City of Greenfield – Fire Station Needs Assessment
PROJECT #: 23.13
PROJECT TEAM DIRECTORY
CONCEPT DESIGN AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT PARTICIPANTS Name Company Position Email
Owner
Jim Langborg Greenfield Fire Dept. Fire Chief [email protected] Tyler Keisling Greenfield Fire Dept. Deputy Chief [email protected] Douglas Pike MNS Engineers City Engineer [email protected] Paul Wood City of Greenfield City Manager [email protected] Architects
Joe Slack HGE Architects Principal Architect [email protected] Sam Slack HGE Architects Project Architect [email protected] Tess Guyer HGE Architects Administration [email protected] Structural Engineers
Todd Young DCI Engineers Principal Engineer [email protected] Sandra Biddulph DCI Engineers Principal Engineer [email protected] Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Engineers
Rick Silenzi Interface Engineering Project Manager - Mechanical [email protected] Jeff Glanville Interface Engineering Principal Electrical Engineer [email protected] Yee Cheung Interface Engineering Principal Mechanical Engineer [email protected] Jason Lau Interface Engineering Principal Electrical Engineer [email protected]
NEEDS ASSESSMENT NARRATIVE
1. The existing Greenfield Fire Station was built in 1998 and was designed as a volunteer fire station. This station was not intended to house personnel who would live and work in the building on a 24/7 basis, lacking a sufficient space for supporting the current and future training, working, and living needs of the firefighters. Additionally, the administrative area of the fire station does not have any private offices for the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief who regularly handle confidential matters. Currently, the Fire Chief and the Administrative Assistant work at City Hall, as there is no room for them at the fire station. This is placing a burden on Greenfield Administration Building (City Hall) with displacing needed administration space related to city hall functions. The Deputy Chief, who does have an office on site, shares a work area with duty firefighters.
2. BUILDING SIZE:
3. LOCATION: The building is ideally located in a central location to serve the city/fire district.
4. SITE: Non-secure site – a secure fenced yard with gates for staff parking is needed for resident staff vehicle protection. Existing asphalt paving is deteriorating/breaking down, beyond the concrete aprons, and should be replaced. The drive-around vehicular path on the east side is not desired and could accommodate a building expansion. The south side of the building has one driveway access – direct to the apparatus bays. However, this driveway also provides access to the administrative office’s entry, and visitors as well as staff use this driveway, causing conflict with emergency response vehicles leaving the site.
Public and staff parking should be isolated/relocated from this driveway.
5. BUILDING FUNCTION: The existing Greenfield Fire Station was built in 1998 and was designed as a volunteer fire station. This station was not intended to house personnel who would live and work inside of it on a 24/7 basis. The fire station does not have spaces typically found in a career fire station; this includes:
a. Training Room: This space would be used for multiple functions, including CPR classes.
b. Office(s): As mentioned above, having private office(s) is important for confidentiality.
Building & Size: sq.ft.
Main Floor - Administration & Day Room areas 1,859
Partial Second Floor 482
Total wood frame building portion 2,341
Apparatus Bays 4,881
Utility Room 436
Total main floor Apparatus Bays 5,317
Apparatus Mezzanie Floor 434
Total PEMB (pre-engineered metal building) 5,751
Total Building Area 8,092
c. Workroom/copy area: A staff work area adequate for reports and projects, layout space, and copy machine type activity is important.
d. Dorm rooms: See notes below, Item 9. 8 dorms would be appropriate for staff and students.
e. Resident dayroom: A living room area for career staff to relax, separated from the offices/daytime activities/public area of the building is important for evening, offhours for the firefighters/emergency response personnel, to improve the wellbeing of staff. f. Fitness room; This area is important for staff fitness and conditioning and should be in a separate room with sound control/isolation, as well as a dedicated HVAC system, not subject to vehicle exhaust fumes within the apparatus bays.
The facility does have a kitchen area and a small dining and dayroom area, but the sizes of such are inadequate for three duty shifts. The facility does have a large outdoor courtyard area.
The Building Space Programming document as part of the Greenfield Fire Station Building Renovation and Addition – Concept Design Report, the building size based on the use and function of the station, needs to be approximately 13,033 square feet. The existing building is 8,092 square feet. This recommended expansion would accommodate those spaces listed above and other areas listed in the report, compared to original design.
6. ADMINISTRATION: As mentioned above, Item 1, the existing station lacks office space to adequately function as a career fire station. Not having office space for confidentiality for staff conversations/interviews is problematic. Again, with the fire chief not on site due to inadequate office space, this puts a burden on city hall.
7. APPARATUS BAYS – 3-1/2 bays, (3 pull thru bays): As shown in the photo section of this report, the apparatus bays, designated for fire-fighting apparatus (engines, water-tenders, brush rigs) have been crowded out with fitness fixtures and equipment, hose storage, and shop space, hampering the ability to accommodate apparatus as well as future equipment and maintenance of existing equipment. The structural capabilities of this part of the building have severe structural shortcomings and should be addressed immediately – refer to structural report. The structural rehabilitation work can be performed, likely bay by bay to remain fully operational. The large bay doors are worn and have exceeded their life span and should be replaced. The doors have recently disengaged out of the track, causing a total inoperable condition. This is obviously a problematic condition for an emergency response facility. These doors should be replaced once the seismic upgrade work it performed. The actual size and number of bays is adequate if the fitness area (taking up half a bay) can be moved out. If additional engines are desired in the future another satellite fire station would likely be constructed. This space should be isolated mechanically to keep carcinogens out of other staff areas.
Apparatus Bays – Steel frames need strengthening.
8. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE GEAR: Turnout gear (PPE or Personal Protective Equipment), turnout coats, pants, helmets, boots, gloves, are stored in the Apparatus Bays where this expensive gear is exposed to diesel exhaust particulates, and other carcinogens, dirt from the typical open air bays, moisture, UV and fluorescent lighting. This all leads to adverse impacts to the integrity of the PPE fabric. This equipment should be stored in an environmentally controlled room with negative ventilation to control the spread of contamination throughout the facility.
Turnout (PPE) gear – should be stored in environmentally isolated area
9. DORMATORY SPACE: The existing dorm area at the upper floor is wholly inadequate.
The curtained off areas, defining each sleeping space restricts mechanical airflow and natural ventilation, as well as restricts access to a code required egress window. A typical dorm room in a career fire station would be individual rooms, with operable window, and individually controlled HVAC thermostat, and a three-compartment closet for the three shifts. As learned during the Covid crisis multiple people occupying a single area with poor ventilation increases the opportunity for exposure to airborne viruses. There are currently (4) curtained off “dorm” spaces, and this does not accommodate student/cadet staff or back-up sleeping space as needed for common transport personnel.
10. RESTROOM/SHOWER SPACE: There is one shower only to serve the facility. This causes an undesirable “waiting period” for staff to clean off after a hazmat/hazardous response
call. For staff to wait while another staff uses the shower means hazardous/carcinogenic contaminates are allows to linger on staff and furniture. At least 2 or even 3 shower rooms should be provided to avoid this issue.
11. ADA ACCESSIBILITY:
The main floor, main entry is accessible. The accessible parking space is located on the south side of the building, adequate in distance to front door. See site notes above regarding location of this parking area. If moved the ADA parking and route to the front door could be moved. The toilet/restrooms in the facility have been modified over the years and appear to be ADA compliant. A single user shower room, all users, is also provided. These spaces are marginally compliant, and also undersized for the facility, and should have separate toilet rooms for staff and public.
The Kitchen lacks turning space within, and the counter are inaccessible.
The upper floor is not ADA accessible, however the size of the area is under the threshold for requiring an elevator.
12. INTERIOR FINISHES: Finishes are worn and should be updated, replaced – paint, flooring, etc.
13. EXTERIOR ENVELOPE/FINISHES: The exterior of the building has been maintained, and a scheduled painting should be part of regular building maintenance budget process.
The low slope metal roofing as part of the pre-engineered metal building portion of the building (the apparatus bay structure) has been “coated” with a quick fix type of roof coating material and is not sustainable and should be replaced/upgraded. We would suggest a total re-roof involving a single ply membrane over the existing or a new metal roofing system over the existing. The roofing over the wood framed portion is steep sloped metal standing seam roofing and appears to be performing well. However, the juncture between the two building structures has been a water intrusion issue since the building was constructed, and that should be addressed and reworked.
14. EMERGENCY POWER: The building has a non-functioning emergency generator. Fire stations are considered essential facilities and require emergency power to maintain services at all times, including after a catastrophic event. A 100 kW or 175kW generator is recommended for total power during an emergency per the electrical engineering report, depending on if a building addition is considered. An enclosure is recommended for longevity and reduced maintenance.
Non-functioning emergency generator - replace
See structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing report following this section.
City of Greenfield – Fire Station Remodel
PROJECT #: 23.13
PHOTO LOG
Apparatus Bays – steel frames need strengthening.
Apparatus Bay slab – Epoxy flooring is suggested to better maintain the facility.
City of Greenfield – Fire Station Remodel
PROJECT #: 23.13
PHOTO LOG
Hose storage is restricting apparatus bay area.
Inadequate EMS storage. Location within apparatus bay exposes these supplies to vehicle exhaust/carcinogens.
City of Greenfield – Fire Station Remodel
PROJECT #: 23.13
PHOTO LOG
Turnout (PPE) gear – should be stored in environmentally isolated area, to protect from UV and other contaminates.
Exercise equipment in Apparatus Bay, displacing emergency response vehicles. This space should be located in a healthier environment.
City of Greenfield – Fire Station Remodel
PROJECT #: 23.13
PHOTO LOG
Non-functioning emergency generator – replace.
Drive-around can be eliminated for building expansion.
City of Greenfield – Fire Station Remodel
PROJECT #: 23.13
PHOTO LOG
Space available for emergency generator.
Outdated/expired SCBA equipment – should be replaced.
City of Greenfield – Fire Station Remodel
PROJECT #: 23.13
PHOTO LOG
Confined career kitchen space.
Substandard living quarters – two windows serving four bunk areas.
City of Greenfield – Fire Station Remodel
PROJECT #: 23.13
PHOTO LOG
Temporary “quick fix” roof leak repair.
Work/shop area.
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
FOURTH STREET
OAK AVENUE
FIRE STATION
BUILDING
EXISTING TRASH
ENCLOSURE
COURTYARD
STORM POND
PARKING
PARKING
MONUMENT SIGN
Copyright © 2023
HGE ARCHITECTS, Inc.
PROJECT NO.:
REVISIONS:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
SHEET TITLE:
DATE:
1/22/2024 4:31:50 PM C:\Users\Konrad Stuebgen\Documents\Greenfield Fire Station_Square_kstuebgenRPAB9.rvt
23.13 A1.1 GREENFIELD FIRE STATION 380 OAK AVENUE GREENFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCEPT DESIGN
SITE PLAN -
EXISTING
JAN 2024
# DATE DESCRIPTION
1 1" = 20'-0"
SITE PLAN - EXISTING
F E D C B A
1 2
3 5
6 4' - 6"
24' - 0" 19' - 2" 16' - 0" 16' - 0" 18' - 0"
6' - 10" 8' - 0"
7' - 2"
1/8" / 1'-0" 1/8" / 1'-0"
BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4
14' x 14' OVERHEAD
DOORS, TYPICAL
WOOD FRAMED BUILDING STRUCTURE
74' - 0"
FITNESS
AREA
DRYING CABINET
TANK RACK
AIR STORAGE
COMPRESSOR
FILL STATION
WASHER
DINING RM
KITCHEN
DAY RM
OFFICE ENTRY
CORRIDOR
MENS RR UTILITY RM
APPARATUS BAY
WOMENS RR
COATS
STORAGE
COURTYARD
TRASH ENCLOSURE
2'-0" TYP.
14'-0" TYP.
SHOWER
PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING
6' - 0"
93' - 2"
F E D
1 2
3 5
6 25' - 0" 23' - 9" 25' - 3" 6' - 0"
4 80' - 0"
ATTIC SPACE
DORM AREA
ATTIC SPACE
LOFT
Copyright © 2023
HGE ARCHITECTS, Inc.
PROJECT NO.:
REVISIONS:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
SHEET TITLE:
DATE:
1/22/2024 4:31:28 PM C:\Users\Konrad Stuebgen\Documents\Greenfield Fire Station_Square_kstuebgenRPAB9.rvt
23.13 A2.0 GREENFIELD FIRE STATION 380 OAK AVENUE GREENFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCEPT DESIGN
EXISTING FLOOR
PLANS
JAN 2024
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING 2 1/8" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING BUILDING DATA:
EXISTING BUILDING SIZE
MAIN FLOOR: 7,210 SF
DORM AREA: 484 SF
TOTAL: 7,694 SF
PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING: 5,332 SF
WOOD FRAMED BUILDING: 2,362 SF
# DATE DESCRIPTION
FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"
EXISTING SECOND
FLOOR
10' - 10"
A B C D E F
1 2 3 4 5 6
FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"
EXISTING SECOND
FLOOR
10' - 10"
F E D C B A
6 5 4 3 2 1
Copyright © 2023
HGE ARCHITECTS, Inc.
PROJECT NO.:
REVISIONS:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
SHEET TITLE:
DATE:
1/22/2024 12:39:46 PM C:\Users\Konrad Stuebgen\Documents\Greenfield Fire Station_Square_kstuebgenRPAB9.rvt
23.13 A4.1 GREENFIELD FIRE STATION 380 OAK AVENUE GREENFIELD, CALIFORNIA
CONCEPT DESIGN
EXISTING EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
JAN 2024
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 2 1/8" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING 3 1/8" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING 4 1/8" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING # DATE DESCRIPTION
Washington | Oregon | Idaho | California | Texas | Alaska | Colorado | Montana | Delaware | Pennsylvania Greenfield Fire Department
Renovation
Structural Feasibility Study
380 Oak Avenue
Greenfield, CA 93927
DCI Job Number 23031-0069
December 1, 2023
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing steel structure of the apparatus bay has been found to have significant deficiencies in the seismic force resisting system. These deficiencies would inhibit the operation of the fire station after a significant earthquake.
The apparatus bay does not have a clear lateral force resisting system in the east-west direction. As a result, a moderate earthquake could result in the collapse of the apparatus bay structure.
The lateral force-resisting elements in the north-south direction are not expected to perform well during an earthquake due to poor detailing of connections and frame members. The frames of the apparatus bay were built shortly before the lessons learned from the Northridge Earthquake began being implemented into the building code.
PROJECT SCOPE
The current Greenfield Fire Station includes a premanufactured steel building that contains the apparatus bay and a wood-framed building that contains the station’s support functions, including offices, dispatch and dorms. The needs of the fire station have exceeded what can be provided by the current support building, and DCI Engineers understands that it is planned to be demolished and reconstructed without significant changes to the existing apparatus bay structure.
DATA AND OBSERVATIONS
The fire station is located at 380 Oak Avenue. The structure consists of a two-story woodframed support sector built adjacent to the single-story metal building apparatus bay. A single-story wood-framed mezzanine is present in the existing apparatus bay. A seismic gap is present between the two building parts.
Existing permit drawings, dated 1997, were made available. The drawings include detailed information for the wood building part, but the metal building is shown as a deferred submittal which would have been shown in shop drawings and delegated engineering provided to the design team and contractor during the construction process. These shop drawings could not be found. The foundations shown on the plans for the metal building were designated as tentative, with potential revisions to be made after receipt of the shop drawings and engineering package was received for the metal building.
The existing building drawings include the building design criteria, which references the 1994 UBC as the governing building code and the allowable soil bearing pressure as determined by a geotechnical report which could not be found.
DCI Engineers visited the site on April 20, 2023 to observe existing conditions. The primary steel frame of the apparatus bay was exposed to view. Measurements were recorded for accessible portions of the frame elements. Wall girts and roof joists were either concealed by insulation and finishes or not accessible to be measured.
SEISMIC HAZARDS & STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES
The fire station drawings reference the 1994 UBC as the governing building code. In January of 1994 the historic 6.7 moment magnitude Northridge earthquake occurred in the Los Angeles area and caused significant damage to many structures. Research resulting from the study of structural failures as a result of the earthquake led to code changes that vastly improved the resiliency of structures built in seismic-prone regions. These changes to the building code were not implemented until the following code cycles, starting with the 1997 UBC. The Greenfield Fire Station built under the 1994 UBC does not benefit from the lessons learned in the Northridge earthquake. The site of the Greenfield Fire Station is located less than 15 miles away from the San Andreas Fault Zone, which is the most significant hazard source for the site.
DCI Engineers has performed an ASCE 41 Tier 1 rapid hazard screening of the structural features of the building. This provides a general idea of the adequacy of the existing conditions for BPOE (Basic Performance Objectives for Existing Buildings) criteria. The BPOE is typically used for existing buildings. It acknowledges a lower level of seismicity for an existing building on the assumption that the structure will not remain in service as long as a new building. If something is listed as “Non-Compliant,” this means it did not pass the rapid screening, that more analysis would need to be completed to prove its adequacy, and that a retrofit may be required to address the item. The “Basic,” “Wood Light Framed” (W1), and “Steel Light Frames” (S3) checklists were used. The completed checklists are included in Appendix C of this report. The non-structural features were not investigated at this time. A Tier 1 evaluation is a code-recognized method intended to quickly identify structural deficiencies in a building’s seismic force-resisting system.
Through the ASCE 41 rapid hazard screening, the wood support structure and wood mezzanine located within the apparatus bay were found to conform with the ASCE 41 Tier 1 procedure, with no non-compliant items found. The following items would need to be addressed in the event that a BPOE upgrade of the apparatus bay is triggered by renovation, or if a seismic retrofit is included in the project scope to increase the resiliency of the structure in the event of an emergency.
• The design and detailing of the moment frames in the apparatus bay are insufficient for the demand of the BSE-2E seismic hazard per ASCE 41. This hazard represents an earthquake with 5% chance of exceedance in 50 years. • The detailing of the moment frames in the apparatus bay does not allow for ductile behavior under cyclic loading, which is typical of pre-Northridge steel construction. • Moment frames resist the seismic demands on the apparatus bay in the north-south direction. There is no clear lateral force resisting system in the east-west direction.
There is some evidence that existing columns, which are present in the corners of the apparatus bay, may support the structure through cantilever action. These columns are not adequately attached to the structure above their base. It is unknown if the columns have a foundation adequate to serve the function of a cantilevered column.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the need for resilient emergency facilities after an earthquake, it is DCI’s recommendation that the steel portion of the fire station either undergo a seismic upgrade or be demolished and rebuilt as part of the improvement project. If the existing steel building were to undergo a seismic upgrade, it would require extensive improvements to the existing steel frames. A schematic drawing depicting the general scope of work is included in Appendix B of this report.
The beam and column members of moment frames spanning in the north-south direction of the apparatus bay would need to be reinforced with welded doubler plates, steel plate reinforcement to flanges, and WT sections welded onto the frames to increase their strength and stiffness. The moment frame beam-column connection would need to be strengthened with additional welded plate.
On observation, there is no clear lateral force-resisting system for forces in the east-west direction. There are existing columns in all four corners that may be intended as cantilever columns by the building designer. In order to complete a seismic upgrade, this system would need to be supplemented with new portal moment frames within existing apparatus bay door openings, which would likely reduce the door clearances.
The following table includes all non-compliant and unknown Tier 1 checklist items which were identified through Tier 1 screening, with comments and recommendations. The retrofit elements summarized in the schematic drawings of Appendix B, reference items from the following table to correlate construction scope with identified deficiencies. Detailed measurements of existing conditions are required in order to perform analysis and determine the specific requirements of a seismic retrofit. Item 1 C
☐
NC
☒
N/A
☐
U
☒
LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.1.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.1.1)
DCI Comment: There does not appear to be viable lateral force resisting elements in the East-West direction of the building.
DCI Recommendation: Provide new “portal” moment frames along the apparatus bay doors.
Item 2
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☒
TRANSFER TO STEEL FRAMES: Diaphragms are connected for
transfer of seismic forces to the steel moment frames. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.2.2) DCI Comment: Existing insulation is in place preventing the observation of any diaphragm attachment, the presence of attachment is unknown.
DCI Recommendation: Perform exploratory demolition to confirm attachment, if none present, provide full depth cold form steel blocking between roof joists along the top of each frame. Provide attachment with self-tapping screws to top of beam flange and to roof deck above.
Item
3 C
☐
NC
☒
N/A
☐
U
☐
MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS: All moment connections are able to develop the elastic moment ( S) of the adjoining members. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.2.2.1, Commentary Reference: Sec.
A.3.1.3.4)
DCI Comment: By observation, the in-place connections are not adequate to resist the elastic moment of the adjoining members.
DCI Recommendation: Provide additional through bolts and end plate stiffeners to strengthen moment connections.
Item
4 C
☐
NC
☒
N/A
☐
U
☐
MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS: All moment connections are able to develop the strength of the adjoining members or panel zones. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.2.2.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.
3.1.3.4)
DCI Comment: By observation, the in-place connections are not adequate to resist the elastic moment of the adjoining members. Panel zones are not doubled or reinforced.
DCI Recommendation: Provide additional through bolts and end plate stiffeners to strengthen moment connections.
Item
5 C
☐
NC
☒
N/A
☐
U
☐
COMPACT MEMBERS: All frame elements meet compact section requirements in accordance with AISC 360, Table B4.1. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.2.2.4, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.1.3.8) DCI Comment: The frame columns have non-compact flanges. The beams could not be accessed to be measured, but are assumed to be non-compact.
DCI Recommendation: Additional plates may be added to the sections to develop compact shapes. A full frame analysis (Tier II) should be conducted with consideration of the compactness criteria in an effort to limit the amount of plate steel to be added to the frames.
Item
6 C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☒
TRANSFER TO STEEL FRAMES: Diaphragms are connected for
transfer of seismic forces to the steel moment frames, and the connections are able to develop the lesser of the strength of the frames or the diaphragms. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.2.2)
DCI Comment: The connection of the diaphragms was not visible for observation.
DCI Recommendation: Document and evaluate connection of diaphragm and reinforce as necessary. Additional blocking may be required as noted in Item 2.
Item
7 C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☒
STEEL COLUMNS: The columns in seismic-force-resisting frames are anchored to the building foundation, and the anchorage is able to develop the least of the following: the tensile capacity of the column, the tensile capacity of the lowest level column splice (if any), or the uplift capacity of the foundation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.3.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 5.3.1)
DCI Comment: The anchor embedment is unknown, but the anchor layouts observed are not adequate to meet this criteria.
DCI Recommendation: The limiting mechanism for which the anchorage must resist is likely to be the uplift capacity of the foundation, however the foundation sizes are not known. The footing sizes should be determined by performing exploratory excavation, and additional anchors installed to the columns as required.
LIMITATIONS
This seismic evaluation report is not intended to identify all defects in existing workmanship or all potential seismic hazards. It is intended to identify basic structural conditions that are likely to be seismic life/safety hazards. This report is based on site observations of exposedto-view structural members and original drawings made available to DCI Engineers.
Implementation of the above recommendations will not eliminate all life/safety or building damage risk. Damage to the building or building contents during a seismic event will still be possible and may or may not be repairable.
Washington | Oregon | Idaho | California | Texas | Alaska | Colorado | Montana | Delaware | Pennsylvania Appendix A
Photos
Photo 1 – West face of building, showing office entrance and awning.
Photo 2 – Southwest corner of building, showing wood-framed office connecting to steelframed apparatus bay.
Photo 3 – Southeast corner of building, showing south-facing apparatus bay.
Photo 4 – Northeast Corner of building, showing east face and north-facing apparatus bay.
Photo 5 – North face of building, showing apparatus bay.
Photo 6 – Northwest corner of the building, showing CMU enclosed patio and roof-mounted equipment.
Photo 7 – Interior of apparatus bay, showing moment frames of premanufactured building including out-of-plane bracing.
Photo 8 – Beam-column connection of moment frame.
Photo 9 – Moment frame baseplate and connection to foundation.
Photo 10 – Possible cantilever column in building corners and connection to roof structure.
Photo 11 – Possible cantilever column baseplate and connection to foundation.
Washington | Oregon | Idaho | California | Texas | Alaska | Colorado | Montana | Delaware | Pennsylvania Appendix B
Schematic Retrofit Drawings
Washington | Oregon | Idaho | California | Texas | Alaska | Colorado | Montana | Delaware | Pennsylvania Appendix C
Completed ASCE 41 Tier I Checklists
BASIC CHECKLIST
IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY BASIC CONFIGURATION CHECKLIST
ASCE 41-17; Table 17-3
Basic Checklist
The evaluation statements represent general configuration issues applicable for most buildings based on observed earthquake structural damage during actual earthquakes. This checklist should be completed for all buildings in Very Low, Low, Moderate, and High Seismicity for Immediate Occupancy Performance Levels.
Very Low Seismicity
Building System—General
C
☐
NC
☒
N/A
☐
U
☐
LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.1.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.1.1) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.5% of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 1.0% in moderate seismicity, and 3.0% in high seismicity. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.1.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.1.2) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of the main structure. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.1.3, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.1.3) Building System—Building Configuration
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.2.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.2.2) C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force-resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.2.2, Commentary Reference: Sec.
A.2.2.3)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force-resisting system are continuous to the foundation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.2.3, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.2.4)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismicforce-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.2.4, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.2.5)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
MASS: There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.2.5, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.2.6)
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.2.6, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.2.2.7) Low Seismicity
(Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low Seismicity) Geologic Site Hazards
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.3.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.6.1.1)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquakeinduced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.3.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.6.1.2) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.3.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.6.1.3)
Moderate and High Seismicity
(Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Foundation Configuration
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
OVERTURNING: The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-forceresisting system at the foundation level to the building height(base/height) is greater than 0.6Sa. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.3.3, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.6.2.1) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.4.3.4, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.6.2.2)
NOTES: NONE
IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING TYPE S3: Steel Light Frames
ASCE 41-17; Table 17-13
Building Type S3
These buildings are pre-engineered and prefabricated with transverse rigid steel frames. They are one story in height. The roof and walls consist of lightweight metal, fiberglass, or cementitious panels.
The frames are designed for maximum efficiency, and the beams and columns consist of tapered, built-up sections with thin plates. The frames are built in segments and assembled in the field with bolstered or welded joints. Seismic forces in the transverse direction are resisted by the rigid frame.
Seismic forces in the longitudinal direction are resisted by wall panel shear elements or rod bracing.
Diaphragm forces are resisted by untopped metal deck, roof panel shear elements, or a system of tension-only rod bracing.
This checklist shall not be used for a structure with a roof and wall dead load greater than 25 psf or a building area great than 20,000 feet. Where either limit is exceeded, the structural checklist for Steel Moment Frames (Type S1 or S1A) shall be used.
Very Low and Low Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
BRACE AXIAL STRESS CHECK: The axial stress in the diagonals, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.4, is less than 0.50 . (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.4.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.3.3.1.2) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
FLEXURAL STRESS CHECK: The average flexural stress in the moment-frame columns and beams, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.9, is less than . (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.2.1.2, Commentary Reference: Sec.
A.3.1.3.3)
Connections
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☒
TRANSFER TO STEEL FRAMES: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the steel moment frames. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.2.2)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
STEEL COLUMNS: The columns in seismic-force-resisting frames are anchored to the building foundation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.3.1, Commentary Reference:
Sec. A.5.3.1)
Moderate Seismicity
(Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low and Low Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C
☐
NC
☒
N/A
☐
U
☐
MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS: All moment connections are able to develop the elastic moment ( S) of the adjoining members. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec.
5.5.2.2.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.3.1.3.4)
Diaphragms
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There is tensile capacity to develop the strength of the diaphragm at reentrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.1.4, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.1.7) C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.1.5, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.1.8) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.5, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.7.1)
Connections
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
ROOF PANELS: Where considered as diaphragm elements for lateral resistance, metal, plastic, or cementitious roof panels are positively attached to the roof framing to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.5, Commentary Reference: Sec.
A.5.5.1)
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
WALL PANELS: Where considered as shear elements for lateral resistance, metal, fiberglass, or cementitious wall panels are positively attached to the framing and foundation to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.5, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.5.2)
High Seismicity
(Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C
☐
NC
☒
N/A
☐
U
☐
MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS: All moment connections are able to develop the strength of the adjoining members or panel zones. (Tier 2 Reference:
Sec. 5.5.2.2.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.1.3.4)
C
☐
NC
☒
N/A
☐
U
☐
COMPACT MEMBERS: All frame elements meet compact section requirements in accordance with AISC 360, Table B4.1. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.2.2.4, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.1.3.8)
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
BEAM PENETRATIONS: All openings in frame-beam webs are less than one quarter of the beam depth and are located in the center half of the beams. (Tier 2 Reference:
Sec. 5.5.2.2.5, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.1.3.9)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
OUT-OF-PLANE BRACING: Beam–column joints are braced out of plane. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.2.2.7, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.1.3.11) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
BOTTOM FLANGE BRACING: The bottom flanges of beams are braced out of plane. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.2.2.8, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.1.3.12) Connections
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☒
TRANSFER TO STEEL FRAMES: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the steel moment frames, and the connections are able to develop the lesser of the strength of the frames or the diaphragms. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.2.2)
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☒
STEEL COLUMNS: The columns in seismic-force-resisting frames are anchored to the building foundation, and the anchorage is able to develop the least of the following: the tensile capacity of the column, the tensile capacity of the lowest level column splice (if any), or the uplift capacity of the foundation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec.
5.7.3.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 5.3.1)
Foundation System
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
DEEP FOUNDATIONS: Piles and piers are capable of transferring the seismic forces between the structure and the soil. (Tier 2 Reference: Commentary Reference: Sec.
A.6.2.3)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
SLOPING SITES: The difference in foundation embedment depth from one side of the building to another does not exceed one story. (Tier 2 Reference: Commentary Reference: Sec. A.6.2.4)
NOTES: NONE
IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING TYPE W1: Wood Light Frames
W1a: Multi-Story, Multi-Unit Residential Wood Frame
ASCE 41-17
Building Type W1
These buildings are single- or multi-family dwellings of one or more stories in height. Building loads are light and the framing spans are short. Floor and roof framing consists of wood joists or rafters on wood studs spaced no more than 24 inches apart. The first floor framing is supported directly on the foundation, or is raised up on cripple studs and post-and-beam-supports. The foundation consists of spread footings constructed on concrete, concrete masonry block, or brick masonry or even wood in older construction. Chimneys, where present, consist of solid brick masonry, masonry veneer, or wood frame with internal metal flues. Seismic forces are resisted by wood frame diaphragms and shear walls. Floor and roof diaphragms consist of straight or diagonal lumber sheathing, tongue-andgroove planks, oriented strand board, or plywood. Shear walls consist of straight or diagonal lumber sheathing, plank siding, plywood, oriented strand board, stucco, gypsum board, particle board, or fiberboard. Interior partitions are sheathed with plaster or gypsum board.
Building Type W1a
These buildings are multi-story, similar in construction to W1 buildings, but have plan areas on each floor typically greater than 3,000 square feet. Older construction often has open front garages at the lowest story.
Low Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.1.1, Commentary Reference:
Sec. A.3.2.1.1)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values:
Structural panel sheathing
Diagonal sheathing
Straight sheathing
All other conditions
1,000 lb/ft
700 lb/ft
100 lb/ft
100 lb/ft
(Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.2.7.1) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.3.2.7.2) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec.
5.5.3.6.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.3.2.7.3)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec.
5.5.3.6.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.3.2.7.4)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.3.6.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.3.2.7.5) C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than onehalf story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-2. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.3.6.3, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.3.2.7.6)
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.3.6.4, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.2.7.7)
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.3.6.5, Commentary Reference: Sec.
A.3.2.7.8)
Connections
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.3.3, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.3.3) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec.
5.7.3.3, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.3.4)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.4.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.4.1) Foundation System
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
DEEP FOUNDATIONS: Piles and piers are capable of transferring the lateral forces between the structure and the soil. (Tier 2 Reference: Commentary Reference: Sec.
A.6.2.3)
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
SLOPING SITES: The difference in foundation embedment depth from one side of the building to another does not exceed one story. (Tier 2 Reference: Commentary Reference: Sec. A.6.2.4)
Low, Moderate, and High Seismicity
(Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
HOLD-DOWN ANCHORS: All shear walls have hold-down anchors attached to the end studs constructed in accordance with acceptable construction practices. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.5.3.6.6, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.2.7.9) C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 1.5-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec.
5.5.3.6.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A. 3.2.7.4)
Diaphragms
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.1.1, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.1.1)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.1.1, Commentary Reference:
Sec. A.4.1.3)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There is tensile capacity to develop the strength of the diaphragm at reentrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.1.4, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.1.7) C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.1.5, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.1.8) C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.2.1)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.7 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.2.2)
C
☐
NC
☐
N/A
☒
U
☐
DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 30 ft (9.1 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 3-to-1. (Tier 2 Reference:
Sec. 5.6.2, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.2.3)
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.6.5, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.4.7.1)
Connections
C
☒
NC
☐
N/A
☐
U
☐
WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 4ft (1.2m) or less, with acceptable edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete. (Tier 2 Reference: Sec. 5.7.3.3, Commentary Reference: Sec. A.5.3.7)
NOTES: NONE
MEP Engineering | Fire/Life Safety | Lighting Design | Energy Consulting | Building Technologies | Commissioning Interface Engineering
100 SW Main Street, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
TEL 503.382.2266
www.interfaceengineering.com
Greenfield Fire Station
Project Name Greenfield Fire Station Date March 4, 2024 Subject Needs Assessment
To Joe Slack Phone 541-269-1166
HGE, Inc.
333 South 4th Street
Coos Bay, OR 97420
From Rick Silenzi; Jeff Glanville @ Interface Engineering, Inc.
Applies To Mechanical; Electrical; Plumbing
EXISTING SYSTEMS
Mechanical
HVAC
The front of the fire station, the living quarters, is currently served by two gas furnaces located in the attic connected to split system air conditioning units on the roof. Supply and return air is ducted to all spaces. Minimum outside ventilation air is ducted to each furnace from roof vents.
The Apparatus Bays are being ventilated by five (5) exhaust fans. There are three rooftop air intakes that are ducted into the space for make-up air. Four (4) of the fans are linked to the doors to run at high speed when the doors are closed and low speed when the doors are open. They are also linked to a CO monitoring system to operate on high CO levels. One exhaust fan is provided to operate 24/7 to meet minimum ventilation requirements.
There is no heat currently provided in the apparatus bays. The original design drawings show four (4) infrared natural gas heaters, but it appears they were never installed. Gas piping is stubbed out to allow future heater installation.
Plumbing
The building is currently served by a 2” water service that enters the building on the north side. The incoming line is located in the wall of the kitchen. The water piping material is unknown and was concealed. A 50 gallon gas fired water heater, installed in 2016, is located in the utility room in the apparatus bay. A recirculation pump circulated hot water throughout the facility. This room also houses a washer/dryer, turn-out washer, and SCBA system.
Plumbing fixtures within the building are from 1998 but appear to be functional. Toilets are tank type and lavatories are drop in counter mounted.
2 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
A 4” sanitary sewer line runs under the living quarters and slopes to the south. This serves only the living quarters. The apparatus bay trench and area drains are all connected to an oil/water separator outside the southeast corner of the building. The outlet is connected to the sewer in the adjacent street.
The gas meter is located on the north side of the living quarters adjacent to the water service. A 2” gas line enters the building and runs up to the attic for distribution. It is also in the wall of the kitchen.
Roof drainage on the apparatus bays is an internal scupper and downspout system. The downspouts are connected to piping at grade. These are connected to an on-site storm water collection system.
Utilities in the apparatus bays include overhead water hose reels. Compressed air hose reels are indicated on the original building plans, but these were never installed. Compressed air is provided by a portable air compressor only.
Fire Suppression
The station is served by a 4” wet pipe fire entrance riser. Black steel piping is run throughout the building. Upright style sprinkler heads are utilized in the apparatus bay, while downright style sprinkler heads are utilized in the finished living quarters.
Electrical
Power
The fire station is currently provided power via a PG&E pad mounted transformer on the north side of the building. The service is provided at 208Y/120V, 3-Phase, 4-Wire and is rated for 400A. The secondary feed routes below grade from the transformer to a 400A switchboard manufactured by Cutler-Hammer that is located in the main mechanical/electrical room off of the apparatus bay. This switchboard feeds (2) 200A branch panelboards that supply all branch circuits in the facility.
A double-throw switch was previously used for manual transfer from the utility service to the standby generator. The generator is no longer operational, however.
Lighting
Interior lighting throughout the living quarters and administrative portion of the fire station consists of fluorescent downlights, troffers, and volumetric fixtures. Control of the lighting is limited to manual switching.
Exterior lighting consists of building mounted sconces, pole-mounted area luminaires, and bollards.
Two ground-mounted LED floodlights illuminate the flag poles.
3 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
Telecommunications
A small telecom cabinet is located atop the mechanical/electrical room, from which horizontal data cabling is fed to telecom outlets in the facility. A small standalone UPS is located adjacent to the cabinet.
Tap-Out
Tap-out functionality at the station is limited to an amplifier system for audible alerts, a wall mounted status monitor in the living quarters, and control of the traffic caution light at the street.
DEFICIENCIES
Mechanical
HVAC
The gas furnaces and condensing units serving the living quarters appear to be from the original 1978 construction and will need to be replaced. The condensing units also contain R-22 refrigerant which has been discontinued and is no longer available.
The ventilation system in the apparatus bay is sized adequately, but the rooftop fans are in need of replacement. They are 25 years old and are showing signs of wear.
Heat was never installed in the apparatus bays and should be considered.
Plumbing
The plumbing system is generally in good condition.
Toilets and faucets can be upgraded to new water efficient fixtures if any remodeling occurs.
The water heater is a standard 80% efficient model. It could be upgraded to a tankless model or a 96% high efficiency condensing model.
Electrical
Power
The main electrical distribution equipment (switchboard and two branch panelboards) is in good condition and within their manufacturer rated lifespan. A standard of 40-years is typically used as the rated span for distribution equipment, and at 26 years, there is useful life remaining.
The generator (undersized originally and brought used to the station when it was originally constructed) was no longer functional and has since been removed entirely from the station. The generator was only capable of backing up 50% of the electrical service capacity. Additionally, the generator was only connected via a manual transfer switch, such that when the utility power would
4 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
drop, someone at the facility needed to go into the electrical room and transfer the system to the generator.
Lighting
The existing luminaires throughout the facility do provide sufficient illumination, but do not meet current energy code requirements for lighting power density. Existing lighting control (manual switching only) also is not in compliance with current requirements.
Telecommunications
Telecom distribution in the station is very limited with the tight attic space above the electrical room acting as the telecom entrance facility and general storage. The small enclosed telecom cabinet has limited capacity. A typical entrance facility for a station of this size would be a minimum of 8’x10’, allowing for the installation of a 19” wide, 72” tall, 2-post telecom rack. This would allow for multiple patch panels to accommodate increased data cabling drops provided throughout the facility, including wireless access points, CCTV IP cameras and the like. A dedicated room would accommodate managed cabling and also be provided with controlled access.
Tap-Out
The existing tap-out functionality is very limited compared to current fire station design standards.
Alerts are made only via the audible speaker system and the single flat screen monitor in the living quarters. Per feedback from station staff, the notifications are first displayed on the monitor, and then a delayed audible signal follows.
Tap-out functionality in new facilities is much more enhanced. Alert signaling for bunk rooms, for instance, now incorporates red lighting, that not only is less abrasive than full audible signaling, but also mitigates temporary lighting blindness. Lighting control via the tap-out system can also extend into the corridor leading from the bunk rooms to the apparatus bay. Automatic shutoff of kitchen cooking equipment and the gas serving either the range or a barbeque is standard. Automatic operation of apparatus bay doors and/or apparatus bay exhausting is also common.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mechanical
HVAC
• Replace the two gas furnaces with new high efficiency condensing furnaces. o (1) at 1000 CFM; 50 Mbh
o (1) at 1200 CFM; 60 Mbh
• Replace the two AC condensing units on the roof.
o (1) 2.5-Ton unit; 30 Mbh
o (1) 3-Ton unit, 36 Mbh
5 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
• Replace the rooftop exhaust fan serving the restrooms; 450 CFM. • Install new radiant heaters in the equipment bay.
o (4) 12’ - 50 Mbh capacity.
• Replace App Bay rooftop exhaust fans.
o (4) @ 5800 CFM; (1) @ 150 CFM.
• Commission all new equipment and controls.
Plumbing
• Update all plumbing fixtures with new code compliant low water use fixtures. • Upgrade gas fired water heater with new tankless high efficiency condensing unit.
Electrical
Power
• Replace the existing generator with a new 100kW/125kVA diesel-fired generator.
Recommendation would be to locate this exterior to the building (existing unit is within the apparatus bay) to eliminate need for exhausting of the system. This size matches the generator quoted in the 2002 replacement report that was created for a number of municipal facilities. This size would better provide back-up support for full station functionality than the previous unit. • Provide a new, 400-amp automatic transfer switch to replace the existing manual transfer switch.
This would eliminate potential lag time in the transfer of power to building systems in the event of a utility outage.
Lighting
• Replace the existing lighting within the facility with new LED luminaires. This would not only result in improved performance/light levels in the facility but would also lower energy usage and reduce maintenance costs.
o In lieu of full fixture replacement, troffers in the residential/administrative wing of the facility would be retrofitted with LED kits.
• Provide new lighting controls. Automatic lighting control with occupancy sensors would provide energy savings. If luminaires were to be replaced, 0-10V dimming control could be added and would provide for improved user control and comfort.
Telecommunications
• Provide a new 8’x10’ entrance facility, with fire treated plywood covering for mounting of service provider equipment on each wall. Provide a 19”-wide, 2-post telecommunications rack for a fiber distribution unit, patch cables, and switch. This rack would also have space for the head-end equipment of a vendor provided tap-out system, as well as for a CCTV system.
Tap-Out
• Provide a new tap-out alerting system (US Digital Designs or equivalent), to include:
o Amplified speaker system
6 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
o Illuminated speakers in bunk rooms.
o Message signs (for dispatch information, turnout timer, or unit status) o Strobe lights for loud areas such as the apparatus bay. o Functionality to turn off gas solenoid valve(s) and de-energize kitchen appliance power circuits.
7 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
SITE PHOTOS
Figure 1: Existing 400A Switchboard
Figure 2: Existing (non-functioning) Generator
8 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
Figure 3: Existing Manual Transfer Switch
Figure 5: Existing Telecom Distribution
9 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
Figure 5: Tap-Out Amplifier, UPS
Figure 6: Tap-Out Monitor Station
10 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
Figure 7: Apparatus Bay Ventilation
Figure 8: Apparatus Bay Ventilation
11 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
Figure 9: Utility Room
Figure 10: Gas and Water Meter
12 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
Figure 11: Internal Gutter and Downspout
Figure 12: Rooftop Exhaust Fant
13 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
Figure 13: Rooftop Condensing Unit
Figure 14: Rooftop Condensing Unit
14 / Interface Engineering, Inc.
Figure 15: Existing Wet Pipe Fire Riser
Building & Size: sq.ft. Age: Replacement Cost
Main Floor - Administration & Day Room areas 1,859
Partial Second Floor 482
Total wood frame building portion 2,341 sf
Apparatus Bays 4,881
Utility Room 436
Total main floor Apparatus Bays 5,317
Apparatus Mezzanie Floor 434
Total PEMB (pre-engineered metal building) 5,751
Total Building Area 8,092 1998 $ 10,377,990
IMMEDIATE
SHORT TERM
NEEDS, 2-5
YEARS
LONG TERM
NEEDS, 5-10
YEARS
SITE ITEMS:
Site Work
Pavement repair - apron replacement both sides $ 86,400 $ - $ - Fencing $ 7,425
Gate $ 28,207 $ - $ -
Sub-total Site Work $ 122,032 $ - $ -
MAIN BUILDING
Asbestos removal allowance $ 38,235
ADA work
Public Restrooms $ 163,350
Single User Restrooms $ 220,936
Door Thresholds $ 17,820
Interior door hardware $ 40,500
Roofing:
Single-ply, apparatus bay roof $ 157,915
Window replacement $ 54,000
Exterior door replacement. $ 24,300
Apparatus bay door replacement $ 152,051
General Notes: The following items address items from needs assessment. These costs do not address building functionality and building program needs. Refer to Greenfield Fire Station - Concept Design Report, May 2023, for space needs and related costs.
CITY OF GREENFIELD
FIRE STATION BUILDING UPGRADES
FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
WORK ITEMS
ESTIMATED COSTS & ORDER OF
IMPORTANCE
Exterior siding replacement/repair $ 38,235
Structural upgrades - seismic upgrade $ 1,579,149
Finishes
Interior & Exterior Painting $ 27,311
Flooring replacement $ 92,856
Plumbing / Mechanical
Replace gas furnaces $ 48,600
Replace AC condensing units $ 29,700
Replace exhaust fans $ 1,013
Replace apparatus bay exhaust fans $ 18,900
Fire Protection (sprinklers) $ -
Apparatus bays heating - add $ 18,900
Replace controls - included in HVAC above
Electrical
Panel replacement $ -
Lighting upgrade $ 27,311
Data room - add $ 21,600
Emergency alerting system - replacement $ 10,125
Emergency generator and enclosure, switch $ 303,750
Building Subtotal $ 3,086,554 $ - $ -
TOTALS - SITE & ALL BUILDINGS $ 3,208,586 $ - $ -
TOTAL ALL PRIORITY LEVELS $ 3,208,586
$ 397 per sq.ft.
Fire Station Needs
Assessment
Jim Langborg, Fire Chief
Joe Slack, AIA, LEED AP
205
Background
• A concept Design Report was conducted in March
of 2023
• Directed to do a Needs Assessment Report in
September of 2023
• Assessment performed by licensed Architects
and Engineers
• Intended to determine the actual state of the
facility
206
Scope Of Assessment
• Structural
• Electrical
• Plumbing
• Mechanical Systems
• Roof Systems
• Exterior & Interior Finishes
• Current Needs
• Future Needs
207
The GFD Fire Station is an Essential Services Building
208
Findings
• Immediate Needs
• Urgent / Pending Needs
• Needed For Growth
• Can wait
209
Immediate Needs
• Emergency Generator and Transfer Switch
• Apparatus Bay Doors & Operators
• Apparatus Bay Seismic Retro Fit
210
Urgent / Pending
Needs
• Showers and Bathrooms
• PPE Storage
• Fitness Area
• Sever and Telecom Room
• HVAC Systems
• Security Fencing
• Roof System
• Sleeping Area Ventilation
• Breathing Air Refill Station
211
Needed For Growth
• Additional Dorm Rooms
• Training Area / Meeting
Room
• Administrative Area with
Offices
• Larger Living Area
212
Can Wait
• Tap Out System
• Lighting
• Plumbing Fixtures
• Asphalt and Driveways
• Exterior & Interior Finishes
213
Staff Recommendation
• Fund the immediate needs.
• Generator Grant will offset
some costs
• Applied for a hazard mitigation
grant for the seismic retrofit
• Direct staff to create an ad hoc
committee to discuss the needs of
the fire station and make
recommendations to the council.
• Or, schedule a Workshop in the near
future to discuss the urgent and
pending needs of the fire station.
214
Urgent Needs Expenditures
• Installation of an emergency generator and transfer switch o Permanent generator and wiring funded by the FEMA grant. $118,888 (the city is responsible for a 10% match 11,888.80) o Interim Generator and security fencing. $136,000 ($36K fencing / $100k for portable generator). • Replacement of all apparatus bay doors and motors. $152,051 • Installation of a seismic retrofit to the apparatus bay. $1,579,149 215