & Flashi ashings: ngs: Gutters need to be reviewed – and repainted and repaired as necessary Roof Penetrations & Roof Penetrations & Condu Conduits: ts: Some flashings at penetrations and removal of abandoned conduits is needed. Tile Tile R Roofs: Generally are in good condition – only minor work needed at tile roof areas.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 10

WINDOWS WINDOWS

slide-11
SLIDE 11

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 11

BUILDING EXTERIORS BUILDING EXTERIORS

slide-12
SLIDE 12

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 12

BUILDING INTERIORS BUILDING INTERIORS

slide-13
SLIDE 13

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 13

CABINETRY CABINETRY

slide-14
SLIDE 14

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 14

HVAC HVAC

by by CEDG Inc CEDG Inc.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 15

ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL

slide-16
SLIDE 16

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 16

ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL

by by Turpin & rpin & R Rattan ttan Engin gineeri ering

slide-17
SLIDE 17

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 17

SITE PHOTOS SITE PHOTOS

Landsca Landscape & Ir e & Irrigation rigation: . Fencing: Fencing: We West st Ea East st South South

slide-18
SLIDE 18

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 18

SITE PHOTOS SITE PHOTOS

Pav Pavement ment:

  • Asphalt Paving is

cracked throughout.

  • Repair may extend

life for a few years, however complete removal and replacement is necessary for long term. Play Equip Play Equipment: ent:

  • Existing Ballwalls are in need of replacement of

wood surfacing.

  • Existing tetherball in good condition.
slide-19
SLIDE 19

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 19

SITE PHOTOS SITE PHOTOS

Play Equip Play Equipment Bl ent Bldg dg:

slide-20
SLIDE 20

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 20

MASTER PLAN ESTIMATE MASTER PLAN ESTIMATE

COST ST EST ESTIMATE PARAMETERS MATE PARAMETERS

 Assumptions Assumptions made relative to desired scope – very preliminary  Based on today’s bid market Based on today’s bid market, as taken from historical data of recent past, similar projects.  A 5% 5% markup markup is included for cost escalation for two years.

(Additional cost escalation markups may be required for beyond the two years)

 Contingencie Contingencies & & Soft Costs Soft Costs

  • 10% overall

10% overall project cost contingency has also been included

  • Soft costs

Soft costs (architect/engineering, plancheck, testing, inspection, and legal fees) are budg budget eted ed at at 20% 20% .  Assumes a General Co General Cont ntract delivery ract delivery method method

(CM-Multi Prime delivery method will result in increased soft costs)

 Assumes one ph e phase of con ase of construction tion

(More phases will increase soft costs)

 Costs for Interim Housing an terim Housing and Furn d Furnit iture e and Equi and Equipment pment - NOT NOT include included

slide-21
SLIDE 21

12/ 17/ 07 Area of Building Foot print 21,086 sf Area of Covered Walkways 5365 sf TOTAL AREA - Foot print & Covered Walkways 26,451 sf ESTIMATED COST 1. SEISMIC RETROFIT 76,044 $ 2. ADA UPGRADES a.

  • Misc. ADA Upgrades - Path of Travel

1,015,019 $ b. Restroom Upgrades 614,963 $ SUBTOTAL - ADA UPGRADES 1,629,981 $ 3. MAT'LS ABATEMENT 209,034 $ 4. ROOFING 178,538 $ 5. WINDOW REPLACEMENT 209,749 $ 6. PAINTING 277,725 $ 7. CEILING REPLACEMENT 292,332 $ 8. FLOORING REPLACEMENT 162,566 $ 9. MARKER BOARDS / TACK BOARDS 86,227 $ 10. REPLACE CABINETRY 494,086 $ 11. WINDOW COVERINGS 61,860 $ 12. HVAC UPGRADES 321,678 $ 13. PLUMBING UPGRADES 248,745 $ 14. ELECTRICAL UPGRADES a. Main Elect. Service Upgrade Complete b. Power Distribution - HVAC 65,946 $ c. Power Distribution - Computers 79,136 $ d. Interior Lighting 131,893 $ e. Exterior Lighting 61,855 $ f. Emergency Lighting 33,474 $ g. Telephone/ Intercom/ PA 106,515 $ h. CATV 46,163 $ i. Security 58,579 $ j. Data / LAN 184,650 $ k. Fire Detection & Alarm 173,463 $ SUBTOTAL - ELECTRICAL UPGRADES 941,674 $ 15. SITE IMPROVEMENTS 658,605 $ ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST 5,190,238 $

FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT

  • $

INTERIM HOUSING

  • $

CONTINGENCY @ 10% 519,024 $

ESCALATION @ 5% PER YEAR - 2 Years calculat ed 570,926 $

PROJ ECT RELATED (SOFT) COSTS (@ 20%) 1,256,038 $

TOTAL PROJ ECT BUDGET 7,536,225 $

PROJECT WORK SCOPE & BUDGET - MASTERPLAN

M ODERNIZATION OF STONEM AN SITE

SAN M ARINO UNIFIED SCH OOL DISTRICT

DESCRIPTION OF WORK SCOPE

slide-22
SLIDE 22

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 22

MASTER PLAN ESTIMATE MASTER PLAN ESTIMATE

PRIORI PRIORITI TIES...... ES......it is recommended that the

District consider the following: 1.

  • 1. Code Required Upgrades

Code Required Upgrades such as…  Disabled access (ADA)  Fire and Life Safety (ie, fire alarm, exiting, etc.) 2.

  • 2. Volu

luntary Seismic ntary Seismic Strengthen Strengthenin ing g to minimize future damage and possible injuries to staff 3.

  • 3. Upg

Upgrade ades to minimize…  long ter long term maintena maintenance nce  energy usage energy usage 4.

  • 4. Grouping work

Grouping work scope into logical phases or sequences of work – if work is to be phased 5.

  • 5. Improv

Improvements ements necessary to make facility leasin asing the facility g the facility

slide-23
SLIDE 23

CARMICHAEL-KEMP ARCHITECTS 23

MODERNIZE or REBUILD? MODERNIZE or REBUILD?

HOW MUCH HOW MUCH should be should be INVESTED INVESTED into the

into the upgradi upgrading o

  • f an e

an existing ng fa facilit cility, befo y, before co re considerin nsidering g de demolish lishing an and replacing it with new const d replacing it with new construction? uction?

1.

  • 1. For State Funded projects

For State Funded projects: must have an

approved cost/benefit analysis that indicates that re requ quired u ired upgra grades ex es exceed 50% of t ceed 50% of the e Cu Curre rrent Re t Replaceme placement Cost of t t Cost of the facilit e facility.

2.

  • 2. Available funding is primary to the

Available funding is primary to the decision decision to demolish an existing facility and

rebuild. Funding to rebuild is generally significantly more than the cost to upgrade Ability to phase project construction may allow more time to generate funds. The need to relocate current uses will impact the phasing and the cost of the project.

3.

  • 3. Based on the Stonem

Based on the Stoneman an M Master Plan ster Plan Estimate Estimate:

 Moderni Modernizat ation C n Cost st of Construction is estimated at 46. 46.2% of Cost to Demo & Demo & Re Rebuild ild

  • Approx. $11.25 million

Demolish & Rebuild (25,000 sf x $450/sf)

  • Approx. $5.2 million

Modernization Cost COMPARISON OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION BASED ON PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES