AGENDA
Thursday, October 10, 2024
7:00 P.M.
A. ROLL CALL
B. PRESENTATIONS
1. Manufacturing Weeks Proclamation
2. Proclaim October as Promotores Month
3. Introduction of employee(s)
4. Commending Jim Zulawski
5. Commending Michelle Leipelt Newark Teacher of the Year Honoree C. PUBLIC COMMENT
The public is invited to address the City Council on any item not listed on the agenda. Public Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per speaker. Please note that State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered to be routine and may be approved by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion on these items unless there is a request by a Council Member, a staff member, or a member of the public to remove an item for separate discussion and action.
1. Approval of Audited Demands
2. Approval of September 26, 2024, minutes
3. Adopt a resolution approving a Second Amendment to the Contractual Services Agreement with Good City Company
4. Adopt a resolution to (1) amend the Employee Classification Plan to add the class specification of Strategic Initiatives Manager; (2) amend the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the Management, Supervisory, and Professional Employees Group to add the classification and salary range for Strategic Initiatives Manager; (3) amend the City's Salary Schedule in conformance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and (4) amend the 2024 - 2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to delete and add classifications
5. Adopt a resolution rejecting bid protests, awarding a contract to S & H Construction, Inc. for the Newark Resource Center, Project 1360 and amending the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
6. Adopt a resolution establishing a maintenance reserve fund E. PUBLIC HEARINGS
F. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Introduction of an ordinance adding Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.42, “Tobacco Retailers” to Title 5 of the Newark Municipal Code
2. Adopt a resolution approving the Facilities Master Plan and direct staff to explore options for a funding plan for the priority needs, as identified in the Plan G. CITY MANAGER UPDATES
H. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS
City Council Members report on attendance at intergovernmental agency meetings, conferences, and seminars since the last meeting. City Council Members may also announce upcoming events and coordinate attendance; report on local events attended since the last meeting; and make brief comments on issues of concern.
I. CLOSED SESSION
J. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING INFORMATION
Members of the public may attend the meeting in person, watch online, or watch on Cable Channel 26. The ability to observe online or Cable Channel 26 is predicated on those technologies being available and functioning without technical difficulties. Should those platforms not be available, or become non-functioning, or should the City Council otherwise encounter technical difficulties that make those platforms unavailable, the City Council will proceed with business in person unless otherwise prohibited by law.
How to view the meeting remotely:
Livestream online at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofnewark3077/streams Packet Page No. 2
Livestream online at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofnewark3077/streams Copy/paste the YouTube URL into your browser if the link does not automatically open.
Cable Channel 26 - if the meeting does not broadcast live, please contact your service provider and request the City of Newark channel lineup.
Zoom will no longer be available for public participation unless required by Assembly Bill 2449. Should a Council Member or the Mayor attend the meeting via Zoom pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449, then the Webinar ID No. 893 5607 1850 will be activated. The Mayor will make an announcement at the beginning of the meeting that the City will be allowing public comment via Zoom. Raise your virtual hand to notify the City Clerk that you would like to speak during the item that you wish to speak on.
How to submit written Public Comment:
Send an email to City Clerk by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the agenda item number in the subject line of your email. Emails will be compiled into one file and will be distributed to the City Council before the meeting.
No question shall be asked of a council member, city staff, or an audience member except through the Mayor. No person shall interrupt the meeting. Any person who refuses to carry out instructions given by the Mayor for the purpose of maintaining order may be guilty of an infraction and may result in removal from the meeting.
Council Meeting Access/Materials:
The agenda packet is available for review at Agendas and Minutes. The packet is typically posted to the City website the Friday before the meeting, but no later than 72 hours before the meeting.
Pursuant to Government Code 54957.5, supplemental materials distributed less than 72 hours before this meeting, to a majority of the City Council, will be made available for public inspection at this meeting and will be posted at https://www.newark.org/departments/city-manager-s-office/agendas-minutes and will concurrently be made available for public inspection during regular business hours at the David W. Smith City Hall, 37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark CA. Materials prepared by City staff and distributed during the meeting are available for public inspection at the meeting or after the meeting if prepared by some other person. Documents related to closed session items or are exempt from disclosure will not be made available for public inspection. For those persons who require special accommodations, please contact the City Clerk at least two days prior to the meeting at City Clerk or 510-578-4266.
Executive Team Members
David J. Benoun
City Manager
Lenka Hovorka
Assistant City Manager
Kristopher J. Kokotaylo
City Attorney
Steven Turner
Community Development Director
Jonathan Arguello
Police Chief
Edwin Miranda
CIO/Information Technology
Director
Howard Young
Public Works Director
Cathreene Ingham-Watters
Human Resources Director
Krysten Lee
Finance Director
Ryan Nishimoto
ACFD Deputy Chief
Nicholas Cuevas, Recreation and Community Services Director Packet Page No. 3
Item B. 1.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT Manufacturing Weeks Proclamation
Manufacturing Week is a national public awareness campaign on the value of modern manufacturing and the jobs it brings to communities. Last year's Manufacturing Week was so successful that this year it will be honored with two weeks, from October 4 through October 18. A proclamation has been prepared in honor of Manufacturing Weeks. Morgan Pedersen, Special Assistant with the Economic Development Division and members of the manufacturing community will accept the proclamation at the City Council meeting.
Attachments
Proclamation No. 1926
Packet Page No. 4
PROCLAMATION NO. 1926
MANUFACTURING WEEKS
WHEREAS, manufacturing is the backbone of America, powering our economy and building our middle class, and we celebrate the strength and resilience of the American worker and recommit to the investments and innovation that will ensure the future is Made in America; and WHEREAS, we celebrate all that is made in America and recognize the importance of our Nation’s manufacturers to every aspect of our lives, from the electronics we rely on, to the safely packaged foods we eat, the clothing we wear, the appliances and furniture in our homes, the cars we drive, and biotechnology that makes our world safer — American manufacturing is essential to our economy; and WHEREAS, the manufacturing industry employs over 12 million Americans nation-wide and over 300 thousand citizens across the nine Bay Area counties directly and many more indirectly — providing high quality jobs to communities across the country and region and producing the highest quality goods in the world; and
WHEREAS, we recognize manufacturing as an evolving business which is becoming cleaner, greener, and more advanced; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newark was born from manufacturing innovation, such as salt production and the creation of the Wedgewood stove, and continues to be home to countless manufacturers that strengthen our economy and make our world a better place; and WHEREAS, by participating in Manufacturing Weeks, the City of Newark has the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of our local manufacturers; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael K. Hannon, Mayor of the City of Newark, on behalf of the Newark City Council, do hereby proclaim Friday, October 4, 2024, through Friday, October 18, 2024, as
MANUFACTURING WEEKS
in the City of Newark and encourage residents to appreciate how items they use every day came to exist.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Newark to be affixed this Tenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty-four.
Michael K. Hannon
Mayor
Packet Page No. 5
Item B. 2.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT Proclaim October as Promotores Month
The Promotores Network plays an invaluable role in making the City of Newark a more welcoming place to live. Promotores are Spanish-speaking members of our community who are trained to be advocates in the community and to identify solutions to community needs. A proclamation declaring October as Promotores Month has been prepared and will be presented to representatives from Promotores at the City Council meeting.
Attachments
Proclamation No. 1927
Packet Page No. 6
PROCLAMATION NO. 1927
PROCLAIMING OCTOBER 2024
PROMOTORES MONTH
WHEREAS, Promotores are Spanish-speaking women and men who are trained to be advocates who create solutions to community needs; and
WHEREAS, the Promotores Network plays an invaluable role in making the City of Newark a more welcoming place to live; and
WHEREAS, the Newark Promotores act as intermediaries between healthcare, social services, and educational institutions and the Latino community. They provide information, referrals, and training to ensure access to these vital services; and WHEREAS, the Newark Promotores’ work is grounded in strong cultural values, including a deep appreciation for personal relationships and an eagerness to help and support each other in a new community; and
WHEREAS, as they learn to navigate a new culture and community, the Newark Promotores become guides to other families new to our City. The Newark Promotores Network is like an extended family providing social and emotional support to each other; and WHEREAS, October 2024 has been designated as Promotores Month; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael K. Hannon, Mayor of the City of Newark, on behalf of the Newark City Council, do hereby proclaim October 2024 as
PROMOTORES MONTH
in Newark and thank Newark Promotores for the compassion and the commitment they show to their community. They are role models for all of us on how to ensure the health, safety, and educational and financial well-being of the most underserved families.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Newark, State of California, to be affixed this Tenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty-four.
MICHAEL K. HANNON
Mayor
Packet Page No. 7
Item B. 3.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT Introduction of employee(s)
The following employee(s) will be introduced at the City Council meeting:
Jessennia Taimani, Recreation Supervisor
Packet Page No. 8
Item B. 4.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT Commending Jim Zulawski
In July, a distracted driver hit a tree and flipped their car onto its roof near Mowry Avenue and Alpenrose Court. Jim Zulawski and another good Samaritan pulled the driver and their dog out to safety. A commendation has been prepared for Mr.
Zulawski to thank him for his actions.
Attachments
Commendation
Packet Page No. 9
COMMENDATION
COMMENDING JIM ZULAWSKI
WHEREAS, in July, a distracted driver hit a tree and flipped their car onto its roof near Mowry Avenue; and
WHEREAS, JIM ZULAWSKI and another good Samaritan, rushed to the scene, shattered the car’s side window, cut the seatbelt, and pulled the driver out to safety. They then went back and successfully rescued the driver’s dog as well; and WHEREAS, helping people comes naturally to JIM ZULAWSKI, he was honored by Assembly Member Bob Wieckowski in 2014 as a local hero for his volunteer work at the Viola Blythe Center. Jim has coordinated weekly donation pick-ups, played a vital role in the center’s annual fireworks booth fundraiser, and helps in the preparations of its annual Christmas Party that provides toys to more than 300 children each year.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael K. Hannon, Mayor of the City of Newark, on behalf of the Newark City Council, do hereby commend
JIM ZULAWSKI
for his heroic lifesaving actions and hold him up as an example for making a positive difference through his volunteer efforts.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Newark, State of California, to be affixed this Tenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty-four.
MICHAEL K. HANNON
Mayor
Packet Page No. 10
Item B. 5.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT Commending Michelle Leipelt Newark Teacher of the Year Honoree The Newark Unified School District (District) selected Michelle Leipelt as the District's honoree for the 2024 Alameda County Teachers of the Year Award Ceremony. Ms.
Leipelt works in Transitional Kindergarten at Birch Grove Primary. A commendation has been prepared for Ms. Leipelt in honor of her dedication and excellence in the classroom.
Attachments
Commendation
Packet Page No. 11
COMMENDATION
MICHELLE LEIPELT
TEACHER OF THE YEAR
WHEREAS, MICHELLE LEIPELT is currently a transitional kindergarten (TK) teacher at Birch Grove Primary and has been part of the Newark Unified School District family since 1998; and
WHEREAS, MICHELLE LEIPELT excels at educating, guiding, and motivating her TK students; and
WHEREAS, MICHELLE LEIPELT provides ongoing support and guidance to other TK teachers and has been an integral part of two initiatives at Birch Grove Primary that support student mental health and well-being. During the introduction of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), she worked to gather data and input from all stakeholders and encouraged blending existing systems with the new systems.
Michelle then participated in an institute led by the University of California, San Francisco Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS) team which engages in Trauma Informed Practices for students, and WHEREAS, MICHELLE LEIPELT is always eager to collaborate with classroom teachers when students are struggling to access grade-level content; and WHEREAS, MICHELLE LEIPELT consistently reaches out to the family members of her students quickly, to help them solve any issues; and WHEREAS, MICHELLE LEIPELT has been selected by the Newark Unified School District as their Teacher of the Year for the 2024 Alameda County Teacher of the Year Award Ceremony;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael K Hannon, Mayor of the City of Newark, on behalf of the Newark City Council, do hereby commend
MICHELLE LEIPELT
TEACHER OF THE YEAR
for her untiring work, professionalism, and contributions to the youth of our community.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Newark, State of California, to be affixed this Tenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty-four.
MICHAEL K. HANNON
Packet Page No. 12
Mayor
Packet Page No. 13
Item D. 1.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Krysten Lee, Finance Director
SUBJECT Approval of Audited Demands
Attachments
Audited Demands Sept. 12 to 19
Packet Page No. 14
!"
#
$
%&'()')%)* +,-. /01.2345.678369.:0,..204. ;<+=0>?@A9983>1 +60>B091C8>
A483>1 =0>?A9983>1DEFGHIEEJJKLMNOFEPEIQR JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]WEUU^_`abFcdcefTEgQEJ ZhZiZjXW k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qT Er^_`a W\sts\WXYWtY[W[\EgQEJGELuLON[W[\FvRwkLwO ZhZiZjXW JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]ZEUU^_`abFcdcefTEQQkRnELNKONKvROkMJ ]W[jix k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a ELuy[\WxYsZY[W[\EQQkRnGgQRRNOLFFQkROWxYWZGWxY[iY[\ ]W[jix JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z][EUU^_`abFcdcefTEwRvkJEMMENkKMEQvRnJvKOO sisjxW k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a [[iZ]X[ZWxY[ZY[W[\OzEQQK{{ENRvQkgRuLEvnkMuJRvNkgkJENkKMxYZ\GxYZ]Y[\ sisjxW JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]sEUU^_`abFcdcefTIEkQRPgRMJRJKwFEMPkMJ ttZjWW k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a x]t[tWxY[WY[W[\JKwwLMkNPFEv|JQgRMJRvRFEkvxY[WY[\ ttZjWW JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]\EUU^_`abFcdcefT}KORFz~jIEQENIEN ZhsXijt] k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a WiZ\[\GWiZX[\RFWXYWsY[W[\zKNRQYwREQONvEMOFKvNENkKMGROvkJKMgRvRMJRWiYZ\GWiYZXY[\ ZhsXijt] JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]tEUU^_`abFcdcefTONENRnkOILvORwRMNLMkN Zjsx k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a FFRxjsZj[\WXYWtY[W[\ uEvMkOzGJEOR[WWWWWWW[Z[xs]tGxYZxY[\GxYsZY[\ Zjsx JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]]EUU^_`abFcdcefTJRMNvEQRNRvkMEvPzKOFkNEQ Zxsjit k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a tZ]]W]WiYsZY[W[\RNOJOWiYsZY[\ Zxsjit JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]iEUU^_`abFcdcefTFRNNPJEOzJLONKnkEMGNkEMME}KMRO iWWj[] k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a WX[][sGW]sW[\OJWiYZiY[W[\FRNNPJEOzvRFQRMkOzwRMNWXY[]Y[sGW]YsWY[\ iWWj[] JSTUV WXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]xEUU^_`abFcdcefTJQREvuKkMJj s\hxs[jtt k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a [W[\GZ\]]ZWiYWZY[W[\OLIOJvkFNkKMORvkJRgRROWiYWZY[\GW]YsWY[t s\hxs[jtt JSTUVWXYZ[Y[W[\Z[Z]XEUU^_`abFcdcefTJKLMNPKgEQEwRnEKggkJRKg EuRMJPnkvRJNKv shZWxjWW k`l^mUTncaTnTbUompam^`JSTUVO^oaJ^qTEr^_`a Packet Page No. 15
!
"#$%&'()(*+
,
-,
-
- !.! $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$%
.
5
,
-''
'
'
!.!
!
"#$%&'()(*+
,
-,
-
' 5 $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$%
.!.
5
,
-
'
'
5
!
"#$%&'()(*+
,6
,
-
5 $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$%
!
,
,
,'
77 5
!
"#$%&'()(*+
,
-
-
,
!! $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$% ..5
5
,
'
'
!!
!
"#$%&'()(*+
6
'-7
!!5 $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$% 5 !
6-
6.
!!5
!5
"#$%&'()(*+
7
-,
'
7
.
$/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$%
5!!
'67 -
'!
!
55!
'6
,--
,!
.
5.!
-8- '---!
!
5!
-8--
'
,7
9
!
5
5.!
'6-
'
,!
!.
"#$%&'()(*+
7
5 $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$% !57
'
- ' 7 5
!!
"#$%&'()(*+
77
55 $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$% !!5.
'6- !
!!
'6-
7 55. !!.
9,
6-
,
,7
!
5
--
:
,' '
--
5
!..
,
''677 !5
!
"#$%&'()(*+
7,
5 $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$% 5
!
7
;'
'
5
!
"#$%&'()(*+
'
,,
6 .5 $/"0
,(%
,
&
102%0"$
"1%
"3
4"#$%
5
5
,7;--
,
8
7!
!
.5
"#$%&'()(*+
,,7
Packet Page No. 16
!""!#$%&'()#*%(#
($ +, !"!""-"
% . /0
(#
$&( 1+2 ,-
"13-1"-!1"!4*#)!"13-!1"! 1+2 ,- !"!""-
% . /0
#$%#'('(5 +,1"
&
6-!"1!
#$%#'%&(
!"!3-!"! +,1" !"!""-1
% . /0*'(*'#*)*''&'#7 $&*%))(4 ,
3! ! $$
(
%&7#(3 , !"!""-
% . /089'$ ,
" -!" !*'&*'&%3
4(-!"2! , !"!""-
% . /04*#((9'$*'(*'#*) +-","
--! !%&)(
(:&''-! ! +-"," !"!""-2
% . /0)##$ 11 ,
"121-!1"!($#(((53-! 11 , !"!""-
% . /08#)$ "+,"-
-2$ !""!#$%&'()#*%(#
($ "+,"- !"!""--
% . /0$(4
#'
( "+1,
""-!2!*#(
(7'*!)77*$*(!"3!"! , -"-"-!2!*#( (7'*!)77*$*(-!"3-!"! -, !"!""-
% . /0*5
*7'#)&'#*)*'%9 ,
"--""-!1!79!#
($*'('#*73-!"!'#-!1"! , !"!""
% . /0*;(4&*7
##)'(' 1,
*53"!"! $(
7'%#'( 1, !"!"" "
% . /0%#'5%(#$#'#*+* 1+ 21,"
-! !#$$&*'9*
$*'&%%) 1+ 21," !"!""
% . /0(
#*)
#5(*$*'(5 &'
#('9 +,
Packet Page No. 17
!"
#
#$!!%&'()*+*,- .
/
'0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'(
/
/
/
/
/
/
!"
#
#
!!%&'()*+*,-
'0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4
5%&'(
$
6 ..
!"
#
#
!!%&'()*+*,-
#
6 '0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'( 6/
$/
$
78 66
#
$
$
/
6/
$
78$6
#
$
!"
#
#6!!%&'()*+*,- 9 /
#
/ '0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'( .6$
/
$
: /
#
/ !"
#
#/!!%&'()*+*,-
'0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'( 6$
/
7:7
!"
#
#!!%&'()*+*,- : $
6 '0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'(
;
#
#
.
$
6 !"
#
##!!%&'()*+*,- :
'0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'(
/#
.7
!"
#
!!%&'()*+*,- : #
66 '0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'(
6 6
$.
6 $
6 /
6 6
$.
6 $
6 /
6 6
6
$.
6 $
6 /
6 6
$.
6 $
6 / !"
#
!!%&'()*+*,- .<
#/#
'0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'(
/
/6
/
$
==
#/#
!"
#
!!%&'()*+*,- . #
6#
6 '0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'(
#
$6#
#
#
$
$
#
$6
#
.
#
6 !"
#
$!!%&'()*+*,-
=
'0%1! .*( . )!213(1%' !"%2(%4 5%&'(
$
$6
#
..
!"
#
!!%&'()*+*,- :
. 6
Packet Page No. 18
!
"! #$
%
&'(
)*%
+
+,
- . /01
21!
&(,*
()(
34 !! #$
35
$6!2$3
3$7 !$
$ 4- &(,*
+
+)
- . /0-
5$24$ *
(+%,(
+
34 !! #$#3!84
*
+
+(
- . /05$1!2!6 5 ,*
(,
,
34 !! #$#3!$
! !9
3$ ,*
+
+%
- . /0
23$$ (&*
(,(%
&
34 !! #$
!$
3$$3
73
5!375 (&* #
+
++,
- . /0-
!44
:$ !9 2
&,%)
,&%,)%) +2(%*+&
%&+'7 $ !
&
4:--3!
' 4 !7-! --
$$'9
5!%
+2(%*+& -;:3$
-:
0 <
<,
=)2)*+)
<=)2+*& #
<+ =+2(%*+&
Packet Page No. 19
!"
#
$
%&'()'*%*+ ,-./ 012/3456/78947:/;1-//315/ <=,>1?@AB::94?2 ,71?C1:2D9?
B594?2 >1?@B::94?2EFGHIJFFKKLMNOPGFQFJRS KTUVW XYZ[\Z]X]^[]]XYFVV_`abcGdedfgUhLOijFOKLkkSSlLFPOSlP [mXXXnXX iao_pVUqdbUqUcVrpsbp_aKTUVWP_rbK_tU Fu_`ab [vv\XYZXwZ]X]^KLkkSSKFlOkLlKiOQSjSNOLNXYZ[YZ]^ [mXXXnXX FGIJFFKKLMNOPGFQFJRSO_bdgcxOrdacdVbp_acx[ y[mXXXnXX KTUVWcx[ y[mXXXnXX Packet Page No. 20
!"
#
$
%&'(&')%)* +,-. /01.2345.678369.:0,..204. ;<+=0>?@A9983>1 +60>B091C8>
A483>1 =0>?A9983>1DEFGHIEEJJKLMNOFEPEIQR JSTUV WXYZXY[W[\Z[[ZWEUU]^_`aFbcbdeTfREQNfEMgfLhEMiROKLiJR JRMNRijkMJ l\mnop k_q]rUTgb`TgTaUsrt`r]_JSTUVO]s`J]uT Ev]^_` RWm[[lWWWlYWZY[W[\RhFQKPRREOOkONEMNFiKwiEhxREFyGELwLON[W[\ [\lnpz RWm[oZmZWpYW[Y[W[\RhFQKPRREOOkONEMNFiKwiEhxREFyGORFNRhIRi[W[\ [\lnpz RWm[WXlmWzYWoY[W[\RhFQKPRREOOkONEMNFiKwiEhxREFyG{LQP[W[\ [\lnpz JSTUV WXYZXY[W[\Z[[ZZEUU]^_`aFbcbdeTEQEhRgEJKLMNP|ENRigkONikJN [zmj[pZnlp k_q]rUTgb`TgTaUsrt`r]_JSTUVO]s`J]uTEv]^_` Wz[oGWXW\[\WpY[mY[W[\EJ|gJkNP|kgR|ENRiWzY[oGWXYW\Y[\ [zmj[pZnlp JSTUV WXYZXY[W[\Z[[Z[EUU]^_`aFbcbdeTILiNKM}O~kiRkMJ zZnpZ k_q]rUTgb`TgTaUsrt`r]_JSTUVO]s`J]uT Ev]^_` Ozo\mmWpY[pY[W[\~QRRNfEMgQRQK zZnpZ JSTUV WXYZXY[W[\Z[[ZmEUU]^_`aFbcbdeTJEQk~KiMkEILkQgkMwK~~kJkEQO Zj[\WnWW k_q]rUTgb`TgTaUsrt`r]_JSTUVO]s`J]uTEv]^_` Zll\oWpYW[Y[W[\JEQIKGNiEkMkMwEMgRgLJENkKMZWY[pGZWYmZY[\ Zj[\WnWW JSTUV WXYZXY[W[\Z[[Z\EUU]^_`aFbcbdeTJEQk~KiMkEhLMkJkFEQONENkONkJOjkMJ ooWnWW k_q]rUTgb`TgTaUsrt`r]_JSTUVO]s`J]uTEv]^_` [\Wp[XZWWpY[XY[W[\EJ~iGgkiRJNEMgKRiQEFFkMwIKMgRggRINiRFKiNEOK~ zYmWY[\ ooWnWW JSTUV WXYZXY[W[\Z[[ZoEUU]^_`aFbcbdeTJkNPK~~iRhKMN plj\opnWW k_q]rUTgb`TgTaUsrt`r]_JSTUVO]s`J]uTEv]^_` mm\XWlWpYWlY[W[\EQEhRgEJKLMNPJQREM|ENRiFiKwiEhJKMNikILNkKM~P[\Y[o plj\opnWW JSTUV WXYZXY[W[\Z[[ZzEUU]^_`aFbcbdeTgRFEiNhRMNK~OKJkEQORikJRO \p\nWW k_q]rUTgb`TgTaUsrt`r]_JSTUVO]s`J]uTEv]^_` \zXlWoWlYWmY[W[\JfkQgJEiRQkJRMOkMw~RRO~P[o \p\nWW JSTUV WXYZXY[W[\Z[[ZlEUU]^_`aFbcbdeTR|kMwkiikwENkKMFiKgLJNOkMJn [j\l[nWm k_q]rUTgb`TgTaUsrt`r]_JSTUVO]s`J]uTEv]^_` [[llZmXzWlYW[Y[W[\kiikwENkKMOLFFQkROGFKkMNK~OEQR lmnWp [[llZ[[mWlYW[Y[W[\kiikwENkKMOLFFQkROGFKkMNK~OEQR [jm\lnp\ [[pz\ll\WlYZoY[W[\kiikwENkKMOLFFQkROGJKLFQkMwOFKkMNK~OEQR [ln\l [m[z\Xm\WpY[pY[W[\kiikwENkKMOLFFQkROGQEOJKhEiQRFKkMNK~OEQR [mnz\ Packet Page No. 21
!"#$
!%! &'()
!*+,,-+.+/-0
1
2'
! 34
"""#$
!%/5!
&'()
$
, & 2)
( !*+,,-+.+/-0
1
6(
'
" /#"!/7
!
,
,/
2)'
6 (
" /#"!/7/
5&
,
,
6 )
%
4!
"
,/
$
%$ & !) (&2 ')( !*+,,-+.+/-0 1
''
"8"
$
!"!7 !/9!""
9'
&'
2)62
2'
"8" $
!"!
!7
/4
'
&2
)'
4!""3
,
&6
)
2 !*+,,-+.+/-0
1 2''6 2(
:
!
!
"/#"!/7
9"/ !//#
&6
)
2
4!,"! ,""
$
/8
//
!
/
&(
)2 !*+,,-+.+/-0
1 /!
''
/
!
;7
/5!/<
() /!
/
"/
;
#,! /5!/<
&
)2
(
5
"
!,%
3
,5!/
/& 4#"
%8
//
!
/
&(6)'
!*+,,-+.+/-0
1 (
(6(
3
!/
"7$
93
59
"!
/$ 6
&(6)'
!!==
6 ) !*+,,-+.+/-0
1 6 (
76
6
!==
! 4,
3
!/6 (76
6 )
'
4!%4
$79
/ ') !*+,,-+.+/-0
1 ;!$
7
"/
#
/%!
,/
! 34
""/"!,
3
')
2 !
!
"
,
#!"&!) &2') !*+,,-+.+/-0
1 (226
!
7 (
&2')
6 ,
!3 &2
)' !*+,,-+.+/-0
1 ;!$
7
2
/
"
,
)6 ;!$
7
7 2
"!
,!$$
/4! 2
7 2
' &26)
!
!:
$
(&6()'' !*+,,-+.+/-0
1 6
7
;
,/4
"6
7
(&6()''
:
/3/ $/ 22') !*+,,-+.+/-0
1
Packet Page No. 22
!"#$
%&%'(
)
*
+
) , - ". /
0%#
0 $
1/2#/ "
1#
3
4 !"# )
0)50
6,, ,,+
+
0
760
7
-
!"#$
%&%'(
6 ,,
,)
+)0
* - ". /
0%#
0 $
1/2#/ "
1#
3
4 !"# +
-
!"#$
%&%'(
08
,)7
)
- ". /
0%#
0 $
1/2#/ "
1#
3
4 !"# 08
,)7
)
,
-
!"#$
%&%'(
6
9
:
,
- ". /
0%#
0 $
1/2#/ "
1#
3
4 !"#
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
-
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
-
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
-
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
-
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
-
,
,
*
6)
66
,9
!"#$
%&%'(
)
)
,
9
9)
-
- ". /
0%#
0 $
1/2#/ "
1#
3
4 !"# ) ,,
7,
9
9
,
7
;
7
-
!"#$
%&%'(
6
0 ,,
". /
0%#
0 $
1/2#/ "
1#
3
4 !"# 0)
:
) 0)+
0
9
9
<
,
=
!"#$
%&%'(
99 <
8 - ". /
0%#
0 $
1/2#/ "
1#
3
4 !"# ) ,,
7,
9
9
0 7
,)+
,
7
;
7
-
!"#$
%&%'(
*)
7
9)
-
09;
)+ * ". /
0%#
0 $
1/2#/ "
1#
3
4 !"# ;)
)+
)
0+
6
!"#$
%&%'(
00
)+ * -
Packet Page No. 23
!"#!
$
%
& "'()"*
+
!" !
"
+
, -./0
(*1
"
111
1!
!
2/
/3 (*1
!" !
"
, -./4
0 (*
1
(
"+
1!
#!
2/5$3/& (*
1
!" !
"
"
, -./6 "(*
#
"
6
#!
"!
6$
&
$%77
$7/
#!
"!
%
#!
"!
) "(*
!" !
"
, -.
&
0$8/843$* )
*
+11
1!
#!
/
305
51!
#!
1"*
+ )
1!+
!
05
1!
!
1"*
!" !
"
+
, -.&$5
/&/$4
59 &/38 #+'++#*)
%
1 "
1!+
!
:$8
/
5%&4&
+)'1"1*1"
%
#
"
#!+"!
:$8
/
5%:&/3
+)'("1*1"
!" !
"
, -.&
$/$$$4
$
'$* "'#(
*
%
#+"
1!"
!
8:45%/;0<08
$8$%5#!+"!
"'#(
*
!" !
"
(
, -.&/3/84
8&'// "'+##*
"
)+
%2&4
!
!
22
8$=
%8&$"
)+
1!
"'+##*
!" !
"
)
, -.76$; "'
) *)
(
))
!
)!
05
8$
!
)!
"'
) *)
!" !
"
#
, -.8
8$&
3
'
*"(
"
1 "
!
#!
&$
'&$28
&
34&
!+!
% !)!
"'
1+*
"
1 #+
!"!
&$
'&$28
&
34&
! !
% !"
!
"'"+#*"(
!" !
"
1
, -.>$2/3'// ' )
*
(
#!
!
0>
8&
/$49
8
#!
!
' )
*
!" !
"
, -.&4
$':>>/3$ "'
*
%
+(+#
!""!
/5$
&
38
2&$ "'
*
!" !
"
(
, -.2
>
'/; +
*
Packet Page No. 24
!"# $%" &'!' "% ($ " )
*
$ + ,-$"./0 1)*
21*
'"%0 &'!.#!%"#3 ". # 1)*
*
$ + ,- 3'#/.
1)
*
1
2
'"%0 &'! 4" &%'$#" %!"&& "0
1)
*
$ + ,- 3'#/.
*)
*
1
2
'"%0 &'!' "%'4 5
*) &"
1
$ + ,-4." .!%#%4 !6.7
122
1/11)1
1
89"%4 *5 %!""1
:
2
1/11)1 &"
$ + ,-39%'0 !"%#'"%!/##)22
*
*
1/*
)*
**5
2
1
%$ # 5 %&*:"%! :$%#
1)2 **5
211*1
2
%$ # 5 %&*:%; 4
:1
/2)
2 *11
# $50 !"
12
:1
*
:
)
**1
# $50 !"
12:1
*
:
/1)
1
# $50 !"
12:1
*:
)
111
*
# $50 !"
12:
*:1
)1
# $50 !"
12
:
*
:1
) &"
$ + ,- 483#00!4 0 !" ; /!)
1
11*
2/
)
&:1*
:
*1
*1
8%3 %0$ !"%!#0:
:
/
)
&:1*
:
*
8%3 %0$ !"%!#0:1
:1
*/*
)1 $<9%'!"$59# "
-
="
=
>2/1)2
=
>*
/*
) &"
= >
2 /)2
Packet Page No. 25
Item D. 2.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Sheila Harrington, City Clerk
SUBJECT Approval of September 26, 2024, minutes
Attachments
Minutes
Packet Page No. 26
City of Newark | Newark City Council
Mayor Michael K. Hannon | Vice Mayor Luis L. Freitas | Council Members: Maria “Sucy” Collazo, Matthew Jorgens, and Ana Apodaca
Minutes
Thursday, September 26, 2024
7:00 P.M.
A. ROLL CALL
Mayor Hannon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Freitas, Council Members Collazo, Jorgens, and Apodaca were present.
B. PRESENTATIONS
1. Introduction of employee(s)
Mayor Hannon introduced: Angela Tsui, Deputy Economic Development Director, Krishnan Narayan, Senior Information Technology Analyst, Missy Gallardo, Dispatcher, and Ericka Deguzman-Quintero, Dispatcher.
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Katherine Faragi, 9th grader at Newark Memorial High School spoke in favor of a Tobacco Retail License Ordinance. She requested that the City ban the sale of all flavored tobacco products.
Renetta Faragi, also spoke in favor a Tobacco Retail License Ordinance. She requested that the City Council ban vapes in Newark.
City Manager Benoun stated that the Tobacco Retail License Ordinance will be presented to the City Council in October.
Packet Page No. 27
Page No. 2
City of Newark City Council Minutes September 26, 2024
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Collazo moved, Vice Mayor Freitas seconded, to approve Consent Calendar items D.1 to D.6, that the resolutions and ordinance be numbered consecutively, and that reading of the titles suffice for adoption. The motion passed, 5 AYES.
1. Approval of Audited Demands
2. Approval of September 12, 2024, minutes
3. Second reading and adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.09 of the Newark Municipal Code ("City Councilmembers-Compensation") to increase the salaries of City Councilmembers and Mayor
Ordinance No. 551
4. Adopt a resolution approving the Contractual Services Agreement with Dell for the Virtual Server Infrastructure Lifecycle Replacement and amending the 2024 -2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
Resolution No.11687
Contract No. 24082
5. Adopt a resolution amending the Conflict of Interest Code for nonelected officials and designated employees
Resolution No. 11688
6. Notification of City Engineer's Pending Decision on the Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8583 – Cedar Homes (Robson Homes LLC) at 38370 Cedar Boulevard
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS
F. OTHER BUSINESS
G. CITY MANAGER UPDATES
Packet Page No. 28
Page No. 3
City of Newark City Council Minutes September 26, 2024
City Manager Benoun announced that the Police Department would hold a Coffee with A Cop event on October 2 at Starbucks on Cedar Boulevard.
H. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS
Vice Mayor Freitas congratulated the Newark Days Committee for another successful event. He stated that he understood that the Newark Girls Softball League meeting with staff and others was a productive meeting.
Council Member Collazo stated she was dressed to celebrate Latin Heritage Month. She thanked the Promotores and Administrative Assistant Rivera for their work with the community and for organizing the Mariachi Festival this year. Shop Newark.
Mayor Hannon thanked Environmental Services Manager Scanlin for hosting the Climate Action Plan meeting.
Mayor Hannon stated that he was issuing a condemnation against the shortsighted ownership of the Oakland A’s. The A’s were a part of the community and the team was supported by the fans win or lose. (Today was the last home game before A’s move out of the area.)
I. CLOSED SESSION
1. Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Title: City Manager
No one requested to speak.
At 7:29 p.m. the City Council recessed to closed session.
At 7:35 p.m. the City Council convened in closed session.
At 8:50 p.m. the City Council reconvened in open session will all Council Members present.
Packet Page No. 29
Page No. 4
City of Newark City Council Minutes September 26, 2024
J. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hannon adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Packet Page No. 30
Item D. 3.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT Adopt a resolution approving a Second Amendment to the Contractual Services Agreement with Good City Company
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize a second amendment to the City's existing Contractural Services Agreement (CSA) with Good City Company (GCC), which would assist the City in two ways. First, GCC will develop objective design standards for single-family and multi-family projects. Second, GCC will provide on-call planning services for complex land use planning work, such as processing entitlements for large projects, assisting with the implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element's policies and programs, and other work as needed to help staff increase staff capacity necessary to maintain appropriate service levels. To provide these services, GCC's existing CSA “not-to-exceed” amount would be increased from $150,000 to $359,250, an increase of $209,250.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to the Good City Company CSA to provide professional planning services.
BACKGROUND
The City has relied on professional consultants to provide services and experience that City staff are unable to provide, such as environmental review services and other additional services to supplement city staff services. For example, the City has several CSAs with consultants for on-call professional city planning services, Public Works Department construction inspections, and civil engineering development plan review services. These CSAs allow the City to address service and experience needs while maintaining high customer service levels.
In August 2020, staff released a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning firms to assist with staff augmentation, specialized studies, and other work. In November 2020, the City Council approved CSAs with three firms that provided RFQ responses: Baird + Driskell Community Planning, Urban Planning Partners, and Metropolitan Planning Group. Good City Company provided an eligible RFQ response, but the city chose not to pursue a CSA with GCC due to budget constraints.
Packet Page No. 31
In March 2021, the City entered into a CSA with Good City Company for a “not-to-exceed” amount of $50,000.00 to provide on-call professional planning services to increase city staff capacity for various land use planning efforts. City staff initiated an on-call service task in November 2023 for an entry-level land use planner to provide customer service functions and plan review functions through the end of March 2024.
In February 2024, staff recommended an amendment to the GCC CSA to increase the “not-to-exceed” amount to $150,000 due to the continued need for entry-level staff capacity to provide customer service functions, process Single-Family Design Review applications, and various building permit reviews. The City Council approved the staff recommendation and authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Good City Company CSA on February 22, 2024. The amendment allowed Good City Company to provide services through the end of the 2024 calendar year.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Community Development Department has an ongoing need for on-call land use planning services and recommends a second amendment to the Good City Company CSA. GCC will assist staff with implementing the 2023-2031 Housing Element Program H3.2, which requires the city to develop objective design standards for single-family and multi-family development projects. The State of California has enacted laws that require streamlined housing approval for mixed-use and multi-family development. The intent of objective design standards is to provide applicants and developers with a clear understanding of the City’s expectations for project design, thereby providing a streamlined and efficient project review process and ensuring that the project review and approval process is objective, efficient, and consistent.
Implementing this Housing Element program requires amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) and other titles of the Newark Municipal Code. The costs associated with Housing Element implementation are funded through the recently approved 2024-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP includes $400,000 allocated to Housing Element implementation work, including various studies and analyses to support staff-recommended changes to the municipal code and to create new policies and programs. The cost of services for GCC to prepare objective design standards is estimated to be $109,250.
The City is also in need of on-call technical assistance services for high-level land use planning work, such as processing planning entitlements for large, complex planning projects, assisting with 2023-2031 Housing Element policy and program tasks, and other work as needed. The current three-person city staff team is expected to remain above its capacity at least through the 2025 calendar year. Although staff is expected to hire a full-time Assistant Planner within the next few months, the Assistant Planner will be working on entry-level planning work. The on-call planning services requested at a senior land use planner level will provide the technical assistance necessary to allow the City to achieve the service capacity required to maintain service levels and complete complex project, policy, and program tasks. The cost of services is estimated to be $100,000.
Packet Page No. 32
Staff recommends an amendment to the existing CSA to increase the “not-to-exceed” amount from $150,000 to $359,250, an increase of $209,250. The scope of services would remain the same. The amendment would provide GCC consultant services through approximately October 2025. The funds for GCC to assist the City with developing objective design standards would be provided through the Community Development Maintenance Funds (625.90.094.940.6221). The funds for GCC to provide on-call planning services for high-level planning work would be provided through the CDD’s Consultant/Professional Services Budget (120.50.052.520.6220).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is sufficient unused appropriation for this amendment in the Community Development Maintenance Funds allocated for the Title 17 (Zoning) Housing-Related Assessment and Update project. There is also sufficient unused appropriation for this amendment in the current budget for the requested on-call planning services for high-level planning work.
ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
1116_Resolution
Good City Company - Original CSA
Good City Co. CSA First Amendment
Good City Company CSA - Second Amendment
Packet Page No. 33
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GOOD
CITY COMPANY TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL PLANNING
SERVICES
WHEREAS, On March 2, 2021 the City of Newark awarded a Contractual Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) to Good City Company (the “Consultant”) to provide professional planning services; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2024, the Agreement was amended to increase the not to exceed amount to $150,000 to provide additional funding for the existing scope of services; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the scope of services described in the Agreement continues to be necessary and desires to amend the Agreement to provide additional funding for the existing scope of services to be provided by the Consultant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the second amendment to the Contractual Services Agreement with Good City Company, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to provide technical assistance by individuals possessing experience consistent with minimum qualifications provided by the City and to increase the not to exceed amount of the Agreement by $209,250 for a total not to exceed amount of $359,250.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to take all other actions consistent with this Resolution, including any necessary revisions to the scope of work for the Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, that are within the total not to exceed amount of $359,250.
Packet Page No. 34
Packet Page No. 35
Packet Page No. 36
Packet Page No. 37
Packet Page No. 38
Packet Page No. 39
Packet Page No. 40
Packet Page No. 41
Packet Page No. 42
Packet Page No. 43
Packet Page No. 44
Packet Page No. 45
Packet Page No. 46
Packet Page No. 47
Packet Page No. 48
Packet Page No. 49
Packet Page No. 50
Packet Page No. 51
Packet Page No. 52
Packet Page No. 53
Packet Page No. 54
Packet Page No. 55
Packet Page No. 56
Packet Page No. 57
Packet Page No. 58
Packet Page No. 59
Packet Page No. 60
1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACTUAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NEWARK AND GOOD CITY COMPANY
This Second Amendment to Contractual Services Agreement between the City of Newark, a municipal corporation, ("City"), and Good City Company, a California Corporation (“Consultant”) collectively the "Parties") dated March 2, 2021, is entered into as of _________ ___, 2024 for professional planning services.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties executed a Contractual Services Agreement (the "Agreement") for Good City Company (the “Consultant”) to perform general professional planning services including; serving in an on-call capacity as project manager for planning entitlements projects, as well as to provide other current and advanced planning services including environmental review as requested from time-to-time, organizational support and, and to serve and support the City’s affordable housing program efforts, housing policy development, and regional planning efforts.
WHEREAS, Section 27, Modifications, of the Agreement allows the Parties to amend the Agreement provided that the amendment is in writing signed by the Parties; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement, to increase the not-to-exceed amount to Three Hundred Fifty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($359,250.00); and WHEREAS, City staff is authorized to execute this Amendment in a form approved by the City Attorney.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Section 3. A. "Not to Exceed" Compensation, of the Agreement, is amended to increase the not to exceed compensation by $209,250.00, for a total not to exceed the amount of $359,250.00 (from a previous not to exceed amount of $150,000.00).
2. With the exception of the foregoing, all other terms and conditions in the Agreement, as amended, remain in force and effect.
Packet Page No. 61
2 City of Newark Consultant
_________________________________ _________________________________ David J. Benoun Aaron Aknin, Principal and Co-Owner
City Manager Good City Company
Dated: ___________________________ Dated: ___________________________ Attest:
__________________________________
Sheila Harrington
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
__________________________________
Kristopher J. Kokotaylo
City Attorney
Packet Page No. 62
Item D. 4.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT Adopt a resolution to (1) amend the Employee Classification Plan to add the class specification of Strategic Initiatives Manager; (2) amend the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the Management, Supervisory, and Professional Employees Group to add the classification and salary range for Strategic Initiatives Manager; (3) amend the City's Salary Schedule in conformance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and (4) amend the 2024 - 2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to delete and add classifications
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Two personnel changes are proposed: (1) to support strategic planning and drive citywide innovation and performance improvement, reclassification of a Senior Management Analyst to a Strategic Initiatives Manager; funding the reclassification by reducing the City Manager's Office professional services budget and (2) to provide permanent high-level administrative support to the Community Development Department, repurposing of funds to create one full-time Management Analyst I/II. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to (1) amend the Employee Classification Plan to add the class specification of Strategic Initiatives Manager; (2) amend the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the Management, Supervisory, and Professional Employees Group to add the classification and salary range for Strategic Initiatives Manager; (3) amend the City's Salary Schedule in conformance with California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and (4) amend the 2024 - 2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to delete one full-time equivalent (FTE) Senior Management Analyst, add one FTE Strategic Initiatives Manager and add one Management Analyst I/II.
BACKGROUND
City Manager's Office - Strategic Initiatives Manager
Since emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic, the City's Executive Team has focused on strategic planning, community engagement, operational efficiencies and employee engagement based on the City's PRIDE values - Personal Service, Resourcefulness, Innovation, Diversity, and Engagement. Examples include creating a benchmark for a Biennial Community Survey, the development or update of several Master Plans and Packet Page No. 63
the creation of a Leadership Team comprised of the City's executive team, department directors, division heads, and senior supervisors. The team meets regularly to discuss projects and activities the City could undertake to drive organizational change, measure organizational performance, execute communication strategies and strengthen community connections. While there is a lot of interest and support, the capacity to lead these types of initiatives is limited. Through a variety of employee engagement and strategic planning discussions, staff identified the need for a single position that would be responsible for these initiatives to coordinate with stakeholders and be accountable for outcomes and improvement measures.
Community Development Department - Management Analyst
The Community Development Department has relied on temporary staff and contractual services to augment staff capacity for a number of years. The higher level administrative needs of the department have continued to increase, placing burden on the department's deputy director and director and requiring ongoing temporary employee assistance. In recognition of this ongoing need, the Community Development Department reviewed their department budget and determined it could fund one full-time Management Analyst I with funds currently allocated for temporary staffing and contractual services.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
City Manager's Office - Strategic Initiatives Manager
The City Manager's Office Senior Management Analyst was tasked with independently working with consultants and members of the Executive Team to research, analyze data, prepare reports and present findings to help move Leadership Team and City Manager initiatives forward. This included leading projects such as the preparation and implementation of the biennial Community Survey, development of the Facilities Master Plan, updates of the Public Art Master Plan and Parks Master Plan, and assisting with Leadership Team objectives and strategic planning sessions. In addition to other projects and assigned tasks, the Senior Management Analyst is also assigned to assisting with a community-wide branding and marketing effort for the City, enhancing community engagement efforts such as designing Town Hall Meetings, and developing key performance measures to improve data-driven decision-making and transparency.
As her work increased in complexity, so did her level of autonomy and administrative discretion. A review of the Senior Management Analyst's current duties resulted in a determination that reclassification to Strategic Initiatives Manager would be an appropriate job title to encompass the assigned work.
A consultant assisted with creation of the class specification and a labor market study to determine appropriate compensation for the Strategic Initiatives Manager position.
Staff recommends placement at Salary Range 16 in consideration of internal compensation relationships. The 2024 - 2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan must be amended to reflect the deletion of one FTE Senior Management Analyst and the addition of FTE Strategic Initiatives Manager to the City Manager's Office. Because the position is at the manager level and outside the Police Department, staff determined the appropriate employee group for the Strategic Initiatives Manager classification is the Management, Supervisory, and Professionals employee group. No City recognized bargaining unit contested this determination.
Packet Page No. 64
employee group. No City recognized bargaining unit contested this determination.
Community Development Department - Management Analyst
The Community Development Department Management Analyst I would be responsible for implementing department-wide activities and projects related to housing, community preservation, or planning initiatives; serving as the department’s chief communications officer; preparing and administering the department budget, including forecasting future needs; applying for, tracking, and reporting on grants; serving as the department’s liaison with other management analysts for coordination of city-wide/organization efforts such as promoting and facilitating the PRIDE program and activities; conducting studies; working with department management staff to coordinate work plans, assess department/division performance, and identify and track department metrics; serving as the department’s liaison with the Information Technology Department to ensure ongoing implementation and maintenance of hardware and software tools. Currently, this work is partially being completed by the Community Development Director, temporary staff and through contractual services. Creation of the Management Analyst I will alleviate the director of administrative duties and increase capacity for collecting and analyzing data, while eliminating the need and costs for some temporary help and contractual services. Therefore, no additional funding is being requested for the Management Analyst I position. The 2024 - 2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan must be amended to add the personnel allocation of one FTE Management Analyst I in the Community Development Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. The net difference from reclassifying the current Senior Management Analyst to Strategic Initiatives Manager is approximately $30,500 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2025, and estimated at $43,000 annually. A transfer of $30,500 for Fiscal Year 2025 from professional services to personnel costs is required and authorized in the attached resolution. To add one FTE Management Analyst in the Community Development Department, operational funds will be transferred to fund the $160,000 annual total compensation cost of this position. For the remainder of Fiscal Year 2025, the cost of approximately $113,000 will be funded with offsets from reduced contractual services, training, and/or temporary employee salaries.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution Strategic Initiatives Manager and Analyst
Job Description - Strategic Initiatives Manager
Packet Page No. 65
Packet Page No. 66
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION PLAN ADDING THE CLASS
SPECIFICATION OF STRATEGIC INITIATIVES MANAGER;
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPENSATION
AND BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT,
SUPERVISORY, AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES GROUP;
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S SALARY
SCHEDULE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CALIFORNIA CODE
OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5; AND
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2024 – 2026
BIENNIAL BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Employee Classification Plan was adopted by City Council via Resolution No. 2,505; and
WHEREAS, the City must adjust job specifications to satisfy the changing and anticipated needs of the workforce and to acknowledge advanced skills and job complexity, providing advancement opportunities for talent retention; and WHEREAS, the City determined, based on the current and anticipated needs of the City within the City Manager’s Office and the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to amend the Classification Plan to add the class specification of Strategic Initiatives Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to amend the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the Management, Supervisory, and Professional Employee Group to add the classification of Strategic Initiatives Manager, along with the associated salary steps or ranges; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to amend the City’s Salary Schedule to add the classification of Strategic Initiatives Manager at the salary range listed below.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark that the Employee Classification Plan adopted by Resolution No. 2,505, and subsequently amended by resolutions, is hereby amended to add the class classification of Strategic Initiatives Manager.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newark that the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the Management, Supervisory, and Professional Employee Group be amended to add the classification of Strategic Initiatives Manager, effective October 11, 2024, as reflected in the City’s Salary Schedule.
Packet Page No. 67
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the City’s Salary Schedule to reflect the classification of Strategic Initiatives Manager effective October 11, 2024 as follows:
Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Strategic
Initiatives
Manager
Hourly
Biweekly
Annual
$74.91
$5,992.80
$155,812.80
Range 16 $89.89
$7,191.20
$186,971.20
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the 2024 – 2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan effective October 11, 2024 as follows:
Personnel Allocation
Delete: 1 FTE Senior Management Analyst (City Manager’s Office) Add: 1 FTE Strategic Initiatives Manager (City Manager’s Office) 1 FTE Management Analyst (community Development Department) Account Allocation
FROM:
110.50.050.500.6220 Consultant/Professional Services $70,000 110.50.050.500.6450 Training & Education $15,000
110.50.050.500.5120 Salaries (Temporary) $75,000
110.20.020.200.6220 Professional Services $30,500
TO:
110.50.050.500.5110 Full-time Salaries $160,000
110.20.020.200.5110 Full-time Salaries $30.500
Packet Page No. 68
Strategic Initiatives Manager class specification Page 1 of 3 Strategic Initiatives Manager
Class Specification
Created 10/24
Class ID: 115
Unit: MGMT
Probation: 12 Months
FLSA: Exempt
DEFINITION
Under general direction, leads and manages high-impact projects designed to enhance organizational effectiveness through advancement of the City’s strategic goals and initiatives; and performs related duties as assigned.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives general direction from the City Manager and/or Assistant City Manager. May exercise supervision of assigned volunteers and administrative, technical, professional, and contract staff.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This is a single class management position responsible for managing complex studies and projects that often represent the City Manager’s Office. The Strategic Initiatives Manager operates with a significant level of autonomy, requiring a high degree of administrative discretion. The role necessitates a deep understanding of strategic planning, project management, and performance improvement, as well as the ability to collaborate effectively with various stakeholders and drive organizational change. This position is distinguished from a Director level position in that it is responsible for implementing strategies set in collaboration with higher management and makes recommendations on high-level strategic decisions whereas a Director is responsible for determining the overall strategies, involved in long-term planning and making decisions that impact the organization as a whole.
EXAMPLES OF JOB FUNCTIONS (Illustrative Only)
Oversee the planning, execution, and evaluation of strategic projects to address community needs, ensuring they meet desired objectives and deadlines.
Track progress of strategic initiatives and assess their effectiveness in meeting local government goals.
Provide regular updates to senior management and elected officials, including developing performance metrics, collecting and analyzing data, preparing reports, and presenting findings to stakeholders. .
Utilize data and research to guide decision-making and recommend process improvements.
Build and maintain relationships with community members, local organizations, and other stakeholders to support successful implementation of strategic initiatives and enhance communication. Develop and execute communication strategies to inform the public about initiatives, their benefits, and progress.
Engage with residents and community organizations to build trust, gather feedback, and ensure initiatives address local priorities and concerns.
Lead and facilitate the Leadership Team’s efforts to align departmental strategies with the City's overarching goals. Provide strategic direction, foster collaboration, and ensure effective communication across teams to drive the successful implementation of key initiatives and enhance organizational performance.
Conduct studies, prepare reports, and make recommendations and presentations to the City Manager, Packet Page No. 69
Strategic Initiatives Manager class specification Page 2 of 3 City Council, committees, staff, the public, community groups and outside agencies.
Foster a culture of innovation by exploring new approaches, technologies, and best practices to improve government operations and services.
Identify, evaluate, and obtain funding for organizational development programs, including federal, state, and local grants; assist in the administration and compliance of grants.
Represent the City in meetings with public officials, regulatory bodies, the business community, members of policy and advisory boards, community and civic groups, and the public.
Negotiate contracts with consultants and contractors, including preparing and directing the preparation of requests for proposals, reviewing and evaluating proposals, and developing contracts; monitor the implementation of contracts for compliance and levels of service.
Develop, maintain, and foster positive working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
Perform related duties as assigned.
QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
Strategic planning processes, methodologies, and best practices to develop and implement organizational strategies and goals.
Project management principles, techniques, and tools for overseeing complex projects from inception to completion.
Performance improvement methodologies and frameworks to evaluate and enhance organizational effectiveness.
Data-driven decision-making processes, performance metrics, and reporting techniques. Communication strategies, techniques and other methods for information and engaging with community members, local organizations, and other stakeholders to build relationships and gather feedback.
Local government operations, public policy, and administrative processes relevant to municipal management.
Principles and practices of municipal budget preparation and administration, procurement processes, and contract negotiation.
Methods and techniques of business correspondence and technical report preparation. Principles and practices of grant writing, processing, and managing. Current office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and supporting word processing and spreadsheet applications.
Skill or Ability to:
Lead and manage cross-functional teams, supervise staff and drive performance improvement initiatives effectively.
Plan, execute, and evaluate strategic projects to ensure they meet objectives, timelines, and budgetary constraints.
Conduct complex research projects, evaluate alternatives, make sound recommendations, and prepare effective technical reports.
Analyze complex technical and administrative issues; make decision and exercise independent judgment.
Prepare, negotiate and manage contracts and prepare and administer budgets. Prepare clear and concise reports, correspondence, policies, procedures, and other written Packet Page No. 70
Strategic Initiatives Manager class specification Page 3 of 3 materials; keep accurate records and prepare reports. Organize and prioritize a variety of projects and multiple tasks in an effective and timely manner; organize own work, set priorities, and meet critical deadlines. Adapt to changing priorities, emerging issues, and new challenges in a dynamic environment. Effectively represent the City in meetings with staff the public, other government agencies, and other agencies and groups; work cooperatively with State, County and Federal government agencies.
Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing; make persuasive presentations of ideas, concepts, and recommendations.
Develop, implement and interpret goals, objectives, policies, procedures, work standards and internal controls.
Use tact, initiative, prudence, and independent judgement within general policy and legal guidelines.
Establish, maintain, and foster positive and effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
Respectfully and effectively collaborate with a variety of people of varying backgrounds and roles. Demonstrate tact, professionalism, and diplomacy.
Education and Experience:
Any combination of education and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be:
Possession of a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in Public Administration, Organizational Development, Organizational Leadership or a related field, and five (5) years of progressively responsible experience in project management, strategic planning, or related work. A Master's degree is desirable.
License and Certificate:
Possession of a valid driver license and a satisfactory driving record throughout employment.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS
Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer, and to operate a motor vehicle to visit various City and meeting sites; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups, and over the telephone. Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification frequently sit for long periods of time, bend, stoop, kneel, and reach to perform assigned duties, as well as push and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Standing in and walking between work areas is frequently required. Employees must possess the ability to lift, carry, push, and pull materials and objects weighing up to 25 pounds or more with the use of appropriate equipment.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions, and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees must be available to attend day and evening meetings, at various sites within and outside the City. Employees may interact with members of the public or with staff under emotionally stressful conditions while interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures.
Packet Page No. 71
Item D. 5.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Roya Gonzalez, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT Adopt a resolution rejecting bid protests, awarding a contract to S & H Construction, Inc. for the Newark Resource Center, Project 1360 and amending the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Bids for Newark Resource Center, Project 1360 were opened on September 5, 2024.
The City received separate bid protests from Alex Kushner General and Bay Construction Co. (the “Bid Protests”). Following review, staff has determined that the Bid Protests were meritless and issued a notice of intent to reject the Bid Protests to Alex Kushner General and Bay Construction Co. (“Notices”). Staff recommends rejecting the Bid Protests for the reasons stated in the Notices and waiving immaterial deviations in the bid from S & H Construction, Inc. The low monetary bidder, S & H Construction, Inc., provided a responsive bid, is experienced in this type of project, and is a responsible contractor. Staff recommends that the City Council, by resolution, award a contract for Newark Resource Center, Project 1360, to S & H Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,468,600. Staff also recommends including a 10% construction contingency of $146,860, for a total not to exceed amount of $1,615,460. Additionally, staff recommends approval of an amendment to the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to allocate project funding.
BACKGROUND
After the Head Start program vacated the building at Ash Street Park approximately five years ago, the space has been envisioned as a year-round community service facility for the surrounding neighborhood, in addition to being homebase for one of the City's largest summer recreation programs. After the City was awarded $11.8 million from the Federal Government under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, City Council held a work session on October 7, 2021 to discuss options to spend the City’s $11.8 million allocation. On October 28, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11275, the ARPA Recovery Plan, to guide staff on expenditure of the funds. This funding guide included seed funding for renovating the Ash Street Park building into the City's first resource center to serve as an entry point for social services in the Newark community.
Planned use of the Newark Resource Center includes hosting contract services with Packet Page No. 72
various health and social service providers and, when not in use by City programs, will be made available for local non-profit organizations and community groups.
As part of the ARPA plan, $250,000 was initially allocated as seed money for the Newark Resource Center renovations. At the close of FY 2024, an additional $350,000 from the remaining ARPA funds was requested to cover project costs.
Thanks to the lobbying efforts of Assemblymember Alex Lee, the City received an additional $1,000,000 from the State of California in 2023 for the Newark Resource Center, and in 2024, the City secured $232,023 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support the project.
In total, the project's funding sources amount to $1,832,023, combining ARPA funds, state funding, and CDBG contributions.
The Newark Resource Center, Project 1360 involves renovating an existing building and site improvements, including bathroom renovations, minor roof repairs, interior ADA upgrades, landscaping in both front and back areas, playground equipment installation, additional parking pavement construction, and security lighting enhancements, among other improvements to meet the resource center's programming needs.
In June 2023, the City contracted with KPA Group to provide architectural and engineering services and develop the final construction documents for the Newark Resource Center, Project 1360. In June 2024, the City then contracted with Cumming Management Group, Inc. (Cumming Group) to provide construction management services for the project. KPA Group's and Cumming Group's combined service agreements cost approximately $377,000. Following the completion of the construction documents, bids were advertised to renovate the Newark Resource Center in accordance with the requirements of the Public Contract Code.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Bids for the Newark Resource Center, Project 1360 were opened on September 5, 2024. The City received a total of thirteen bids. Below is a summary of the project bid log:
Bidder Total Bid
S&H
Construction $1,468,600
Alex Kushner
General $1,495,000
Bay
Construction $1,640,000
Calstate $1,669,777
Packet Page No. 73
EVRA
Construction $1,847,000
DGN Build $1,985,000
Beals Martin $1,989,226
Foundry
Construction $2,075,000
Rodan Builders $2,198,000
Buhler
Commercial $2,266,802
On Point $2,565,000
Marcon
Builders $2,679,862
Pro-Ex
Construction $2,830,000
*Engineers Estimate $1,500,000
After the bids were opened, the Bid Protests (attached) were received within the allowable period. The first protest was submitted by Alex Kushner General, the apparent second-lowest bidder, alleging that the bid from S & H Construction, Inc. was nonresponsive. The second protest was received from Bay Construction Co., the apparent third-lowest bidder, claiming that both S & H Construction, Inc. and Alex Kushner General submitted nonresponsive bids.
City staff, Cumming Group, and the City Attorney's Office thoroughly reviewed the protest letters and the bids to determine their responsiveness. This review included evaluating the completeness of the required bid forms, the inclusion of the bidder's guarantee, bond or check, subcontractor list, financial responsibility, technical ability, experience, attendance at the pre-bid conference, contractor's license number, Department of Industrial Relations registration, and verification of the signature block.
The Bid Protests outlining the alleged deficiencies that make S & H Construction, Inc. and, in the case of Bay Construction Co.'s bid protest, Alex Kushner General's bids nonresponsive. The bid documents for this project provide that the City of Newark to waive minor informalities or irregularities that do not impact the competitive nature of the bidding process. After review, staff has determined that any informalities or irregularities are non-material deviations and provided this determination to Alex Kushner General and Bay Construction Co. in the Notices, which are attached hereto.
City staff recommends that the City Council waive the Bid Protests and waive any minor informalities or irregularities as non-material for the reasons provided in the Notices and award the contract to S & H Construction, Inc.
FISCAL IMPACT
In addition to the S&H Construction, Inc. total base bid amount of $1,468,600, staff Packet Page No. 74
In addition to the S&H Construction, Inc. total base bid amount of $1,468,600, staff recommends including a 10% construction contingency of $146,860 to cover any unforeseen construction costs. This contingency would bring the total recommended contract allocation to $1,615,460.
The total project cost, including $377,000 for initial architectural, engineering, and construction management services, is anticipated to be $1,992,460.
Funding for the Newark Resource Center, Project 1360, includes:
$250,000 in ARPA seed money
$1,000,000 from Assemblymember Alex Lee’s office (budgeted in FY 2024, Resolution 11637)
$232,023 in CDBG funds (budgeted in FY 2024, Resolution 11658) $350,000 from remaining ARPA funds at the close of FY 2024 $160,437 of unappropriated fund balance from the Capital Improvement Fund (610)
A budget amendment is required to appropriate $600,000 in ARPA funds and $160,437 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 610) to cover the shortfall. Any unspent funds will be carried forward into the next fiscal year until the project is completed.
ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The repair and maintenance of existing facilities is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Brett Oeverndiek, Management Analyst II
Reviewed by - Roya Gonzalez, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by - Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution NRC
S & H Construction Bid Submittal
Protest Response Bay Construction
Protest Response Alex Kushner General
Bay Construction Bid Protest
Alex Kushner General Bid Protest
Packet Page No. 75
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK REJECTING BID PROTESTS AND ACCEPTING
THE BID AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO S & H
CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE NEWARK RESOURCE
CENTER RENOVATIONS, PROJECT N0. 1360 AND
AMENDMENT OF THE 2024-2026 BIENNIAL BUDGET AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City invited sealed bids for the construction of public improvements for renovations of the existing Ash Street Recreation Center for use as the Newark Resource Center, Project No. 1360 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City has, upon due notice, received a total of thirteen bids for the Project that were reviewed by staff for responsiveness and responsibility; and WHEREAS, as stated in the Project Specifications, determination of the low monetary bidder was based solely on the Total Base Bid; and
Alex Kushner General and Bay Construction Co. (the “Bid Protests”); and AS,
PAlex Kushner General and Bay Construction Co.(“Notices”); and WHEREAS, S & H Construction, Inc. was determined to be lowest responsible bidder with a Total Base Bid of $1,468,600; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends allocating an additional 10% construction contingency of $146,860, bringing the total allocation for Project 1360 to $1,615,460; and WHEREAS,Protests from for thes, waive any immaterial deviations in the bid, and award a construction contract to S & H Construction, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of Project 1360, including $377,000 architectural and engineering services, construction, and construction management totals approximately $1,992,460; and
WHEREAS, the project is funded by $250,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds as seed money, $1,000,000 from Assemblymember Alex Lee’s office, $232,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and an additional $350,000 in ARPA funds allocated at the close of FY 2024 to cover the remaining costs; and WHEREAS, a budget amendment is required to appropriate the additional $350,000 in ARPA funds for the Newark Resource Center, Project 1360, in the City’s 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan.
Packet Page No. 76
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newark hereby rejects the Bid Protests for the reasons stated in the Notices, waives any immaterial bid deviations in S & H Construction, Inc.’s bid, and finds that S & H Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Newark Resource Center Renovations, Project No. 1360, in the City of Newark.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby accepts said bid, awards a contract to S & H Construction Inc., and hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the Newark Resource Center Renovations, Project 1360, according to the plans, specifications, and terms of said bid for the Total Base Bid in an amount not to exceed $1,468,600.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves a construction contingency in the amount of $146,860, resulting in a total contract allocation of $1,615,460 for the Newark Resource Center Renovations, Project No. 1360.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan to appropriate $600,000 in ARPA funds and $160,437 from unappropriated fund balance of the Capital Improvement Fund (610) to fully fund Project 1360 as follows:
TO: 610.90.094.940.6221.CIP001360 Newark Resource Center $760,437 FR: 382.00.000.000.9999 Transfer From ARPA Fund $600,000 FR: 610.3000 Unappropriated Fund Balance $160,437
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any unspent funds will be carried forward to the next fiscal year until the project is completed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute any change orders necessary to account for material testing and other unanticipated construction costs within the total allocation for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to take any actions necessary to effectuate the intent of this Resolution.
Packet Page No. 77
Packet Page No. 78
Packet Page No. 79
Packet Page No. 80
Packet Page No. 81
Packet Page No. 82
Packet Page No. 83
Packet Page No. 84
Packet Page No. 85
Packet Page No. 86
Packet Page No. 87
Packet Page No. 88
Packet Page No. 89
Packet Page No. 90
Packet Page No. 91
Packet Page No. 92
Packet Page No. 93
Packet Page No. 94
Packet Page No. 95
Packet Page No. 96
Packet Page No. 97
Packet Page No. 98
Packet Page No. 99
Packet Page No. 100
Packet Page No. 101
Packet Page No. 102
Packet Page No. 103
Packet Page No. 104
510.578.4220 [email protected] www.newark.org facebook.com/cityofnewarkca City of Newark
City Manager’s Office
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
October 2, 2024
Mr. Yon Kay, President
Bay Construction Co.
4026 Martim Luther King Jr.
Oakland, CA 94609
Subject: Bid Protest (Bid Opening: 9/3/24)
Newark Resource Center Renovations Project, Project No. 1360 Dear Mr. Kay,
This letter acknowledges the receipt of your bid protest dated September 10, 2024. Following your protest, Alex Kushner General, Inc. submitted a response. We have thoroughly reviewed the information received in consultation with the City Attorney and carefully considered your request for the City to deem both S & H Construction and Alex Kushner General as non-responsive bidders, and to refrain from awarding the contract to either.
We are writing to inform you that staff will recommend to the City Council that the bid protest be rejected. Both bids have been found to be responsive, and we will recommend awarding the contract to the lowest responsive bidder, S & H Construction.
The City’s response to your bid protest includes the following claims against S & H Construction:
1. Subcontractor Bid Amounts: Your protest letter claims S & H Construction’s listed subcontractor bid amounts are materially different from those received by other General Contractors. Subcontractor scopes can vary significantly, making comparisons difficult, as this was not required as part of the bid submittal.
2. Addendum 3: Your protest letter claims S & H did not list Addendum 3 on page 4 of 11 of the Bid Form. While this claim is accurate, the bid document allows the City of Newark to waive informalities, irregularities, and/or non-responsiveness that do not impact the competitive nature of the bid. S & H did include a copy of the addendum in the bid packet, and is bound by Addendum 3 regardless of whether or not it was listed on the Bid Form. This minor informality does not affect the bid's competitive nature.
3. Disclosure of Relationships: Your protest claims that the General Contractor must disclose the relationship between the prime contractor and subsidiaries. However, there is no legal basis for this requirement nor was it a requirement for the bid.
4. Notarization: Your protest letter claims S & H did not properly notarize their bid. While this claim is accurate, the bid document allows for waiving minor irregularities that do not affect the competitive nature of the bid. The signature on the bid is legally still binding on S & H, even Packet Page No. 105
City of Newark – City Manager’s Office 2
though it is not notarized. This informality does not alter the competitive nature of the bid.
5. Business Registration: Your protest letter claims S & H Plastering, Inc. is not registered as a business in Alameda County. However, this form of registration is not required at the time of bid submission.
6. Training Payments: Your protest mentions that no training payments were made to the California Apprenticeship Council for S & H Construction. There are several exceptions that could excuse Contractors from meeting this requirement, and S & H Construction hold all required state licenses.
The City’s response to your bid protest includes the following claims against Alex Kushner General, Inc.:
1. Subcontractor Bid Amounts: Your protest letter claims Alex Kushner General’s listed subcontractor bid amounts are materially different from those received by other General Contractors. Subcontractor scopes can vary significantly, making comparisons difficult, as this was not required as part of the bid submittal.
2. List of Subcontractors: Your protest letter claims Alex Kushner did not list a Plumbing subcontractor. The advertised bid documents require the bidder to list all subcontractors proposed to do work in excess of one-half of one percent of the total bid. If the bidder fails to specify a subcontractor, the bidder agrees they fully qualified to perform that portion of work themselves.
The bid documents only require a Class B license. Accordingly, failure to list a subcontractor does not make the bid non-responsive.
3. Notarization: Your protest letter claims Alex Kusher General did not properly notarize their bid.
While this claim is accurate, the bid document allows for waiving minor irregularities that do not affect the competitive nature of the bid. The signature on the bid is still legally binding on Alex Kushner General, even though it is not notarized. This informality does not alter the competitive nature of the bid.
4. Training Payments: Your protest mentions that no training payments were made to the California Apprenticeship Council for Alex Kushner General. There are several exceptions that could excuse Contractors from meeting this requirement, and Alex Kushner General is in good hold all required state licenses.
Based on the foregoing reasons, staff will be recommending that the City Council reject your bid protest, and the award of contract for this proposal to S & H Construction. This item is scheduled for the City Council agenda at the October 10th meeting. The City is committed to providing all bidders with a fair opportunity to bid on and be awarded its numerous projects. Thank you for your interest in City of Newark.
Very truly yours,
Roya Gonzalez
Senior Management Analyst
Packet Page No. 106
510.578.4220 [email protected] www.newark.org facebook.com/cityofnewarkca City of Newark
City Manager’s Office
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
October 2, 2024
Mr. Alex Kusher
Alex Kushner Inc.
2363 Funston Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94116
Subject: Bid Protest (Bid Opening: 9/3/24)
Newark Resource Center Renovations Project, Project No. 1360 Dear Mr. Kushner,
This letter acknowledges receipt of your bid protest dated September 6, 2024. Following your protest, the City thoroughly reviewed the information provided in consultation with the City Attorney, and carefully considered your request for the City to deem S & H Construction as a non-responsive bidder.
We are writing to inform you that staff will be recommending the City Council reject your bid protest and proceed with awarding the contract to S & H Construction.
Your bid protest points out that S & H Construction failed to list a subcontractor for the portion of work related to specification section 32 18 16.3 PLAYGROUND PROTECTIVE SURFACING. However, the advertised bid documents only require the bidder to list subcontractors proposed to do work in excess of one-half of one percent of the total bid. If the bidder fails to specify a subcontractor, the bidder agrees they fully qualified to perform that portion of work themselves. Accordingly, failure to list a subcontractor does not make the bid non-responsive.
Based on the foregoing reasons, staff will be recommending that the City Council reject your bid protest, and the award of contract for this proposal to S & H Construction. This item is scheduled for the City Council agenda at the October 10th meeting. The City is committed to providing all bidders with a fair opportunity to bid on and be awarded its numerous projects. Thank you for your interest in City of Newark.
Very truly yours,
Roya Gonzalez
Senior Management Analyst
Packet Page No. 107
City of Newark – City Manager’s Office 2
Packet Page No. 108
Packet Page No. 109
Packet Page No. 110
Packet Page No. 111
Packet Page No. 112
Packet Page No. 113
Packet Page No. 114
Packet Page No. 115
Packet Page No. 116
Packet Page No. 117
Packet Page No. 118
Packet Page No. 119
Packet Page No. 120
Packet Page No. 121
Packet Page No. 122
Packet Page No. 123
Packet Page No. 124
Packet Page No. 125
Packet Page No. 126
Packet Page No. 127
Packet Page No. 128
Packet Page No. 129
Packet Page No. 130
Packet Page No. 131
Packet Page No. 132
Packet Page No. 133
Packet Page No. 134
Packet Page No. 135
Packet Page No. 136
Packet Page No. 137
Packet Page No. 138
Packet Page No. 139
Packet Page No. 140
Packet Page No. 141
Packet Page No. 142
Packet Page No. 143
Packet Page No. 144
Packet Page No. 145
Packet Page No. 146
Packet Page No. 147
Packet Page No. 148
Packet Page No. 149
Packet Page No. 150
Packet Page No. 151
Packet Page No. 152
Packet Page No. 153
Packet Page No. 154
Packet Page No. 155
Packet Page No. 156
Packet Page No. 157
Packet Page No. 158
Packet Page No. 159
Packet Page No. 160
Packet Page No. 161
Packet Page No. 162
Packet Page No. 163
Packet Page No. 164
Packet Page No. 165
Packet Page No. 166
Packet Page No. 167
Packet Page No. 168
Packet Page No. 169
Packet Page No. 170
Packet Page No. 171
Packet Page No. 172
Packet Page No. 173
Packet Page No. 174
Packet Page No. 175
Packet Page No. 176
Packet Page No. 177
F-r
CDXn(-
(n
;J
;J
CD
Ft --t
CD
i-a
iJ
CD
Fr
(\1 F)p
t.oo6
!
N
u)4
o;
E>
3 (rJ
)7
ql
9r' NN5
>?>o> a(9-*E
I d Q+oi. l:a p
^*^^= 5 r: !-'l
H
F o Z<
-='
o9(D0*
13I zl L/-FrY33cuSS N c'
--
-.i.
F r:7r=.
;--3
ji z:
? g
3 5r)]j'
H;ro
o 3.D
q34
3:'
oo
=o
P7
S
A1
oooI
>o>(,
ESEH
X Xo.
trca) @41
JJA
o o3 nto
oso3.
5Noo
^ls
-
t,
oo
tDo
o- ooo0aGoa-3ooaoaooo
iloogo
EUIooozo€
7f oaoooootaoa
€.oo
,,
o\
o
oaoo
ad
= ^!oO
iiq6 taor
-'=a
OO<
o{
g
€'s
e
-
o.L e dP
zv
{Y4
= =b
-.o
= Tp(D
- tt-
=O
^ od9
ocj
X
i:. a !r
aA 5
ola
o :!
._
c)c)-
{>5(?-
xo
Xg C,a
91o:
)q
oo
n5
6'o
(!x'
po
o3
n(D oood
aa
FR"
gE
aO!)O
jg
oi
rogF'
5H
a=
:'eo-
(a
v)
roi
lr
(t) i
I'u
l(D
IE
ft3
lE
lo
l6
lo
lw
lolo.
lo
lo
IE
l9
16 t..
oo(D=
-- -:t
5 i.E a'
+H 3
n
3o P
5 -i4^:
{5',59
-
A (, A
c6i.q'
^EAq
a !' 3
('
=)oa
i I e.! \,
^.
_,a
ETEF
c| E'6
X
P-=@
rF5,F coo:1
-A+(9 C)5c':
AFv
5Hhr
F'E="8 () r. b
^r aoa= y5^5
aO
-Y 'E-o: A-owY
ii8-9-e
q42i
5^L!
O'FA 9 A^ g o
^v)1
vr.^.,b Y3 5 5'
3x:"
a!
=-:'
J9-
9rg
cD- 5-
O-g
"t o o'o'
IEE
61 ^.J9
={3 -+(, Q^-
:q5
-oDir
-
frA
A-t
--
(D
olFt
o
nlg
a
P. IAF 619:*
al'-.
5t(, 5
CDlo
- -olf ii
e H'9.
8'E s:
5FQ.
ouFA
lr
<!q
O,l
FCA3
--
>c,
=c) v=.
o5rl()
[U*
J;
LlC'
<orf, 5
ut=
>r1
tr
o5F5'Fzn.i oi aooto{o
ila
(}6
(Doooaoo
,+) N@
o.
L,
8u)
e. R"
-H6' 'r< D)ra
:-u:-U)5'9 om=;
IJB
* 6- i
e.b 2-re'b +li\-A'=.
F€F=f3
o P;-i(t='=
o7.'-1N;6 ''=
-'Jc) -
ll ci
'P6=<
=
a."F. i
E8 d i
='=
'o
G
=a-6.9 b
g
oa 2
(D
l3 d
6 f= ! 2
tt-tYt=
Dabr -^i
#'4
=
q
lrAV:. ez' I
15 r
3 .^=' L, 5
z- {
o
=;8'
R n A-V
:.o' { !
0aF <
='i
m e.
e3' a
= D_ q9 C i.t
6-re i:nB
D9. O=
ZUo5Io
i'oqoo=
3' +=o
s. oa
!t
OE-Ed*F 3>:-
;A ; H i; R
rrv,: !g -:.r) c n
X e
j'.
f
='l,-X
i.ag =.E F'F a a !. - ; H;<
413=6EJ t:,6 q 4 )
J9.^f'-tt>
€EHgEST
G] o 3.o
='=
-
€EFPdHF
='ti
D) 6
^.
P
55t 43V an
- 5 .D
='(.1 , F -:.6
(rl
;
tz gs
aro-
$5ino
=
3 €; c ;.8
D-+=;
()DJY
=
o od
=
i =< ot:i(D
a E
lic
a g €.o9.
=
9e 9!14=
5' s qg
ts+9
=U
='(r-
'U
-' a!-
E 3 8d Sof55
e € 3g
o 3 7=
3 i AE',
=I
!)L
& fi TE
c)Fno5
Y -co
F12
:i Oa
(v Io
b0
g,
O) A
rd
trIa(+
-oap
rdI
D) oaooP
(oA
tsH
O) ooAH
qtr
\]
ctr oIO(o
rtr
C,tr
0r' XsH
cI
cJl @I
cn
\]
O)
(o
Packet Page No. 178
t.oo6(D!N
> I.J
tDs
lr*
2.x
V,U|, H
)J \J
oa4
<i DP5n
Eri
H's
y1=>
co
-Pc
'5
li
12 < L,/
9a
lr'=
c.A
!r>
le9
l:!. o
lH--
ltD<
l?3
ldP
la
l$
rl5
l6
='Fl
-
(,
3d3R"
=U)Q
A
aE
--
'6Y/1
(,o "
"
bs35 +.t
='!1 *^-'L
a
-1F dF6i.
c=.-o
-o =
r
UYH
3+g=
CD^E()
F>:--
lPc{ E
li=9a
t-o c-o v1
IEFiF 1:Ch--'
l=iE " I
l&T6
e
rn d 5';'
=
>gg l{ C ^ ni'5 o- -
R E R€
f $ 3lj.
3='-=
6 -'f
o
U J:.9
-.ZF?
=b
oanC,
70 - ;ia <
crE (A
x'o
=
O6 D'
cti oo
f d
>
(9
*
U+-
='o
o
3o -P
=cJ o-=
da
o
3H
- Oa=
r-:
6 r:3a)
doO-a O ):
oX*
5X 9. s-Aiq=
oa X.
(9 F I
-+
:'
1g :l
$+
5'8.
F
!E>
;Bai5
-OFo.
Fa'
Goo5
:'(D
=;
caF DA
Uo
?3
9o
oa3
E3
Z='
O+
/1
o
c)H
:a
$+=.q
>{
orU
5v
€R
q;
:avq
{E
'o
o\
oF.
Oq
ii
-'
a2'
o:
CD
"1
qo
j1
:1
TJI
!)
t(
FJ !EP
=.P
>
;e €aq F.: 8
;3" :FE FA i P"a Tr9 BE t
:* 3+i. 54. f
'4rO' =
!2 !.) =
tJ
X
8+ 9E= J a'
=
o -
s,l) Dr
a
C .i
='=
ii' ;'
co
trDYaF;()
a
-Ai >o O P i'
=.=. =.
5d. Pa'- I
=l
!'+ f o-:. a
* i F=. 1
=
6 =+ =3'"
6 = i* Sof <> = gA 5s,3 I
oa
€i tFq i
g
aF ::q3' ffi
*
<x 2an i; i e5 :e* ? ;;
--^t, 6 e-.-' u
o
=
ssl 7
=
iq:*zo
-l s: { g € j!
o :iqoa
e
-
6 *J i g HeE I
?
= o6d 6
o
o--
-
= = =9,
a
A Q =go
< N)
I
*=- F
N
t aEa : P
() x-^ D
v
+. 66= e
<
sQSo'-lo
€ 9+6
'-
n - o-o 5
- =i
F )< a' o=x^v=
,Ooo"Yao
-
-)^
-
o <
=-('
o
- # a0: g
=
E
€DO3
r 3E1 r E
--J
d egd e
e
/^ c4 -. I < f
\/ e
-
J <
-
='
+6 o ='
=
: r?: 3
s
-\t=-
g I a-.d.
E S 'PE' o- ;-
,r Q.=.
= -
10 Oa
.cj S. -P I
=.=o-o'
t
+a)
c'€
E >ca-l
d 6-R"H'
E 1:ro ..^r. eo€ A^
)6
s=7
o6
g
g37i
^i
H-
-O
C
5'h
.)
a c.X
=<
A3
g* =P
-)oo
#d
=qcho
51 L oi;
Da
- 4^
tix =
!4
d9
o<
ti
^9
oo5@O- r,
^..) 7?
ci;
(}(!
X9e
X:
6=
CD :15o
50 o=
LO
3ci
)'C'
o
o4
o
>o>
o q(r
x ux
XX
o0
(Do oo
C) o
CD N)
!9 'J)
=o\
T1
5 t!.
o
o=
8;
iD'fD
z2Loq
E3
F'E6E
o.ooxXaoIoEc
(t) ood
(D
-o\
t9
NJ5
o
oao
(DIoo
a:
o
e
vr
lroo
$t\,
cr
18 .loCIo
o, C
C' q
ll
CL
.icfotool
:t3
.leqooo3
|Do==
cl l CtICn
lEr
CDXn(-a
;JJ
CD
Ft
\-r ^
-/
CDH
CDB
t-v
\tH)I o
s.
ct o:
rDo
C' o
;oo
CI o3oott
.D
(to
!!.
a- too
tt
!,ooo
CL
cr ooo3
1D
c, o33
tsoNs
o
!g
b.)
9J
O) A
Ed a+o
-oaID
EJ
|l
9)
(1aooo
ioAPH
O)
(.) oFH
9l
\]
qtl
O)Io(oAcn*
9r' XAH
Ctr
Cf,)
c.r @I
ql
\]
o,
CO
oo3F
:t! N
o,
(^t 5gl
(tr o
2o
ur 6i o3<
do
oE
q;'
Ot.oooo=.
louN
r9
aq
B8o- e€
,*Oll-a:.
$r
c:t
36 ''la
3i
o=
*8
=.d
t6
66'
9o
=z3<
S=
OOeo3 :o
.l
o
ooo
-o
o
ttc
er
3e-o
oatn
3 C\ aCf
ac;soo4faal
N)
Packet Page No. 179
!o
!to
1Ag
:hNt5coatr
ToEo
-l
a.|. no=
aoo
-loor+
,6'
-n=
-loD6ul OE,{J -t
rn*
.ol
9oEOe1
mo>!E roo.^1 cr
5- 1e'*
d
=DO:s .,',=q
r! g. z?DO
le.
F3a{
HgF >Fo)D JO
98 d=ooFO
rs'
€f
PE5a
oe>d
84oro
o)= o! o=5' !
q, ooo$ol\) 5
m6=3D
+oNc
B=NO5d=E' oo
o!=I
-{oI@l\' N
'o
b, o
@1 co
qr
-. o=
='* rdtocd
o. :
l,
q, ooaA' o
!aoECo
-l=m=
U'< 96
6: 0)
o-
,EFoof3o
ol,ocd
o. =3
A) oo
U)
!,o
C, maoT!o==
o)
coo
od
g
G'
l\)
io{
!
!c
o=m{
oN
1\) b
b, o
-lo
oo2
-t!o1!
!?to(cI
c. o€omI!
!T@
!to!
(D
o,=5'
(o
omocTI oo=3mz
v?
flFBiE o!l-cLP
orts9oF
lYc.rorin
o*o-a Y
EiEgH
Egi€'
=_o!t 96'o3 (,)5 -O
h6qt
6qr-t
E< * o.
€i4s
aFsq
gn a a g 6'nt
j' cF
:. da
9. 6o q, :*
q qrfi
d_ :<
s d> o ao
d i+.
L A= i=o
o =o. E Jqt
E +a
5 1116
o <9 o ro
e $p
d EE
0 5='
PT
ooc6
aooa
(olI
9.9 taE
ar=I
3'
(o
$ffi H
Hg
EAH
&;'
G-onncao
a^)
trlf
fs_ Gr" (-
l{
IF
toElc
l3
k1b
l3
maz(,
:l to !,
!r=3lD
=d
!q
3o
!t
,*t* -, D
lgld99
rFlts= "FEg? o l=.'
m li:l
P13 !TmajeNoNA
cz6=zooauDzzo
tr
6co6Ir0nn
!oEo
NOJo
{At
3m?
F s,a
>o_=
NP 6'
EEg
Hg F-,
^^
CDb
olc
tulo
o lco
a16
ob
5b5kt
olJ
tuko
={F
|-@
'nX
Packet Page No. 180
!o
T' oo
8t
:lt N5a5eo(,l
[[3EgEE'-EaEgtgiFEE
e 3gqia Ei€gEugc s
s
ea'gagugg€FEgFs = g EF3 eF e F E F ; E:a $A € r ? gaa gg $ E e g s g+F +€ I :
g i+a s
?r e
*
s aFq 3 g F
g
a af
ni
HF 9s
d5E=glI
Bi33E
;*EgH
€ F
g;
E
€g i;F {o -= P1€F
;dse
6 e
g5
te 9€ rd;3
ffFii
JrI3
da,3;
g*" E i
PIQI
E EEF
€ ? sE
EF33 E 3e
3 c9
='
o-
(o oO
6 SP xoo.
$ ds
E Ag
:'-.!
E6
o4=;
fs
€g
gs
gq
FA
-560
E;
{o{
|.tcroa
l|l =oCzJ
16N
t9
ct
o) o
c'
!F
o
!D@>
==coa= trrt37"j
F5frE ;; ii g;!T
=lt? o9
!l=3o
.ll Ax
aaEog
roo
-ltootEo
-(, ot
CL EDJIooToEmuoozz
E, c@m=
ln2
r)
CDo:
a. !
r1- o
-o
d'€
*q
-(Do<
3qo)5
=44 ,i.
o 15 al
toe)
13h nrO
HE
E;
E*
ba,
19b tJo 'b d6o
:.
!t6
o
troxIm!mo!=Ioumgo
ftI
113
t>
t<
lz
lo
l=
{<6
c,r \Id
|ert
\o
;$d
:(D
.E FA 9frr
s. o=
3 8; :(o4 J
B oS -u
i i":
=
!t 'Tl \/ l:
P Of
N 4P
fJ 4(D A
:t
=@
o
6 !r
m :rl.!)
g xY
7(D
s tH
q
g !/Q u)
; g-Ri
d
!"
IjB
g
o i I-- +
Q
j'io
g
d s 2;
e
e Ea
R
c IDO)
@ :'nr(t
S ijq
B \url
01 6N I
>;or^
3 8z B ii.o<lo
=\tAlO!! o tu l('r
-v) o co l@
p e"3 lB
S AP
F
\ ->.n -@X o- A)
Paro)
: NE
.,C)co <5A
d-og
}Rl6:g t\) o
!j{o\
,:=
!otI
Packet Page No. 181
Item D. 6.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Krysten Lee, Finance Director
SUBJECT Adopt a resolution establishing a maintenance reserve fund SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City’s Fund Balance and Reserve Policy allows the City Council to allocate specific General Fund balance levels above the Emergency and Fiscal Uncertainty Reserve target for other long-term goals that are in the best interest of the City. As of the end of Fiscal Year 2023, the City has an Emergency and Fiscal Uncertainty Reserve of $22.2 million, exceeding the policy target of 30% of final General Fund operating and debt service expenditures. There is also sufficient accumulated fund balance to support the creation of a new maintenance reserve, in response to identified needs for maintaining City facilities.
Staff recommends that the City Council, by resolution, establish a maintenance reserve and contribute $7 million to begin addressing current and future maintenance needs of the City.
BACKGROUND
In February 2024, the City Council received findings from the Facilities Master Plan assessments and community outreach process, which outlined approximately $73 million in preventative maintenance costs anticipated over the next twenty years.
Each year, following the completion of the year-end audit, a review of the City’s General Fund reserves and fund balance is conducted by the Finance Department to ensure the Emergency and Fiscal Uncertainty Reserve target levels are met and to identify potential funding for other priorities or long-term goals. The conclusion of the FY 2023 audit confirms that there is adequate funding available to establish a new maintenance reserve.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The City of Newark's Facilities Master Plan, presented to the City Council in February 2024 by Group 4 Architecture and Planning, outlined a comprehensive approach to assessing and planning for the City’s facility needs. The process included four key tasks: (1) evaluate existing conditions, (2) conduct a future needs assessment, (3) determine facility options, and (4) develop an implementation plan which included Packet Page No. 182
preventative maintenance.
The City currently owns and maintains 24 facilities ranging from a 300-square-foot boathouse to a 32,000-square-foot aquatic center. The Facilities Master Plan estimates that the total maintenance needs for these facilities over the next twenty years will amount to approximately $72.46 million (excluding vacant buildings and facilities recommended for repurposing, sale, or demolition).
This estimate includes:
Immediate Needs: $1.72 million
Short-Term Needs (Years 1-2): $2.74 million
Near-Term Needs (Years 3-5): $7.38 million
Mid-Term Needs (Years 6-10): $15.63 million
Long-Term Needs (Years 11-20): $44.99 million
Establishing a maintenance reserve fund is a proactive measure that will enable the City to address its current and future facility maintenance needs effectively. This action aligns with the City’s long-term financial planning and ensures the sustainability and functionality of City-owned properties for public use.
FISCAL IMPACT
To establish a new maintenance reserve fund, $7 million from the unallocated fund balance of the General Fund was transferred to the Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) at the end of Fiscal Year 2024. This transfer earmarks the funds for the maintenance reserve, using the CIP as a temporary holding account until the reserve is formally established within the General Fund. The creation of this $7 million reserve will not affect the City's Emergency and Fiscal Uncertainty Reserves, which remain above the target levels set by City policy. This proactive measure ensures the City can continue maintaining its facilities for both current and future public use without compromising financial stability.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution - Maintenance Reserve
Packet Page No. 183
RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
MAINTENANCE RESERVE FUND
WHEREAS, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) enacted GASB Statement 54, which provides guidance on fund balance reporting and governmental fund type definitions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newark's Fund Balance and Reserve Policy allows the City Council to commit or assign specific General Fund balance levels above the Emergency and Fiscal Uncertainty Reserve target for other long-term goals that the City Council determines to be in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to establish a Maintenance Reserve Fund to address current and future maintenance needs of the City's facilities and infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, findings from the Facilities Master Plan assessments and community outreach process presented in February 2024 identified approximately $73 million in preventative maintenance costs for City facilities over the next twenty years (excluding vacant buildings and facilities recommended for repurpose, sale, or demolition), underscoring the need for a dedicated maintenance reserve; and
WHEREAS, the City maintains an Emergency and Fiscal Uncertainty Reserve of $22.2 million as of the end of FY 2023, which exceeds the policy target of 30% of final General Fund operating and debt service expenditures; and
WHEREAS, a $7 million transfer from the unallocated fund balance of the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) was made at the end of FY 2024 as an initial step to establish the Maintenance Reserve Fund within the General Fund; and WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Fund is currently being used as a temporary holding account to earmark these funds for the maintenance reserve, pending formal establishment within the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a Maintenance Reserve Fund is a proactive measure to ensure the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the City’s facilities, thereby safeguarding both current and future public use and aligning with the City's long-term financial planning.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Newark, California, as follows:
1. Establishment of the Maintenance Reserve Fund: The City Council hereby approves the establishment of a Maintenance Reserve Fund in the amount of seven million dollars ($7,000,000) to be used for the maintenance and upkeep of the City’s facilities and infrastructure.
Packet Page No. 184
2. Designation and Assignment of Funds: The Maintenance Reserve Fund shall be established as Fund 105 and recorded within the General Fund as an Assigned Fund Balance, specifically designated for maintenance purposes.
3. Future Transfers and Allocations: Any proposed transfers from the General Fund to the Maintenance Reserve Fund or any future allocations to this reserve shall require the approval of the City Council.
Packet Page No. 185
Item F. 1.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Oscar Carrillo, Community Preservation Manager
SUBJECT Introduction of an ordinance adding Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.42, “Tobacco Retailers” to Title 5 of the Newark Municipal Code
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
City staff have been working with community stakeholders on a proposed Tobacco Retail License (TRL) program and modifications to the Newark Municipal Code.
Adopting comprehensive tobacco retail laws addresses public health problems associated with tobacco use and ensures compliance with Federal, State, and local tobacco laws and responsible retailing practices. Under local licensing regulations, a city can require all businesses that sell tobacco products to obtain a license and require retailers to pay an annual fee to fund administrative costs which can include inspections and compliance checks.
Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and introduce by title only an ordinance adding Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.42, “Tobacco Retailers” to Title 5 of the Newark Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
California Business and Professions Code section 22971.3 allows local jurisdictions to implement tobacco retail licensing regulations. Under local licensing regulations, a city can require all businesses that sell tobacco products to obtain a license and require retailers to pay an annual fee to fund inspections and compliance checks. California Health and Safety Code section 104559.5(g) allows a local jurisdiction to impose greater restrictions on access to tobacco products than State regulations, such as a local licensing program, minimum tobacco product pricing, and retailer proximity restrictions, among others.
The City of Newark's municipal code currently defines a "tobacco retailer" in its zoning code as any establishment that either devotes 20% percent or more of floor area or display area to the sale of tobacco products and/or paraphernalia or derives 75% or more of gross sales receipts from the sale of tobacco products and/or paraphernalia (Newark Municipal Code section 17.45.030 - Use Classifications, Commercial).
Tobacco retailers, as defined, are currently subject to the following regulations (Newark Packet Page No. 186
Municipal Code section 17.26.270 - Tobacco retailers):
Tobacco retailers must be located at least 1,000 feet from any other tobacco retailer, public park, child day care facility, or school.
1. Products must be secure so that only store employees have access to them, and self-service displays are prohibited.
2. Retailers must comply with local, state, and federal laws regarding the sales, advertising, and display of tobacco products.
3. 4. No minors may sell tobacco products.
5. Sales to minors are prohibited.
There are 39 known retail establishments that sell tobacco products within Newark's city limits. However, these establishments would not necessarily meet the definition of tobacco retailer in the zoning code. Staff proposes an ordinance establishing a retail license requirement and a regulatory and inspection program that would apply to all businesses that sell tobacco products and not just those businesses as currently defined in the zoning ordinance. A TRL ordinance would require businesses to obtain a TRL from the City of Newark before it is allowed to sell tobacco products or paraphernalia. A TRL would be valid for 12 months, and retailers would be required to renew the license annually. An annual fee would be calculated to ensure the TRL program is 100% cost recoverable. The cost would account for staff time reviewing TRL applications, conducting initial site inspections, performing annual or bi-annual inspections for license renewals, and staff time for compliance inspections to verify that violations identified during initial inspections were corrected.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Tobacco retail licensing is an effective policy tool that is used to regulate tobacco retailers by implementing proactive inspections to ensure retailers are in compliance with Federal and State tobacco laws and provides a defined enforcement process to address violations. The proposed TRL ordinance would also expand the definition of a tobacco retailer to include any retailer that sells tobacco and tobacco products, regardless of floor or display area or percentage of sales.
A TRL ordinance can also regulate the location of new tobacco retailers, impose additional restrictions on the sale of certain tobacco products, and even establish minimum prices or pack sizes. There are several options for what a local TRL ordinance can encompass. Attachment B identifies what other municipalities within Alameda County have adopted in their TRL ordinances.
Staff met with several key stakeholders, including the Alameda County Public Health Department, various health advocates, and tobacco retailers, to receive feedback on a potential ordinance. Staff held and invited all State licensed tobacco retailers in Newark to an informational webinar that outlined the proposed ordinance, and a copy of the presentation was posted on the City of Newark website. Based on the feedback and data collected, staff recommends that the City Council consider introduction and, ultimately, adoption of an ordinance (Attachment A) adding Chapter 5.42 to the Newark Municipal Code to establish a TRL ordinance, which includes the following:
Packet Page No. 187
Definitions:
Define tobacco retailer to ensure that all businesses that sell tobacco are subject to the same regulations, regardless of their floor area or percentage of sales of tobacco products.
1. Define other related terms to ensure clarity and the correct interpretation of the ordinance.
2. Requirements:
All retailers of tobacco products or paraphernalia must obtain a City of Newark Tobacco Retail License and pay the associated fees.
1. A valid TRL must be prominently displayed in a publicly visible location at the establishment.
2. Prohibit the sale of tobacco products or paraphernalia to anyone under the minimum age established by state law.
3. 4. Prohibit a person younger than the minimum age to engage in tobacco retailing.
5. Prohibit the redemption of tobacco discounts and coupons.
6. Prohibit all flavored tobacco products, consistent with state law.
Establish minimum pack size and pricing for specific tobacco products. Staff does not believe these proposed changes would significantly, if at all, impact adults' choice or ability to use these products but would instead discourage underage users from purchasing them.
7. Eligibility:
Limit the density of tobacco retailers by adopting proximity requirements for new retailers. Tobacco retailers must be located at least one thousand feet from other tobacco retailers, parks, schools, and daycare facilities.
1. 2. Prohibit the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies.
Legal nonconforming status for existing retailers that otherwise would be ineligible due to any adopted proximity requirements.
3. If an existing legal nonconforming retailer sells its business, allow the new owner to obtain a TRL if they would otherwise be ineligible due to any adopted proximity requirements.
4. Penalties:
Allow a license suspension or revocation process for violations of state and local regulations.
1. Penalties under the TRL will apply to the licensee or owner, not any clerks or employees.
2. Specify that the adopted ordinance will not penalize the purchase, use, or possession of banned products by anyone not engaging in retailing. This ensures that individuals are not criminalized for using or possessing tobacco products and instead focus on retailers and licensees.
3. Furthermore, the ordinance would establish operational and maintenance standards for tobacco retailers to ensure these businesses do not create a nuisance. In addition to the ordinance requirements summarized above, operational standards would include prohibiting self-service displays and enforcing State codes related to tobacco Packet Page No. 188
advertisements and warnings. Maintenance standards would include graffiti removal, litter, and refuse management.
Pending the adoption of the ordinance, staff will carry out the Implementation Plan (Attachment C) and engage with existing and new tobacco retailers to provide support and assistance through the implementation of the new ordinance. The Finance Department will process the TRL application payments, the Planning Division will review the applications to ensure that the retailers meet zoning and proximity requirements, and the Community Preservation Division will conduct the initial inspections and any required follow-up inspections. It is estimated that among the noted staff, it will take approximately 3-4 total hours of staff time to process, verify, and conduct the required inspections for each retailer.
FISCAL IMPACT
An annual fee would be calculated to ensure the TRL program is 100% cost recoverable. The fee is not included with the staff recommended action but would be proposed through an amendment to the Master Fee Schedule later this year.
ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Adoption of an ordinance establishing the TRL program, regulations, and inspection framework are not considered to be a “Project” under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Oscar Carrillo, Community Preservation Manager Reviewed by - Steven Turner, Community Development Director Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Attachment A - Ordinance
Exhibit A - Chapter 5.42
Attachment B - TRL Benchmarks / Jurisdictional Benchmarks Attachment C - Implementation Plan
Presentation
Packet Page No. 189
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWARK ADDING CHAPTER 5.42, “TOBACCO RETAILERS”,
TO THE NEWARK MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, provides cities and counties with the authority to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their citizens; and
WHEREAS, approximately 480,000 people die in the United States from smoking-related diseases and exposure to secondhand smoke, making tobacco use the nation’s leading cause of preventable death;
1 and
WHEREAS, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that tobacco kills 98 million people and causes over 1.4 trillion dollars in economic damage each year;2 and WHEREAS, 5.6 million of today’s Americans who are younger than 18 are projected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness;
3 and
WHEREAS, tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death in California4 and continues to be an urgent public health issue; and
WHEREAS, tobacco use among priority populations in California contributes to health disparities and creates significant barriers to health equity; 5 and
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK179276.pdf 2 World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2019: Offer Help to Quit Tobacco Use. 2019. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/326043. 3 Supra, Note 1.
4 California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. The #1 Preventable Cause of Death.
http://tobaccofreeca.com/other-tobacco-products/the-number-1-preventable-cause-of-death.
Accessed May 12, 2020.
5 California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2019.
Packet Page No. 190
WHEREAS, despite the State’s efforts to limit youth access to tobacco, youth are still able to access tobacco products in California;6 and
WHEREAS, the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, enacted in 2009, prohibited candy and fruit flavored cigarettes7 largely because of these flavored products are marketing toward youth and young adults,8 and younger smokers and more likely than older smokers to have tried these products;9 and
WHEREAS, according to the California Department of Public Health, flavored tobacco products are used by the majority of youth and young adult tobacco users (86.4% and 57.7%) in California;
10 and
6 California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2016. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2016. California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2019.
California Student Tobacco Survey, 2017-18. San Diego, California: Center for Research and Intervention in Tobacco Control (CRITC), University of California, San Diego; April 2019; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs — 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2019. California: Tobacco Use. 2019. Available at: https://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/app/Results.aspx?LID=CA. Accessed August 31, 2023; Lin C, Baiocchi M, Halpern-Felsher B. Longitudinal trends in e-cigarette devices used by Californian youth, 2014–2018. Addict Behav. 2020;108:106459. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106459. 7 21 U.S.C. § 387g(a)(1)(A).
8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Pre- vention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99237/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK99237.pdf.; Villanti AC, Collins LK, Niaura RS, Gagosian SY, Abrams DB. Menthol cigarettes and the public health standard: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):983. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4987-z; Institute of Medicine.
Public Health Implications of Raising the Minimum Age of Legal Access to Tobacco Products.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2015. Available at: t:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18997/public-health-im-plications-of-raising-the-minimum-age-of-legalaccess-to-tobacco-products. 9 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Pre- vention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99237/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK99237.pdf. 10 California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2019.
Packet Page No. 191
WHEREAS, mentholated and flavored products have been shown to be “starter” products for youth who begin using tobacco11 and that these products help establish tobacco habits that can lead to long-term addiction;
12 and
WHEREAS, research indicates that the FDA ban in 2009 on all flavored cigarette products (except menthol) led to a 6% decrease in youth tobacco use and a 17% decrease in the likelihood of a youth becoming a cigarette smoker;13 and
WHEREAS, studies indicate that laws prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products lead to decreases in youth tobacco use;14 and
WHEREAS, in 2020, California passed SB 793, which amended the California Health and Safety Code Section 104559.5 to prohibit the sale of most types of flavored tobacco products, including flavored electronic cigarettes, non-premium flavored cigars, as wells as flavored enhancers;15 and
WHEREAS, in 2022, California voters passed Proposition 31, which upheld SB 793;16 and
WHEREAS, 75.64 percent of voters in Alameda County voted yes to uphold SB 793;17 and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 104559.5 still allows the sale of flavored loose-leaf pipe tobacco and premium cigars with a wholesale price of twelve dollars 11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99237/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK99237.pdf. 12 Id.
13 Courtemanche CJ, Palmer MK, Pesko MF. Influence of the Flavored Cigarette Ban on Adolescent Tobacco Use. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(5):e139-e146. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019.
Farley SM, Johns M. New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tob Control. 2017;26(1):78-84. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052418; Pearlman DN, Arnold JA, Guardino GA, Boles Welsh E. Advancing Tobacco Control Through Point of Sale Policies, Providence, Rhode Island. Prev Chronic Dis. 2019;16:E129. doi: 10.5888/pcd16.180614. 15 California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 104559.5. 16 Statement of the Vote Summary Pages. November 8, 2022, General Election. State of California. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2022-general/sov/06-summary.pdf. 17 Official Election Site of Alameda County. General Election (Certified Final Results) – November 08, 2022. Last Updated: Thursday, December 08, 2022. https://www.acgov.org/rovresults/248/.
Packet Page No. 192
($12.00 or more), as well as flavored shisha/hookah tobacco if sold in licensed stores that only allow people twenty-one (21) years of age on the premises at any time;18 and WHEREAS, the health effects of non-cigarette tobacco products such as cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco, and shisha are substantial as demonstrated by research that shows that noncigarette tobacco products have addictive levels of nicotine, harmful toxins, and dangerous carcinogens;
19 and
WHEREAS, unlike cigarette use that has steadily declined among youth, the U.S. has seen a surge in teen e-cigarette use, and youth e-cigarette use remains a serious public health concern; 20 and
WHEREAS, research has consistently shown that increases in cigarettes prices will result in less smoking across various sociodemographic populations;21 and WHEREAS, a systematic review by the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force found that a 20% price increase would reduce demand for cigarettes by approximately 10.4%, the prevalence of adult tobacco use by 3.6%, and initiation of tobacco use by young people by 8.6%; 22 and
WHEREAS, youth are particularly responsive to changes in tobacco prices and evidence suggests that tobacco companies deliberately target youth with price reductions;23 and WHEREAS, although federal and state law ban the sale of individual cigarettes, neither federal nor California state laws restrict the sale of individual little cigars and cigars;24 and 18 California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 104559.5. 19 Hoffmann D, Hoffmann I. Chapter 3: Chemistry and Toxicology. In: Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 9: Cigars: Health Effects and Trends. National Cancer Institute; 1998. 20 Park-Lee E, Ren C, Cooper M, Cornelius M, Jamal A, Cullen KA. Tobacco Product Use Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:1429– 1435. National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS).
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7145a1.htm?s_cid=mm7145a1_w. 21 Yao T, Ong MK, Max W, et al. Responsiveness to cigarette prices by different racial/ethnic groups of US adults. Tob Control. 2018;27(3):301-309. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053434. 22 Community Preventive Services Task Force. Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Interventions to Increase the Unit Price for Tobacco Products. 2012. 23 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2012. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99237/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK99237.pdf 24 21 C.F.R. § 1140.16(b); Cal. Penal Code § 308.3(a).
Packet Page No. 193
WHEREAS, neither federal nor California law set a minimum price for tobacco products; and
WHEREAS, minimum price markups and related laws in other states have been shown to be effective at increasing the price of cigarettes but may remain vulnerable to price manipulation by the tobacco industry without attention to coupons and discounts;25 and WHEREAS, by selling tobacco products, pharmacies reinforce positive social perceptions of smoking, convey tacit approval of tobacco use, and send a message that it is not so dangerous to smoke;26 and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark has a substantial interest in protecting youth and underserved populations from the harms of tobacco use; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark finds that a local licensing system for tobacco retailers is appropriate to ensure that retailers comply with tobacco control laws and business standards of the City of Newark in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
The above recitals (“Recitals”) are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. CEQA. Approval of the amendments is exempt from further environmental review under the general rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments and additions, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. Newark Municipal Code Chapter 5.42
Chapter 5.42 “Tobacco Retailers,” of the Newark Municipal Code is hereby added to read as displayed in Exhibit A, incorporated and made a part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application 25 Huang J, Chriqui JF, DeLong H, Mirza M, Diaz MC, Chaloupka FJ. Do state minimum markup/price laws work? Evidence from retail scanner data and TUS-CPS. Tob Control. 2016;25(Suppl 1):i52-i59. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocon- trol-2016-053093.
26 Hudmon KS, Fenlon CM, Corelli RL, Prokhorov AV, Schroeder SA. Tobacco sales in pharmacies:
time to quit. Tob Control. 2006;15(1):35-38. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.012278.
Packet Page No. 194
of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 5. Publication and effective date. Within fifteen (15) days from and after adoption, this Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Alameda County and circulated in the City of Newark, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Packet Page No. 195
EXHIBIT A
5.42.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined in this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
“Administrator” means the Community Development Director or designee. “Arm’s length transaction” means a sale or transfer, in good faith and for valuable consideration between two informed and willing parties, as determined by the parties, neither of which is under any compulsion to participate in the transaction. A sale or transfer for which a significant purpose is avoiding the effect of the violations of this chapter is not an arm’s length transaction.
“Cigar” means any roll of tobacco that is wrapped in tobacco leaf or in any other substance containing tobacco, with our without a tip or mouthpiece. “Cigar” includes but is not limited to, tobacco products known or labeled as cigar, cigarillo, little cigar, blunt, blunt wrap, or cigar wrap.
“Coupon” means any voucher, rebate, card, paper, note, form, statement, ticket, image, or other issue, whether in paper, digital, or other form, used for commercial purposes to obtain an article, product, service, or accommodation without charge or at a discounted price. “Department” means the Community Development Department. “Drug paraphernalia” shall have the definition set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 11014.5, as that section may be amended from time to time. “Electronic smoking device” means any device that may be used to deliver any aerosolized or vaporized substance to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to, an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, vape pen, or e-hookah. Electronic smoking device includes any component, part, or accessory of the device, and also includes any substance that may be aerosolized or vaporized by such device, whether or not the substance contains nicotine.
Electronic smoking device does not include drugs, devices, or combination products authorized for sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as those terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
“Flavored Tobacco Product” means any tobacco product that imparts:
1. a taste or odor distinguishable by an ordinary consumer, other than the taste or odor of tobacco, either prior to or during the consumption of such tobacco product, including but not limited to tastes or odors relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, mint, wintergreen, menthol, herb, or spice; or
2. a heating, cooling, or numbing sensation distinguishable by an ordinary consumer during the consumption of such tobacco product.
“License” means a tobacco retailer’s license as defined below. “Licensee” means a tobacco retailer with a tobacco retailer’s license. “Manufacturer” means any person, including any repacker or relabeler, who manufactures, fabricates, assembles, processes, or labels a tobacco product; or imports a finished tobacco product for sale or distribution into the United States. “Nominal cost” means the cost of any item that is transferred from one person to another for less than the total of: (1) twenty-five percent of the full retail value of the item exclusive of taxes and fees; plus (2) all taxes and fees previously paid and all taxes and fees still due on the item at the time of transfer.
Packet Page No. 196
“Nonsale distribution” means to give, within the jurisdictional limits of the City, a tobacco product or coupon at no cost or at nominal cost to a person who is not a tobacco seller. “Person” means any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity. “Pharmacy” means any retail establishment in which the profession of pharmacy is practiced by a pharmacist licensed by the State of California in accordance with the Business and Professions Code and where prescription pharmaceuticals are offered for sale, regardless of whether the retail establishment sells other retail goods in addition to prescription pharmaceuticals.
“Proprietor” means a person with an ownership or managerial interest in a business. An ownership interest shall be deemed to exist when a person has a ten percent or greater interest in the stock, assets, or income of a business other than the sole interest of security for debt. A managerial interest shall be deemed to exist when a person can or does have or share ultimate control over the day-to-day operations of a business.
“Public place” means any place within the City, public or private, that is open to the general public regardless of any fee or age requirement, including, for example, bars, restaurants, clubs, stores, stadiums, parks, playgrounds, taxis, and buses. “Retailer” means tobacco retailer as defined herein.
“Sale” or “Sell” means any transfer, exchange, barter, gift, offer for sale, or distribution for a commercial purpose, in any manner or by any means whatsoever. “Self-service display” means the open display or storage of tobacco products in a manner that is physically accessible in any way to the general public without the assistance of the retailer or employee of the retailer and a direct person-to-person transfer between the purchaser and the retailer or employee of the retailer. A vending machine is a form of self-service display. “Tobacco product” means
1. any product containing, made of, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption or is likely to be consumed, whether inhaled, absorbed, or ingested by any other means, including but not limited to, a cigarette, a cigar, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff, or snus;
2. any electronic smoking device and any substances that may be aerosolized or vaporized by such device, whether or not the substance contains nicotine; or
3. any component, part, or accessory of (1) or (2), whether or not any of these contains tobacco or nicotine, including but not limited to filters, rolling papers, blunt or hemp wraps, hookahs, mouthpieces, and pipes.
“Tobacco product" does not mean drugs, devices, or combination products authorized for sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as those terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
“Tobacco retailer” means any person who sells, offers for sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration tobacco products. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco products sold, offered for sale, exchanged, or offered for exchange., electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette products, electronic cigarette paraphernalia, tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia.
“Tobacco retailing” means engaging in the activities of a tobacco retailer. . “Tobacco retailer’s license” means the license issued pursuant to this chapter that authorizes tobacco retailing at a certain location and by a certain tobacco retailer.
Packet Page No. 197
5.42.020 Requirements and prohibitions.
A. Tobacco Retailer License Required. It is unlawful for any person to act as a tobacco retailer in the City without first obtaining and maintaining a valid tobacco retailer’s license pursuant to this chapter for each location at which that activity is to occur. Tobacco retailing without a valid tobacco retailer’s license is a nuisance as a matter of law. This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the use of any tobacco product.
B. Lawful Business Operation. In the course of tobacco retailing or in the operation of the business or maintenance of the location for which a license issued, it shall be a violation of this chapter for a licensee, or any of the licensee’s agents or employees, to violate any local, State, or Federal law applicable to the sale of tobacco products.
C. Display of License. Each tobacco retailer license shall be prominently displayed in a publicly visible location at the licensed location.
D. Positive Identification Required. No person engaged in tobacco retailing shall sell or transfer a tobacco product to another person without first examining the identification of the recipient, as required by State law, to confirm that the recipient is at least the minimum age under State law.
E. Minimum Age for Persons Selling Tobacco. Persons employed by a tobacco retailer under this chapter that sell tobacco products must be at least the minimum legal sales age established by state law.
F. Self-Service Displays Prohibited. Tobacco retailing by means of a self-service display is prohibited.
G. False and Misleading Advertising Prohibited. A tobacco retailer or proprietor without a valid tobacco retailer license, including, for example, a person whose license has been revoked:
1. Shall keep all tobacco products out of public view. The public display of tobacco products in violation of this provision shall constitute tobacco retailing without a license; and
2. Shall not display any advertisement relating to tobacco products that promotes the sale or distribution of such products from the tobacco retailer’s location or that could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that such products can be obtained at that location.
H. Signage Violations. It is a violation of this chapter for any licensee to violate any local, State, or Federal law regulating exterior, storefront, window, or door signage.
I. Drug Paraphernalia. It is a violation of this chapter for any licensee or any of the licensee’s agents or employees, to violate any local, State, or Federal law regulating controlled substances or drug paraphernalia.
J. Nonsale Distribution of Tobacco Products Prohibited.
1. No tobacco retailer nor any agent or employee of a tobacco retailer shall engage in the nonsale distribution of any tobacco product or coupon in any public place.
2. No person, motivated by an economic or a business purpose, shall knowingly permit the nonsale distribution of any tobacco product or coupon: (a) anywhere in any public place under the legal or de facto control of the person; or (b) through any agent or employee of the person. This provision shall not apply to coupons incidentally distributed in connection with a printed or electronic publication, such as, for example, magazines, newspapers, and websites, so long as that person’s distribution of a publication containing coupons is not primarily motivated by an economic or a business purpose to distribute coupons.
3. No tobacco retailer may honor or redeem, or offer to honor or redeem, a coupon to allow a consumer to purchase a tobacco product for less than the full retail price.
Packet Page No. 198
4. No tobacco retailer may sell any tobacco product to a consumer through a multiple-package discount or otherwise provide any such product to a consumer for less than the full retail price in consideration for the purchase of any tobacco product or other item.
5. No tobacco retailer may provide any free or discounted item to a consumer in exchange for the purchase of any tobacco product.
K. Minimum Pack Size for Cigars.
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no tobacco retailer shall sell, offer for sale, or exchange for any form of consideration:
a. Any single cigar, whether or not packaged for individual sale; b. Any number of cigars fewer than the number contained in the manufacturer’s original consumer packaging designed for retail sale to a consumer; or c. Any package of cigars containing fewer than five cigars. d. Cigars at a price of less than eight dollars per package of five cigars, including all applicable taxes and fees.
2. This subsection does not apply to the sale or offer for sale of a single cigar for which the retail price exceeds five dollars, including all applicable taxes and fees. This amount may be increased annually by the Consumer Price Index, as determined by the City Council and adopted by resolution.
3. This subsection shall apply to cigars, cigarillos and any other cigar product regardless of the terminology used for the product.
L. Flavored Tobacco Products. It shall be unlawful for any tobacco retailer to sell any flavored tobacco product.
1. Presumptive flavored tobacco product. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product if a tobacco retailer, manufacturer, or any employee or agent of a tobacco retailer or manufacturer has taken action directed to consumers that would be reasonably expected to cause consumers to believe the tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product. Any communication by or on behalf of the manufacturer or retailer of a tobacco product that such tobacco product imparts a taste or odor other than the taste or odor of tobacco, or that imparts a heating, cooling, or numbing sensation, constitutes presumptive evidence that the tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product. This includes but is not limited to public statements that a product is flavored, such as describing the product as “chill,” “ice,” “fresh,” “arctic,” “sweet,” “spicy,” or “frost.”
5.42.030 Limits on eligibility for a tobacco retailer license.
A. No license shall be issued to authorize tobacco retailing at other than a fixed location.
B. No license shall be issued to authorize tobacco retailing at a location where tobacco products are prohibited from being distributed pursuant to Title 17.
C. No license shall be issued to a location or a tobacco retailer where prohibited pursuant to Section 5.42.110.
D. Proximity to other tobacco retailers or other uses. No license may issue, and no existing license may be renewed, to authorize tobacco retailing within 1000 feet of a tobacco retailer location already licensed pursuant to this chapter or a public park, a child day care facility, or school, as measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the applicant’s business is located to the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which an existing licensee’s business is located or on which a public park, a child day Packet Page No. 199
care facility, or school is located. This restriction does not apply to an applicant who has been selling tobacco products consistent with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations as of the effective date of this chapter.
E. Pharmacies. No license may issue, and no existing license may be renewed, to authorize tobacco retailing in a pharmacy.
5.42.040 Application procedure.
A. Application for a tobacco retailer’s license shall be submitted in the name of each proprietor proposing to conduct tobacco retailing and shall be signed by each proprietor or an authorized agent thereof.
It is the responsibility of each proprietor to be informed regarding all laws applicable to tobacco retailing, including those laws affecting the issuance of a tobacco retailer’s license. No proprietor may rely on the issuance of a license as a determination by the City that the proprietor has complied with all laws applicable to tobacco retailing. A license issued contrary to this chapter, contrary to any other law, or on the basis of false or misleading information supplied by a proprietor shall be revoked pursuant to Section 5.42.110(D) of this chapter. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to vest in any person obtaining and maintaining a tobacco retailer’s license any status or right to act as a tobacco retailer in contravention of any provision of law.
All applications shall be submitted on a form supplied by the Department and shall contain the following information:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of each proprietor of the business seeking a license;
2. The business name, address, and telephone number of the single fixed location for which a license is sought;
3. A single name and mailing address authorized by each proprietor to receive all communications and notices (the “authorized address”) required by, authorized by, or convenient to the enforcement of this chapter. If an authorized address is not supplied, each proprietor shall be understood to consent to the provision of notice at the business address specified in subsection (A)(2);
4. Proof that the location for which a tobacco retailer’s license is sought has been issued a valid state tobacco retailer’s license by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration;
5. Whether or not any proprietor or any agent of the proprietor has admitted violating, or has been found to have violated, this chapter and, if so, the dates and locations of all such violations within the previous five years;
6. A statement signed by each proprietor that no drug paraphernalia is or will be sold at the location for which the license is sought;
7. Such other information as the Department deems necessary for the administration or enforcement of this chapter as specified on the application form required by this section.
B. A licensed tobacco retailer shall inform the Department in writing of any change in the information submitted on an application for a tobacco retailer’s license within ten business days of a change.
C. All information specified in an application pursuant to this section shall be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Sections 7920 et seq.) or any other applicable law, subject to the laws’ exemptions.
Packet Page No. 200
5.42.050 Issuance of license.
Upon the receipt of a complete application for a tobacco retailer’s license and the license fee required by this chapter, the Administrator shall issue a license, which shall be effective beginning January 1 of each year, unless substantial evidence demonstrates that one or more of the following bases for denial exists:
A. The information presented in the application is inaccurate or false. Intentionally supplying inaccurate or false information shall be a violation of this chapter; B. The application seeks authorization for tobacco retailing at a location for which this chapter prohibits issuance of tobacco retailer licenses. However, this subsection shall not constitute a basis for denial of a license if the applicant provides the City with documentation demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant has acquired or is acquiring the location or business in an arm’s length transaction and the license is issued no later than 30 days following the acquisition of the location or business; C. The application seeks authorization for tobacco retailing for a proprietor or location for which this chapter prohibits a license to be issued, including the provisions of Section 5.42.110;
D. The application seeks authorization for tobacco retailing that is prohibited pursuant to this chapter (e.g., mobile vending), that is unlawful pursuant to this Code or that is unlawful pursuant to any other law;
E. The location for which a tobacco retailer’s license is sought lacks a valid state tobacco retailer’s license by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
5.42.060 License renewal and expiration.
A. Term and Renewal of License. A tobacco retailer’s license is invalid if the appropriate fee has not been timely paid in full or if the term of the license has expired. The term of a tobacco retailer license is one year. Each tobacco retailer shall apply for the renewal of their tobacco retailer’s license and submit the license fee prior to expiration of the term.
B. Expiration of License. A tobacco retailer’s license that is not timely renewed shall expire at the end of its term.
5.42.070 Licenses nontransferable.
A. A tobacco retailer’s license may not be transferred from one person to another or from one location to another. A new tobacco retailer’s license is required whenever a tobacco retailing location has a change in proprietor(s).
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, prior violations at a location shall continue to be counted against a location and license ineligibility periods shall continue to apply to a location unless:
1. The location has been fully transferred to a new proprietor or fully transferred to entirely new proprietors; and
2. The new proprietor(s) provide the City with clear and convincing evidence that the new proprietor(s) have acquired or is acquiring the location in an arm’s length transaction.
5.42.080 License conveys a limited, conditional privilege.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to grant any person obtaining and maintaining a tobacco retailer’s license any status or right other than the limited conditional privilege to act as a tobacco retailer at the location in the City identified on the face of the permit. For example, Packet Page No. 201
nothing in this chapter shall be construed to render inapplicable, supersede, or apply in lieu of, any other provision of applicable law, including but not limited to, any provision of this Code, or any condition or limitation on smoking in an enclosed place of employment pursuant to California Labor Code Section 6404.5. For example, obtaining a tobacco retailer license does not make the retailer a “retail or wholesale tobacco shop” for the purposes of California Labor Code Section 6404.5.
5.42.090 Fee for license.
The fee to issue or to renew a tobacco retailer’s license shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council and shall be included within the City’s Master Fee Schedule. The fee shall be calculated so as to recover the cost of administration and enforcement of this chapter, including, for example, issuing a license, administering this chapter, retailer inspection and compliance checks, documentation of violations, and prosecution of violators, but shall not exceed the cost of the regulatory program authorized by this chapter. All fees and interest upon proceeds of fees shall be used exclusively to fund the program. Fees are nonrefundable except as may be required by law.
5.42.100 Compliance monitoring.
A. Compliance with this chapter shall be monitored by the Community Development Department. The City may designate any number of additional persons to monitor compliance with this chapter.
B. Compliance checks shall be conducted so as to allow the Police Department to determine, at a minimum, if the tobacco retailer is conducting business in a manner that complies with laws regulating youth access to tobacco products. When the Police Department deems appropriate, the compliance checks shall determine compliance with other laws applicable to tobacco retailing.
5.42.110 Suspension and revocation of license.
A. Suspension or revocation of tobacco retailer license for violation. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, a Tobacco Retailer License shall be suspended or revoked if the Department finds or a court of competent jurisdiction determines, after the licensee is afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard, that the licensee, or any of the licensee's agents or employees, has violated any provision of this Chapter.
1. Upon a finding of a first violation of this Chapter at a location within any 5 year period, the License shall be suspended for 30 days.
2. Upon a finding of a second violation of this Chapter at a location within any 5 year period, the License shall be suspended for 90 days.
3. Upon a finding of a third violation of this Chapter at a location within any 5 year period, the License shall be suspended for 1 year.
4. Upon a finding of four or more violations of this Chapter at a location within any 5 year period, the License shall be revoked with no new license issued for a five year period.
B. Procedures. If the licensee contacts the Administrator to challenge the finding of a violation, the Administrator shall provide written notice of a hearing, not less than five business days after the notice, at which the tobacco retailer may show cause, at a time and place specified in the notice, why a violation does not exist. Should the tobacco retailer fail to present evidence at such hearing establishing, in the reasonable determination of the Administrator, that Packet Page No. 202
a violation does not exist, the Administrator shall provide written notice to the tobacco retailer that the notice of violation is upheld. If a license is subject to revocation, the Administrator shall provide written notice of revocation along with the reasons for revocation, facts suggesting violation, the penalties for violation, and ability to appeal pursuant to subsection C. Within five days of the mailing of notice of revocation, the tobacco retailer shall cease the operation of the business for which the license was issued.
C. Appeal of Revocation. A decision of the Administrator to revoke a license is appealable to the City Manager and must be filed with the City Clerk within ten days of mailing of the Administrator’s notice of revocation. If such an appeal is made, it shall stay enforcement of the appealed action. An appeal to the City Manager is not available for a revocation made pursuant to subsection D. The date, time, and place of appeal hearings shall be provided in writing to the tobacco retailer with at least ten days’ notice and copies of hearing rules. If the tobacco retailer fails to present evidence establishing that tobacco retailer is entitled to retain the license, the City Manager shall uphold the revocation and give written notice to the tobacco retailer. Within five days of the mailing of the notice of upheld revocation, the tobacco retailer shall cease operation of the business for which the license was issued.
D. Revocation of License Wrongly Issued. A tobacco retailer’s license shall be revoked if the Administrator finds, after the licensee is afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard, that one or more of the bases for denial of a license under Section 5.42.050 existed at the time application was made or at any time before the license issued. The decision by the Administrator shall be the final decision of the City. Such a revocation shall be without prejudice to the filing of a new license application.
5.42.120 Enforcement.
A. Each incident of violation of this chapter is an infraction. The Department may impose administrative penalties as follows:
1. For a first violation of this Chapter within any one year period, one hundred dollars ($100);
2. For a second violation of this Chapter within any one year period, two hundred dollars ($200); and
3. For a third or subsequent violation of this Chapter within any one year period, five hundred dollars ($500).
B. Civil Enforcement by the City.
1. Fines. Violations of this chapter are subject to a civil action brought by the City of Newark, punishable by a civil fine not less than two hundred fifty dollars and not exceeding one thousand dollars per violation.
2. Injunctions, Nuisance Abatement, and Code Enforcement. In addition to other remedies provided by this chapter or by other law, any violation of this chapter may be remedied by a civil action brought by the City Attorney including, for example, administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil or criminal code enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief. Where the City pursues a civil action to remedy a violation of this chapter, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of attorneys fees if the City elects, at the beginning of that action, to seek recovery of its own attorneys’ fees pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.5 as currently drafted or as amended.
C. General Provisions.
Packet Page No. 203
1. Cumulative Remedies. The remedies provided by this chapter are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity.
2. Violations. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of any provision of this chapter shall also constitute a violation of this chapter. A violation exists for each day on which a tobacco product is offered for sale in violation of this chapter. A violation also exists for each individual retail tobacco product that is distributed, sold, or offered for sale in violation of this chapter.
3. Nuisances. Violations of this chapter are hereby declared to be public nuisances.
4. No Testimony for Persons Under Eighteen. Whenever evidence of a violation of this chapter is obtained in any part through the participation of a person under the age of eighteen years old, such a person shall not be required to appear or give testimony in any civil or administrative process brought to enforce this chapter and the alleged violation shall be adjudicated based upon the sufficiency and persuasiveness of the evidence presented.
Packet Page No. 204
Tobacco Retail Licensing Comparison
Jurisdiction TRL Flavored Ban
Electronic
Smoking
Device
Restrictions
Youth Proximity
Restrictions
Retailer Proximity
Restrictions
Density
Regulations Minimum Pack Size Minimum Price Coupon Restrictions Pharmacy
Restrictions
Enforcement
Agency
Annual Fee Approx. # of
Retailers
Newark
(Proposed)
Within 1,000 ft of youth
populated areas
Within 1,000 ft of
another retailer 5 little cigars $8 little cigar pack
$5 premium cigar Code Enforcement est. $500 39
Alameda Within 300 ft of schools
Within 500 ft of
another retailer 1 per 2,500 population 5
$7 cigarettes,
$5 little cigars
$5 premium cigar
Code Enforcement
(Annual) + Police
(Decoys)
Not set 43
Alameda County Within 1,000 ft of youth
populated areas
Within 500 ft of
another retailer 1 per 2,500 population 20 $8 cigarettes, little cigars, premium cigars
Comm. Dev. (Annual) +
Sheriff (Decoys) $940 82
Albany
20 little cigars,
6 cigars,
except $8+single cigars
$8 cigarettes, little cigars Police $250 11
Berkeley Within 600 ft of schools 20 little cigars,
6 for large cigars
$8 cigarettes, little cigars, $7
premium cigars
Environmental Health +
Police $427 71
Dublin Police $298 26
Emeryville Within 1,000 ft of youth
populated areas
Within 500 ft of
another retailer
New owners must
conform to proximity
requirements
20 cigars, except $10+
cigars
$10 per pack,
$10 premium cigar TBD TBD 14
Fremont 5 $8 little cigars and cigarettes,
$5 premium cigar
Code Enforcement +
Police
Not set 108
Hayward Within 1,000 ft of youth
populated areas
Within 500 ft of
another retailer 5, except $8+ single cigars $8 little cigars and cigarettes, $8 single large cigar
Code Enforcement +
Police $400 105
Livermore Within 1,000 ft of youth
populated areas
Code Enforcement +
Police $1,005 64
Oakland
Within 1,000 feet of
residential or youth
populated areas
20 $8 little cigars and cigarettes,
$8 single large cigar Police/ABAT Unit $1,500 354
Piedmont Police N/A 1
Pleasanton Within 1,000 ft of youth
populated areas 20 cigarettes, 5 cigars $8 per pack and $7 large cigars Code Enforcement + Police
$550 initial,
$450 renewals 39
San Leandro 5 little cigars $7 per pack and $5 premium cigars Police $500 82 Union City Within 1,000 ft of youth
populated areas
Within 500 ft of
another retailer 10, except $8+ single cigars $15 for cigar packs Police $863 33 Attachment A
Packet Page No. 205
Tobacco Retail License Implementation Plan
Action Description Timeframe
1. City Council adopts
TRL ordinance
• Council adopts ordinance.
• Ordinance goes into effect.
October-November 2024
2. Administrative tasks • Create a database of all retailers. • Develop outreach materials and FAQs.
• Create an application packet with
instructions.
• Create the license to be displayed by the
retailer.
• Update the website to include TRL
informational materials.
• Calculate the annual TRL fee
• Billing coordination with Finance
Department
• Staff training
• Create a system to track the program's
actual costs to reassess fees if needed.
October-December 2025
3. Outreach and
enrollment
• In-person outreach to all retailers to provide
print collateral and TRL applications.
• Process the applications and collect the fees.
January-March 2025
4. Inspections • Complete initial inspections.
• Track enrollees and any noted violations.
• Conduct follow-up inspections to ensure
compliance.
March-April 2025
Attachment C
Packet Page No. 206
Tobacco Retail
License Ordinance
Community Development Department
Presenter:
Oscar Carrillo – Community Preservation Manager
Packet Page No. 207
Overview
• Current Legislation • Tobacco Retail License (TRL)
Ordinance
• Analysis • Proposed Ordinance • Implementation • Q & A 2 Packet Page No. 208
Current Legislation
STAKE Act
• Effective January 1, 1995
• Minimum age requirements
• Penalties and license
suspension
3 SB 793
• Effective January 3, 2023
• Flavor ban
• Includes menthol
• Local enforcement is
encouraged
• Allows for stricter local
restrictions
Business and Professions Code
• Effective January 1, 2004
• § 22971.3 allows for local
tobacco control laws
Packet Page No. 209
Tobacco Retail License
What is it?
• A TRL allows retailers to sell tobacco and
tobacco products
• Requires all tobacco retailers to obtain a
license and renew annually
• License fee funds processing, inspections,
and enforcement
• Establishes fines and penalties
• Ensures responsible retailing practices
4 Packet Page No. 210
Tobacco Retail License
5 Newark is the only city in
Alameda County that
does not have a TRL
program or tobacco
ordinance.
Packet Page No. 211
Tobacco Retailers
7 39 Retailers
12 Schools
4 Retailers within 1,000 feet
of a school
Packet Page No. 212
Current Tobacco Regulations
• Tobacco Retailers:
• 20% or more of floor/display area, or
• 75% or more of gross sales
• Located a minimum of 1,000 feet from:
• Another retailer
• Parks, day care, and schools
• Comply with Federal and State regulations
• No minors shall sell tobacco products
• No tobacco products shall be sold or given
to minors
8 Packet Page No. 213
Proposed Ordinance
• Create a TRL program
• Ban all flavored products
• Update the definition of a tobacco retailer
• Proximity restrictions within:
• 1,000 feet of existing retailers,
• 1,000 feet of parks, day care, or schools
• Legal nonconforming for existing retailers
• Allow a new owner of existing retailer to
obtain a license
9 Packet Page No. 214
Proposed Ordinance
• Penalties shall apply only to the owner or
license holder, not any employees
• Will not criminalize use or possession of
banned products
• Prohibit the sale of tobacco in
pharmacies
• Minimum prices and package sizes
• Prohibit tobacco discounts and coupons
• Defined enforcement process
10 Packet Page No. 215
Proposed Ordinance
11 With the proposed proximity
restrictions, no new retailers
would be allowed to obtain a
TRL and operate within the
colored circles.
Existing legal nonconforming
retailers can sell their
business and the new owner
can obtain a TRL.
Retailers
Parks
Schools
Packet Page No. 216
Implementation
12 City Council
October-November
•Adopts ordinance
• The ordinance goes into
effect
Administrative
October-December
•Application and Fees
• FAQs
• Checklist for retailers
Enrollment
January-March
2025
• Invoices and
applications mailed
•Applications processed
• Licenses issued
Inspection
March-April 2025
• Exterior conditions
• Permits for
improvements
• Signs
•Banned products
•Decoy program
Packet Page No. 217
13 Thank you!
Questions & Answers
Packet Page No. 218
Item F. 2.
DATE 10/10/2024
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Roya Gonzalez, Senior Management Analyst
SUBJECT Adopt a resolution approving the Facilities Master Plan and direct staff to explore options for a funding plan for the priority needs, as identified in the Plan
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
In November 2022, the City Council authorized an agreement with Group 4 Architecture & Planning to develop the City’s first Facilities Master Plan. An overview of findings was presented to the City Council in February 2024, followed by the draft Facilities Master Plan presented in September 2024. This Plan, now prepared for final consideration, includes recommendations for three new facilities. Direction is needed from the Council for staff to explore funding options.
Staff recommends that the City Council, by resolution, adopt the Facilities Master Plan and direct staff to explore funding options for the replacement of Fire Stations #27 and #29, as well as the replacement of the Community Center with a new Cultural Arts Center.
BACKGROUND
The City of Newark owns and maintains 24 building structures, each managed within the constraints of allocated resources. As the City’s infrastructure ages and demographics evolve, the need for a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan became evident. In November 2022, the City Council authorized an agreement with Group 4 Architects to develop this plan.
Group 4 Architects, in collaboration with sub-consultants and City staff, led a comprehensive process that included two phases of community outreach and building assessments in order to develop the plan. On February 22, 2024, Group 4 Architects summarized the community engagement process and presented key findings. On September 12, 2024, the draft Facilities Master Plan was presented, reiterating the key findings and immediate needs. The City Council and the public were provided with opportunities to ask questions and give feedback following this presentation. Feedback received, including potential uses for buildings that may become vacant in the future, was noted for inclusion in future analyses that are recommended by the plan.
Packet Page No. 219
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Facilities Master Plan serves as a strategic roadmap for managing and addressing the evolving needs of Newark’s infrastructure. Upon approval, this plan will provide guidance to the City Council and staff for the next twenty years.
The approach to the plan was built around the following key goals:
1. Assess: Evaluate facility needs and conditions.
2. Determine Growth: Determine growth and future needs.
Engage: Engage the Newark community about community program and space needs.
3. 4. Develop: Develop recommendations and options with supporting cost estimates.
Plan: Create an action plan to guide and improve future decision-making about programs, services, workflow, and facilities.
5. This comprehensive approach ensures that the Facilities Master Plan is not only a response to current challenges but also a proactive strategy for the City’s future development.
The implementation plan is structured around four key categories: Preventative Maintenance, Renovations/CIP Projects, New or Replacement Facilities, and Sell/Repurpose/Demolish. Within these categories, the recommendations are organized by estimated timeframe to prioritize actions effectively. These timeframes include Immediate Needs, Short-Term (1-2 Years), Near-Term (3-5 Years), Mid-Term (6-10 Years), and Long-Term (11-20 Years). This clear and organized structure ensures a prioritized approach to addressing the facility needs of Newark over the coming years.
If the plan is adopted, the following next steps are recommended for each category:
1. Preventative Maintenance: The estimated cost for preventative maintenance over the next 20 years is $73 million, with expenses expected to fluctuate annually. This estimate does not include preventative maintenance for facilities recommended for replacement (Newark Community Center, Fire Stations #27 and #29) or vacant buildings (Watkins Hall, previous library, or previous fire station on Thornton Avenue).
Earlier this evening, staff recommended that the City Council establish a maintenance reserve of $7 million through a resolution to address current and future maintenance needs. If approved, this proactive measure will enable the City to effectively manage the maintenance requirements of its facilities. Additionally, utilizing the Facility Condition Assessments, City staff will need to develop a long-term preventative maintenance plan.
2. Renovations/Capital Projects: Currently, there are no projects recommended for immediate or short-term completion. The next steps involve using the categorized time frames as a guide for making recommendations regarding future capital projects.
3. New or Replacement Facilities: The Plan recommends the immediate replacement Packet Page No. 220
of Fire Stations #27 and #29, as well as the existing Community Center with a new Cultural Arts Center. Next steps include directing City staff to explore funding options to present to the City Council for consideration.
4. Sell/Repurpose/Demolish: During the two-part community engagement and future needs assessment, there was no identified use for three vacant buildings. Staff recommends that the City conduct further analysis of each building within the next one to two years. This analysis will allow staff to make informed recommendations to City Council.
The Facilities Master Plan represents a vital step forward in addressing the evolving infrastructure needs of Newark. The structured approach, which prioritizes immediate actions across key categories, ensures that resources are allocated effectively and that the City is prepared to meet future demands.
With the recommendation to explore funding options for critical projects, including the replacement of Fire Stations #27 and #29 and the Community Center, the City can proactively secure the necessary resources to implement the Plan.
As Newark continues to grow and evolve, the Facilities Master Plan will serve as a comprehensive guide for decision-making, ensuring that the City remains responsive to the needs of its residents while strategically planning for a sustainable future.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Roya Gonzalez, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by - Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Final FMP Report
FMP Presentation
Resolution - Facilities Master Plan
Packet Page No. 221
City of Newark
Facilities Master Plan
FINAL REPORT | 06 SEPTEMBER 2024
Packet Page No. 222
Packet Page No. 223
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4 Project Goals and Purpose .................................................................................................. 6 Plan Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6 Work Plan and Participation Plan........................................................................................ 7 Analysis of Existing Operations........................................................................................... 8 Facility Condition Assessments........................................................................................... 8 Facility Condition Assessments Summary Table................................................................ 9 Project Participation ........................................................................................................... 14
2. Community, Recreation, and Aquatic Facilities............................................................. 17 Newark Community Center............................................................................................... 18 Newark Community Center Annex ................................................................................... 19 Clark W. Redeker Senior Center........................................................................................ 34 George M. Silliman Community Activity Center.............................................................. 36 Ash Street Recreation......................................................................................................... 40 Birch Grove Park Restrooms .............................................................................................. 41 Lakeshore Park Boathouse ................................................................................................ 42 Newark Community Park Restrooms ................................................................................ 43 Alan L. Nagy Library ........................................................................................................... 44 Sportsfield Restroom.......................................................................................................... 45 Old Newark Library ............................................................................................................ 46 Watkins Hall......................................................................................................................... Packet Page No. 22447 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
3. Administration, Public Safety, and Service Facilities..................................................... 49 David W. Smith City Hall .................................................................................................... 51 Fire Station 27..................................................................................................................... 62 Fire Station 29..................................................................................................................... 63 Fire Station 28..................................................................................................................... 68 Newark Police Department ............................................................................................... 72 Newark Service Center....................................................................................................... 76 Second Chance Emergency Shelter ................................................................................. 78 Old Fire Station................................................................................................................... 79
4. Appendix ........................................................................................................................ I Community Engagement Result Images........................................................................... I Facility Condition Assessment Reports .............................................................................XI Packet Page No. 225
INTRODUCTION
Packet Page No. 226
4 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
I NTRODUCT I ON
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For 70 years, the City of Newark has been a part of Alameda County, California. The city has changed a lot in those seven decades, evolving from the railroad and agricultural to the biotech and health sciences industries. Though Newark was incorporated within the last century, its community can be traced back 150 years. Today, the City of Newark owns and operates 24 facilities that serve vastly different purposes; aquatic recreation, library, park restrooms, shelters for residents experiencing barriers, public safety, and more. With such a strong community and deep roots in the Bay Area, the investments that Newark makes in their facilities will work to emphasize and improve what already exists, while propelling the city into a new era of service.
The City of Newark began a facility master plan process in 2022 with Group 4 Architecture with the goal of planning for the city’s future growth and developing needs. The objectives for this process included a master plan for the near future (1-3 years), and long term (5-10+ years) as well as a strategy for capital investments in city facilities. Throughout the master planning process, city leadership and staff have been involved during every step of the process so that each decision and recommendation is realistic and caters directly to the needs of all Newark residents.
The thorough engagement process for this master plan helped to create the best plan possible. Newark residents were able to help envision the future of their city by participating in engagement and providing opinions on potential types of public spaces and project site options. Over several months, in-person pop-ups at city events, community meetings, and online surveys were used for two rounds of engagement to ensure a diverse range of needs and opinions were reflected in the final plan and recommendations.
Packet Page No. 227
5 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
NEWARK FACILITIES MAP
an
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
6City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
MAP
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
an
MAP
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
84 880 Hanse n Ave
Logan Dr
Nicol et A
ve
Farwell Dr
Alder
Ave
Smith Ave
Mowry
Ave
Blvd
Central Ave
Cherry St
Cherry St
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Quarry Lakes
Regional Rec
Area
Centerville
District
k
629 ft
Auto Mall Pkwy
Logan Dr
Roberts Ave
Porter St
Canyon Height s Dr
Doane St
Carol Ave
Country Dr
Castro Ln
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Fremont Blvd
Washington Blvd
Driscoll
Rd
Walnut Ave
Osgood Rd
Niles
Community
Park
Central Park
Lake Elizabeth
Shinn
Irvington
District
Fremont
Christy St
Boscell Rd
Boyce Rd
S Grimmer Blvd
84 880 Hanse n Ave
Logan Dr
Nicol et A
ve
Farwell Dr
Alder
Ave
Smith Ave
Mowry
Ave
Blvd
Central Ave
Cherry St
Cherry St
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Quarry Lakes
Regional Rec
Area
Centerville
District
k
629 ft
Auto Mall Pkwy
Logan Dr
Roberts Ave
Porter St
Canyon Height s Dr
Doane St
Carol Ave
Country Dr
Castro Ln
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Fremont Blvd
Washington Blvd
Driscoll
Rd
Walnut Ave
Osgood Rd
Niles
Community
Park
Central Park
Lake Elizabeth
Shinn
Irvington
District
Fremont
Christy St
Boscell Rd
Boyce Rd
S Grimmer Blvd
VACANT FACILITIES
1 ASH STREET CENTER, RESTROOM,
AND VIOLA BLYTHE COMMUNITY
SERVICE CENTER
37365 Ash Street
• Ash Street Center: 1,968 SF
• Restroom: 1,100 SF
• Viola Blythe: 960 SF
2 BIRCH RESTROOM @ BIRCH GROVE
PARK
38080 Birch Street
• 900 SF
3 BOATHOUSE@ LAKESHORE PARK
Chelsea Drive
• 300 SF
6 NEWARK COMMUNITY CENTER,
ANNEX AND RESTROOM
35501 Cedar Blvd.
CC000 S
7 FIRE STATION 27
39039 Cherry Drive
• 7,005 SF
8 FIRE STATION 28
7550 Thornton Avenue
• 18,000 SF
9 FIRE STATION 29
35775 Ruschin Drive
• 5,450 SF
8 OLD FIRE STATION LOCATION
7700 Thornton Avenue
• 4,852 SF
9 OLD NEWARK LIBRARY LOCATION
6300 Civic Terrace
• 15,000 SF
11 CLARK W. REDEKER NEWARK
SENIOR CENTER
7401 Enterprise Drive
• 7,300 SF
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER
6516 Central Avenue
• 3,116 SF
12 SERVICE CENTER (NEWARK PUBLIC
WORKS MAINTENANCE)
37440 Filbert Street
• 24,700 SF
13 GEORGE M. SILLIMAN COMMUNITY
ACTIVITY CENTER AND SPORTSFIELD
SCOREKEEPER HUT
6800 Mowry Avenue
• Phase I: 36,410 SF
• Phase II: 32,320 SF
• Sportsfield Scorekeeper Hut: 680 SF
14 SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM @
NEWARK MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL
3911 Cherry Street
• 680 SF
15 WATKINS HALL
18 DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
37101 Newark Blvd.
• 25,638 SF
4 ALAN L. NAGY LIBRARY
37055 Newark Blvd.
• 25,580 SF
5 NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
37077 Newark Blvd.
• 23,987 SF
10 4
10 2
7 15
14 16
17 an
LITIES MAP
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
6City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
Packet Page No. 228
6 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
PLAN SUMMARY
Within the last 14 months, the planning process for the City of Newark has included thorough analysis, close work with city staff and administration, and public engagement which led to the development of a plan for Newark’s facilities that works with what the city already has, and channels effort into identified areas of need. The following are strategies that were determined throughout the planning process and target areas that the City of Newark can invest in to increase the number of services and programs provided and functionality across the board.
▪ Protecting capital assets
▪ Reinvesting in the Community Center
▪ Rethinking the Clark W. Redeker Senior Center
▪ Addressing the condition of two Fire Stations
▪ Investing further in aquatic recreation
PROJECT GOALS AND PURPOSE
The goals for this planning process align with the City of Newark’s original vision for the project and created a detailed and focused framework for the planning approach.
1. ASSESS
Assess facility needs and conditions
2. DETERMINE GROWTH
Determine growth and future needs
3. ENGAGE
Engage the Newark community about community program
and space needs
4. DEVELOP
Develop recommendations and options with supporting
cost estimates
5. PLAN
Create an action plan to guide and improve future decisionmaking about programs, services, workflow, and facilities Packet Page No. 229
7 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
TASK 1: EX I ST I NG COND I T I ONS EVALUAT I ON
WORK PLAN AND PARTICIPATION PLAN
This facilities master plan focused on four main studies. The first being an existing space analysis of City Hall to examine the efficiency of the building’s layout. The second study looked at the functionality and health of the city’s existing community facilities such as the Newark Community Center and Annex, Service Center, Senior Center, and Silliman Center. The third study was a space analysis of the remaining Newark facilities, and the last study, performed by TenOver Studio, examined the condition and functionality of Newark’s existing Fire Stations (27, 28, and 29).
The existing City Hall building currently contains staff from six different departments: City Administration (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Human Resources), Information Technology (IT), Finance, Community Development, Public Works, and Fire Prevention. As part of the planning process, Group 4 attended a walkthrough of the building’s public and staff spaces to assess how space is currently used by the city. From this, Group 4 created floor plan diagrams which were confirmed by Newark’s administrative team.
Group 4 then walked through Newark’s community, recreation, and aquatic facilities to determine whether the city’s recreation and community space needs are being met. The project team paid special attention to the current Newark Community Center which is functioning suboptimally. From this, Community Center options were brought to the public for input.
Ten Over Architects walked through and determined the existing conditions of the three Fire Stations in Newark as well as the Police Station and reported their findings back to the project management team.
Additionally, Aquatic Design Group performed an analysis of the Silliman Center, Newark’s aquatic facility.
Packet Page No. 230
8 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
To understand the full range of needs for each of Newark’s facilities, facility condition assessments were conducted. These assessments resulted in reports that detail the health of each building structure. They outline maintenance and accessibility issues, if any, as well as provide FCI (facility condition index) percentages for the current year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years into the future. FCI numbers show the percentage of a building and its components that will need replacement or maintenance.
Process:
▪ Pre-Survey: The Project Management Team completed
pre-survey questionnaires prior to site visits and reviewed existing building data.
▪ Assessments: Bureau Veritas (BV) visited each facility and inspected building systems including the surrounding site and infrastructure, exterior and building envelope, roof and rooftop systems, interiors & accessibility, and life safety systems. BV then identified deficiencies in the existing buildings and developed repair/ replace recommendations.
Finally, BV created cost estimations and a maintenance
plan.
Left: Facility Condition Assessment report cover for the Community Center Right: City Hall FCA report building and site information Facility Condition Index (FCI) for the
Community Center projected out 10 years
Packet Page No. 231
9 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
Facility Condition Assessments Summary Table
9City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FACILITY CURRENT FCI 3-YEAR FCI 5-YEAR FCI 10-YEAR FCI
Ash Street Park Bldgs 2.1% 5.0% 9.8% 28.9%
Birch Grove Restroom 0.0% 3.3% 22.6% 29.8%
Boathouse 0.9% 0.9% 9.7% 12.4%
Newark Community Center Annex 8.7% 10.0% 14.2% 29.5%
Newark Community Center 13.0% 13.8% 16.2% 23.5%
Community Center RR 2.7% 35.4% 37.5% 93.3%
Fire Station 27 8.8% 10.2% 12.8% 25.2%
Fire Station 28 0.4% 1.2% 3.2% 9.5%
Fire Station 29 5.5% 7.7% 11.7% 19.8%
Old Fire Station 13.1% 13.5% 21.6% 27.1%
Old Library 8.1% 17.1% 18.7% 22.7%
Clark W. Redeker Senior Center 0.3% 2.7% 4.9% 22.9%
Second Chance Shelter 0.7% 2.7% 6.6% 22.6%
Newark Service Center 4.0% 8.5% 14.0% 24.7%
0.8% 2.6% 7.5% 20.5% George M. Silliman Community
Activity Center
Sports Field Restroom 0.6% 8.9% 14.5% 41.0%
Watkins Hall 12.6% 21.9% 24.2% 25.4%
David W. Smith City Hall 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 3.8%
Alan L. Nagy Library 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5%
Newark Police Department 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 3.5%
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL US
Restroom
Packet Page No. 232
10 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
TASK 2: FUTURE SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In order to determine the future space needs of Newark, Group 4 engaged with the community through pop-up events and conducted a community survey to ask about public space and recreation needs. With the guidance and approval of the Project Management Team (PMT), Group 4 additionally conducted calculations of existing David W. Smith City Hall space and examined future staff growth to determine adequate space recommendations.
TASK 3: C I TY ALTERNAT I VE FAC I L I T I ES OPT I ONS Based on the results of this plan’s public engagement efforts with the residents of Newark in combination with the prepared facility condition assessments, alternative options were developed specifically for the Newark Community Center located in Newark Community Park. Some of these options include changes to the Clark W.
Redeker Senior Center and Newark’s Old Library.
Further information on the future space needs assessment and the city alternative facilities options for each of Newark’s facilities can be found in the following facility sections.
Packet Page No. 233
11 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
TASK 4: COST AND I MPLEMENTAT I ON PLAN
The facility condition assessments included an identification of deficiencies, inventory of assets, repair and replace recommendations and a maintenance plan identifying expenditures for immediate to long-term costs. The table summarizes those expenditures for all facilities as well as expenditures when the City excludes its vacant facilities (the old library, old fire station and Watkins Hall) and those facilities identified to be replaced or renovated (Newark Community Center, Fire Station 27 and Fire Station 29). It also highlights those expenditures specifically associated as safety to be addressed as an immediate need and costs. The facility costs below are costs to maintain and repair the current facilities and do not address costs associated with upgrading a facility to current codes, meet operational requirements or respond to community needs.
10City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FACILITY MAINTENANCE COSTS
Long Term TOTAL
(11-20 yrs.)
Mid Term
(6-10 yrs.)
Near Term
(3-5 yrs.)
Short Term
(1-2 yrs.)
Immediate
Total expenditures for ALL $8.15M $4.08M $9.93M $20.41M $57.53M $100.1M facilities
Total expenditures for facilities $1.72M $2.74M $7.38M $15.63M $44.99M $72.46M EXCLUDING Community
Center-Annex-Restroom, Fire
Station 27 and 29, Watkins Hall,
Old Fire Station and Old Library
Total expenditures for ALL $500K
facilities for Safety Plan Type
costs
Total expenditures for facilities $52K
for Safety Plan Type costs
EXCLUDING Community
Center-Annex-Restroom, Fire
Station 27 and 29, Watkins Hall,
Old Fire Station and Old Library
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Facility Maintenance Cost Table
Packet Page No. 234
12 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REVIEW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
Based on the facility maintenance costs, a table was created to determine which facilities the City should maintain, renovate, replace or sell/repurpose. The facilities in the maintain facilities column currently meet the community needs and generally meet operational requirements. Those listed as renovate require futher costs to bring them up to code and operational requirements. Facilities identified as replace require significant costs to bring them up to code and operational requirements and do not address the community needs identified during the community outreach. The facilities listed as sell, demo, or repurpose require further study by the City. During the community outreach no need was identified for those facilities and/or their locations.
These facilities would also require significant cost to bring them up to current building and life safety code if a new use was identified.
13City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FACILITY RECOMMENDATION
FACILITY MAINTAIN RENOVATE REPLACE SELL OR REPURPOSE
Ash Street Park Bldgs
Birch Grove Restroom
Boathouse
Newark Community Center
Annex
Newark Community Center
Newark Community Center RR
Fire Station 27
Fire Station 28
Fire Station 29
Old Fire Station
Old Library
Clark W. Redeker Senior Center
Second Chance Shelter
Newark Service Center
George M. Silliman Center
Sports Field Restroom
Watkins Hall
David W. Smith City Hall
Alan L. Nagy Library
Newark Police Department
BASED ON 5-YEAR FCI
INDICATE SHORT TERM NEEDS
PAGE #
40 41
42 19
18 43
62 68
63 79
46 34
78 76
36 45
47 50
44 72
Newark facility recommendation summary table with corresponding report pages.
SELL, DEMO,
OR REPURPOSE
Packet Page No. 235
13 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
At the conclusion of the community outreach, facility assessments, and needs study, an implementation plan for the City was identified. The projects identified take into account, not only the condition of the facility but also respond to the communities’ priorities and needs. The table below summarizes each of the facility projects and categorizes them in immediate/short-term vs long-term needs. The project costs associated with each project is a rough order of magnitude cost that was generated based of a $/SF for building and site costs, and assumes a publicly bid process using prevailing wages. It takes into account any associated furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE), and technology costs as well as soft costs including design and construction management fees and city administration and permit fees. These project costs also include a construction and project contingency. The project costs do NOT include escalation as these projects are currently unfunded with no associated timeline for design and construction.
The City also identified a number of funding strategies:
▪ State & Federal grants: a financial award given by a government or other outside agency for beneficial projects.
▪ Measure GG: 1/2 cent sales tax approved by voters in 2016. ▪ Development Impact Fees: One-time charges imposed by the City on new or proposed development projects.
▪ Capital Funds: Newark’s existing or anticipated revenue. ▪ Other: local bond measures
Final recommendations & directions paragraph to be added after City Council presentation
79City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Long Term
(11-20 yrs.)
Mid Term (5-
10 yrs.)
Near Term
(3-5 yrs.)
Immediate &
Short Term
Project Costs
$7-9M
($5-6M)
($1-1.5M)
($1-1.5M)
Improvement to George M. Silliman Center
• Updated pool amenities
• Improve Check-in and Staff Workspaces
• Ninja Cross and Aquatic Fitness
AQUATICS
New 18-32k SF Community & Arts Center @ $31-56M
Community Park
COMMUNITY &
ARTS
$3-4M
$23-28M
Improvement to Silliman Center
• Improved Storage
• Evaluate underutilized space for additional
program opportunities
• Evaluate additional gym and courts
w/indoor walk/run track
RECREATION
Minor improvements to David W. Smith $1.5-2M
City Hall
DAVID W. SMITH
CITY HALL
$18.5-23M
($3-4M)
($7-8M)
($2-3M)
($.5-1M)
($6-7M)
Improvements to Newark Service Center
• New Admin Building
• New maintenance bays (4)
• Update locker/changing rooms and break
room
• Update HVAC in Shop Bldg.
• Additional covered parking
SERVICE CENTER
$15-19M
$15-19M
$1.5-2M
New 8-10k Fire Station 27
New 8-10k Fire Station 29
Upgrades to Fire Station 28
FIRE
Minor improvement to Newark Police $2-2.5M
Department
POLICE
SAFETY ISSUES $52-500K
$45-
57.6M
$15.7-
20.5M
$4.5- $7.4-10M
12.3M
MAINTENANCE
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Facility Improvement Projects
Packet Page No. 236
14 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
PROJECT PARTICIPATION
Project Management Team (PMT), City of Newark
Roya Gonzalez, Senior Management Analyst
David Benoun, Newark City Manager
Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
Soren Fajeau, Public Works Director
Nick Cuevas, Recreation & Community Services Director
Packet Page No. 237
15 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
CONSULTANT TEAM
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc.
211 Linden Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Andrea Gifford, Principal
Grace Tilghman, Planner
Nicole Ghiselli, Architect
650.871.0709 | www.g4arch.com
TenOver Architects
Candice Wong, Principal
Jesse Pereira, Project Architect
805.541.1010 | www.tenoverstudio.com
Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments
Erik Piller, Senior Vice President
Mary Venable, Lead Project Manager
800.733.0660 | www.bureauveritas.com
TBD Consultants
Gary Holland, Principal
415.981.9430 | www.tbdconsultants.com
Aquatic Design Group
Dennis Berkshire, President
Michelle Gable, Associate
760.438.8400 | www.aquaticdesigngroup.com
Packet Page No. 238
16 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
Packet Page No. 239
COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND
AQUATIC FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 240
18 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
NEWARK COMMUNITY CENTER
Address: 35501 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1968
Size: 13,400 square feet
Site Area: 3.75 acres
Estimated Project Cost:
18,000 SF Facility: $30,796,000
25,000 SF Facility: $44,289,000
32,000 SF Facility: $56,399,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 13.0%
3-Year 13.8%
5-Year 16.2%
10-Year 23.5%
Packet Page No. 241
19 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
NEWARK COMMUNITY
CENTER ANNEX
Address: 35501 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1991
Size: 3,000 square feet
Site Area: 3.75 acres
Estimated Project Cost:
See Community Center
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 8.7%
3-Year 10.0%
5-Year 14.2%
10-Year 29.5%
Packet Page No. 242
20 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
NEWARK COMMUNITY CENTER EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Newark Community Center was built in 1968 and has nearly 14,000 square feet across a single story.
What was once a community space for city activities and programs, room rentals, and childcare, has become mostly unoccupiable to the public except for opportunities to rent out rooms for personal events and parties.
At its peak, there were functioning staff offices, a reception and lobby space, a patio room and social hall for renting, an arts and crafts room, storage, meeting space, and kitchen. In the center of the building is a large courtyard which connects the Newark Community Center to the Newark Community Center Annex, which is presently used for a popular pre-school childcare program. Newark Community Center observations are listed below.
Exterior
▪ Building shows signs of wear and has significant maintenance needs. ▪ Significant water damage to roof and walls.
Interior
▪ Staff offices in the front of the building are not able to be occupied due to water leakage and intrusion, and rooms have been locked.
▪ Poor air quality and water damage in the downstairs area, currently locked and not used. ▪ Roof and skylights leak; have water stains and also actively drip and need buckets to catch falling water. ▪ Interior finishes affected by water damage, include fungal concerns. 11City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
STING FLOOR PLAN COMMUNITY CENTER
Existing Newark Community Center & Newark Community Center Annex Floorplan & Programming
9 City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
COMMUNITY CENTER ANNEX BUILT: 1991 3,000 SF
HOUSE
BACK OF
SPACE
PUBLIC
SPACE
STAFF
Patio Room
Packet Page No. 243
21 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ROUND 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Collecting Newark community’s input on city facility needs was an essential part of this planning process. With the PMT’s approval and edits, Group 4 developed 5 large boards to bring to various community events as pop-ups. This first round of engagement included two in-person pop-up events plus a community survey. Nearly 600 residents participated.
The engagement boards explained the current use of each of Newark’s facilities, as well as the regional planning standards for Northern California. The boards asked residents about their opinions (love it or change it) on their facilities as well as asked about their community space priorities. To inquire about residents’ community space priorities, Group 4 provided 23 space options for participants to place a vote/ dot.
These space options fell under four categories; community/ lounge, the arts and performance, exercise and recreation, and aquatics. The purpose of this exercise was to gain a better understanding of what types of spaces Newark’s residents are looking for in their city’s facilities. Below are the events that Group 4 attended for round one engagement pop-ups.
▪ Family Day at the Park (4/12/23)
▪ Groovin’ at the Grove (6/16/23)
290 ft
Alam eda Creek
Marshlands Rd
C o y o t e H i l l s
28 ft
Paseo Padre Pkwy
84 84
84 880 Hanse n Ave
Logan Dr
Nicol et Ave
Farwell Dr
Alder Ave
Smith Ave
Ca bral Dr
Darwin Dr
Haley St
Mowry Ave
Sycamore St
Bett encourt St
Fremont Blvd
Central Ave Central Ave
Cherry St Cherry St
Newark Blvd
Lowry Rd
Deep Creek Rd
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Ardenwood Blvd
Paseo Padre Pkwy
Quarry Lakes
Regional Rec
Area
Ardenwood
Historic Farm
Centerville
District
Jarvis Landing
Newark
4 ft
Plummer C r eek
629 ft
Auto Mall Pkwy
Logan Dr
Roberts Ave
Porter St
Canyon Height s Dr
Doane St
Carol Ave
Country Dr
Castro Ln
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Fremont Blvd
Washington Blvd
Driscoll Rd
Walnut Ave
Osgood Rd
Niles
Community
Park
Central Park
Lake Elizabeth
Shinn
Irvington
District
Fremont
M ud Sl ough Lakeview Blvd
Kato Rd
Christy St
Boscell Rd
Boyce Rd
S Grimmer Blvd
Fremont Blvd
Cushing Pkwy Albrae
City of Fremont, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Total Population (2020)
Median Household
Income (2020)
Median Age (2020)
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
IMAGINE
CITY OF NEWARK
YOUR COMMUNITY
Project Schedule
47,530 36.6 $127,619
Total Housing
Units (2020)
15,371
Average Household
Size (2020)
3.61 persons
Race & Ethnicity Education
% of pop. > 25 years old
Asian
Hispanic/Latino
White
Black/African American
Other groups
High School
Some College
Associates
Bachelor
Graduate
19,800
14,360
10,760
1,580
1,020
27.2%
20.3%
6.0%
23%
14.8%
Source: 2020 Decennial Census; 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
CITY OF NEWARK
FACILITIES MAP
PLANNING STANDARDS Facility Use
CITY OF NEWARK
FACILITY USE MATRIX CITY OWNED
CITY HALL NEWARK LIBRARY CLARK W. REDEKER
NEWARK SENIOR CENTER
SILLIMAN ACTIVITY &
FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER AGE SERVED NEWARK COMMUNITY CENTER Tots – 3-5 years old
Youth – 5-13 years old
Teen – 13-18 years old
Adult – 18+ years old
Senior – 55+ years old
DRAFT
*spaces available to the general public by reservation
FACILITY
WHAT ARE Y
FACILITY USE MATRIX CITY OWNED
NEWARK LIBRARY
(Managed by Alameda County Library) CITY HALL CLARK W. REDEKER
NEWARK SENIOR CENTER
SILLIMAN ACTIVITY &
FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER
NEWARK COMMUNITY
CENTER COMMUNITY SPACES # seats
– MEETING - 12– MEETING - 12
Conference 4 – 14
+ (2) CLASSROOMS - 20
Small Classroom 15 – 30
o MEETING - 45
Medium Classroom 30 – 50
+ CHILDREN’S READING ROOM
oPRESCHOOL
o (2) PRESCHOOL - 15
Preschool Classroom 35 SF/child
+ MAKERSPACE
15 – 50 Art Classroom (Hard Floor)
– MEETING – 44-105
o CHAMBERS - 100
+ ACTIVITY ROOM - 80
o ACTIVITY ROOM - 80
+ PATIO ROOM - 85
Community Meeting 50 – 150
+ SOCIAL HALL - 150
Community Hall 150 – 300
Black Box Theater 150-250
300 – 500 Community
Performance
+ TEEN LOUNGE
+ BILLIARDS AREA + GREAT ROOM
+ TEEN/ GAME ROOM - 75
Lounge varies
Provided and Available +
Provided w/ Limited Availability o
Provided and Not Available –
FACILITY USE MATRIX CITY OWNED
CITY HALL NEWARK LIBRARY CLARK W. REDEKER
NEWARK SENIOR CENTER
SILLIMAN ACTIVITY &
FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER
NEWARK COMMUNITY
CENTER
RECREATION
SPACES
Group Fitness Studio o
Dance Studio o
Gymnasium o
Exercise Room + +
Running Track
Lap pool o
Family Pool o
Lazy River o
Aquatic Event Room(s) o
Provided and Available +
Provided w/ Limited Availability o
Provided and Not Available –
25Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Existing Facilities (SF)
New Facility / Addition
(SF)
Indoor Community Facilities -
Total (SF)
Indoor Community Facilities -
SF/ Resident
.75 43,200 0 79,030
1.00 57,600 0 79,030
1.25 72,000 0 79,030
1.5 86,400 + 7,370 79,030
1.75 100,800 + 21,770 79,030
2.00 115,200 + 36,170 79,030
2040
Population
2020 NEWARK Population
48,000 57,600
DRAFT
FACILITY USE MATRIX CITY OWNED
CITY HALL NEWARK LIBRARY CLARK W. REDEKER
NEWARK SENIOR CENTER
SILLIMAN ACTIVITY &
FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER
NEWARK COMMUNITY
CENTER
RECREATION
SPACES
Group Fitness Studio o
Dance Studio o
Gymnasium o
Exercise Room + +
Running Track
Lap pool o
Family Pool o
Lazy River o
Aquatic Event Room(s) o
Provided and Available +
Provided w/ Limited Availability o
Provided and Not Available –
23Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023 NEWARK
PLANNING STANDARDS INDOOR PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
~0.75-2 SF/RESIDENT
for Indoor Community Facilities
NRPA’s 2022 Agency Performance Review – Indoor Park Facilities Nationwide
Agencies Newark Pacific Southwest
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
✓ 49,903 74% 31,329 64% Recreation Center (Including Gyms) Community Centers ✓ 46,000 67% 29,036 59%
Senior Center ✓ 117,335 54% 59,603 41%
123,850 37% 68,181 36% Performance
Amphitheaters
Aquatics Center ✓ 91,706 31% 53,025 25%
Nature Center 268,689 29% 114,696 31%
Teen Center 98,206 26% 57,109 14%
Stadium 160,731 13% 75,026 17%
Arenas 91,411 10% 65,466 7%
Indoor Ice Rink 141,864 7% 50,863 12%
24Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY/RECREATION/AQUATICS FACILITIES Rental Only
Space
(excluded in
indoor
facilities total)
Early
Childhood
Recreation
(SF)
Youth
Center (SF)
Senior
Center (SF)
Aquatic
Center (SF)
Recreation
Center (SF)
Community
Center (SF)
Indoor Facilities
- Total SF
Indoor
Facilities -
SF/
Resident
2040
Population
2020 CITY Population
20,500 20,000
14,000 14,000 8,100
21,000
2,000
6,000
6,000
Fremont 231,670 275,440 0.41 111,600
8,600
3,000 15,900 14,700 22,400 3,200 56,7001
6,400 66,190 86,390 1.51 130,900 South San
Francisco
Union City 68,700 79,850 1.52 105,000 21,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 14,000 1,200
2,300 31,900 16,900 19,700
13,000 Dublin 71,050 79,726 1.07 85,000
39,500 10,000 12,700 900 4 San Bruno 44,410 57,990 1.09 63,100 39,000 9,600 3 Foster City 32,390 35,420 1.47 52,200 3,600 15,000 17,000
3,800 San Carlos 29,450 34,290 1.04 35,800
13,3406 3,000
8,000 Newark 48,900 57,600 1.37 79,030 24,410 32,320 7,300 4,000 Indoor Park & Recreation Facilities Community Facilities Community/ Recreation/ Aquatics Facilities
*some spaces only available to the public by reservation Packet Page No. 244
22 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
Round 1 Engagement Results
Community members adding votes to their
space priorities at Groovin' at the Grove.
Engagement pop-up tent for Family Day in the
Park.
AQUATICS
The residents of Newark prioritize access to aquatic centers.
Many were in agreement that indoor/ outdoor aquatics
experiences, aquatic recreation such as Ninja Crossovers for pools, and aquatic fitness.
THE ARTS
The Newark community values the arts and sees the importance of public space for opportunities to hold theater performances, somewhere to practice and play music, arts/ makerspaces, a community gallery, and video/ audio recording rooms.
COMMUNITY
Designated space for specific age groups is a priority as well; the Newark community's priorities include early childhood recreation, a senior lounge, a dedicated teen center, community hall/ kitchen, computer lab, and enrichment classrooms.
RECREATION
Newark community members value spaces which allow them
access to fitness and dance, a variety of sports with multi-use courts, health care, and personal fitness through gyms and exercise rooms.
Family Day at the Park 4/12
Packet Page No. 245
23 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 246
24 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
PLANNING STANDARDS
The existing Newark Community Center is not currently open for programs due to water damage like roof leakage and mold concerns in rooms that are not accessible and securely closed off. The only current use of this facility is renting out space to residents for event use. During public engagement, findings identified that Newark lacks an adequate community center. Additionally, there is a growing need for public performance and amphitheater space which a community center could provide.
Newark has just under 50,000 residents. Based on the Pacific Southwest’s community facility planning standards, the City of Newark should have ~0.75-2.0 square feet of indoor community facilities per resident. These planning standards also dictate that a city of Newark's size should have more robust teen center and performance amphitheater square footage. While Newark has some recreation and teen space located at the George M. Silliman Community Activity Center and the Alan L. Nagy Library, the lack of a dedicated community center and performance space creates programming and service difficulties, both of which should be readily available to the community.
23Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023 NEWARK
PLANNING STANDARDS INDOOR PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
~0.75-2 SF/RESIDENT
for Indoor Community Facilities
NRPA’s 2022 Agency Performance Review – Indoor Park Facilities Nationwide
Agencies Newark Pacific Southwest
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
✓ 49,903 74% 31,329 64% Recreation Center
(Including Gyms)
Community Centers ✓ 46,000 67% 29,036 59%
Senior Center ✓ 117,335 54% 59,603 41%
123,850 37% 68,181 36% Performance
Amphitheaters
Aquatics Center ✓ 91,706 31% 53,025 25%
Nature Center 268,689 29% 114,696 31%
Teen Center 98,206 26% 57,109 14%
Stadium 160,731 13% 75,026 17%
Arenas 91,411 10% 65,466 7%
Indoor Ice Rink 141,864 7% 50,863 12%
Packet Page No. 247
25 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
24Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY/RECREATION/AQUATICS FACILITIES Rental Only
Space
(excluded in
indoor
facilities total)
Early
Childhood
Recreation
(SF)
Youth
Center (SF)
Senior
Center (SF)
Aquatic
Center (SF)
Recreation
Center (SF)
Community
Center (SF)
Indoor Facilities
- Total SF
Indoor
Facilities -
SF/
Resident
2040
Population
2020 CITY Population
20,500 20,000
14,000 14,000 8,100
21,000
2,000
6,000
6,000
Fremont 231,670 275,440 0.41 111,600
8,600
3,000 15,900 14,700 22,400 3,200 56,7001
6,400 66,190 86,390 1.51 130,900 South San
Francisco
Union City 68,700 79,850 1.52 105,000 21,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 14,000 1,200
2,300 31,900 16,900 19,700
13,000 Dublin 71,050 79,726 1.07 85,000
39,500 10,000 12,700 900 4 San Bruno 44,410 57,990 1.09 63,100 39,000 9,600 3 Foster City 32,390 35,420 1.47 52,200 3,600 15,000 17,000
3,800 San Carlos 29,450 34,290 1.04 35,800
13,3406 3,000
8,000 Newark 48,900 57,600 1.37 79,030 24,410 32,320 7,300 4,000 Comparable cities and Newark's existing community space 25Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Existing Facilities (SF)
New Facility / Addition
(SF)
Indoor Community Facilities -
Total (SF)
Indoor Community Facilities -
SF/ Resident
.75 43,200 0 79,030
1.00 57,600 0 79,030
1.25 72,000 0 79,030
1.5 86,400 + 7,370 79,030
1.75 100,800 + 21,770 79,030
2.00 115,200 + 36,170 79,030
2040
Population
2020
NEWARK Population
48,000 57,600
DRAFT Community facility planning standards
As shown in the chart above, Newark's indoor facility square feet per resident is currently 1.37 SF. Newark's goal SF/capita is between 1.5 and 1.75. The amount of indoor communty square footage needed to achieve those goals is detailed in the chart below.
Packet Page No. 248
26 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS PROCESS
Round 1 engagement results and existing space analysis show that a larger and better functioning community center is needed. Because of Newark’s current population and projected population growth, The City needs space to provide programs, services, and recreation space to residents. Additionally identified in outreach was the need for a community performance space and/ or large community rooms.
With the PMT, Group 4 developed new potential site options for a community center, either on its existing site at Newark Community Park, or in Civic Center Park in place of the Old Library which currently is closed to the public.
Packet Page No. 249
27 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
COMMUNITY AND ARTS FACILITY
COMMUNITY PROGRAM OPTIONS
SQUARE FEET
~18,000 SF, 1-Story
SQUARE FEET
~25,000 SF, 2-Story
SQUARE FEET
~32,000 SF, 2-Story
1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT
~18,000 SF
1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT
~18,000 SF
1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT
~20,000 SF
CAPITAL COST
$$$ − $$$$
CAPITAL COST
$$$$ − $$$$$
CAPITAL COST
$$$$$ − $$$$$$
PARKING
~60 – 130 spaces
PARKING
~80 – 150 spaces
PARKING
~105 – 175 spaces
BASE + BASE + B +
A B C
B C
LOBBY/RECEPTION
2 PRESCHOOLCLASSROOMS
STAFF + SUPPORT SPACES
BASE - A
6-8 PEOPLE
16-20 PEOPLE
34 PEOPLE
30-36 PEOPLE
ART/ MAKERCLASSROOM
34-48 PEOPLE
2 MEETING ROOMS
30-36 PEOPLE
CONFERENCEROOM
16-20 PEOPLE
SENIOR LOUNGE CONSULTATION ROOM
DANCE STUDIO MUSIC ROOM
16-20 PEOPLE
ARTS/ CERAMICSSTUDIO
COMMUNITY GALLERY
CAFE & VENDING
EXISTIN
COMMUNITY ROOMDivisible into 2: 500 people assembly, 300 banquet
CHAMBER OFCOMMERCE
COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM OPTIONS
Above are program options for a new community center that range in size from a single story with 18,000 square feet to 32,000 square feet with two stories. Base A includes modern community center spaces such as preschool classrooms, staff space, a large community room, gallery space, and art classrooms. Each option builds off of the last, with Option C including all of A and B program spaces as well.
Packet Page No. 250
28 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
NEWARK COMMUNITY PARK ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
The Newark Community Park includes ample green space, parking, multiple sport courts such as basketball and tennis, a playground, and the NewBark Dog Park. The existing Newark Community Center building is surrounded by public and staff parking lots, one of which is shared with the NewBark Dog Park.
The above program options for a new community facility range from 18,000 square feet and 1 story to 32,000 square feet and 2 stories. Base A includes modern community center spaces such as preschool classrooms, staff space, a large community room, gallery space, and art classrooms. Options B and C build off of A, and option C includes A, B, and C spaces as the largest option.
Packet Page No. 251
29 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
NEWARK CIVIC CENTER PARK ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
Newark Civic Center Park is connected to the Alan L. Nagy Library, David W. Smith City Hall, and Newark Police Department by a large parking lot and includes a large green lawn, playground, and Newark’s Old Library building that is currently not open to the public. This site option shows that a new community center could take the place of the Old Library, either by repurposing or constructing a new building in place of it.
Option A, with 18,000 square feet, requires less parking spaces, but will still encroach on the park’s existing playground and green space. As the program options get larger, more parking spaces are needed, and more of the park will become used for the new building.
Packet Page No. 252
30 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
COMMUNTY CENTER & ANNEX AT
COMMUNITY PARK
OLD LIBRARY AT CIVIC CENTER PARK
Base- A
(18k SF)
Base+B
(25k SF)
Base+B+C
(32k SF)
Base- A
(18k SF)
Base+B
(25k SF)
Base+B+C
(32k SF)
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Renovate
Community
Center &
Annex
Replace
Community
Center &
Annex
Consolidate:
Relocate/
replace Senior
Center
Expanded
Community
Center
Renovate
Old Library
Replace
Old Library
Consolidate:
Relocate/
replace Senior
Center
Expanded
Community
Center
POOR FAIR EXCELLENT
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
COMMUNITY NEEDS
COSTS
VISIBILITY
SYNERGY/ CONNECTIVITY
BLDG/ PARK
RELATIONSHIP
ACCESSIBILITY
ENVIRONMENT
TOP CRITERIA
Is the entrance and wayfinding to the new community
center site clear for visitors? Is the facility visible and easily identifiable as one enters the site? Does it have civic presence?
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY COMMUNITY NEEDS COSTS VISIBILITY Can the City continue to provide excellent programs to the residents of Newark? Does the facility enhance or decrease the number of staff required to operate the facility?
SYNERGY/ CONNECTIVITY BLDG/ PARK ACCESSIBILITY ENVIRONMENT Is there opportunity for the facility to enhance the community and be a dynamic amenity for residents? Does the facility have good connectivity to other community services, such as other community centers, schools, or parks?
Does the facility meet the needs of the Community? Does it support the programs and events for the community?
What are the total development costs? Costs including site infrastructure (sewer, water, power, roads), site entitlement costs (CEQA), site and building construction costs, and potential relocation costs for existing users?
Does the facility offer the opportunities to expand or improve the existing park amenities? Does is complement existing park use? Is there an opportunity to develop shared parking in order to conserve resources?
Are there extraordinary environmental risks associated
with the site (seismic, sea level rise) that will impact the construction costs, longevity, operations, or maintenance costs for the building or site improvements?
Is the facility easy to get to, not only by car but by alternative modes of transportation? Are pedestrians and cyclist able to navigate throughout the site? Is the circulation into and out of the site efficient, disruptive or dangerous?
FUNCTIONALITY SUSTAINABILITY Does the facility prioritize functional design and inherent flexibility to best serve the community, support the operational efficiency, and support programs now and well into the
future?
Sustainability, both environmental and operational, will be fundamental in the location and design of the community center.
GRANTSIMPACT FEES
A financial award given by a
government or other outside agency
for beneficial projects.
1/2 cent sales tax approved by voters in
2016.
One-time charges imposed by the
City on new or proposed development
projects.
Newark's existing or anticipated
revenue.
Local bond measures: a method of
borrowing money.
SITE OPTION EVALUATION
Each of the site options and program options were evaluated based on the criteria outlined above. Most importantly, operational efficiency, community needs, and cost were highlighted for all options as well as functionality and sustainability which are prerequisites and assumed to be included and improved for all future Newark projects.
As seen above, program options B and C at Newark Community Park which suggest consolidating the Newark Community Center and the Clark W. Redeker Senior Center into one new building, and expanding the Newark Community Center have most “excellent” ratings.
Packet Page No. 253
31 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ROUND 2 ENGAGEMENT
The second round of community engagement for this master planning process involved bringing the site options and program options that were identified by the PMT and Group 4 to the public. These options were presented through pop-ups, community meetings, and an online community survey. Participants first chose which site they would prefer a new community center to be built on, and then which program option they would prefer on the chosen site.
Community members had the chance to engage with the pop-up boards at the following events:
▪ Newark Days (9/17/2023)
▪ Community meeting and open house at Alan L. Nagy Library (10/17/2023) ▪ Newark Tree Lighting (12/01/2023)
AQUATICS
The residents of Newark prioritize access to aquatic centers.
Many were in agreement that the availability of outdoor splashpads is important as well as indoor/ outdoor
aquatics experiences, aquatic recreation such as Ninja
Crossovers for pools, and aquatic fitness.
THE ARTS
The Newark community values the arts and sees the
importance of public space for opportunities to hold
theater performances, somewhere to practice and
play music, arts/ makerspaces, a community gallery,
and video/ audio recording rooms.
COMMUNITY
Designated space for specific age groups is a priority
as well; the Newark community's priorities include early childhood recreation, a senior lounge, a teen dedicated teen center, community hall/ kitchen, computer lab,
and enrichment classrooms.
RECREATION
Newark community members value spaces which allow
them access to fitness and dance, a variety of sports
with multi-use courts, health care, and personal fitness through gyms and exercise rooms.
Nearly 600 residents and friends of the Newark community were engaged during round 1. Engagement efforts and pop-ups happened at Newark's Day in the Park on 4/12, Groovin' at the Grove concert series, and through an online survey.
AQUATIC NEEDS: SILLIMAN CENTER
5City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
AQUATIC NEEDS
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPLASHPAD
$$$
To be evaluated in the
Parks Master Plan.
25-YARD POOL
$$$$$
For competitive use. To
be evaluated in the Parks
Master Plan.
OUTDOOR NEEDS
(may not be at the Silliman Center)
INDOOR NEEDS
(improvements to the Silliman Center)
NINJA CROSS
$$
Located over the lap pool.
Requires coordination with
existing structural system.
AQUATIC FITNESS
$
Located within the lazy
river pool side catch area.
Require storage when not
in use.
POOL AMENITIES
$-$$
Improved food service and
seating such as picnic
tables and cabanas for
both general use and
rentals.
SILLIMAN CENTER
1 NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
ROUND 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
7City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
AQUATIC NEEDS
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
POOL AMENITIES
Food service
Seating: picnic tables &
cabanas
IMPROVE CHECK IN
AND STAFF
WORKSPACES
NINJA CROSS
and
AQUATIC FITNESS
FACILITY CONDITION
INDEX
3-year: 2.6%
10-year: 20.5%
1 FACILITIES MAP PROJECT SCHEDULE
The City of Newark and their consultant hired for this master planning project worked to complete facility condition assessments of all of their city-owned buildings. These assessments resulted in a final report that outlines the health of the physical building. This is shown through an FCI (Facility Condition Index) score which calculates what percent of the building needs to be replaced or renovated 3, 5, or 10 years into the future. These assessments do not focus on programming or whether the building is meeting community needs. 23Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023 NEWARK
PLANNING STANDARDS INDOOR PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
~0.75-2 SF/RESIDENT
for Indoor Community Facilities
NRPA’s 2022 Agency Performance Review – Indoor Park Facilities Newark Pacific Southwest Nationwide
Agencies
Population
per Facility
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
Facilities -
Prevalence
Recreation Center (Including Gyms) ✓ 49,903 74% 31,329 64% Community Centers ✓ 46,000 67% 29,036 59%
Senior Center ✓ 117,335 54% 59,603 41%
Performance
Amphitheaters 123,850 37% 68,181 36%
Aquatics Center ✓ 91,706 31% 53,025 25%
Nature Center 268,689 29% 114,696 31%
Teen Center 98,206 26% 57,109 14%
Stadium 160,731 13% 75,026 17%
Arenas 91,411 10% 65,466 7%
Indoor Ice Rink 141,864 7% 50,863 12%
24Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY/RECREATION/AQUATICS FACILITIES CITY 2020
Population
2040
Population
Indoor
Facilities -
SF/
Resident
Indoor Facilities
- Total SF
Community
Center (SF)
Recreation
Center (SF)
Aquatic
Center (SF)
Senior
Center (SF)
Youth
Center (SF)
Early
Childhood
Recreation
(SF)
Rental Only
Space
(excluded in
indoor
facilities total)
Fremont 231,670 275,440 0.57 131,600
21,000
2,000
6,000
6,000
34,000 8,100 20,000
14,000 20,500
South San
Francisco 66,190 86,390 1.51 130,900 56,7001
6,400 15,900 14,700 22,400 3,200 8,6003,000
Union City 68,700 79,850 1.52 105,000 21,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 14,000 Dublin 71,050 79,726 1.07 85,000 19,700
13,000 31,900 16,900 1,200
2,300
San Bruno 44,410 57,990 1.09 63,100 39,5004 10,000 12,700 900 Foster City 32,390 35,420 1.47 52,200 3,600 39,0003 9,600 San Carlos 29,450 34,290 1.04 35,800 17,000
3,800 15,000
Newark 48,900 57,600 1.37 79,030 24,410 32,320 7,300 4,000 3,000 8,000 15,0006
PLANNING STANDARDS & ENGAGEMENT
CITY OF NEWARK
PLANNING STANDARDS
COMMU
25Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Indoor Community Facilities -
SF/ Resident
Indoor Community Facilities -
Total (SF)
New Facility / Addition
(SF) Existing Facilities (SF)
.75 43,200 0 79,030
1.00 57,600 0 79,030
1.25 72,000 0 79,030
1.5 86,400 + 7,370 79,030
1.75 100,800 + 21,770 79,030
2.00 115,200 + 36,170 79,030
NEWARK 2020
Population
2040
Population
48,000 57,600
DRAFT
COMMUNITY CENTER CC ANNEX SENIOR CENTER
10-YEAR FCI: 23.5%
3-YEAR FCI: 13.0%
26Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Site Options
Program SF
(FLOOR 1)
Circulation SF
(FLOOR 1)
Program SF
(FLOOR 2)
Circulation SF
(FLOOR 2)
Total
Program SF
Total
Circulation
SF
Total SF Per
Option
(Program SF+
Circulation SF)
Option A
(Base) 15,000 3,000 0 0 15,000 3,000 18,000
Option B
(A+B) 15,000 3,000 5,000 2,000 20,000 5,000 25,000
Option C
(A+B+C) 17,000 3,000 9,000 3,000 26,000 6,000 32,000
DRAFT
COMMUNITY PROGRAM OPTIONS
10-YEAR FCI: 29.5%
3-YEAR FCI: 8.7%
10-YEAR FCI: 22.9%
3-YEAR FCI: 2.7%
▪ CONSTRAINTS: mold detected in nonoccupiable areas. water damage from ongoing leaks and potential structural
issues
▪ COMMUNITY BENEFITS: large rooms
for community events with adjacent
outdoor courtyard for indoor/ outdoor
rental use
▪ CONSTRAINTS: mold detected in nonoccupiable areas. lack of proper staff and storage space
▪ COMMUNITY BENEFITS: provides
much needed early childcare with
proximity to park and playground
▪ CONSTRAINTS: current program
rooms are undersized to meet senior
needs. staff spaces are dispersed and
reaching capacity
▪ COMMUNITY BENEFITS: space for
senior activities and the opportunity
for residents to meet and interact
OLD LIBRARY
10-YEAR FCI: 22.7%
3-YEAR FCI: 8.1%
▪ CONSTRAINTS: facility is currently
unoccupied and in need of repair.
limited visibility from street
▪ COMMUNITY BENEFITS: proximity
to City Hall, Newark Library, and Civic
Park
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS TARGET
Packet Page No. 254
32 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ROUND 2 ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
Between the two site options, the Newark Community Park option was most voted for during all instances of engagement including the online survey.
The program option most popular amongst people who voted for the Newark Community Park site was Option C at 32,000 square feet.
Packet Page No. 255
33 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 256
34 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
CLARK W. REDEKER
SENIOR CENTER
Address: 7401 Enterprise Drive,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1979
Size: 7,300 square feet
Site Area: 0.84 acres
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.3%
3-Year 2.7%
5-Year 4.9%
10-Year 22.9%
Packet Page No. 257
35 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
REDEKER SENIOR CENTER EXISTING CONDITIONS
Located on Enterprise Drive, the Clark W. Redeker Senior Center has 7,300 square feet of building space on a single story and sits on a 0.84-acre site next to Ash Street Park. Clark W. Redeker Senior Center also faces the Newark Service Center across the street. The site was developed in two phases, the first in 1979 and the second in 1992 and it received some updates in 2007.
Free memberships to the Clark W. Redeker Senior Center are available to anyone age 55 or older. Eligible adults can have opportunities to engage in activities such as dance, educational classes, and budget-friendly special events. Members can also get information and referrals to outside agencies for Medicare, relocation help, Social Security, and downsizing resources.
The building itself is in overall good condition, but is small, outdated, and has maintenance needs. Some of the key findings from the facility condition assessment report include the movable partitions, foodservice equipment, and ADA kitchen and laundry areas as immediate needs and in poor condition. Clark W. Redeker Senior Center, though located next to a park, is not in a prime location to provide community programs, especially to an age group that can have limited access to safe transportation options. The building lacks the space and technology to accommodate modern adult recreation needs.
Packet Page No. 258
36 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
GEORGE M. SILLIMAN
COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER
Address: 6800 Mowry Avenue, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: Phase I: 2000, Phase II: 2004
Size: 68,740 square feet
Estimated Project Costs:
Recreation Improvements: $3,275,000
Aquatic Improvements: $6,672,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.8%
3-Year 2.6%
5-Year 7.5%
10-Year 20.5%
Packet Page No. 259
37 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
GEORGE M. SILLIMAN COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER EXISTING
CONDITIONS
The George M. Silliman Community Activity Center, located on Mowry Avenue, was constructed in two phases, Phase I in 2000, and Phase II in 2004. In total, the activity center has nearly 69,000 square feet of recreation space such as a large aquatic facility, teen center, and sport courts. The aquatic facility includes a large lap pool, water slide, and waterspout play structure. Observations of this facility are listed below.
Indoor Aquatics
▪ Check In and staff workspaces are outdated and limited. Currently, there is one office for the aquatics manager, a small workroom for staff and a small staff lounge. ▪ The lap pool lacks modern aquatic recreation functionality such as aquatic fitness machines and ninja cross systems.
Outdoor
▪ Not many outdoor amenities such as general seating, picnic tables and/ or cabanas.
▪ Food services areas are additionally outdated and small. 11City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
BACK OF
HOUSE PUBLIC
SPACE
STAFF
SPACE
CENTER
22 City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
PHASE II
21City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN PHASE I
21City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN PHASE I
Packet Page No. 260
38 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
12City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
AQUATIC NEEDS
Splashpad
$$$
To be evaluated in the
Parks Master Plan
25-Yard Pool
$$$$$
For competitive use. To be
evaluated in the Parks
Master Plan
Outdoor Needs
(may not be at the Silliman Center)
Indoor Needs
(improvements to the Silliman Center)
NINJA CROSS
$$
Located over the lap pool.
Requires coordination with
existing structural system.
AQUATIC FITNESS
$
Located within the lazy
river pool side catch area.
Require storage when not
in use.
POOL AMENITIES
$-$$
Improved food service and
seating such as picnic
tables and cabanas for
both general use and
rentals.
SILLIMAN CENTER
POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJECTS
Throughout the duration of this planning process, several potential projects for the George M. Silliman Community Activity Center were identified for both the general recreation spaces and aquatics.
Recreation Projects*
Recreation spaces within the George M. Silliman Community Activity Center are in need of bigger and better storage solutions for their program spaces. Additionally, there are several areas of the recreation space that are underutilized and could be activated to provide additional programs. The Newark community expressed a need for additional multi-use gym and court space as well as an indoor walk/ run track during the community engagement process for this master plan.
Aquatic Projects*
As identified through community engagement efforts and existing facility analysis, there are aquatic needs that will be addressed through future projects such as improving and modernizing pool amenities. These amenities include food service and outdoor seating options. Additionally, the staff workspaces need updating as well as the public check in station. Also identified by the Newark community is a desire for updated aquatic recreation systems like Ninja Cross and aquatic fitness machines. *Location of potential future projects shown graphically on page 39.
Packet Page No. 261
39 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
26City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
RECREATION NEEDS SILLIMAN CENTER
GENERAL
Improved storage for all
program spaces
GENERAL
Look at underutilized space
for additional program
opportunities
FUTURE NEEDS
Multi use gym and courts
with indoor walk/run track
1 Cit
f N
k F
iliti
M
t
Pl
AQUATIC NEEDS
POOL AMENITIES
Food service
Seating: picnic tables &
cabanas
IMPROVE CHECK IN
AND STAFF
WORKSPACES
NINJA CROSS
and
AQUATIC FITNESS
SILLIMAN CENTER
Packet Page No. 262
40 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
Address: 37365 Ash Street, Newark,
CA, 94560
Built*: 1970, 1979, 2002
Size: 4,430 square feet total
Site Area: 0.66 acres
*Renovation planned for FY24/25
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
ASH STREET RECREATION
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 2.2%
3-Year 7.6%
5-Year 12.0%
10-Year 25.0%
Packet Page No. 263
41 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: RENOVATE
Address: 38080 Birch Street, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1975
Size: 900 square feet
Site Area: 0.2 acres
BIRCH GROVE PARK RESTROOMS
Interior of park restrooms
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 1.8%
3-Year 3.5%
5-Year 22.6%
10-Year 29.8%
Packet Page No. 264
42 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
LAKESHORE PARK BOATHOUSE
Address: Chelsea Drive, Newark, CA,
94560
Built: 2019
Size: 300 square feet
Site Area: 0.4 acres
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.9%
3-Year 0.9%
5-Year 9.7%
10-Year 12.4%
Packet Page No. 265
43 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
Address: 35501 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1991
Size: 500 square feet
*See Community Center on page 18
NEWARK COMMUNITY
PARK RESTROOMS
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 2.7%
3-Year 35.4%
5-Year 37.5%
10-Year 93.3%
Packet Page No. 266
44 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
ALAN L. NAGY
NEWARK LIBRARY
Address: 37055 Newark Blvd. Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 2022
Size: 25,600 square feet
Site Area: 0.66 acres
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.0%
3-Year 0.0%
5-Year 0.0%
10-Year 4.5%
Packet Page No. 267
45 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: RENOVATE
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
Address: 3911 Cherry Street, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1992
Size: 680 square feet
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.6%
3-Year 8.9%
5-Year 14.5%
10-Year 41.0%
Packet Page No. 268
46 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: SELL, REPURPOSE, OR DEMOLISH
Address: 6300 Civic Terrace, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1983
Size: 15,560 square feet
Site Area: 1.00 acre
OLD NEWARK LIBRARY (VACANT)
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 8.1%
3-Year 17.1%
5-Year 18.7%
10-Year 22.7%
The Old Library is currently vacant and
used for city storage. The FCA indicates
a high amount of maintenance needs
and updates to code compliance to be
inhabited by the public. This would be
costly for the City of Newark and would
require a large amount of renovation
to address issues with its structure,
interiors, finishes, and accessibility
compliance.
Packet Page No. 269
47 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: SELL, REPURPOSE, OR DEMOLISH
WATKINS HALL (VACANT)
Address: 37013 Ash Street, Newark, CA
94560
Built: 1896
Size: 8,640 square feet
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 12.6%
3-Year 21.9%
5-Year 24.2%
10-Year 25.4%
Newark's Watkins Hall has remained
vacant for several years. Seen in the
table to the right, is faciliy condition
index is high, showing that there are
many deferred maintenance needs.
In order to create a habitable building
for Newark employees or the public,
The City would need to dedicate large
amounts of money and time to its
deficiencies (detailed in the FCA report
in the Appendix).
Packet Page No. 270
48 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 271
ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY,
& SERVICE FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 272
50 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
Address: 37101 Newark Blvd. Newark,
CA, 94560
Built: 2022
Size: 25,600 square feet
Site Area: 3.84 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
City Hall Improvements: $2,037,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.0%
3-Year 0.0%
5-Year 0.1%
10-Year 3.8%
Packet Page No. 273
51 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL EXISTING CONDITIONS
The David W. Smith City Hall was designed and constructed in 2020 by Perkins & Will and Webcor as part of the Civic Center campus along with the new Alan L.
Nagy Newark Library and Newark Police Department. It currently has nearly 25,600 square feet across two floors and 68 full time staff with 4 part time. It includes the City Administration (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, HR), Information Technology (IT), Finance, Community Development, Public Works, and Fire prevention departments. Also located within David W. Smith City Hall are Newark’s City Council Chambers and conference room, several department workstations and conference rooms, breakrooms, two public service counters, and a large public lobby. The building is modern and full of natural light with a public staircase and elevator linking the two floors.
Public Lobbies and Service Counters
The David W. Smith City Hall currently has two service counters, a large first-floor lobby with a seating area, and a smaller lobby and two public service windows on the second floor. The service desk on the first floor mainly serves Community Development and the Public Works department, and the two windows upstairs serve the City Administration.
▪ Public lobbies and service desks are redundant and oversized. The first-floor lobby combined with the second-floor landing and second public waiting space oftentimes go unused by the public and would be much more useful as city department space.
▪ The public counter on the first floor is too large and can be reduced to make room for more workstations.
▪ Security for the first-floor service desk should be improved.
CO
CO
CO
CO CO
1 A21-01
1 A21-01
3 A21-01
3 A21-01
2 A21-01
2 A21-01
4 A21-01
4 A21-01
/ 1 A11-01A/ 1 A11-01B
N
PROJECT NORTH
DEVELOPMENT
S
ES (MEETING, BREAK)
CES
BLDG
OFFICIAL
(1)
ECON DEV.
MGR.
(1)
ACCT
MGR.
(1)
CODE
MGR
(1)
DEPUTY
COM. DEV.
MGR
(1)
COM. DEV.
DIR.
(1)
ASST. CITY
ENG.
(1)
ENVR
SRVC
MGR.
(1)
PW
DIRECTOR
(1)
CONFERENCE
ROOM
BLDG
INSPCT
(4)
SR. BLDG
INSPCT
(1)
FIRE
vacant
(2)
FIRE
(2)
WORK
AREA
SNR
PLAN
(1)
PLAN
(1)
COM. PRES. SPECIALIST
(3)
ENG.
STAFF
(2)
ENG.
STAFF
(1)
ENG
STAFF
(1)
PW
STAFF
(1)
ENGINEERING
STAFF
(4)
PW BLDG STAFF
(2)
CONFERENCE
ROOM
FINANCE STAFF
(2)
COUNCIL
CONFERENCE
ROOM
PW
STAFF
(1)
BLDG
STAFF
(1)
WORK
AREA
WOMENS
RR
MENS
RR
RR
WOMENS
RR
MENS
RR
CD
STAFF
(1)
COFFEE
COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
ECON DEV
(2)
ELEC
AV
STG
CASH
FILES JAN
CO
CO
1 A21-01
3 A21-01
2 A21-01
:46 AM BIM 360://Newark Civic Center/NCC_ARCH.rvt
CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY
ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, & HR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FINANCE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
FIRE
SHARED SPACES (MEETING, BREAK)
SUPPORT SPACES
BLDG
OFFICI
(1)
C
WOMENS
RR
STG
55City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN CITY HALL 1ST FLOOR
PUBLIC WORKS (PW)
Current = 23 staff
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Current = 12 staff, 2 part time
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
COUNTY FIRE
Current = 2 staff
Vacant = +2 staff
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
PUBLIC WORKS (PW)
Current = 23 staff
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Current = 12 staff, 2 part time
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
COUNTY FIRE
Current = 2 staff
Vacant = +2 staff
55City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN CITY HALL 1ST FLOOR
PUBLIC WORKS (PW)
Current = 23 staff
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Current = 12 staff, 2 part time
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
COUNTY FIRE
Current = 2 staff
Vacant = +2 staff
Packet Page No. 274
52 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Cubicle Work Areas
Both the first and second floor include large, open work areas with cubicles for various department staff. The department staff that work in these stations are from Public Works, Fire Prevention, Community Development, Human Resources, City Administration, Finance, and Information Technology (IT). ▪ Engineering staff workstation size can be reduced to make room for future Public Works staff additions in the southeast corner of the first floor.
▪ The main, larger open workspace has a slightly inefficient layout with some empty workstations and department work areas being used for storage.
▪ Conference room space is limited and does not
accommodate all staff needs. Because of the open cubicle layout, there are not many options for staff to take calls or mitigate noise if they do not have a personal office.
FS FS
FS FS
FS FS
FS FS
FS
1 A21-01
1 A21-01
3 A21-01
3 A21-01
2 A21-01
2 A21-01
4 A21-01
4 A21-01
/ 1 A11-02A/ 1 A11-02B
2 A51-03
7 A32-07
8 A32-07
4 A52-02
3 A32-13
N
PROJECT NORTH
CITY
CLERK
(1)
ASSISTANT
TO CM
(1)
ACCTNT
(1)
ACCTNT
(1)
ACCTNT
(1)
FINANCE
DIRECTOR
(1)
CONF.
ROOM
CITY
ATTORNEY
(1)
IT DIRECTOR
(1)
CONFERENCE
ROOM WORK
ROOM
HR
FILES
COPY
HR WORK
AREA
HR STAFF
(3)
HR TECH
(1)
HR
DIRECTOR
(1)
BREAK ROOM
FINANCE
WORK &
STORAGE
HR
CONF
HR
FP
CM
STAFF
(2)
IT STAFF (5)
FINANCE STAFF (4) CM
STAFF
(1)
LACT.
CLERK
FILES
OCOOG
Y DEVELOPMENT
KS
CES (MEETING, BREAK)
ACES
CITY
MANAGER
(1)
IS WORK
AREA
SR MGMT
ANALYST
(1)
ASST CITY
MANAGER
(1)
RR
MAYOR
(1)
WOMENS
RR
MENS
RR SWITCH
CO
CO
1 A21-01
3 A21-01
2 A21-01
:46 AM BIM 360://Newark Civic Center/NCC_ARCH.rvt
CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY
ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, & HR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FINANCE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
FIRE
SHARED SPACES (MEETING, BREAK)
SUPPORT SPACES
BLDG
OFFICIAL
(1)
B
IN
FIN
COU
CONF
RO
WOMENS
RR
M
R
STG
57City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
MECH
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
FACILITY CONDITION
INDEX
Current: 0.0%
5-year: 0.1%
10-year: 3.8%
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
CITY MANAGER (CM)
Current = 16 staff, 2 part time
IT
Current = 6 staff
+2
+4
+1
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN CITY HALL 2ND FLOOR
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
CITY MANAGER (CM)
Current = 16 staff, 2 part time
IT
Current = 6 staff
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
Open office space with cubicles at David W.
Smith City Hall
Conference room on David W. Smith City
Hall's first floor
57City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
MECH
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
FACILITY CONDITION
INDEX
Current: 0.0%
5-year: 0.1%
10-year: 3.8%
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
CITY MANAGER (CM)
Current = 16 staff, 2 part time
IT
Current = 6 staff
+2
+4
+1
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN CITY HALL 2ND FLOOR
Packet Page No. 275
53 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
STAFF SURVEY RESULTS
To fully comprehend the existing space and needs of all facilities, staff and department head surveys were distributed. The purpose of these surveys was to collect information about both their department’s overall layout as well as their individual workspaces. The questions in the survey went into detail about what they liked about their current workspaces/ departments, what they would change, if their adjacencies were adequate, adequacy of storage, amount of noise, and more.
The general staff survey results summary for all departments can be found below and on the next few pages.
Packet Page No. 276
54 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 277
55 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 278
56 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL ADMINISTRATION NEEDS
As shown above, David W. Smith City Hall has several space needs that have been determined by examining staff survey results, conducting department head interviews, and completing a thorough walk-through of the work spaces.
▪ Workspace: Limited vacant workstations and offices for future staff growth ▪ Meeting Rooms: Meeting rooms have been reduced to accommodate for current office needs. Need for small focus/ zoom rooms
▪ Public Spaces: Public counters and lobbies are underutilized. Security concerns regarding current public counters.
Packet Page No. 279
57 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
PROGRAM OF SPACE NEEDS
With careful analysis of the existing facility layouts, staff surveys, and department head interviews, a space needs program for David W. Smith City Hall was developed.
The table below includes the David W. Smith City Hall’s existing space (square footage) and future space needs that projects out to 10 years in the future. This table was created and adjusted as needed through several iterations in interviews and PMT meetings.
NEWARK CITY HALL
BUILDING PROGRAM
SF USF/person USF/person
FTE Part Time
Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal
1. CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK & HR
1.01 Mayor 1 132 132
1.02 City Manager 1 251 251
1.03 Assistant City Manager 1 182 182
1.04 City Manager Staff 4 1 476 119 3
1.05 City Attorney 1 196 196
1.06 City Attorney Staff
1.07 City Clerk 1 129 129
1.08 City Clerk Staff
1.09 Human Resources Director 1 230 230
1.10 HR Staff 4 318 80
14 2 0 0 1913 120 3 0
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2.01 Chief Information Officer/IT Director 1 175 175
2.02 IT Staff 5 400 80 2
6 0 0 0 575 96 2 0
3. FINANCE
3.01 Finance Director 1 183 183
3.02 Accounting Manager 1 135 135
3.03 Collections Staff 1 65 65
3.04 Cashier 1 65 65
3.05 Finance Staff 7 696 99 3
11 0 0 0 1144 104 3 0
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.01 Community Development Director 1 196 196
4.02 Deputy Community Development Director 1 147 147
4.03 Community Development Staff 1 80 80 5
4.04 Economic Development Manager 1 147 147
Economic Development Staff 2 65 33
4.05 Community Preservation Manager 1 60 60
4.06 Community Preservation Staff 3 180 60
4.06 Senior Planner 1 90 90
4.07 Planning Staff 1 90 90
10 2 0 0 1055 88 5 0
5. PUBLIC WORKS
5.01 Public Works Director 1 196 196
5.02 Public Works Staff 2 160 80 5
5.03 Assistant City Engineer 1 147 147
5.04 Engineering Staff 8 688 86
5.05 Chief Building Official 1 170 170
5.06 Building Staff 8 455 57
5.07 Environmental Services Manager 1 113 113
5.08 Envrionmental Services Staff 0
5.09 Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.10 Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.11 Maintenance Staff 19 0
5.12 Building Manager 1
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
CURRENT SPACE FUTURE SPACE
Community Development Total :
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk &
CURRENT STAFF
Space City Hall Other Locations
Information Technology Total:
Finance Total:
Public Works Total:
Information Technology Total:
FUTURE STAFF
City Hall
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
Packet Page No. 280
58 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Department Office Space
Department office space: Currently, David W. Smith City Hall is operating with 99 square feet of office space per person. This number is calculated using the square footage of each office space and how many staff members occupy each space. Total office square footage is divided by total staff members. There are 68 fulltime employees that work at David W. Smith City Hall and 4 part-time. Some departments are more efficient with space than others, but the results of this study show that David W. Smith City Hall’s floor plan is slightly inefficient, with each department needing more space to accommodate future staff growth.
1.06 City Attorney Staff
1.07 City Clerk 1 129 129
1.08 City Clerk Staff
1.09 Human Resources Director 1 230 230
1.10 HR Staff 4 318 80
14 2 0 0 1913 120 3 0
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2.01 Chief Information Officer/IT Director 1 175 175
2.02 IT Staff 5 400 80 2
6 0 0 0 575 96 2 0
3. FINANCE
3.01 Finance Director 1 183 183
3.02 Accounting Manager 1 135 135
3.03 Collections Staff 1 65 65
3.04 Cashier 1 65 65
3.05 Finance Staff 7 696 99 3
11 0 0 0 1144 104 3 0
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.01 Community Development Director 1 196 196
4.02 Deputy Community Development Director 1 147 147
4.03 Community Development Staff 1 80 80 5
4.04 Economic Development Manager 1 147 147
Economic Development Staff 2 65 33
4.05 Community Preservation Manager 1 60 60
4.06 Community Preservation Staff 3 180 60
4.06 Senior Planner 1 90 90
4.07 Planning Staff 1 90 90
10 2 0 0 1055 88 5 0
5. PUBLIC WORKS
5.01 Public Works Director 1 196 196
5.02 Public Works Staff 2 160 80 5
5.03 Assistant City Engineer 1 147 147
5.04 Engineering Staff 8 688 86
5.05 Chief Building Official 1 170 170
5.06 Building Staff 8 455 57
5.07 Environmental Services Manager 1 113 113
5.08 Envrionmental Services Staff 0
5.09 Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.10 Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.11 Maintenance Staff 19 0
5.12 Building Manager 1
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
7.09 Finance Storage/ Work Room 240
7.1 HR Work Area 69
7.11 Floor 2 Work Room 245
7.12 HR Finger Print 100
7.13 Break Room 415
7.14 Coffee Area 77
7.15 Lactation Room 60
7.16 Council Chambers 2032
5,202.81
8. STORAGE & OTHER NON ASSIGNABLE AREAS
8.01 Chair Storage 100
8.02 Chambers AV Closet 41
8.03 Clerk Files 131
8.04 HR Files 150
8.05 Cashier Files 80
8.06 Copy Room 1 77
8.07 First Floor Restrooms 806
8.08 Second Floor Restrooms 496
8.09 First Floor Building Support (Mech, Elec, etc.) 431
8.1 Second Floor Building Support (Mech, Elec, etc.) 280
8.11 Floor 1 Circulation 6,632
812 Fl2 Cilti
3225
Community Development Total :
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk & Information Technology Total:
Finance Total:
Public Works Total:
Meeting Rooms and Other Staff Amenity Spaces Total :
Information Technology Total:
NEWARK CITY HALL
BUILDING PROGRAM
SF USF/person USF/person
FTE Part Time
Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal
1. CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK & HR
1.01 Mayor 1 132 132
1.02 City Manager 1 251 251
1.03 Assistant City Manager 1 182 182
1.04 City Manager Staff 4 1 476 119 3
1.05 City Attorney 1 196 196
1.06 City Attorney Staff
1.07 City Clerk 1 129 129
1.08 City Clerk Staff
1.09 Human Resources Director 1 230 230
1.10 HR Staff 4 318 80
14 2 0 0 1913 120 3 0
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2.01 Chief Information Officer/IT Director 1 175 175
2.02 IT Staff 5 400 80 2
6 0 0 0 575 96 2 0
3. FINANCE
3.01 Finance Director 1 183 183
3.02 Accounting Manager 1 135 135
3.03 Collections Staff 1 65 65
3.04 Cashier 1 65 65
3.05 Finance Staff 7 696 99 3
11 0 0 0 1144 104 3 0
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.01 Community Development Director 1 196 196
4.02 Deputy Community Development Director 1 147 147
4.03 Community Development Staff 1 80 80 5
4.04 Economic Development Manager 1 147 147
Economic Development Staff 2 65 33
4.05 Community Preservation Manager 1 60 60
4.06 Community Preservation Staff 3 180 60
4.06 Senior Planner 1 90 90
4.07 Planning Staff 1 90 90
10 2 0 0 1055 88 5 0
5. PUBLIC WORKS
5.01 Public Works Director 1 196 196
5.02 Public Works Staff 2 160 80 5
5.03 Assistant City Engineer 1 147 147
5.04 Engineering Staff 8 688 86
5.05 Chief Building Official 1 170 170
5.06 Building Staff 8 455 57
5.07 Environmental Services Manager 1 113 113
5.08 Envrionmental Services Staff 0
5.09 Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.10 Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.11 Maintenance Staff 19 0
5.12 Building Manager 1
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
7.09 Finance Storage/ Work Room 240
7.1 HR Work Area 69
7.11 Floor 2 Work Room 245
7.12 HR Finger Print 100
CURRENT SPACE FUTURE SPACE
Community Development Total :
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk &
CURRENT STAFF
Space City Hall Other Locations
Information Technology Total:
Finance Total:
Public Works Total:
Information Technology Total:
FUTURE STAFF
City Hall
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
Packet Page No. 281
59 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Staff Growth
18 future staff are projected to be added to David W. Smith City Hall over the next 10 years. During interviews conducted to determine needs and future growth, each department head identified future staff additions, if any.
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
7.09 Finance Storage/ Work Room 240
7.1 HR Work Area 69
7.11 Floor 2 Work Room 245
7.12 HR Finger Print 100
7.13 Break Room 415
7.14 Coffee Area 77
7.15 Lactation Room 60
7.16 Council Chambers 2032
5,202.81
8. STORAGE & OTHER NON ASSIGNABLE AREAS
8.01 Chair Storage 100
8.02 Chambers AV Closet 41
8.03 Clerk Files 131
8.04 HR Files 150
8.05 Cashier Files 80
8.06 Copy Room 1 77
8.07 First Floor Restrooms 806
8.08 Second Floor Restrooms 496
8.09 First Floor Building Support (Mech, Elec, etc.) 431
8.1 Second Floor Building Support (Mech, Elec, etc.) 280
8.11 Floor 1 Circulation 6,632
8.12 Floor 2 Circulation 3,225
12,449
GRANDTOTAL 64 4 23 0 24,772 364 18 0 0
Storage and Other NonAssignable Area Total :
Public Works Total:
Meeting Rooms and Other Staff Amenity Spaces Total :
Information Technology Total:
NEWARK CITY HALL
BUILDING PROGRAM
SF USF/person USF/person
FTE Part Time
Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal
1. CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK & HR
1.01 Mayor 1 132 132
1.02 City Manager 1 251 251
1.03 Assistant City Manager 1 182 182
1.04 City Manager Staff 4 1 476 119 3
1.05 City Attorney 1 196 196
1.06 City Attorney Staff
1.07 City Clerk 1 129 129
1.08 City Clerk Staff
1.09 Human Resources Director 1 230 230
1.10 HR Staff 4 318 80
14 2 0 0 1913 120 3 0
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2.01 Chief Information Officer/IT Director 1 175 175
2.02 IT Staff 5 400 80 2
6 0 0 0 575 96 2 0
3. FINANCE
3.01 Finance Director 1 183 183
3.02 Accounting Manager 1 135 135
3.03 Collections Staff 1 65 65
3.04 Cashier 1 65 65
3.05 Finance Staff 7 696 99 3
11 0 0 0 1144 104 3 0
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.01 Community Development Director 1 196 196
4.02 Deputy Community Development Director 1 147 147
4.03 Community Development Staff 1 80 80 5
4.04 Economic Development Manager 1 147 147
Economic Development Staff 2 65 33
4.05 Community Preservation Manager 1 60 60
4.06 Community Preservation Staff 3 180 60
4.06 Senior Planner 1 90 90
4.07 Planning Staff 1 90 90
10 2 0 0 1055 88 5 0
5. PUBLIC WORKS
5.01 Public Works Director 1 196 196
5.02 Public Works Staff 2 160 80 5
5.03 Assistant City Engineer 1 147 147
5.04 Engineering Staff 8 688 86
5.05 Chief Building Official 1 170 170
5.06 Building Staff 8 455 57
5.07 Environmental Services Manager 1 113 113
5.08 Envrionmental Services Staff 0
5.09 Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.10 Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.11 Maintenance Staff 19 0
5.12 Building Manager 1
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
7.09 Finance Storage/ Work Room 240
7.1 HR Work Area 69
7.11 Floor 2 Work Room 245
7.12 HR Finger Print 100
CURRENT SPACE FUTURE SPACE
Community Development Total :
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk &
CURRENT STAFF
Space City Hall Other Locations
Information Technology Total:
Finance Total:
Public Works Total:
Information Technology Total:
FUTURE STAFF
City Hall
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
Packet Page No. 282
60 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
SPACE UTILIZATION
Through calculating current space usage, the space allocation for David W. Smith City Hall was determined and is shown below in percentages. This calculation shows that the layout and current space allocation is slightly inefficient, with 29% percent used for circulation while 20-25% is the average. With some carefully rework of public lobbies and service desks, there could be some shift to increase office space to accommodate future staff growth.
City staff noted a lack of storage in the David W. Smith City Hall workspaces throughout the planning process, though in-person assessment and space utilization analyses concluded that existing storage is not efficiently used and could be reorganized to better handle staff storage needs.
52City of Newark FMP 10/13/2023
CURRENT CITY HALL SPACE UTILIZATION DRAFT
34% 14% 2% 11% 10% 29%
OFFICE SPACE MEETING/
CONF ROOM
NONASSIGNABLEAMENITIES LOBBY &
GATHERING
CIRCULATION
Current Space Utilization
72 Current Staff, 25,000 SF City Hall
Total SF/ person: 347
90 Future Staff, 25,000 SF City Hall
Total SF/person: 278
29% Circulation Factor:
indicates a slightly
inefficient space plan,
planning standards is
20-25%.
I/OWNED 34% OF AREA WE/SHARED 16% WE/SHARED 50%
39-44% 14% 2% 10% 10% 20-25%
OFFICE SPACE MEETING/
CONF ROOM
NONASSIGNABLEAMENITIES LOBBY &
GATHERING
CIRCULATION
Future Space Utilization
I/OWNED 39-44% OF AREA WE/SHARED 16% NON-OCCUPIABLE 40-45% David W. Smith City Hall
David W. Smith City Hall
Packet Page No. 283
61 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 284
62 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
FIRE STATION 27
Address: 3909 Cherry Street, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1981
Size: 6,000 square feet
Site Area: 1.2 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
New 8,000 SF Station: $15,801,000
New 10,000 SF Station: $19,655,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 8.8%
3-Year 10.2%
5-Year 12.8%
10-Year 25.2%
Packet Page No. 285
63 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
FIRE STATION 29
Address: 35775 Ruschin Drive, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1962
Size: 5,200 square feet
Site Area: 0.58 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
New 8,000 SF Station: $15,801,000
New 10,000 SF Station: $19,655,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 5.5%
3-Year 7.7%
5-Year 11.7%
10-Year 19.8%
Packet Page No. 286
64 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
FIRE STATION 27 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Newark Fire Station 27 was built in 1981 on a corner lot located at Mowry Avenue and Cherry Street. The one-story station is approximately 6,000 SF and sited on a 1.38 acre site. The three-story fire training tower was constructed in 1982.
The fire station accommodates a single engine company, which is staffed with three fire personnel. The apparatus bays were expanded to accommodate longer fire apparatus and the one large dormitory room was divided into semiprivate sleeping areas with partial height walls.
The wood framed building is finished on the exterior, cement plaster on the walls, and metal mansard roof framing around the building perimeter. There is low sloped roof framing and foam roofing material behind the mansards to accommodate mechanical equipment.
The existing station comprised of two apparatus bays, which is also used as the decontamination clean up, turnout gear storage space and exercise space. All these functions are required to have separate ventilated spaces to be code compliant with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and OSHA.
The living quarters is a combined kitchen, dayroom and dining room space with separate locker room for personal gear and one restroom. The sleeping quarters are one large space that has been subdivided. The main public entrance to the fire station opens into a small lobby and reception area. There is no dedicated Fire Captain’s office or Firefighter work area for report writing.
The existing site is not secured along the entire perimeter of the site. There is adequate parking for fire personnel, but no dedicated parking for the public or accommodation for accessibility. The fire station is immediately adjacent to the Newark Skate Park, Sports Field Park and close to the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center.
FIRE STATION 27 – SITE NEEDS
FIRE OPERATIONS ISSUES:
1. Need to repair
intersection pre-empt
signage
2. Need site security with
perimeter fencing and
gates
ESSENTIAL SERVICES ACT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES:
3. Need emergency backup power for entire
station
4. Need seismic
strengthening for entire
station
CODE COMPLIANCE
ISSUES:
5. Need to divert truck
washing to sewer
6. Need to repair leaks at
exterior wall and doors
5 1
2 2
3 4
6 Packet Page No. 287
65 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
FIRE STATION 29 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Newark Fire Station 29 was built in 1962 and is located on the corner of Newark Blvd. and Dalewood Drive. The one-story station is approximately 5,142 SF and sited on a 0.58-acre site. The station was renovated and expanded in 1975 to accommodate individual bunk rooms and restrooms with showers and lockers.
The exterior walls are load bearing stack bond concrete masonry block with aluminum framed windows and doors. The roof framing is pitched and is covered with lightweight concrete tiles. There are several areas of dry rot, insect and water damage to the roof eaves and facias.
The fire station accommodates a single engine company, which is staffed with three fire personnel. The apparatus bays were not expanded to accommodate longer fire apparatus as originally planned. The existing station is comprised of two drive through apparatus bays, which are also used as the decontamination clean up and turnout gear storage space. All these functions are required to have separate ventilated spaces to be code compliant with the NFPA and OSHA.
The living quarters is a combined kitchen, dayroom and dining room space. There is a dedicated exercise space. The sleeping quarters is one large space that has been subdivided into semi private sleeping areas with partial height walls. The main public entrance to the fire station opens onto the watch room and reception area. There are dedicated Fire Captain’s office and Firefighter work area for report writing.
The existing site is not secured along the entire perimeter. There is adequate parking for fire personnel, but no dedicated parking for the public or accommodation for accessibility. The fire station is immediately adjacent to single family residential neighborhoods. Newark Junior High School, Newark Community Center Park and NewBark Dog Park are in close proximity.
72City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
ATION 29 – SITE NEEDS
3 3
2 1
1 SUES:
with
and
one
und
es over
f
ACT
S:
back
e
entire
E
ck
4 5
6 FIRE STATION 29
FIRE OPERATIONS ISSUES:
1. Need site security with
perimeter fencing and
gates
2. Need to repair phone
line
3. Need to underground
existing power lines over
emergency path of
response
ESSENTIAL SERVICES ACT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES:
4. Need emergency backup power for entire
station
5. Need seismic
strengthening for entire
station
CODE COMPLIANCE
ISSUES:
6. Need to divert truck
washing to sewer
Packet Page No. 288
66 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
32City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FIRE STATION OPTIONS FIRE STATION 27 & 29
FIRE STATION #27 FIRE STATION #29
31City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FIRE STATION NEEDS
CODE COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
Current facilities do not meet
current ADA as well as other
compliance issues with
egress and ventilation.
FIRE STATION 27 & 29
ESSENTIAL SERVICE ACT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES
Both facilities need seismic
strengthening and
emergency back-up power.
OPERATIONS
Improvements to bring
facilities up to current best
practices for fire operations
and security.
#27
#29
LIFE SAFETY ISSUES
Current facilities need fire
alarm systems.
Packet Page No. 289
67 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
FIRE STATION 27 & 29 NEEDS
As shown by the facility condition index numbers on pages 62 and 63, Fire Stations 27 and 29 are in need of major improvements projects. Both of the stations have a vast amount of deferred maintenance needs that include code compliance, life safety, and operational shortcomings. Both facilities were constructed several decades ago in the 1960s and 80s, and do not reflect modern fire safety standards. Listed below are the overall needs for both facilities. Facility-specific information can be found on pages 64 and 65.
▪ Essential Service Act Compliance: Both facilities need seismic strengthening and emergency back-up power.
▪ Code Compliance Issues: Current facilities to not meet current ADA as well as other compliance issues with egress and ventilation.
▪ Life Safety Issues: Current facilities need fire alarm systems. ▪ Operations: Improvements are needed to bring facilities up to current best practices for fire operations and security.
Packet Page No. 290
68 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
FIRE STATION 28
Address: 7550 Thornton Avenue,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 2005
Size: 18,000 square feet
Site Area: 1.12 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
Station 28 Improvements: $2,060,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.4%
3-Year 1.2%
5-Year 3.2%
10-Year 9.5%
Packet Page No. 291
69 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
FIRE STATION 28 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Newark Fire Station 28 was built in 2005 and is located on the corner of Thornton Avenue and Ash Street. The two-story facility is approximately 18,000 square feet which includes a storage loft and walk in attic space. The site is approximately 1.12 acres and has secured parking for fire personnel and an ancillary building, which houses the emergency generator and fuel tank. Renovation to the mechanical system occurred in 2015, but no expansion to the facility was needed.
The existing fire station is constructed with concrete masonry block bearing walls on the first floor and second floors that are clad with traditional detailed face brick and has decorative cast stone features emphasizing the apparatus bays, window heads and sills and along the roof line. The roof assembly is comprised of a pitched metal roofing with traditionally detailed stepped parapet end walls with stone parapet caps.
The fire station accommodates a single engine company, which is staffed with three fire personnel and a Battalion Chief. There are three drive thru apparatus bays with dedicated spaces for medical storage, the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) compressor, work shop, and decontamination clean-up. Though this is a relatively new station, the turnout gear is stored along the apparatus bay walls. Per code the turnout gear should be stored in a separate ventilated space to be code compliant with the NFPA and OSHA.
There is a main public entrance and dedicated lobby, reception area and accessible restroom. The administrative spaces include a conference room, work area for firefighters, and offices for the Fire Captain and Battalion Chief.
The living and sleeping quarters are on the second floor with an open concept kitchen, dayroom and dining room space, individual bunk rooms, gender specific restrooms, exercise room and a large roof patio space.
The existing site is secured along the entire perimeter with metal fencing. There is adequate parking for fire personnel and on street parking for public visitors, which accommodates accessibility. The fire station is immediately adjacent to railroad tracks, single family residences, and commercial businesses.
69City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
ATION 28 – SITE NEEDS
S
ve gate
CES ACT
UES:
se
nerator
ystems
ovide
wer for
ty
1 FIRE STATION 28
FIRE OPERATIONS
ISSUES:
1. Need to improve gate
opening speed
ESSENTIAL SERVICES ACT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES:
2. Need to increase
emergency generator
and fuel tank systems
capacity to provide
emergency power for
the entire facility
Packet Page No. 292
70 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
33City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FIRE STATION NEEDS FIRE STATION 28
INTERIOR
Minor interior improvements
to improve life safety, code
compliance, operations and
security issues.
EXTERIOR
Improvements to site security
and operations.
ESSENTIAL SERVICE ACT
COMPLIANCE
Increase emergency power
capacity for the entire facility
and systems.
FIRE STATION 28 NEEDS
Fire Station 28 is in good condition as shown by the Facility Condition Index numbers on page 68. In order to keep the building maintained, these following needs should be addressed:
▪ Essential Service Act Compliance: Increase emergency power capacity for the entire facility and systems
▪ Interior: Minor interior improvements to improve life safety, code compliance, operations, and security issues
▪ Exterior: Improvements to site security and operations Packet Page No. 293
71 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 294
72 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
Address: 37077 Newark Boulevard,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 2020
Size: 24,000 square feet
Site Area: 1.76 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
Police Station Improvements: $2,223,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.1%
3-Year 0.1%
5-Year 0.1%
10-Year 3.5%
Packet Page No. 295
73 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Newark Police Department was built in 2020 along with the Alan L. Nagy Library and the David W. Smith City Hall as part of the Civic Center campus. The building sits on 1.76 acres and has one story of 24,000 square feet. The central location of the Newark Civic Center gives officers easy access to the Newark community and additionally connects the building to the plaza between the Alan L. Nagy Library and David W. Smith City Hall where community events often take place. The building’s public parking is shared with the Newark Civic Center and has secured police car parking as well.
The building is modern and features a large, light-filled public lobby and service desk.
Beyond the lobby, there is a large training room, open and individual office spaces, evidence storage, men’s and women’s locker rooms, and other detective and interview spaces. Observations are listed below:
▪ New building that serves the Newark community well
▪ Lobby and entryway acoustics: noise carries
▪ Ballistics and glazing need to be repaired
▪ Armory could use second tier security
▪ Patrol space lacks visual and acoustical control
▪ Red light analyst and dispatch supervisor share office 63City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
POLICE HQ STATION – BUILDING NEEDS
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
3. Repair ballistics
glazing and add
visual control at high
windows
4. Relocate live scan
into a room
5. Repurpose existing
interview room to soft
interview room and
sleeping room
6. Add door for second
tier security at armory
1. Bad acoustics in lobby/
entrance
2. Reallocate existing
sleeping room to court
zoom room
9. Reallocate office
spaces to provide
separate offices for
the red light analyst
and dispatch
supervisor
7. Complete visual
surveillance and
access control systems
8. Add door at patrol for
visual and acoustical
control
5 1
2 3
6 4
7 8
9 Packet Page No. 296
74 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
30City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS
INTERIOR
Minor interior improvements
to improve operations and
security.
POLICE STATION
EXTERIOR
• Improvements to site security,
vehicle charging capacity
and operations.
• Improve roof and storm
drainage and waterproofing
issues.
NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT NEEDS
Because the Newark Police Department was built only four years ago, it is operating well and remains a new, modern, effective building. In order to maintain the building well into the future, some minor improvements could be made within the next few years:
▪ Interior: Minor interior projects to improve operations and security ▪ Exterior: Improvements to site security, vehicle charcing capacity and operations as well as improving roof and storm drainage and waterproofing issues Packet Page No. 297
75 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 298
76 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: RENOVATE
NEWARK SERVICE CENTER
Address: 37440 Filbert Street, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1965-1988
Size: 40,000 square feet total (multiple
buildings)
Site Area: 4.9 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
Service Center Improvements:
$13,016,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 4.0%
3-Year 8.5%
5-Year 14.0%
10-Year 24.7%
Packet Page No. 299
77 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
NEWARK SERVICE CENTER EXISTING CONDITIONS
Located on Filbert Street, the Newark Service Center sits across from the existing Clark W. Redeker Senior Center. There are seven buildings included on the site that were all developed between the years of 1965 and 1988. The seven buildings total just under 40,000 square feet. One of the seven buildings is used for Maintenance administration staff offices and is 2,400 square feet. Newark Service Center observations are listed below.
Administration Building
▪ Office space is not efficiently laid out.
▪ Portable facility that is outdated and small.
Lockers and Break Room
▪ Both genders' lockers are located within the open training/ lunchroom, meaning that staff are changing in the open area. A room divider exists but does not work anymore.
Building Shop and Maintenance Bays
▪ Shop does not have HVAC/ proper air circulation.
▪ Maintenance bays cannot fully accommodate fleet size; fire engines do not fit well.
Covered Parking and Security
▪ The back corners of the Newark Service Center are sometimes used as illegal entry points to the facility; facility security is not adequate. ▪ Not enough coverage for parking needs.
Identified needs at Newark Service Center
Packet Page No. 300
78 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
SECOND CHANCE
EMERGENCY SHELTER
Built: 1960
Size: 3,200 square feet
Site Area: 0.51 acres
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.7%
3-Year 2.7%
5-Year 6.6%
10-Year 22.6%
Packet Page No. 301
79 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: SELL, REPURPOSE, OR DEMOLISH
OLD FIRE STATION (VACANT)
Address: 7700 Thornton Avenue,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1980
Size: 4,900 square feet
Site Area: 0.37 acre
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 13.1%
3-Year 13.5%
5-Year 21.6%
10-Year 27.1%
Newark's Old Fire Station is currently
vacant and has high amounts of
maintenance needs (see FCA report
in appendix for further details). This
building should be sold, repurposed,
or demolished based on its lack of
code compliance and the high cost
of needed renovation to adhere to
modern building operations standards.
Packet Page No. 302
80 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Packet Page No. 303
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN i
Round 1 Engagement Results
Family Day at the Park 04-01-23
Packet Page No. 304
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN I
Round 1 Engagement Results
Family Day at the Park 04-01-23
Packet Page No. 305
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN II
Round 1 Engagement Results
Family Day at the Park 04-01-23
Packet Page No. 306
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN III
Round 1 Engagement Results
Groovin’ at the Grove 06-20-23
Packet Page No. 307
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN IV
Round 2 Engagement Results
Groovin’ at the Grove 06-20-23
Packet Page No. 308
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN V
Round 2 Engagement Results: Community Center Park
Community Meeting 10-17-23
Packet Page No. 309
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
VI
Round 2 Engagement Results: Civic Center Park
Community Meeting 10-17-23
Packet Page No. 310
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
VII
Round 2 Engagement Results: Community Center Park
Newark Days 09-16-23
Packet Page No. 311
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
VIII
Round 2 Engagement Results: Civic Center Park
Newark Days 09-16-23
Packet Page No. 312
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN IX
Round 2 Engagement Results: Community Center Park
Newark Tree Lighting 12-01-23
Packet Page No. 313
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN X
Round 2 Engagement Results: Civic Center Park
Newark Tree Lighting 12-01-23
Packet Page No. 314
Ash Street Park Buildings
37365 Ash Street
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
6021 University Boulevard, Suite 200
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-001.017
DATE OF REPORT:
July 11, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
February 14, 2023
Bureau Veritas
6021 University Boulevard, Suite 200 | Ellicott City, MD 21043 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 Packet Page No. 315
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.23R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Campus Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Campus Findings and Deficiencies ........................................................................................................ 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 11
2. Ash Street Recreation Center............................................................................................................ 12
3. Ash Street Restrooms........................................................................................................................ 14
4. Viola Blythe ......................................................................................................................................... 16
5. Site Summary...................................................................................................................................... 18
6. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 19
7. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 20
8. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 22
9. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 24 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 24
10. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 26
11. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Packet Page No. 316
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Campus Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Community Center
Number of Buildings Three
Main Address 37365 Ash Street, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed Viola Blythe 1970
Ash Street Recreation Center 1979
Restrooms 2002
Site Area 0.66 acres (estimated)
Parking Spaces Ten total spaces all in open lots; one of which is accessible Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces The building referred to as the Viola Blythe building is leased in its entirety by the Viola Blythe Community Services Center.
Date(s) of Visit February 14, 2023
Management Point of Contact Andrea Marie Gifford
650.871.0709 x218
agifford@g4arch
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Matt Anderson for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
Packet Page No. 317
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Viola Blythe Center was built in 1970, the Recreation Center was built in 1979 and the restrooms were constructed in 2002. The vinyl asbestos tile was removed from Viola Blythe in 2018. The restrooms and recreation center serve in their original purposes. The original use of Viola Blythe is unknown, it is presently serving as a distribution point for food and clothing to the needy.
Architectural
The use of masonry bearing walls brings some visual cohesion to the campus. The wood siding at the Recreation Center is showing rot and deterioration, short term replacement has been budgeted. Typical lifecycle-based interior and exterior finish replacements are budgeted and anticipated.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
HVAC at the Recreation Center consists of two split systems and at Viola Blythe it is a ductless split system. No water heater was found at Viola Blythe and the Recreation Center is served by a six-gallon electric water heater. Lifecycle replacements are budgeted and anticipated.
Site
Parking for visitors is in the adjacent public street cul-de-sac, though much of the site has been covered over with asphalt and concrete. These hard surfaces may become trip hazards, regular upkeep and maintenance is anticipated. At the Recreation Center the route to the exterior play equipment is not wheelchair accessible, correction is budgeted and highly advised.
Recommended Additional Studies
Some areas of the facility were identified as having major or moderate accessibility issues. Bureau Veritas recommends a study be performed to take measurements, provide additional itemized details, research local requirements, and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required improvements. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables.
Due to the lack of measurements and itemized findings at this point in time, the costs for any possible subsequent repairs or improvements are not currently included.
Packet Page No. 318
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
Packet Page No. 319
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Level FCI:
The vertical bars below represent the year-by-year needs identified for the entire campus. The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the campus FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures over the next ten years. The dollar amounts allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the values along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
Packet Page No. 320
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The table below shows the anticipated costs by trade or building system over the next 20 years.
Systems Expenditure Forecast
Immediate Needs
Packet Page No. 321
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Packet Page No. 322
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Packet Page No. 323
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Exterior Walls in Poor condition.
Wood Siding
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $5,800
$$$$
The siding is rotting and deteriorating. - AssetCALC ID: 5457340 Drinking Fountain in Failed
condition.
Wall-Mounted, Single-Level
Restroom Ash Street Park Buildings Building
exterior
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 83.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,600
$$$$
This drinking fountain does not produce any water when the button is pushed - AssetCALC ID: 5457205 Flooring in Poor condition.
Concrete
Restroom Ash Street Park Buildings Site
Uniformat Code: C2030
Recommendation: Repair in 2025
Priority Score: 81.7
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $3,300
$$$$
Replacing the concrete will eliminate a possible trip hazard as well as decrease water infiltration - AssetCALC ID: 5457201
Drinking Fountain in Poor
condition.
Wall-Mounted, Single-Level
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Interior
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 65.8
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $2,900
$$$$
Does not comply with accessibility standards - AssetCALC ID: 5457328 Packet Page No. 324
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ADA Parking
Signage, Pole-Mounted
Viola Blythe Ash Street Park Buildings Parking
Area
Uniformat Code: Y1010
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,100
$$$$
The sign should read "van accessible" - AssetCALC ID: 5491126 ADA Paths of Travel
Walkways, Asphalt Pathway
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Walkway to play area
Uniformat Code: Y1020
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $7,900
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5491693
ADA Restrooms
Lavatory, Pipe Wraps/Insulation
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Restrooms
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $400
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5491707
ADA Restrooms
Restroom Layout, Full Reconfiguration
Viola Blythe Ash Street Park Buildings
Restrooms
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Renovate in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $32,700
$$$$
Not adequate space in this restroom - AssetCALC ID: 5491129 Packet Page No. 325
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ADA Miscellaneous
Level III Study, Includes Measurements
Viola Blythe Ash Street Park Buildings
Uniformat Code: Y1090
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $16,400
$$$$
All three buildings - AssetCALC ID: 5495288
ADA Paths of Travel
Protruding Objects, Removal/Adjustments
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
interior
Uniformat Code: Y1020
Recommendation: Modify in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,700
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5491690
ADA Restrooms
Grab Bars & Blocking, Height/Location
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Modify in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $7,200
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5491706
Fire Suppression System
Full System Install/Retrofit, Low
Density/Complexity
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Throughout
Uniformat Code: D4010
Recommendation: Install in 2027
Priority Score: 60.6
Plan Type:
Retrofit/Adaptation
Cost Estimate: $16,100
$$$$
Anticipated improvement - AssetCALC ID: 5458216
Packet Page No. 326
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
Packet Page No. 327
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. As h St r eet R ec r e at i on Ce nt e r
Ash Street Recreation Center Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1979
Building Size 2,230 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood trusses and joists, wood framed clerestory over concrete slab foundation Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: Painted CMU
Secondary Wall Finish: Wood siding
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, painted CMU, wood paneling, Floors: VCT, painted concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and ACT
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: Electric water heater with integral tank
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System: Furnaces with split-system condensing units Fair Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
Packet Page No. 328
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Ash Street Recreation Center Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm Smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, pull stations, back-up emergency lights, and exit signs. According to the POC the fire alarm panel is located remotely.
Fair
Equipment/Special None --
Accessibility An ADA of the building is recommended
Key Issues and Findings Non-ADA compliant drinking fountain Packet Page No. 329
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. As h St r eet R es t ro om s
Ash Street Restrooms: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 2002
Building Size 1,100 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wooden trusses over concrete slab foundation
Good
Façade Primary Wall Finish: CMU
Secondary Wall Finish: Wood siding
Windows: No windows
Good
Roof Primary: construction with asphalt shingles Fair
Interiors Walls: Painted CMU
Floors: Sealed concrete
Ceilings: Unfinished/exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC None --
Fire Suppression None --
Packet Page No. 330
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Ash Street Restrooms: Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, CFL
Emergency Power: None
Good
Fire Alarm None --
Equipment/Special None --
Accessibility An ADA of the building is recommended
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
Packet Page No. 331
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. V i ol a B ly t he
Viola Blythe: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1970
Building Size 1,100 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists over concrete slab foundation
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: Painted CMU
Windows: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, painted CMU
Floors: VCT
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilet and sink in the restroom
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System Ductless split-systems Good
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
Packet Page No. 332
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Viola Blythe: Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, back-up emergency lights, and exit signs
Fair
Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment Fair
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this building and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
Packet Page No. 333
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. S it e S um m a ry
Site Information
System Description Condition
Pavement/Flatwork
Asphalt area with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs
Fair
Site Development
Building mounted property entrance signage; chain link fencing; Playground
Limited picnic tables, trash receptacles
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including lawn, trees and bushes Irrigation not present
No retaining walls
Low site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities
Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Fair
Site Lighting Building-mounted: LED, HPS, Fair
Ancillary Structures
None --
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this building and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
Packet Page No. 334
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 19 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries and the exterior of the property.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
Packet Page No. 335
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the checklists that are included in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues. Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are not included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The campus was originally constructed in 1970 with additional buildings added and renovated in phases over time.
Packet Page No. 336
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 21 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The following table summarizes the accessibility conditions of the general site and at each building on campus:
Campus: Accessibility Summary
Facility Year Built/
Renovated
Prior Study
Provided?
Major/Moderate
Issues Observed?
General Site 1970 / 2002 No No
Ash Street Recreation Center 1979 No Yes
Ash Street Restrooms 2002 No No
Viola Blythe 1970 No Yes
Complaints about accessibility issues have been sporadically received by property management at Ash Street Restrooms. although no prior or pending litigation was reported.
Detailed follow-up accessibility studies are included as recommendations because potential moderate to major issues were observed at the buildings identified above. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
Packet Page No. 337
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 22 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
Packet Page No. 338
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 23 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
Packet Page No. 339
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 24 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
9. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall & Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
Packet Page No. 340
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 25 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short-Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
Packet Page No. 341
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 26 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 0. C e rt if ic at io n
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Ash Street Park Buildings, 37365 Ash Street, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have,
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matt Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable,
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
Packet Page No. 342
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 26 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
11. Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 343
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
Packet Page No. 344
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - RECREATION CENTER FRONT ELEVATION 2 - RECREATION CENTER SIDE ELEVATION 3 - RECREATION CENTER INTERIOR 4 - RECREATION CENTER INTERIOR 5 - RECREATION CENTER INTERIOR 6 - REC CENTER RESTROOM FIXTURES Packet Page No. 345
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - REC CENTER COOLING COMPONENTS 8 - REC CENTER HEATING COMPONENTS 9 - REC CENTER MAIN ELECTRICAL 10 - REC CENTER SECONDARY ELECTRICAL 11 - RESTROOMS, FRONT ELEVATION 12 - RESTROOMS, SIDE ELEVATION Packet Page No. 346
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - RESTROOM SIGNAGE 14 - RESTROOM PLUMBING FIXTURES
15 - RESTROOM PLUMBING FIXTURES 16 - RESTROOM MAIN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 17 - VIOLA BLYTHE FRONT ELEVATION 18 - VIOLA BLYTHE LEFT ELEVATION Packet Page No. 347
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - VIOLA BLYTHE INTERIOR 20 - VIOLA BLYTHE INTERIOR
21 - VIOLA BLYTHE RESTROOM FIXTURES 22 - VIOLA BLYTHE DUCTLESS SPLIT SYSTEM 23 - VIOLA BLYTHE MAIN DISTRIBUTION PANEL 24 - VIOLA BLYTHE INTRUSION DETECTION Packet Page No. 348
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site Plan
Packet Page No. 349
Ash Street Community Center Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-001.017 Ash Street Park Buildings
Source On-Site Date
Google February 14, 2023
Packet Page No. 350
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Packet Page No. 351
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Ash Street Park Buildings - Restrooms Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated 2002
2 Building size in SF 1,100
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Concrete block
Roof High – composite – metal
Interiors Exposed beam
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Packet Page No. 352
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
Due to flushing of foreign objects
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
Packet Page No. 353
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Ash Street Park Buildings - Viola Blythe Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated 1970
2 Building size in SF 1,000
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Concrete block
Roof Low – composite
Interiors Drywall – wood
HVAC 2018 New system installed
Electrical
Site Pavement 2018 Front pavement replaced
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date). 2018 – flooring was replaced (contained asbestos) 5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Packet Page No. 354
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
Packet Page No. 355
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
Accessibility Review and Photos
Packet Page No. 356
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name: Ash Street Park Buildings - Recreation Center BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-001.017
Packet Page No. 357
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Parking section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 358
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
CURB CUT ACCESSIBLE PATH
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 The play area is not accessible
Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6 No ramps
Packet Page No. 359
Do ramps on an accessible route appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
7 No ramps
Do ramps and stairs on an accessible route
appear to have compliant handrails? 8 No ramps
For stairways that are open underneath, are
permanent barriers present that prevent or
discourage access?
9 No stairs
Packet Page No. 360
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE DOOR HARDWARE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2
Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
Packet Page No. 361
Do pairs of accessible entrance doors in
series appear to have the minimum clear
space between them ?
7 Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear
to have a compliant height ? 8
Packet Page No. 362
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH DOOR HARDWARE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does an accessible route appear to connect
all public areas inside the building ? 1
Do accessible routes appear free of
obstructions and/or protruding objects ? 2
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant slopes ? 3
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 4
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
5 Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant handrails ? 6
Packet Page No. 363
Are accessible areas of refuge and the
accessible means of egress to those areas
identified with accessible signage ?
7 Do public transaction areas have an
accessible, lowered service counter section ? 8
Do public telephones appear mounted with an
accessible height and location ? 9
Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant maneuvering clearance
area on each side ?
10 Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant hardware ? 11
Do non-fire hinged, sliding, or folding doors on
interior accessible routes appear to have
compliant opening force ?
12 Do doors on interior accessible routes appear
to have a compliant clear opening width ? 13
Packet Page No. 364
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 365
Public Restrooms
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
TOILET STALL OVERVIEW SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES Question Yes No NA Comments
Do publicly accessible toilet rooms appear to
have a minimum compliant floor area ? 1
Does the lavatory appear to be mounted at a
compliant height and with compliant knee
area ?
2 Does the lavatory faucet have compliant
handles ? 3
Is the plumbing piping under lavatories
configured to protect against contact ? 4
Are grab bars provided at compliant locations
around the toilet ? 5
Do toilet stall doors appear to provide the
minimum compliant clear width ? 6
Packet Page No. 366
Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum
compliant clear floor area ? 7
Where more than one urinal is present in a
multi-user restroom, does minimum one urinal
appear to be mounted at a compliant height
and with compliant approach width ?
8 Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
Packet Page No. 367
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 368
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
NON ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO PLAYGROUND OVERVIEW OF PLAYGROUND Question Yes No NA Comments
Is there an accessible route to the play area /
s? 1
Has the play area been reviewed for
accessibility ? 2
Are publicly accessible swimming pools
equipped with an entrance lift ? 3
Packet Page No. 369
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name: Ash Street Park Buildings - Viola Blythe BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-001.017
Packet Page No. 370
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA Question Yes No NA Comments
Does the required number of standard ADA
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 1
Does the required number of van-accessible
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 2
Are accessible spaces on the shortest
accessible route to an accessible building
entrance ?
3 Does parking signage include the International
Symbol of Accessibility ? 4
Does each accessible space have an adjacent
access aisle ? 5
Do parking spaces and access aisles appear
to be relatively level and without obstruction ? 6
Packet Page No. 371
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE PATH CURB CUT
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6 No ramps
Packet Page No. 372
Do ramps on an accessible route appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
7 No ramps
Do ramps and stairs on an accessible route
appear to have compliant handrails? 8 No ramps
For stairways that are open underneath, are
permanent barriers present that prevent or
discourage access?
9 No Stairs
Packet Page No. 373
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2
Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
Packet Page No. 374
Do pairs of accessible entrance doors in
series appear to have the minimum clear
space between them ?
7 Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear
to have a compliant height ? 8
Packet Page No. 375
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Interior Accessible Route section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 376
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 377
Public Restrooms
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
TOILET STALL OVERVIEW SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES Question Yes No NA Comments
Do publicly accessible toilet rooms appear to
have a minimum compliant floor area ? 1
Does the lavatory appear to be mounted at a
compliant height and with compliant knee
area ?
2 Does the lavatory faucet have compliant
handles ? 3
Is the plumbing piping under lavatories
configured to protect against contact ? 4
Are grab bars provided at compliant locations
around the toilet ? 5
Do toilet stall doors appear to provide the
minimum compliant clear width ? 6 Single use toilet roomp Packet Page No. 378
Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum
compliant clear floor area ? 7 Single use toilet room
Where more than one urinal is present in a
multi-user restroom, does minimum one urinal
appear to be mounted at a compliant height
and with compliant approach width ?
8 No urinals
Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
Packet Page No. 379
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 380
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 381
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
Packet Page No. 382
Packet Page No. 383
Packet Page No. 384
Packet Page No. 385
Packet Page No. 386
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 387
Packet Page No. 388
Packet Page No. 389
Packet Page No. 390
Birch Grove Restroom
38080 Birch Street
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-002.017
DATE OF REPORT:
February 16, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
January 24, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 Packet Page No. 391
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Property Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 6
2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 7
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 10
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 11
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 12
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 14 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 14
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 16
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Packet Page No. 392
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Public Restroom
Main Address 38080 Birch Street, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 1975
Site Area 0.2 acres
Parking Spaces Shares parking lot with the adjacent park.
Building Area 900 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 24, 2023
Management Point of Contact Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc.
Andrea Gifford
Principal
415.531.4456
[email protected]
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Roya Gonzalez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Nezar M. Tibi
Reviewed By Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for:
Mary Venable
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
Packet Page No. 393
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Birch Grove Restroom was built in 1975. A new roof was installed in 2020.
Architectural
The building is a heavy concrete block structure with wood framed roof over concrete slab foundation. Exterior walls are painted CMU with no windows. Interior finishes are updated as needed.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
No heating or cooling system is provided for this building. The electrical system is copper wiring and appears to be original to the construction of the building. Plumbing is copper supply with PVC waste system. The waste system has been problematic due to visitors disposing of inappropriate materials down the drain.
Site
The building shares a parking lot with the adjacent park.
Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.
Packet Page No. 394
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
Packet Page No. 395
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures. The capital expenditures allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the dollar amounts along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
Packet Page No. 396
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
No immediate needs are identified.
Key Findings
Toilet Partitions in Poor condition.
Metal
Birch Grove Restroom Restrooms
Uniformat Code: C1090
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 81.8
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $3,700
$$$$
Doors and corroded and require replacement. - AssetCALC ID: 5106120 Exterior Door in Poor condition.
Steel, Standard
Birch Grove Restroom Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2050
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 81.8
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $5,200
$$$$
The doors are old and deteriorated. - AssetCALC ID: 5106123 Flooring in Poor condition.
any surface, w/ Paint or Sealant
Birch Grove Restroom Throughout building
Uniformat Code: C2030
Recommendation: Prep & Paint in 2024
Priority Score: 81.7
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,600
$$$$
Floor is deteriorated and requires a new fresh paint. - AssetCALC ID: 5106127 Packet Page No. 397
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
Packet Page No. 398
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. B u il di ng a nd Si t e I nf orm at i on
Systems Summary
System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists and concrete foundation slab
Good
Facade Primary Wall Finish : CMU
Windows: None
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Good Interiors Walls: Painted CMU
Floors: Painted and unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Painted ceiling
Fair
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and PVC waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, urinal, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC No heating or cooling system. n/a
Fire Suppression None n/a
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm None n/a
Packet Page No. 399
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Equipment/Special None n/a
Site Pavement Shares parking lots with the adjacent park. n/a Site Development Wrought iron gates Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
None n/a
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric
Good
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: None
Building-mounted: Incandescent
Fair
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property.
Key Issues and
Findings
Rusted entrance doors, flooring repair, and replace toilet partitions.
Packet Page No. 400
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Packet Page No. 401
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, the exterior of the property, and the roof.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
Packet Page No. 402
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are not included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The facility was originally constructed in 1975. The facility has not since been substantially renovated.
During the interview process with the client representatives, no complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was reported.
No detailed follow-up accessibility study is currently recommended since no major or moderate issues were identified at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
Packet Page No. 403
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed, or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
Packet Page No. 404
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
Packet Page No. 405
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall & Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
Packet Page No. 406
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
Packet Page No. 407
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. C e rt if ic at io n
Group 4 Arch, City of Newark, Facilities Master Plan (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Birch Grove Restroom, 38080 Birch Street, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
Packet Page No. 408
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site and Floor Plans
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 409
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
Packet Page No. 410
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - RIGHT ELEVATION
3 - LEFT ELEVATION 4 - REAR ELEVATION
5 - MAIN ENTRANCE 6 - EXTERIOR DOORS
Packet Page No. 411
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - TOILET PARTITIONS 8 - DETERIORATED TOILET PARTITIONS 9 - ROOFING 10 - DETERIORATED FLOORING
11 - STORAGE 12 - PLUMBING SYSTEM
Packet Page No. 412
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - SINK/LAVATORY 14 -SERVICE SINK
15 - TOILET 16 - URINAL
17 - SWITCHBOARD 18 - DISTRIBUTION PANEL
Packet Page No. 413
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site and Floor Plans
Packet Page No. 414
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-002.017 Birch Grove Restroom
Source On-Site Date
Google January 24, 2023
Packet Page No. 415
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-002.017 Birch Grove Restroom
Source On-Site Date
Owner January 24, 2023
Packet Page No. 416
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Packet Page No. 417
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Birch Grove Restroom
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: January 20, 2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated 1975 – utility room in rear of building 2 Building size in SF 900
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade 1975 Concrete block and wood
Roof 2020 Re-roofed - shingles
Interiors 1975 Concrete block
HVAC Design uses natural ventilation with vents in front and rear gables
Electrical 1975
Site Pavement 1975 concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
We will be retrofitting to LED lights – budgeted but not scheduled 6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Packet Page No. 418
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
Plumbing lines – due to flushing of foreign objects (roughly once or twice per year)
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
Packet Page No. 419
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
Accessibility Review and Photos
Packet Page No. 420
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name: Birch Grove Restroom
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-002.017
Packet Page No. 421
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Parking section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 422
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE PATH ACCESSIBLE PATH
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6
Packet Page No. 423
Do ramps on an accessible route appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
7 Do ramps and stairs on an accessible route
appear to have compliant handrails? 8
For stairways that are open underneath, are
permanent barriers present that prevent or
discourage access?
9 Packet Page No. 424
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2
Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
Packet Page No. 425
Do pairs of accessible entrance doors in
series appear to have the minimum clear
space between them ?
7 Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear
to have a compliant height ? 8
Packet Page No. 426
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH DOOR HARDWARE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does an accessible route appear to connect
all public areas inside the building ? 1
Do accessible routes appear free of
obstructions and/or protruding objects ? 2
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant slopes ? 3
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 4
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
5 Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant handrails ? 6
Packet Page No. 427
Are accessible areas of refuge and the
accessible means of egress to those areas
identified with accessible signage ?
7 Do public transaction areas have an
accessible, lowered service counter section ? 8
Do public telephones appear mounted with an
accessible height and location ? 9
Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant maneuvering clearance
area on each side ?
10 Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant hardware ? 11
Do non-fire hinged, sliding, or folding doors on
interior accessible routes appear to have
compliant opening force ?
12 Do doors on interior accessible routes appear
to have a compliant clear opening width ? 13
Packet Page No. 428
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 429
Public Restrooms
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
TOILET STALL OVERVIEW SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES Question Yes No NA Comments
Do publicly accessible toilet rooms appear to
have a minimum compliant floor area ? 1
Does the lavatory appear to be mounted at a
compliant height and with compliant knee
area ?
2 Does the lavatory faucet have compliant
handles ? 3
Is the plumbing piping under lavatories
configured to protect against contact ? 4
Are grab bars provided at compliant locations
around the toilet ? 5
Do toilet stall doors appear to provide the
minimum compliant clear width ? 6
Packet Page No. 430
Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum
compliant clear floor area ? 7
Where more than one urinal is present in a
multi-user restroom, does minimum one urinal
appear to be mounted at a compliant height
and with compliant approach width ?
8 Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
Packet Page No. 431
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 432
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 433
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
Packet Page No. 434
Packet Page No. 435
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 436
Packet Page No. 437
Boathouse
Chelsea Drive
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-003.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 1, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
February 7, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 Packet Page No. 438
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Property Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 6
2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 7
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 10
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 11
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 13
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 15 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 15
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 17
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Packet Page No. 439
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Boathouse
Main Address Chelsea Drive, Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 2019
Site Area 0.4 acres
Parking Spaces 23 total spaces all in open lots; 1 of which is accessible.
Building Area 300 square feet
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit February 7, 2023
Management Point of Contact Andrea Gifford
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc.
Principal
415.531.4456
[email protected]
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay Van der Have
Reviewed By Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for:
Mary Venable
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
Packet Page No. 440
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
This building was built in 2019 to function as a boat rental center for the City of Newark. The city has since stopped renting boats at this location. As a result the building sits fairly empty.
Architectural
This simple wood framed, slab on grade, building with T-111 exterior siding is relatively recently built and in good condition.
It may have been intended to house rental boats, though currently it holds approximately 20 fishing rods.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
Electrical and plumbing are present and in serviceable condition. There is no heating or cooling equipment.
Site
The asphalt parking area could use sealing and striping.
Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.
Packet Page No. 441
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
Packet Page No. 442
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures. The capital expenditures allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the dollar amounts along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
Packet Page No. 443
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
Key Findings
ADA Paths of Travel
Gate at Dock
Boathouse Gate at Boat Dock
Uniformat Code: Y1020
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,200
$$$$
Install wheelchair accessible gate and latch at dock. - AssetCALC ID: 5364567 Packet Page No. 444
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
Packet Page No. 445
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. B u il di ng a nd Si t e I nf orm at i on
Systems Summary
System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation Good Facade Primary Wall Finish : Painted T-111
Window: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board
Floors:Unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Painted exposed
Fair
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilet in the restroom, sink outside of the restroom Fair
HVAC No HVAC n/a
Fire Suppression Fire extinguisher only Fair
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Packet Page No. 446
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Alarm None Missing
Equipment/Special None n/a
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs
Fair
Site Development No property entrance signage; chain link fencing; Limited park benches, trash receptacles
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including, trees and bushes Irrigation present
No retaining walls
Low to moderate site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric
Good
Site Lighting Building-mounted: Incandescent Fair
Ancillary Structures Boat dock Fair
Accessibility The Boathouse is currently not in use and from what we could observe is not a public building. It appears to be used for storage. If in the future the building reverts to use as a public building where the general public has access to the interior areas then wheelchair accessibility improvements will need to be added to the building.
n/a
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
Packet Page No. 447
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
System Expenditure Forecast
System Immediate Short Term
(1-2 yr)
Near Term
(3-5 yr)
Med Term
(6-10 yr)
Long Term
(11-20 yr)
TOTAL
Facade - - $3,616 - $4,860 $8,476
Roofing - - - - $3,078 $3,078
Interiors - - $3,743 - $5,030 $8,773
Plumbing - - - $2,195 $8,586 $10,781
Fire Protection - - $257 - $345 $602
Electrical - - - - $2,658 $2,658
Site Development - - - $9,983 $30,712 $40,695
Site Pavement - $5,674 - $17,222 $16,467 $39,363
Accessibility $817 - - - - $817
TOTALS $900 $5,700 $7,700 $29,400 $71,800 $115,500
Packet Page No. 448
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries and the exterior of the property.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
Packet Page No. 449
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
▪ Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
▪ Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or ▪ Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with
35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
Generally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of its age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
Buildings completed and occupied after January 26, 1992 are required to comply fully with the ADAAG. Existing facilities constructed prior to this date are held to the lesser standard of compliance to the extent allowed by structural feasibility and the financial resources available. As an alternative, a reasonable accommodation pertaining to barrier removal must be made.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance Packet Page No. 450
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The facility was originally constructed in 2019. The facility has not since been substantially renovated.
The Boathouse is currently not in use and from what we could observe is not a public building. It appears to be used for storage. If in the future the building reverts to use as a public building where the general public has access to the interior areas then wheelchair accessibility improvements will need to be added to the building.
Packet Page No. 451
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed, or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
Packet Page No. 452
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
Packet Page No. 453
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall & Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
Packet Page No. 454
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
Packet Page No. 455
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. C e rt if ic at io n
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Boathouse, Chelsea Drive, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
Packet Page No. 456
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8 . Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 457
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
Packet Page No. 458
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT AND REAR ELEVATION
3 – RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 4 – ENTRY DOORS
5 – SITE PATHWAY 6 – PARKING LOT
Packet Page No. 459
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - INTERIOR 8 - INTERIOR
9 - ELECTRICAL PANEL 10 - STAFF TOILET
11 - DOCK AND GATE 12 - FENCING
Packet Page No. 460
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site Plan
Packet Page No. 461
Boathouse Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-003.017 Boathouse
Source On-Site Date
Google February 7, 2023
Packet Page No. 462
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre -Survey Questionnaire
Packet Page No. 463
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
A Presurvey Questionnaire was not received
Packet Page No. 464
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
Accessibility Review and Photos
Packet Page No. 465
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History and Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name: Boathouse
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-003.017
Packet Page No. 466
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA CLOSE-UP OF STALL
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does the required number of standard ADA
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 1
Does the required number of van-accessible
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 2
Are accessible spaces on the shortest
accessible route to an accessible building
entrance ?
3 Does parking signage include the International
Symbol of Accessibility ? 4
Does each accessible space have an adjacent
access aisle ? 5
Do parking spaces and access aisles appear
to be relatively level and without obstruction ? 6
Packet Page No. 467
Do ramps on an accessible route appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
7 No ramps
Do ramps and stairs on an accessible route
appear to have compliant handrails? 8 No ramps
For stairways that are open underneath, are
permanent barriers present that prevent or
discourage access?
9 No Stairs
Packet Page No. 468
ACCESSIBLE PATH BOAT DOCK
Question Yes No NA Comments
1 Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
2 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
3 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes?
4 Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ?
5 Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? No ramps
6 Are exterior features on an accessible route ? Dock not on accessible path and gate is not accessible.
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Packet Page No. 469
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Building Entrances section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 470
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Interior Accessible Route section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 471
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 472
Public Restrooms
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Public Restrooms section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 473
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 474
Playgrounds and Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds and Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 475
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
Packet Page No. 476
Packet Page No. 477
Packet Page No. 478
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 479
Packet Page No. 480
Community Center/Annex/Restroom
35501 Cedar Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-004.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 15, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
February 14, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 Packet Page No. 481
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Campus Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Campus Findings and Deficiencies ........................................................................................................ 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 4 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 6 Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 14
2. Community Center ............................................................................................................................. 15
3. Community Center Annex ................................................................................................................. 17
4. Community Center Restrooms.......................................................................................................... 19
5. Site Summary...................................................................................................................................... 21
6. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 22
7. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 23
8. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 25
9. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 27 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 27
10. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 29
11. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Packet Page No. 482
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Campus Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Community Center
Number of Buildings Three
Main Address 35501 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California 94506 Site Developed 1968
Site Area 3.75 acres (estimated)
Parking Spaces 110 total spaces all in open lots; six of which are accessible Outside Occupants/Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit February 14, 2023
Management Point of Contact Andrea Marie Gifford
650.871.0709 x218
agifford@g4arch
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Matthew Anderson for
Mary Venable Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
Packet Page No. 483
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
These three buildings, the community center, the community center annex and the community center restrooms were all designed by Aaron Green, who was a protégé and associate of Frank Lloyd Wright. The community center was constructed in 1968 the other two were constructed in 1991, all three retain the functions for which they were designed.
Two offices at the front of the community center have had water intrusion and are no longer used, the rooms are locked. The downstairs area has poor air quality and water damage. This area is no longer used and locked. The rear classroom has efflorescence on the masonry walls during the rainy season. The air quality has been tested several times but does not show elevated levels of mold.
Architectural
The buildings have many of the design aspects for which Frank Lloyd Wright is known: sweeping roof overhangs, use of natural materials and, with glazing and glass doors facilitating bringing the outside into the building. Natural materials include CMU exterior and interior walls, wood panel walls and concrete or Saltillo tile floors.
The buildings are showing their age and have significant condition problems. The roofs and skylights at the community center are leaking; not only are ceilings and walls stained by water intrusion, but ceilings actively drip during rains, requiring buckets to catch the water. Several rooms have been sealed off due to moisture problems. Roof replacement is recommended as a short-term capital improvement. Problems with water extend to efflorescence seen on walls and floors.
Some floors not only show efflorescence but are also pitted. A study to determine why this is happening and how to stop it has been budgeted. Much of the glazing is fixed, the operable units are steel framed and rusting badly, replacement is recommended. Interior finishes affected by water damage and suspected fungal growth must be repaired in the short term, and walls cleaned of water stains and efflorescence, but roofing replacement must precede this work. Typical interior and exterior finish replacements are anticipated for other areas that are not damaged.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The HVAC systems were replaced approximately 10 years ago and functions well. Typical lifecycle replacement is anticipated. The community center does not have a fire sprinkler system, providing one should be considered.
Site
The asphalt parking areas should stay in serviceable condition with regular sealing and striping. Asphalt walkways are presenting some problems with significant uplift due to tree roots. Correction of this is budgeted on a short term basis.
Recommended Additional Studies
The buildings have multiple condition issues that cannot be fully evaluated from a visual assessment alone. Due to the obvious moisture intrusion, there may be extensive issues of mold or deterioration concealed within walls and ceilings that could require extensive demolition and reconstruction. Costs shown in this report for studies and replacements are those that can be reasonably expected from our visual inspection. Bureau Veritas recommends a qualified mold abatement contractor who can investigate enclosed spaces be retained to prepare a thorough investigation into enclosed spaces and remediation costs based on their inspection.
As mentioned above, why the wall and floor efflorescence and the floor pitting and how to stop this from happening should be determined. One possible explanation is the drainage from the flat roof area could lead to an internal drain line that has failed and is leaking water into the under-slab areas. Another explanation could be from domestic water leaks if there is under-slab water supply piping. During dry months the water will drain away but back up in wet winter months. The cause of the problem could not be determined through a visual assessment. A professional consultant must be retained to analyze the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required repairs.
The cost of this study is included in the cost tables. A cost for a professional engineering study is included in the cost tables, as well as a budgetary allowance for repair of the floor and ceiling areas where moisture damage has occurred. Due to the ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this assessment, these amounts must be considered a general allowance that must be verified by a detailed engineering study that may involve opening concealed structural spaces.
Evidence of wood rot and insect infestation was seen at the fascia of the annex. A termite or pest control inspection company should be retained to analyze the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required repairs. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables. A budgetary cost allowance to replace the fascia is also included. .
Packet Page No. 484
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Some areas of the facility were identified as having major or moderate accessibility issues. Bureau Veritas recommends a study be performed to take measurements, provide additional itemized details, research local requirements, and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required improvements. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables.
Costs for some obvious accessibility needs are included in the tables, hoverer due to the lack of measurements and itemized findings at this point in time, the costs for any possible subsequent repairs or improvements that may be identified in a detailed study are not currently included.
Packet Page No. 485
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
Overall site (3 Buildings)
Packet Page No. 486
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Level FCI:
The vertical bars below represent the year-by-year needs identified for the entire campus. The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the campus FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures over the next ten years. The dollar amounts allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the values along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
Packet Page No. 487
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The table below shows the anticipated costs by trade or building system over the next 20 years.
Immediate Needs
Packet Page No. 488
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Packet Page No. 489
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Packet Page No. 490
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Packet Page No. 491
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Sidewalk in Poor condition.
Concrete, Small Areas/Sections
Community Annex Community Center Site
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 94.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $13,100
$$$$
Uplift is causing significant unevenness - AssetCALC ID: 5303740 Packet Page No. 492
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Sidewalk in Poor condition.
Asphalt
Community Center Community Center Site
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 94.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $3,600
$$$$
The unevenness is hazardous - AssetCALC ID: 5304011
Roofing in Poor condition.
Clay/Concrete Tile
Community Annex Community Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $115,000
$$$$
The roof is leaking - AssetCALC ID: 5303732
Roofing in Poor condition.
Clay/Concrete Tile
Community Center Community Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $519,300
$$$$
The shingles are breaking apart, and the roof is leaking - AssetCALC ID: 5304058 Exterior Walls in Poor condition.
Brick
Community Annex Community Center Areas of
Leaks
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Point and Seal in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $41,900
$$$$
Efflorescence is a sign that roof leaks or wall leaks are allowing moisture into the building. - AssetCALC ID:
5303746
Packet Page No. 493
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Structural Framing in Poor
condition.
Wood
Community Center Throughout building
Uniformat Code: B1010
Recommendation: Seismic Upgrades,
Allowance in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $83,800
$$$$
Allowance for repairing damage to heavy timber framing identified by building inspector, dependent on engineering study. - AssetCALC ID: 6890240
Roofing in Poor condition.
Built-Up
Community Center Community Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $91,600
$$$$
This roof leaks - AssetCALC ID: 5304012
Wood fascia in Poor condition.
Wood
Community Annex Community Center Building
Exterior
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Repair/Install in 2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $12,000
$$$$
Repair, replace rotted, infested fascia - AssetCALC ID: 5303700 Sanitary Sewer in Poor condition.
CCTV
Community Center Community Center Main
lines
Uniformat Code: D2030
Recommendation: Survey in 2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $1,400
$$$$
Regular sewage, back up problems require review by a CCTV camera to determine the extent of the problems. - AssetCALC ID: 5304043
Packet Page No. 494
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Sanitary Sewer in Poor condition.
Original Piping
Community Center Community Center site
Uniformat Code: D2030
Recommendation: Partial Replacement in
2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $16,300
$$$$
Periodic clogs and backups into the building were reported. - AssetCALC ID: 5591500 Sidewalk in Poor condition.
Concrete, Small Areas/Sections
Community Center Community Center Site
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2025
Priority Score: 85.7
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $26,200
$$$$
If the uplift continues, this can be hazardous - AssetCALC ID: 5304066 Ceiling Finishes
Gypsum Board/Plaster
Community Center Community Center Mold
and moisture affected areas
Uniformat Code: C2050
Recommendation: Major Replacement -
Allowance in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $546,400
$$$$
Budgetary allowance for major replacment of ceiling finishes affected by moisture and mold, dependent on environmental study. Includes paint and new insulation. - AssetCALC ID: 6890040 Packet Page No. 495
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
Packet Page No. 496
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. C om m un it y C en t e r
Community Center: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1968
Building Size 13,336 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists over concrete slab foundation
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: CMU
Secondary Wall Finish: Wood siding
Windows: Steel
Poor
Roof Primary: Hip construction with concrete tiles
Secondary: Flat construction with built-up finish
Poor
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, unfinished CMU, wood paneling, ceramic tile
Floors: ceramic tile, Saltillo tile, wood strip, terrazzo, sealed & stained concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste & venting Hot Water: Gas water heater with integral
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Good
HVAC Central System: Boiler, air handler feeding fan coil terminal units Non-Central System: Packaged units, Split-system heat pumps --
Packet Page No. 497
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Community Center: Systems Summary
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers, kitchen hood system Fair Electrical Source & Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, incandescent, halogen Emergency Power: Diesel generator with automatic transfer switch Fair
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, alarms, pull stations, and exit signs Fair Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment Fair
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this building and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and Findings Rusting windows, leaking roof and skylights, damaged or rotting exterior wood, interior suspect mold issues, interior mold on walls and ceiling, water-damaged ceiling and floors Packet Page No. 498
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. C om m un it y C en t e r A nn ex
Community Center Annex: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1991
Building Size 3,000 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists over a concrete slab foundation
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: CMU
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with concrete tiles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board unfinished CMU, wood paneling, ceramic tile Floors: Carpet, VCT, ceramic tile
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste & venting Hot Water: Gas water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Furnaces with split-system condensing units Fair
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers Fair Packet Page No. 499
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Community Center Annex: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, CFL
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm Smoke detectors with exit signs only Fair
Equipment/Special None --
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this building and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D
Key Issues and
Findings
Efflorescence on the walls, the recommended moisture study should include this building, leaking roof, outdated fire alarm system
Packet Page No. 500
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 19 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. C om m un it y C en t e r R es t ro om s
Community Center Restrooms: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1991
Building Size 500 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists over a concrete slab
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: CMU --
Roof Primary: Gable construction with concrete tiles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted CMU
Floors: Painted concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste & venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC No HVAC --
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
Packet Page No. 501
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Community Center Restrooms: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: CFL, incandescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm None --
Equipment/Special None --
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this building. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment
Packet Page No. 502
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 21 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. S it e S um m a ry
Site Information
System Description Condition
Pavement/Flatwork
Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs, ramps, and stairs
Good
Site Development
Building-mounted and property entrance signage; wood board fencing; CMU wall fence at dumpster enclosures
Limited park benches, trash receptacles
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Significant landscaping features including lawns, trees, bushes, and planters Irrigation present
Timber and brick retaining walls
Low to moderate site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities
Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting
Pole-mounted: LED Good
Ancillary Structures
None --
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for the exterior site areas. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
Packet Page No. 503
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 22 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
Most of the interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition.
Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, the exterior of the property, and the roofs.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All areas of the property were accessible and observed.
Packet Page No. 504
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 23 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local juriFebruary 14, 2023ictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the checklists that are included in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues. Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance Packet Page No. 505
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 24 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The campus was originally constructed in 1968 with additional buildings added in 1991 and renovated in phases over time.
The following table summarizes the accessibility conditions of the general site and at each building on campus:
Campus: Accessibility Summary
Facility Year Built/
Renovated
Prior Study
Provided?
Major/Moderate
Issues Observed?
General Site 1968 No No
Community Center 1968 No Yes
Community Center Annex 1991 No Yes
Community Center Restrooms 1991 No No
Complaints about accessibility issues have been sporadically received by property management the Community Center Annex although no prior or pending litigation was reported.
Detailed follow-up accessibility studies are included as recommendations because potential moderate to major issues were observed at the buildings identified above. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
Packet Page No. 506
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 25 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
Packet Page No. 507
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 26 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
Packet Page No. 508
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 27 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
9. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall & Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
Packet Page No. 509
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 28 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
Packet Page No. 510
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 29 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 0. C e rt if ic at i on
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Community Center 35501 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California 94506, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have,
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable,
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
Packet Page No. 511
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 28 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
11. Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 512
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
Packet Page No. 513
COMMUNITY CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - REAR/SIDE ELEVATION
3 - SIDE ELEVATION 4 - ROOF OVERVIEW
5 - BUILT UP ROOF 6 - INTERIOR
Packet Page No. 514
COMMUNITY CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - STEEL WINDOW 8 - INTERIOR
9 - INTERIOR 10 - KITCHEN
11 - RESTROOM FIXTURES 12 - WATER HEATER
Packet Page No. 515
COMMUNITY CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - WATER INTRUSION 14 - WATER INSTRUSION IN LOCKED ROOM 15 - MOISTURE DAMAGE 16 - MOISTURE INTRUSION
17 - MOISTURE INTRUSION 18 - MOISTURE INTRUSION
Packet Page No. 516
COMMUNITY CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - MECHANICAL ROOM 14 - PACKAGED UNIT
15 - EMERGENCY GENERATOR 16 - MAIN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 17 - LANDSCAPING OVERVIEW 18 - PARKING LOT OVERVIEW
Packet Page No. 517
COMMUNITY ANNEX BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - REAR ELEVATION
3 - RIGHT ELEVATION 4 - ROOF EDGE
5 - INTERIOR 6 - INTERIOR
Packet Page No. 518
COMMUNITY ANNEX BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - INTERIOR - 8 - RESTROOM
9 - MECHANICAL ROOM 10 - SPRINKLER STANDPIPE
Packet Page No. 519
COMMUNITY CENTER RESTROOMS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - SIDE ELEVATION 2 - SIDE ELEVATION
3 - PLUMBING FIXTURES 4 - PLUMBING FIXTURES
5 - DOMESTIC PIPING 6 - MAIN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Packet Page No. 520
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site Plan
Packet Page No. 521
Community Center Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-004.017 Community Center/Annex/Restroom
Source On-Site Date
Google February 14, 2023
Packet Page No. 522
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre -Survey Questionnaire
Packet Page No. 523
BV Facility Condition Assessment: Pre - Survey Questionnaire Building/Facility Name: Community Center
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title/Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed/renovated 1968
2 Building size in SF 13,336
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Brick/wood
Roof Flat/high/single ply membrane/cement tile
Interiors Drywall/wood/brick
HVAC Approx.
2005
Old system abandoned (wrapped asbestos pipes)
and new
Electrical
Site Pavement concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Two offices in front of facility had water intrusion – no longer used and locked Downstairs area has poor air quality and water damage – no longer used and locked Rear classroom has effervescence during rainy season – air quality tested several times Packet Page No. 524
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
Listed above – also the fireplace was sealed with flashing to prevent water leaks (date unknown)
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
Tested – within normal parameters
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
On average, once a year we experience a backup where
sewage comes out of the nearby access point in the
hallway
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
Only Patio Room and Social Hall have systems installed
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
Side patio
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
Packet Page No. 525
BV Facility Condition Assessment: Pre - Survey Questionnaire Building/Facility Name: Community Center Annex
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title/Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated with
property:
7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed/renovated 1991
2 Building size in SF 3,000
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Brick
Roof Med. Wood
Interiors
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Due to the forced floor system, at times the windows present condensation (correlates with the water table) and effervescence appears on the brick walls in front lobby Packet Page No. 526
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
Effervescence – air quality was tested several years ago and cleared
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
In rear conversation pit – depending on water table
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
Packet Page No. 527
BV Facility Condition Assessment: Pre - Survey Questionnaire Building/Facility Name: Community Center Restroom
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title/Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated with
property:
7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated 1991
2 Building size in SF 500
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Brick/wood
Roof Flat/high/single ply membrane/cement tile
Interiors Drywall/wood/brick
HVAC Natural
Electrical
Site Pavement concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
Roofing - budgeted
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Packet Page No. 528
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
On average, once a year we experience a backup where
sewage comes out of the nearby access point in the
parking lot
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
Packet Page No. 529
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
Accessibility Review and Photos
Packet Page No. 530
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name:
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000 - 004.017
Community Center
Packet Page No. 531
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA CLOSE-UP OF STALL
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does the required number of standard ADA
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 1
Does the required number of van-accessible
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 2
Are accessible spaces on the shortest
accessible route to an accessible building
entrance ?
3 Does parking signage include the International
Symbol of Accessibility ? 4
Does each accessible space have an adjacent
access aisle ? 5
Do parking spaces and access aisles appear
to be relatively level and without obstruction ? 6
Packet Page No. 532
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE RAMP CURB CUT
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6
Packet Page No. 533
Do ramps on an accessible route appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
7 Do ramps and stairs on an accessible route
appear to have compliant handrails? 8
For stairways that are open underneath, are
permanent barriers present that prevent or
discourage access?
9 Packet Page No. 534
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENER
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2 Main entrance is accessible Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3 The main entrance is accessible Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
Packet Page No. 535
Do pairs of accessible entrance doors in
series appear to have the minimum clear
space between them ?
7 No entrance doors in series
Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear
to have a compliant height ? 8
Packet Page No. 536
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
SELF-SERVICE AREA
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does an accessible route appear to connect
all public areas inside the building ? 1
Do accessible routes appear free of
obstructions and/or protruding objects ? 2
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant slopes ? 3 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 4 No ramps
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
5 No ramps
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant handrails ? 6 No ramps
MAIN EVENT SPACE
Packet Page No. 537
Are accessible areas of refuge and the
accessible means of egress to those areas
identified with accessible signage ?
7 No areas of refuge
Do public transaction areas have an
accessible, lowered service counter section ? 8
Do public telephones appear mounted with an
accessible height and location ? 9 no public telephones Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant maneuvering clearance
area on each side ?
10 Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant hardware ? 11
Do non-fire hinged, sliding, or folding doors on
interior accessible routes appear to have
compliant opening force ?
12 Do doors on interior accessible routes appear
to have a compliant clear opening width ? 13
Packet Page No. 538
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 539
Public Restrooms
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
TOILET STALL OVERVIEW SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES Question Yes No NA Comments
Do publicly accessible toilet rooms appear to
have a minimum compliant floor area ? 1
Does the lavatory appear to be mounted at a
compliant height and with compliant knee
area ?
2 Does the lavatory faucet have compliant
handles ? 3
Is the plumbing piping under lavatories
configured to protect against contact ? 4
Are grab bars provided at compliant locations
around the toilet ? 5
Do toilet stall doors appear to provide the
minimum compliant clear width ? 6 Single use restroom
Packet Page No. 540
Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum
compliant clear floor area ? 7 Single use restroom
Where more than one urinal is present in a
multi-user restroom, does minimum one urinal
appear to be mounted at a compliant height
and with compliant approach width ?
8 Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
Packet Page No. 541
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
SINK CLEARANCE OVEN WITH CONTROLS
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do kitchens/kitchenettes appear to have a
minimum compliant path of travel or area of
maneuverability ?
1 Are the appliances centered for a parallel or
forward approach with adequate clear floor
space ?
2 Is there an accessible countertop/preparation
space of proper width and height ? 3
Is there an accessible sink space of proper
width and height ? 4
Does the sink faucet have compliant
handles ? 5
Is the plumbing piping under the sink
configured to protect against contact ? 6
Packet Page No. 542
Are the cooktop/range controls front-mounted
(or in a location that does not require reaching
across the burners) ?
7 Packet Page No. 543
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 544
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
Packet Page No. 545
Packet Page No. 546
Packet Page No. 547
Packet Page No. 548
Packet Page No. 549
Packet Page No. 550
Packet Page No. 551
Packet Page No. 552
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 553
Packet Page No. 554
Packet Page No. 555
Packet Page No. 556
Packet Page No. 557
Fire Station 27
39039 Cherry Street
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-005.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 15, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
January 28, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 Packet Page No. 558
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Property Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 9
2. Building and Site Information ........................................................................................................... 10
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 13
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 14
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 15
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 17 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 17
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 19
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Packet Page No. 559
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Fire Station
Main Address 39039 Cherry Street
Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 1981
Site Area 1.2 acres
Parking Spaces Nine total spaces all in open lots; 1 of which are accessible.
Building Area 6,000 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 28, 2023
Management Point of Contact Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc.
Andrea Gifford
Principal
415.531.4456
[email protected]
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Matt.Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for:
Mary Venable
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
Packet Page No. 560
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
This fire station was constructed in 1981. At a certain point, it was enlarged to better accommodate the equipment and personnel. The fire training tower was constructed in 1982 Architectural
The building is wood framed with a stucco exterior and foam roofing. There is a metal mansard roof. The foam roofing is at the end of its life, leaks are reported in both parts of the building. The interior finishes have been periodically replaced as-needed.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
A split system unit provides interior space conditioning. The building has a fire sprinkler system, but no fire alarm system or CO detectors. Electrical, plumbing and HVAC ductwork, are original. Replacements are recommended. The existing emergency generator is not capable of powering the entire station, replacement with a generator that has sufficient capacity is recommended
Site
Site lighting is adequate, the parking and drive areas would greatly benefit from sealing and striping in the next few years.
There is no way to secure the perimeter of the site.
Recommended Additional Studies
A measured accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.
Packet Page No. 561
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
Packet Page No. 562
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures. The capital expenditures allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the dollar amounts along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
Packet Page No. 563
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
Packet Page No. 564
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Fire Alarm System
Full System Upgrade, Standard Addressable
Fire Station 27 Throughout
Uniformat Code: D7050
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $39,300
$$$$
This building has no fire alarm system and no carbon monoxide detectors. Both are needed - AssetCALC ID: 5252296
Recommended Follow-up Study:
Environmental, Analysis of
Suspect Fungal Growth
Environmental, Analysis of Suspect Fungal
Growth
Fire Station 27 Skylights
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $7,600
$$$$
Suspected microbial growth by skylight - AssetCALC ID: 7215551 Recommended Follow-up Study:
Structural, Seismic
Structural, Seismic
Fire Station 27
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $43,600
$$$$
Building was designed before - AssetCALC ID: 7215550
Fire Alarm Panel
Fully Addressable
Fire Station 27 Throughout
Uniformat Code: D7050
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $32,700
$$$$
This building has no fire alarm system and no carbon monoxide detectors. Both are needed - AssetCALC ID: 7215458
Packet Page No. 565
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Fences & Gates
Fence, Metal Tube 6'
Fire Station 27 Property Perimeter
Uniformat Code: G2060
Recommendation: Provide in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $136,200
$$$$
Currently the property has no fence. - AssetCALC ID: 5253875 Roofing in Poor condition.
Spray Foam
Fire Station 27 Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $130,900
$$$$
There are signs and reports of leaking. (Roof & skylight) - AssetCALC ID: 5251534 Exterior Door in Failed condition.
Aluminum-Framed & Glazed, Residential Slider
Fire Station 27 Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2050
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $1,900
$$$$
This door leaks under the threshold - AssetCALC ID: 5251554 Roof Skylight in Failed condition.
per unit, up to 20 SF
Fire Station 27 Roof
Uniformat Code: B3060
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,800
$$$$
Leakage is occurring - AssetCALC ID: 5251583
Packet Page No. 566
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Flooring in Poor condition.
Carpet, Commercial Standard
Fire Station 27 Community room
Uniformat Code: C2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $8,200
$$$$
The carpet has suffered water damage from the leaking sliding glass door - AssetCALC ID: 5251567 ADA Restrooms
Lavatory, Pipe Wraps/Insulation
Fire Station 27 Restrooms
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $200
$$$$
Insulation needed at this sink drain & kitchen sink drain - AssetCALC ID: 5251543 ADA Miscellaneous
Level III Study, Includes Measurements
Fire Station 27 Throughout building
Uniformat Code: Y1090
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $16,400
$$$$
A complete review of this facility is recommended. - AssetCALC ID: 5251562 ADA Parking
Signage, Wall-Mounted
Fire Station 27 Adjacent to front door
Uniformat Code: Y1010
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $400
$$$$
When the ADA parking space is moved adjacent to the front door, signage must be installed - AssetCALC ID: 5251569
Packet Page No. 567
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
Packet Page No. 568
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. B u il di ng a nd Si t e I nf orm at i on
Systems Summary
System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation Fair Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco and masonry
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Flat construction with foam finish reportedly over the original metal roofing
Secondary: Mansard construction with metal finish
Poor
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board
Floors: Carpet, VCT, sealed concrete
Ceilings: ACT, exposed
Fair
Elevators None -
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste and venting Hot Water: Gas water heater with integral tank
Fixtures: Toilets and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Gas-fired furnace and split-system condenser.
Suspended unit heater in apparatus bay
Fair
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers, Fair Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: Gasoline generator
Fair
Packet Page No. 569
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Alarm No smoke detectors, no fire alarm system, no exit signs Failed Equipment/Special Plymovent Good
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks and curbs
Fair
Site Development Building-mounted signage; No perimeter fencing; CMU wall dumpster enclosure
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including trees and bushes Irrigation present
No retaining walls
Low site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: metal halide
Building-mounted: metal halide
Fair
Ancillary Structures Fire tower Fair
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this property and a detailed accessibility study is recommended.
n/a
Key Issues and
Findings
No fire alarm system, no smoke detectors, leaky roof sliding glass door.
No way to secure the perimeter of the property
-
Packet Page No. 570
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Packet Page No. 571
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, and the exterior of the property.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
Packet Page No. 572
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The facility was originally constructed in 1981. The facility was enlarged at a later date and some accessibility improvements appear to have been implemented at that time.
Complaints about accessibility issues have been sporadically received by property management, although no prior or pending litigation was reported.
A detailed follow-up accessibility study is included as a recommendation because potential moderate to major issues were observed at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
Packet Page No. 573
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed, or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
Packet Page No. 574
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
Packet Page No. 575
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall and Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
Packet Page No. 576
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
Packet Page No. 577
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 19 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. C e rt if ic at io n
City of Newark, (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Fire Station 27, 39039 Cherry Street, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matt.Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
Packet Page No. 578
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. A p pe nd ic es
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
Packet Page No. 579
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
P h o t o g r a p h i c R e c o r d
Packet Page No. 580
FIRE STATION 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - TRAINING TOWER 6 - PRIMARY PARKING AREA
Packet Page No. 581
FIRE STATION 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - ROOFING 8 - ENTRY CONTROLS
9 - COMMUNITY AREA 10 - KITCHEN
11 - APPARATUS BAY 12 - CEILING IN ENGINE BAY
Packet Page No. 582
FIRE STATION 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - RESTROOM FIXTURES 14 – RESTROOM
15 - WORKOUT ROOM 16 - EMERGENCY GENERATOR
17 - SPLIT SYSTEM CONDENSER 18 - FURNACE AND WATER HEATER Packet Page No. 583
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
S i t e DQG)ORRU3l a nV
Packet Page No. 584
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-005.017 Fire Station 27
Source On-Site Date
Google February 7, 2023
Packet Page No. 585
Floor Plan – before expansion
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-005.017 Fire Station 27
Source On-Site Date
CSM February 7, 2023
Packet Page No. 586
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
P r e -S u r v e y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Packet Page No. 587
BV F a c i l i t y C o n d i t i o n A s s e s s m e n t : P r e - S u r v e y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Building / Facility Name: Fire Station 27
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated Fire station – 1981 and fire tower - 1982 2 Building size in SF 1981 and 730
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Stucco and concrete
Roof Flat – built up – smooth – metal
Interiors
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date). 2022 – retrofitted the Plymovent (exhaust system) 5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
Property fencing – budgeted
backup generator – budgeted
Roofing – budgeted
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Side patio needs to be
Packet Page No. 588
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting?
x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
Side patio
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
Packet Page No. 589
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
A c c e s s i b i l i t y R e v i e w and P h o t o s
Packet Page No. 590
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name:
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000 - 005.017
Fire Station 27
Packet Page No. 591
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA CLOSE-UP OF STALL
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does the required number of standard ADA
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 1
Does the required number of van-accessible
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 2
Are accessible spaces on the shortest
accessible route to an accessible building
entrance ?
3 Does parking signage include the International
Symbol of Accessibility ? 4
Does each accessible space have an adjacent
access aisle ? 5
Do parking spaces and access aisles appear
to be relatively level and without obstruction ? 6
Packet Page No. 592
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE PATH CURB CUT
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6 No ramps
Packet Page No. 593
Do ramps on an accessible route appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
7 No ramps
Do ramps and stairs on an accessible route
appear to have compliant handrails? 8 No ramps
For stairways that are open underneath, are
permanent barriers present that prevent or
discourage access?
9 No Stairs
Packet Page No. 594
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE SIGNAGE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2 Alternate entrance not required Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3 Alternate entrance not required Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
Packet Page No. 595
Do pairs of accessible entrance doors in
series appear to have the minimum clear
space between them ?
7 Entry doors not in series
Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear
to have a compliant height ? 8
Packet Page No. 596
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH ROUTE TO RESTROOM
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does an accessible route appear to connect
all public areas inside the building ? 1
Do accessible routes appear free of
obstructions and/or protruding objects ? 2
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant slopes ? 3 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 4 No ramps
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
5 No
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant handrails ? 6 No ramps
Packet Page No. 597
Are accessible areas of refuge and the
accessible means of egress to those areas
identified with accessible signage ?
7 No areas of refuge
Do public transaction areas have an
accessible, lowered service counter section ? 8
Do public telephones appear mounted with an
accessible height and location ? 9 No public phones
Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant maneuvering clearance
area on each side ?
10 Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant hardware ? 11
Do non-fire hinged, sliding, or folding doors on
interior accessible routes appear to have
compliant opening force ?
12 Do doors on interior accessible routes appear
to have a compliant clear opening width ? 13
Packet Page No. 598
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 599
Public Restrooms
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
TOILET STALL OVERVIEW SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES Question Yes No NA Comments
Do publicly accessible toilet rooms appear to
have a minimum compliant floor area ? 1
Does the lavatory appear to be mounted at a
compliant height and with compliant knee
area ?
2 Does the lavatory faucet have compliant
handles ? 3
Is the plumbing piping under lavatories
configured to protect against contact ? 4
Are grab bars provided at compliant locations
around the toilet ? 5
Do toilet stall doors appear to provide the
minimum compliant clear width ? 6 Single use toilet room, no stalls Packet Page No. 600
Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum
compliant clear floor area ? 7 Single used toilet room, no stalls Where more than one urinal is present in a
multi-user restroom, does minimum one urinal
appear to be mounted at a compliant height
and with compliant approach width ?
The urinal is not in the accessible
restroom 8
Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
Packet Page No. 601
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
SINK CLEARANCE OVEN WITH CONTROLS
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do kitchens/kitchenettes appear to have a
minimum compliant path of travel or area of
maneuverability ?
1 Are the appliances centered for a parallel or
forward approach with adequate clear floor
space ?
2 Is there an accessible countertop/preparation
space of proper width and height ? 3
Is there an accessible sink space of proper
width and height ? 4
Does the sink faucet have compliant
handles ? 5
Is the plumbing piping under the sink
configured to protect against contact ? 6
Packet Page No. 602
Are the cooktop/range controls front-mounted
(or in a location that does not require reaching
across the burners) ?
7 Packet Page No. 603
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.
Packet Page No. 604
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
C o m p o n e n t C o n d i t i o n R e p o r t
Packet Page No. 605
Packet Page No. 606
Packet Page No. 607
Packet Page No. 608
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
R e p l a c e m e n t R e s e r v e s
Packet Page No. 609
Packet Page No. 610
Packet Page No. 611
Fire Station 28
7550 Thornton Avenue
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-006.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 9, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
January 23, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 Packet Page No. 612
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Property Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 8
2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 9
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 12
4. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 13
5. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 15 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 15
6. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 17
7. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Packet Page No. 613
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Fire Station
Main Address 7550 Thornton Avenue, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 2005
Site Area 1.12 acres
Parking Spaces 30 total spaces all in open lots; 2 of which are accessible.