Agenda packet, special meeting — Newark City Council, October 23, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 18 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.

OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 19 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.

OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 20 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 Old Library, 6300 Civic Terrace, 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: Aren Hofland
Project Manager
Reviewed by:

Mary Venable, CEM, RA
Lead Project Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 20 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
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

Photographic Record
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT 6 - METAL ROOFING AND SKYLIGHTS OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - CLAY TILE ROOF 8 - ROOF HATCH; DAMAGED, NEEDS REPLACE 9 - WINDOW 10 - RESTROOM OVERVIEW
11 - ENTRY FOYER 12 - INTERIOR OVERVIEW
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - ACTIVE LEAK ABOVE TRANSFORMER 14 - WATER HEATER
15 - BACKFLOW PREVENTER 16 - SINK/LAVATORY
17 - DRINKING FOUNTAIN 18 - TOILET
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - URINAL 20 - SINK/LAVATORY
21 - SPLIT SYSTEM 22 - PACKAGED UNIT
23 - BACKFLOW PREVENTER 24 - FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
25 - SECONDARY TRANSFORMER 26 - DISTRIBUTION PANEL
27 - FIRE ALARM PANEL 28 - IRRIGATION SYSTEM
29 - IRRIGATION SYSTEM 30 - 2ND AREA OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:

Site and Floor Plans
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-009.017 Old Library
Source On-Site Date
Google December 19, 2022
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-009.017 Old Library
Source On-Site Date
Owner December 19, 2022
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:

Pre-Survey Questionnaire
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Old Library
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7 years
Date Completed: December 16, 2022
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 1983
2 Building size in SF 15,570
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade
Roof 2017
(approx.)
We added a relief drain on far right to minimize
water level on roof (far right side)
Interiors
HVAC 2017
(approx.)
We have re-leveled the units on front side of the
facility as they sloped over time.

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?
None
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.

Pagoda/roof leaks around windows and joints especially on right far side of facility.

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
Window and roof
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 and verified not to contain mold
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x Not applicable
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
Yes, in front public restrooms. Mostly 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
Under floor (cement) HVAC supply – has experienced
some issues due to rise in water table (i.e., system will shut down and windows will fog over).
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
Units undersized in certain areas
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
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Accessibility Review and Photos
Major Issues
(ADA study
recommended)
Moderate Issues
(ADA study
recommended)
Category Minor Issues
Old Library: Accessibility Issues
Parking
Exterior Accessible Route
Building Entrances
Interior Accessible Route
Elevators NA
Public Restrooms
Kitchens/Kitchenettes NA
Playgrounds & Swimming
Pools NA
Other NA
Hospitality NA
None*
*be cognizant that if the “None” box is checked that does not guarantee full compliance; this study is limited in nature 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 Visual Survey - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Property Name: Old Library
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-009.017
Old Library: Photographic Overview
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA 2ND AREA OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING

CURB CUT ACCESSIBLE PATH

MAIN ENTRANCE AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENER
Old Library: Photographic Overview

ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH

TOILET STALL OVERVIEW SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:

Component Condition Report

OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Replacement Reserves

Redeker Senior Center
7401 Enterprise 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 #:
159125.22R000-010.017
DATE OF REPORT:

March 15, 2023
ON SITE DATE:

January 30, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 13

5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 15

6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 17 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 17

7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 19

8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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 Senior Center
Main Address 7401 Enterprise Drive
Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 1979 Renovated: 1992
Site Area 0.84 acres
Parking Spaces Fifty total spaces all in open lots; eight of which are accessible.

Building Area 7,300 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 30, 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) Tonya Connolly
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/
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Redeker Senior center was built in two phases, 1979 and 1992 with additional updates in 2007. It continues to serve as a Senior Center.

Architectural
The original building was built of load bearing masonry units and the1992 addition is wood frame construction. Typical lifecycle-based interior and exterior finish replacements are anticipated.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
Gas-fired furnace with split system air-conditioning. Pad mounted condensers provide space conditioning. Some of the mechanical equipment is extremely aged, short term replacement is recommended. Reportedly the commercial kitchen equipment is very lightly used, the Remaining useful life of many of those items has been extended to reflect the light use pattern.

Site
The asphalt parking area and the surrounding landscaping is in good repair.

Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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:

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Movable Partitions in Poor
condition.

Folding Wall,
Redeker Senior Ctr Multipurpose Room
Uniformat Code: C1010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 83.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $5,200
$$$$
This no longer works properly - AssetCALC ID: 5541312
Standard Fixture w/ Lamp in Poor
condition.
any type, w/ LED Replacement
Redeker Senior Ctr Building exterior
Uniformat Code: D5040
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $500
$$$$
Fixture appears burnt out - AssetCALC ID: 5541330
Foodservice Equipment in Poor
condition.

Refrigerator, 2-Door Reach-In
Redeker Senior Ctr Kitchen
Uniformat Code: E1030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $10,000
$$$$
Not plugged in, possibly failed - AssetCALC ID: 5541341 Roof Appurtenances in Poor
condition.

Gutters & Downspouts, Aluminum w/ Fittings
Redeker Senior Ctr Roof, original bldg
Uniformat Code: B3020
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 81.8
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,900
$$$$
Rusting and leaking - AssetCALC ID: 5541317
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ADA Kitchen & Laundry Areas in
Poor condition.

Sink Maneuverability, Minor Reconfiguration
Redeker Senior Ctr Kitchen
Uniformat Code: Y1060
Recommendation: Modify in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $4,400
$$$$
No wheelchair access under the sink. - AssetCALC ID: 5543980 Split System in Poor condition.

Condensing Unit/Heat Pump
Redeker Senior Ctr Building exterior
Uniformat Code: D3030
Recommendation: Replace in 2025
Priority Score: 54.7
Plan Type:

Retrofit/Adaptation
Cost Estimate: $22,700
$$$$
These units are 30 years old, replacement is strongly advised - AssetCALC ID: 5541322 Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 8 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)
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 9 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 and wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation. Wood roof deck supported by wood joists.

Fair
Facade Primary Wall Finish : CMU
Secondary Wall Finish: Stucco
Windows: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, painted CMU
Floors: Carpet, VCT, vinyl plank flooring
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and ACT
Fair
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste and venting Hot Water: Gas and Electric 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. Commercial kitchen hood system
Fair
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, CFL
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, back-up emergency lights, and exit signs
Fair
Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment Fair
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks and curbs
Good
Site Development Property entrance signage; wood board fencing; CMU wall dumpster enclosures
Good
Landscaping and
Topography
Significant landscaping features including lawns, trees, bushes, and planters 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: LED
Building-mounted: incandescent
Fair
Ancillary Structures None
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property. Good Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment. Good
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 12 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.

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 13 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.

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.

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 // are not included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The facility was originally constructed in 1979. The facility was substantially enlarged and renovated in 1992 and some accessibility improvements appear to have been implemented.

The Presurvey Questionnaire identifies some complaints associated with potential accessibility issues.

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.

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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.

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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.

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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.

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.

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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.

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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 Redeker Senior Center, 7401 Enterprise 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.

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
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

8. A p p e n d i c e s
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
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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
REDEKER SENIOR CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - PARTIAL RIGHT ELEVATION 4 - PARTIAL RIGHT AND REAR ELEVATION 5 - MASONRY WALL WITH WINDOW 6 - PRIMARY ROOF OVERVIEW
REDEKER SENIOR CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - INTERIOR 8 - INTERIOR
9 - INTERIOR 10 - OFFICE
11 - KITCHEN 12 - KITCHEN
REDEKER SENIOR CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - RESTROOM FIXTURES 14 - COOLING CONDENSERS
15 - HEATING MAIN COMPONENTS 16 - MAIN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 17 - FIRE ALARM PANEL 18 - LANDSCAPING OVERVIEW
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:

S i t e P l a n
Redeker Senior Center Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-010.017 Redeker Senior Center
Source On-Site Date
Google February 15, 2023
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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
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: Redeker Senior 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: 2/11/2023
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 1979
2 Building size in SF 6,538
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Stucco/Concrete block
Roof Flat – composite - tile
Interiors Drywall/concrete block partitions
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).

Built in two parts, 1979 and 1992 with additional updates in 2007. Flooring updated in original section in 2001.
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.

Bi-fold partition (in open area) need of replacement.

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
Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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
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 - 010.017
Redeker Senior Ctr
Parking
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
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 or stairs For stairways that are open underneath, are
permanent barriers present that prevent or
discourage access?
9 No Stairs
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 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
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
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH RECEPTION DESK
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
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
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.

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
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 Only one urinal
Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

KITCHEN CABINETS 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
Are the cooktop/range controls front-mounted
(or in a location that does not require reaching
across the burners) ?
7 Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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

Redeker Senior Center BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-010.017 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

Second Chance Shelter
6516 Central 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 #:
159125.22R000-011.017
DATE OF REPORT:

March 9, 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 SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 8

3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 11

4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 12

5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 13

6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 15 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 15

7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 17

8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 18 SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 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 Residential
Main Address 6516 Central Avenue
Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 1960 Renovated: 1991
Site Area 0.51 acres
Parking Spaces Twelve total spaces all in open lots; 2 of which are accessible.

Building Area 3,166 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) Tonya Connolly
Assessment and Report Prepared By Nezar M. Tibi
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/
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Second Chance Shelter consists of a single-story building that originally may have been a single family house. The house was constructed in 1960 with renovation work completed in 1991. There have been some limited renovations during the years as needed.

Architectural
The building is a wood frame structure. The original portions of the building are over a crawl space and the 1991 addition is a slab on grade. The house exteriors consist of painted stucco finishes with vinyl windows. The roof is gable with asphalt shingle finishes. Interior finishes are a mixture of carpet, ceramic tile, quarry tile, vinyl sheeting, flooring and painted walls and ceiling, In general, finishes are replaced as needed. Typical lifecycle costs are expected and budgeted.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
One individual evaporative cooler roof unit and an interior furnace with exhaust fan are providing heating and cooling to the house. All infrastructure is original to the construction of the buildings and are generally in fair condition. The electrical systems has a distribution panel with copper wiring located at the interior hallway. Plumbing is copper supply with PVC waste piping. Problems have been reported with the sewer lines. The fire alarm system is addressable with strobes with alarms, pull stations, and smoke sensors. No issues were observed or reported.

Site
The parking lot has an asphalt surface finishes and it is in fair condition. Concrete sidewalk and walkways are located throughout the property site. Irrigation is located throughout the site areas and is in fair condition. Ponding was reported at the back of the property possibly caused by the parking lot curb. BV did not observe any area drains and it appears that the property depends on the pavement sloping toward the street and site rainfall soaking into the landscaped areas.

Recommended Additional Studies
Sewer line clogging and back-up was reported throughout the house. The house main drain line may not have been sized for the commercial kitchen equipment. If the sewer line is original it has exceeded its estimated remaining useful life and may need to be replaced. A CCTV of the sewer line is recommended to determine the pipe size and condition of the main and branch sewer lines. Excessive parking lot ponding was reported to be problematic. A professional engineer must be retained to analyze the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required pavement resurfacing or the installation of new area drains. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables. Due to the ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this assessment, the cost for any possible subsequent repairs is not included.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 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.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 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
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Piping in Poor condition.

Sanitary Drainage,
Second Chance Shelter Site
Uniformat Code: D2020
Recommendation: Replace in 2025
Priority Score: 86.7
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $14,800
$$$$
Clogs in the sewer line are reported. - AssetCALC ID: 5456303 Casework in Poor condition.

Countertop, Solid Surface
Second Chance Shelter Commercial kitchen
Uniformat Code: E2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 82.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,900
$$$$
The countertop is damaged and scratched, replacement is recommended. - AssetCALC ID: 5265171 Recommended Follow-up Study:

Paving, Site Drainage
Paving, Site Drainage
Second Chance Shelter Parking lot
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $15,300
$$$$
Excessive parking lot ponding was reported to be problematic. A professional engineer must be retained to analyze the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required repairs. - AssetCALC ID: 5265939
Recommended Follow-up Study:

Sewer Line
Sewer Line
Second Chance Shelter Sewer Lines
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $1,600
$$$$
Plumbing clogging and back up was reported throughout the facility. Video of the sewer lines is needed to understand the cause of the problem and to clarify if repairs or replacement are required. - AssetCALC ID:
5252928
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 7 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)
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 8 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 a crawl space Good Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco
Windows: Vinyl
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board
Floors: Carpet, ceramic tile, quarry tile, and vinyl sheeting Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and PVC waste and venting Hot Water: Gas water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, showers, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System: Evaporative cooler unit and furnace. Single through the wall air conditioning unit
Supplemental components: Exhaust fan
Fair
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers, and kitchen hood system Fair SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, and incandescent Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, and exit signs
Fair
Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment Fair
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks.

Fair
Site Development No property signage; chain-link fence dumpster enclosures Fair Landscaping &
Topography
Landscaping features include lawns, trees, bushes
Irrigation present
No 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: None
Building-mounted: Incandescent
Fair
Ancillary Structures There is a wood framed shed resting on the landscaping at the rear of the facility
Good
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property.

Key Issues and
Findings
Countertop replacement, parking lot ponding, plumbing clogging issues SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

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

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 1960. An addition was completed in 1991 with some limited renovation over the last few years, accessibility improvements appear to have been implemented at that time.

No information about complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was provided during the interview process.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 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.

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:

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.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 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.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 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.

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 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.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
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.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 17 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 Second Chance Shelter, 6516 Central Avenue, 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.

Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:

Matt Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8 . A p pe n d ic es
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
Appendix G: Equipment Inventory List
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

P h ot o gr a p h ic R ec o rd
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - TRASH ENCLOSURE 6 - MAIN ENTRANCE
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - WINDOWS 8 - INTERIOR DOORS
9 - ROOFING 10 - ROOF SKYLIGHT
11 - OFFICE 12 - LIVING ROOM
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - HALLWAY 14 - BEDROOM
15 - COMMERCIAL KITCHEN 16 - COMMERCIAL SINK
17 - SHOWER 18 - SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - TOILET STALL OVERVIEW 20 - EXHAUST FAN
21 - EVAPORATIVE COOLER 22 - FURNACE
23 - ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 24 - DISTRIBUTION PANEL
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
25 - FIRE ALARM PANEL 26 - WATER HEATER
27 - PARKING LOTS 28 - PARKING LOTS
29 - SIDEWALK 30 - LANDSCAPING
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:

S it e and Floor P la ns
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-011.017 Second Chance Shelter
Source On-Site Date
Google January 24, 2023
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-011.017 Second Chance Shelter
Source On-Site Date
Owner January 24, 2023
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:

P r e - Su rv ey Q ue s t i o n na i re
B V 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: Second Chance Shelter
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
1960 – original facility (1,600 sq ft)
1991 – addition (1,100 sq ft)
2 Building size in SF 3,166
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Wood frame
Roof Shingle
Interiors
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement Concrete in front – asphalt in rear
Accessibility Ramp installed in rear of property (year unknown) 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.

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 high usage
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
Some ponding in rear of facility
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
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Ac c es s ib ilit y Re v i e w a n d P h ot os
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 - 011.017
Second Chance Shelter
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

ACCESSIBLE PATH ACCESSIBLE RAMP
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
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 Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

MAIN 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
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
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
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
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.

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
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
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
Are the cooktop/range controls front-mounted
(or in a location that does not require reaching
across the burners) ?
7 Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:

Co m p o n en t C on d it i on R e po r t

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Re p lac e me nt Re s e rv e s

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix G:

E q ui pm e nt I nv e nt ory L is t

Service Center
37440 Filbert 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, Maryland 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:

Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-012.017
DATE OF REPORT:

March 15, 2023
ON SITE DATE:

February 15, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 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) ................................................................................................................. 2 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 6 Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 13

2. Evidence and Vehicle Storage .......................................................................................................... 15

3. Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC/Fleet Shop...................................................................................... 17

4. Drive Through Building...................................................................................................................... 19

5. Parking Shed....................................................................................................................................... 21

6. Administration .................................................................................................................................... 23

7. Maintenance Department Office........................................................................................................ 25

8. Chemical Storage ............................................................................................................................... 27

9. Site Summary...................................................................................................................................... 29

10. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 30

11. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 31

12. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 33

13. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 35 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 35

14. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 37

15. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 38 SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 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 Municipal Service Center
Number of Buildings Seven
Main Address 37440 Filbert Street, Newark California 94560 Site Developed 1965-1988
Site Area 4.9 acres (estimated)
Parking Spaces 36 total spaces all in open lots; one of which is accessible Outside Occupants/Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit February 15, 2023
Management Point of Contact Andrea Marie Gifford
650.871.0709 x218
agifford@g4arch
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Tonya Connolly
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Matthew Anderson
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7297613
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The main thrust of development at this location is when the tilt-up buildings, Evidence & Storage, Crews Quarters & Alternate EOC and the Drive Through Building, were built, 1988. These were built specifically for their current functions. The other buildings seem to be an ad-hoc collection of storage and garage like buildings that might have been re-purposed along the way.

Architectural
A recurring short coming is roofs with evidence of leaking inside and lots of visible patching on the roofs themselves. Exterior walls of the tilt-up buildings are in good condition. The walls of buildings finished with T-111 plywood tend to show rot and deterioration. Most interior spaces are work/repair or storage areas with unfinished walls, ceilings and concrete floors. The interior office areas would all benefit from a through up-dating of finishes and fixtures.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
Most of the spaces are not conditioned, but in those spaces that are conditioned much of the HVAC equipment appears to be on life support and replacement is recommended. There were no complaints about the adequacy of the electrical power provided though in several buildings the main distribution panel seems very small for the size and amount of equipment that is being run in the building. A study to determine how much power each building gets and how it arrives there is recommended.

Only few buildings have a fire alarm or fire sprinkler system, providing them throughout is recommended.

Site
Sidewalks are in good condition. The parking lot is deteriorated and striping is in poor condition.

Recommended Additional Studies
As described above, how much electrical power each building is provided with and where it comes from is not clear. A professional engineer 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. Due to the ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this assessment, the cost for any possible subsequent repairs is not included.

The Crew Quarters building had moisture intrusion, including a mushroom-like fungus growing at the base of a structural steel column, between the first and subsequent site visits. At the second site visit the growth had been removed, and the adjacent wall was being repaired where there had been moisture damage. Moisture accumulation was however noted at the skylights, possibly from condensation. A nondestructive roofing study is recommended, and a budgetary cost for addressing the issue is included. Additional costs may be recommended by the study.

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.

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.

SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
FCI Ranges and Description
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.

Overall facility – all buildings
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 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
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 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
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Fire Extinguisher in Failed
condition.

Wet Chemical/CO2
Evidence Storage/Vehicle Storage Service
Center Evidence
Uniformat Code: D4030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $700
$$$$
This fire extinguisher was not tested within the past year - AssetCALC ID: 5297167 Pressure Wash in Poor condition.

Exterior surfaces
Maintenance Department Service Center
Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: n/a in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,300
$$$$
Pressure wash exterior walls - AssetCALC ID: 5272092
Roofing in Poor condition.

Asphalt Shingle, 20-Year Standard
Parking Shed Service Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $34,000
$$$$
The roof leaks and appears to be excessively aged. - AssetCALC ID: 5300564 Exterior Walls in Poor condition.

Plywood/OSB
Chemical Storage Service Center Building
Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $7,400
$$$$
The siding is showing rot complete replacement of the west façade is recommended. - AssetCALC ID: 5271825 SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Exterior Walls in Poor condition.

Plywood/OSB
Parking Shed Service Center Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 89.8
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $8,200
$$$$
Some of the panels have holes in them, and almost all of it is showing rot - AssetCALC ID: 5300571 Roof Sheathing in Poor condition.

Plywood
Parking Shed Service Center Building exterior
Uniformat Code: B1020
Recommendation: Replace in 2025
Priority Score: 89.7
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $9,800
$$$$
Sheathing at roof's edge is rotting. Replace when reroofing. - AssetCALC ID: 5300572 Roofing in Poor condition.

Modified Bitumen
Evidence Storage/Vehicle Storage Service
Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $288,500
$$$$
There have been many spot leaks on this roof - AssetCALC ID: 5297146 Roofing in Poor condition.

Modified Bitumen
Drive-Through Building Service Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $170,200
$$$$
Significant leaking - AssetCALC ID: 5300455
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Structural Framing in Poor
condition.

Wood
Maintenance Department Service Center
Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B1010
Recommendation: Repair in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,200
$$$$
The framing is rotted out on either side of the door - AssetCALC ID: 5272096 Recommended Follow-up Study:

Electrical, General Design
Electrical, General Design
Administration Service Center Throughout the
facility
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Follow up study in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $15,300
$$$$
There were no complaints about the adequacy of the electrical power provided though in several buildings the main distribution panel seems very small for the size and amount of equipment that is being run in the building. - AssetCALC ID: 5300448
Packaged Unit in Failed condition.

RTU, Pad or Roof-Mounted
Evidence Storage/Vehicle Storage Service
Center Roof
Uniformat Code: D3050
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $12,000
$$$$
Currently not working, parts have been ordered - AssetCALC ID: 5297165 Roof Skylight in Failed condition.
per unit, up to 20 SF
Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC/Truck Repair
Service Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3060
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $6,300
$$$$
The skylights are cracked - AssetCALC ID: 5296641
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 13 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.

SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

2. Ev i de nc e a nd V e hic le St or age
Evidence and Vehicle Storage: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1988
Building/Group Size 13,223 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Concrete tilt-up bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists and concrete raft foundation slab
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: Concrete integral to superstructure Secondary Wall Finish: Metal
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Flat construction with modified bituminous finish Poor Interiors Walls, Evidence: Painted gypsum board, painted concrete Walls, Vehicle Storage: Unfinished
Floors, Evidence: Sealed concrete
Floors, Vehicle Storage: Unfinished concrete
Ceilings, Evidence: Painted gypsum board
Ceilings, Vehicle Storage: Unfinished/exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste & venting Hot Water: Electric water heater with integral tank
Fixtures: Toilet and sink in restroom
Fair
HVAC Evidence: Packaged heating and cooling unit
No HVAC in Vehicle Storage
Failed
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Evidence and Vehicle Storage: Systems Summary
Fire Suppression Evidence: Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers Vehicle Storage: Fire extinguishers only
Fair
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: Diesel generator with automatic transfer switch Fair
Fire Alarm Evidence: Smoke detectors with exit signs only Vehicle Storage: None
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 Leaking roof, failed skylights, antiquated HVAC component, no fire alarm system in vehicle storage
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

3. C r ew s Q u art ers / Alt er na t e EOC / F le et S ho p Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC/Fleet Shop: Systems Summary Constructed/Renovated 1988
Building Size Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC 3,900 SF
Fleet Shop 2,300 SF
TOTAL 6,200 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC: Concrete tilt-up bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists. Concrete slab foundation Fleet Shop: Pre-engineered steel structure over concrete slab foundation Fair
Façade Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC Wall Finish: Concrete integral to superstructure
Fleet Shop: Metal
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC : Flat construction with modified bituminous finish
Fleet Shop: Gable construction with metal finish
Poor
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, ceramic tile, unfinished Floors: VCT, ceramic tile, unfinished concrete
Ceilings: ACT, unfinished/exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste & venting Hot Water: Electric water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC/Fleet Shop: Systems Summary HVAC Non-Central System: Packaged units
Supplemental components: Suspended unit heaters
Fair
Fire Suppression Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC: Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers
Fleet Shop: Fire extinguishers only
Fair
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: Diesel generator with automatic transfer switch 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
Leaking roof, antiquated HVAC components, no fire alarm system SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 19 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

4. D r iv e T h ro ug h B u il di ng
Drive Through Building: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1988
Building Size 8,400 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Concrete tilt-up bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists. Foundation is a concrete slab-on-grade.

Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: Concrete integral to superstructure Windows: No windows
Fair
Roof Primary: Flat construction with modified bituminous finish Poor Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, painted concrete Floors: Unfinished concrete, unfinished plywood
Ceilings: Unfinished/exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste & venting Hot Water: None tank
Fixtures: None
--
HVAC Unit heaters Fair
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Drive Through Building: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
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
Leaking roof, leaking skylights, the only electrical panel found seems very undersized for the equipment in the building
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 21 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

5. P a rk i ng Sh e d
Parking Shed: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1973/1980 estimated
Building Size 7,400 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation Pre-engineered steel structure over concrete slab foundation Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: T-111
Windows: None
Poor
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles
Secondary: Shed construction with metal finish
Poor
Interiors Walls: Chain-link, unfinished gypsum board, painted gypsum board Floors: Unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Unfinished/exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing No plumbing --
HVAC No HVAC --
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers throughout
Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers at the south end of the building
Fair
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 22 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Parking Shed: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
--
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 Leaking roof, roof sheathing rotting at west facing soffit, no fire alarm system , questionable electrical power amount and source
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 23 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

6. A dm i n is t r at i o n
Administration: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1970
Building Size 2,400 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Conventional mobile home wood frame structure over crawl space foundation
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: Painted Wood
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Flat med construction with built-up finish with gravel ballast Secondary: Mansard construction with wood shakes
Fair
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, wood paneling, vinyl Floors: Carpet, VCT
Ceilings: ACT
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste & venting Hot Water: Electric water heater with integral
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Packaged heating and cooling units Fair
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 24 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Administration: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm 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
Antiquated HVAC components, building lacks fire suppression, aged electrical infrastructure, no fire alarm system
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 25 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

7. M a i nt e na nc e De p art m ent Of f ic e
Maintenance Department Office: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1965
Building Size 1,920 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation Fair Façade Primary Wall Finish: T-111
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board
Floors: VCT, unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board, unfinished/exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing None --
HVAC Non-Central System: Packaged unit
Supplemental components: Electric wall heater
--
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 26 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Maintenance Department Office: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
--
Fire Alarm None --
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
Aged electrical infrastructure, no fire alarm system
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 27 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

8. C h em ic a l St ora g e
Chemical Storage: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1973
Building Size 840 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation Fair Façade Primary Wall Finish: T-111
Windows: None
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted exposed framing and insulation Ceilings: Exposed framing
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing No plumbing to the interior of the building
The emergency eyewash station at the exterior is plumbed with PVC --
HVAC No HVAC --
Fire Suppression Fire extinguisher only Fair
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 28 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Chemical Storage: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: No electrical panel in the building Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
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
Warped, rotting siding, building lacks main electrical panel, no fire alarm system SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 29 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

9. 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
Fair
Site Development
Property entrance signage; chain link fencing; Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including trees, bushes, and planters Irrigation present, not used
Concrete retaining walls
Low site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities
Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting
Pole-mounted: HPS
Building-mounted: HPS
Fair
Ancillary Structures
Storage shed Fair
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified associated with the site areas and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.

Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 30 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 0. 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
Areas of note that were either inaccessible or not observed for other reasons are listed here:
▪ Parking Shed; Two locked rooms that are police access only SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 31 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 1. 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).

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

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 The campus was originally constructed between 1965 - 1988. The campus has not since been substantially renovated.

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?
Evidence and Vehicle Storage 1988 No No
Crews Quarters/Alternate EOC/Truck Repair 1988 No Yes
Drive Through Building 1988 No No
Parking Shed 1988 No No
SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 32 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus: Accessibility Summary
Administration 1970 No Yes
Maintenance Department Office 1976 No No
Chemical Storage 1973 No No
No information about complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was provided during the interview process.

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.

SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 33 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 2. 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.

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:

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.

SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 34 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.

SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 35 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 3. 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.

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.

SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 36 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.

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.

SERVICE CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-012.017 37 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 4. 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 Service Center, 37440 Filbert 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.

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
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8 . A p pe n d ic es
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
Appendix G: Equipment Inventory List
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

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 high usage
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
Some ponding in rear of facility
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
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Ac c es s ib ilit y Re v i e w a n d P h ot os
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 - 011.017
Second Chance Shelter
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

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
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
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:

Co m p o n en t C on d it i on R e po r t

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Re p lac e me nt Re s e rv e s

SECOND CHANCE SHELTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-011.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix G:

E q ui pm e nt I nv e nt ory L is t

Silliman Center and Scorekeepers Hut
6800 Mowry 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, Maryland 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:

Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-013.017
DATE OF REPORT:

February 22, 2023
ON SITE DATE:

January 30-31, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 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.................................................................................................................................... 6 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 11

2. Silliman Center I & II........................................................................................................................... 12

3. Scorekeepers Hut ............................................................................................................................... 14

4. Site Summary...................................................................................................................................... 16

5. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 17

6. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 18

7. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 20

8. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 22 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 22

9. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 24

10. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 25 SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 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
Main Address 6800 Mowry Avenue, Newark, California 95460 Site Developed 2000 Silliman Phase I
2004 Silliman Phase II
1989 Scorekeepers Hut
Site Area 7.7 acres (estimated)
Parking Spaces 195 total spaces all in open lots; 12 of which are accessible Building Area Silliman Phase I 36,410 SF
Silliman Phase II 32,320 SF
Subtotal 68,730 SF
Scorekeepers Hut 100 SF
Total 68,830 SF
Number of Stories One above grade
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 30-31, 2023
Management Point of Contact Ms. Andrea Gifford
650.871.0709
[email protected]
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Gus Perez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have, Architect 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/
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
Both Phases, I and II, of the Silliman Center were designed at the same time. Phase I was built in 2000, the major element of this section is the gymnasium with the basketball courts. Phase II was built in 2004 and its major element is the aquatic center with a lap pool, water slide and a major waterspout play structure. The facility is currently functioning as intended.

Construction date of the Scorekeepers Hut is 1989. It appears to be unchanged since then. The purpose of the Scorekeepers Hut was and still is to house the equipment that controls the scoreboard.

Architectural
The slate roofs are in great condition replacement is not anticipated for the coming 30 years. Replacement of the modified bitumen roofs has been budgeted during the replacement reserve term. The extensive skylights appear to be in serviceable condition. The stucco exterior shows no failures, painting should be anticipated in the near term. The aquatic area has suffered recent significant moisture which caused rust and failure in the alarmed panic bars of the exterior doors. As a safety measure immediate replacement is recommended. Interior finishes of the heavily used activity areas are well maintained. Finishes in the corridors and smaller spaces are ready for replacement.

The exterior siding and roof of the Scorekeepers Hut is in adequate condition. Regular maintenance is recommended.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
With the exception of the aquatic area HVAC is provided by rooftop package units. The Phase I units were replaced in 2017 and function well. Replacement of the Phase II units is budgeted. The aquatic area HVAC is provided by two air handlers, one has failed. Replacement of the failed unit is anticipated within the year, the other unit should be replaced within five years. The remaining systems, electrical, plumbing and fire are well maintained and replacement is based on anticipated lifecycles.

Site
In general, the site has been well maintained. The extensive landscaping is served by in-ground irrigation systems. Asphalt paved parking areas and drive aisles are fairly well maintained, spot repairs are evident and sealing and striping is needed.

A significant portion of the site lighting has been upgraded to LED, and it is recommended that the remaining lighting is upgraded to improve energy efficiency.

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.

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 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.

Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 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
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Sidewalk in Poor condition.

Concrete, Small Areas/Sections
Silliman Center West side of building
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 94.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $5,200
$$$$
Uplift and cracking, this is a trip hazard - AssetCALC ID: 5147449 Door Hardware in Failed condition.

Office
Silliman Phase II Silliman Center Silliman ll
Uniformat Code: C1030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 93.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $5,100
$$$$
Excess humidity in the pool has caused the electronics in the door handles to fail, all needs to be replaced - AssetCALC ID: 5139322
Flooring in Poor condition.

Carpet, Commercial Standard
Silliman Phase I Silliman Center Silliman l
Office
Uniformat Code: C2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $14,400
$$$$
Wavy, staff room - AssetCALC ID: 5139332
Exterior Walls in Poor condition.

Plywood T-111
Silliman Center Scorekeepers Hut
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 89.8
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $1,600
$$$$
The T-111 has begun to rot, replacement recommended - AssetCALC ID: 5270248 SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Storage Tank in Failed condition.

Domestic Water
Silliman Phase II Silliman Center Silliman ll hot
water storage
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $7,200
$$$$
Not connected, not working - AssetCALC ID: 5139242
Air Handler in Poor condition.

Exterior AHU
Silliman Phase II Silliman Center Silliman ll roof
Uniformat Code: D3050
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $285,800
$$$$
Currently not working, will be repaired , then replaced - AssetCALC ID: 5139214 Dumpster Enclosure in Poor
condition.

Gates, Wood/Metal
Silliman Phase I Silliman Center Site
Uniformat Code: G2060
Recommendation: Replace/Install in 2024
Priority Score: 81.8
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $4,100
$$$$
The hinges have failed - AssetCALC ID: 5139274
ADA Miscellaneous
Level III Study, Includes Measurements
Silliman Phase II Silliman Center Throughout
Uniformat Code: Y1090
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $18,100
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5147149
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ADA Kitchen & Laundry Areas
Sink/Counter/Maneuverability, Full
Reconfiguration
Silliman Phase I Silliman Center Silliman l
Uniformat Code: Y1060
Recommendation: Renovate in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $36,100
$$$$
The kitchen cabinet does not allow roll under - AssetCALC ID: 5139361 ADA Paths of Travel in Failed
condition.

Ramp/Stair Handrails, Full Rail Modifications
Silliman Phase II Silliman Center
Uniformat Code: Y1020
Recommendation: Modify in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $7,900
$$$$
There is currently no accessible ramp or hand rail - AssetCALC ID: 5147334 ADA Kitchen & Laundry Areas in
Failed condition.

Range, Self-Cleaning w/ Front Controls
Silliman Phase I Silliman Center Silliman l
Uniformat Code: Y1060
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,700
$$$$
The controls are not at the front - AssetCALC ID: 5139333 ADA Paths of Travel in Failed
condition.

Ramp, Concrete Up to 48" Wide
Silliman Phase II Silliman Center Scorekeepers
Hut
Uniformat Code: Y1020
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $57,800
$$$$
There is currently no ramp to access the interior. - AssetCALC ID: 5147190 SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 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)
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

2. S i ll im a n C e nt er I & I I
Systems Summary
System Description Condition
Structure Silliman I and II:

Steel frame with concrete-topped metal decks over concrete pier and grade beam foundation
Silliman I Basketball Court:

Concrete tilt-up bearing walls with metal roof deck supported by open-web steel joists concrete foundation slab
Good
Façade Primary Wall Finish: Stucco
Windows: Aluminum, Fiberglass
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with slate shingles
Secondary: Flat construction with modified bituminous finish Good
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, vinyl, ceramic tile Floors: Carpet, VCT, faux wood plank LVT, ceramic tile, slate tile, wood strip, coated concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and ACT, exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: Gas domestic boilers with storage tanks
Hot Water: Gas water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Phase I Non-Central System: Packaged units
Phase II Central System: Air handlers
Fair
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers Fair SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboards with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: Inverter for emergency lights
Good
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, back-up emergency lights, and exit signs
Fair
Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment (snack bar), Swimming pool Fair Accessibility An accessibility study is recommended for this property. See Appendix D.

Key Issues and
Findings
Failed air handler, failed emergency exit door panic hardware SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

3. Sc o rek ee pe rs H u t
Scorekeepers Hut: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1989
Building Size 100 SF
Number of Stories One above grade
System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over crawl space foundation Fair Façade Primary Wall Finish: T-111
Windows: None
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, Unfinished
Floors: VCT, Unfinished
Ceilings: Painted exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: No plumbing --
HVAC No HVAC --
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: incandescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scorekeepers Hut: Systems Summary
Fire Alarm None --
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
Interior finishes are heavily worn, no fire alarm system SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

4. 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
Fair
Site Development
There is property entrance signage
Fencing is chain link and CMU wall fencing; CMU wall dumpster enclosures Playgrounds and sports fields and courts with bleachers, dugouts, press box, fencing, and site lights
Limited park benches, picnic tables, trash receptacles
Indoor swimming pool
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Significant landscaping features including lawns, trees, bushes, and planters 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: LED, metal halide
Building-mounted: LED, metal halide
Pedestrian walkway and landscape accent lighting
Fair
Ancillary Structures
None --
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this property and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.

Key Issues and
Findings
Very uneven sidewalk on west side of building
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

5. 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 roofs.

Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

6. 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).

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

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 checklist that is 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 The facility was originally constructed in 2000 and 2004. The facility has not since been substantially renovated.

The following table summarizes the accessibility conditions of the general site and at each building on campus:

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 19 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus: Accessibility Summary
Facility Year Built/
Renovated
Prior Study
Provided?
Major/Moderate
Issues Observed?
General Site 2000 No No
Silliman I and II 2000/2004 No Yes
Scorekeepers Hut 1989 No Yes
During the interview process with the client representatives, no complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was reported.

Detailed follow-up accessibility study is included as a recommendation 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.

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

7. 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.

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:

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.

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 21 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.

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 22 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

8. 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.

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.

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 23 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.

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 24 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

9. 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 Silliman Center and Scorekeepers Hut, 6800 Mowry Avenue, Newark, California 95460, 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.

Prepared by: Kay van der Have, Architect,
Project Manager
Reviewed by:

Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable,
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x 7292719
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 24 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

10. 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
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

Photographic Record
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - RIGHT ELEVATION
3 - LEFT ELEVATION 4 - REAR ELEVATION
5 - SLATE ROOFING 6 - MODIFIED BITUMINOUS ROOFING
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - KALWALL ROOFING 8 - NURSERY AREA
9 - COMMUNITY ROOM 10 - STAFF KITCHEN
11 - WORKOUT ROOM 12 - MEETING ROOM
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - BASKETBALL COURTS 14 - BASKETBALL COURTS
15 - POOLS 16 - POOLS
17 - RESTROOM FIXTURES 18 - LOCKER ROOM
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - WATER HEATER, SILLIMAN PHASE I 20 - BOILERS SILLIMAN PHASE II 21 - PACKAGE UNITS, MAIN HVAC FOR BOTH
PHASE
22 - MAIN ELECTRICAL PHASE I
23 - ELECTRICAL PHASE II 24 - FIRE ALARM PANEL
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
25 - FIRE ALARM PANEL 26 - POOL PUMPS
27 - PLAY STRUCTURE 28 - PARKING AREA
29 - SCOREKEEPERS HUT 30 - SIGNAGE
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:

Site and Floor Plans
Silliman Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-013.017 Silliman Center and Scorekeepers Hut Source On-Site Date
Google January 30-31, 2023
Silliman Phase I Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-013.017 Silliman Center and Scorekeepers Hut Source On-Site Date
CSM January 30-31, 2023
Silliman Phase II Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-013.017 Silliman Center and Scorekeepers Hut Source On-Site Date
CSM January 30-31, 2023
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:

Pre-Survey Questionnaire
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Silliman 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: 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 Phase I – 2000 and phase II - 2004 2 Building size in SF 36,410 (phase I) and 32,320 (phase II) 3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade
Roof
Interiors
HVAC
2018 – phase I
2019 – air handler II
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?
Water tanks in phase II and water heater in phase I
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.

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?
x
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Scorekeepers Hut
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5
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 1989
2 Building size in SF 80
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Wood
Roof Low composite
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.

Some portions of exterior walls needs replacement due to age 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
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Accessibility Review and Photos
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: Silliman Center and Scorekeepers Hut
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-013.017
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA 2ND AREA OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING 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
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 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 A ramp is needed at scorekeepers hut Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6 No ramps
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 or stairs For stairways that are open underneath, are
permanent barriers present that prevent or
discourage access?
9 Exposed stair at pool area
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 The main entry is accessible Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3 The main entry 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
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
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH LOWERED COUNTER
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
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
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.

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
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
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 Sink cabinet not open to the floor Does the sink faucet have compliant
handles ? 5
Is the plumbing piping under the sink
configured to protect against contact ? 6 No insulation Are the cooktop/range controls front-mounted
(or in a location that does not require reaching
across the burners) ?
7 Controls at the rear
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO PLAYGROUND POOL LIFT
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 Unknown
Are publicly accessible swimming pools
equipped with an entrance lift ? 3
SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:

Component Condition Report

SILLIMAN CENTER AND SCOREKEEPERS HUT BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-013.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Replacement Reserves

Sports Field Restroom
3911 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 #:
159125.22R000-014.017
DATE OF REPORT:

February 28, 2023
ON SITE DATE:

January 29, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 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.............................................................................................................................................. 8

2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 9

3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 12

4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 13

5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 14

6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 16 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 16

7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 18

8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 19 SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 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 3911 Cherry Street, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 1992
Site Area acres
Parking Spaces 55 total spaces all in open lots; 2 of which are accessible.

Building Area 680 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 29, 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) Gus Perez
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/
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
According to the PSQ, this building was built as a restroom facility in 1992. It continues to serve in that capacity.

Architectural
The CMU building appears to have been built in anticipation of hard usage. The structure itself appears able to continue to serve in its capacity as a restroom for several more years. The interiors need attention. Graffiti was observed on the interior walls.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The plumbing fixtures are surviving, replacement during the reserve term can be anticipated. The building is provided with a fire alarm and fire sprinklers.

Site
The site appears well maintained.

Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 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.

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 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
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
Key Findings
Fire Extinguisher in Failed
condition.

Type ABC, up to 20 LB
Sports Field Restroom Utility closet
Uniformat Code: D4030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $400
$$$$
It has not been inspected in the pat year - AssetCALC ID: 5133365 Roofing in Poor condition.

Clay/Concrete Tile
Sports Field Restroom Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2025
Priority Score: 89.7
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $28,700
$$$$
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The tiles are breaking and falling off - AssetCALC ID: 5133380 Sidewalk in Poor condition.

Sectional Repairs
Sports Field Restroom Sidewalk
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Repair in 2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,400
$$$$
significant cracking - AssetCALC ID: 5133366
Dumpster Enclosure Gates in Poor
condition.

Metal
Sports Field Restroom Site
Uniformat Code: G2060
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 81.8
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $8,200
$$$$
They have been misused and one gate was laying on the ground under the dumpster. - AssetCALC ID:
5133345
ADA Restrooms
Lavatory, Pipe Wraps/Insulation
Sports Field Restroom restrooms
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $400
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5133463
ADA Parking
Designated Stall, Pavement Markings &
Signage
Sports Field Restroom Parking lot
Uniformat Code: Y1010
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $2,400
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5133467
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Flooring in Poor condition.

Paint or Sealant
Sports Field Restroom Throughout building
Uniformat Code: C2030
Recommendation: Prep & Paint in 2025
Priority Score: 54.6
Plan Type:

Retrofit/Adaptation
Cost Estimate: $2,500
$$$$
Worn and abused - AssetCALC ID: 5133379
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 8 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)
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 9 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 on a concrete slab on grade.

Fair
Facade Primary Wall Finish : CMU
Secondary Wall Finish: None
Windows: None
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with concrete tiles Poor Interiors Walls: CMU,
Ceilings: Painted wood
Fair
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC No HVAC n/a
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers. Fair Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Alarm Smoke detectors with exit signs Fair
Equipment/Special None n/a
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs
Fair
Site Development Property entrance signage; chain link fencing; CMU wall dumpster enclosure Limited park benches, picnic tables, trash receptacles
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features include lawns
Irrigation present
Low site slopes throughout
Good
Utilities Municipal water and sewe
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: metal halide
Building-mounted: incandescent
Fair
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property. Fair Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment. n/a
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

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

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 1992. The facility has not since been substantially renovated.

No information about complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was provided during the interview process.

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 14 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.

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:

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.

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 15 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.

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

6. Op 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.

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.

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 17 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.

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.

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 18 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 Sports Field Restroom, 3911 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.

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
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 19 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
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

Photographic Record
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 – RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
5 – PARK AREA 6 - PRIMARY PARKING AREA
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - INTEIROR 8 – TOILET STALL
9 – OVERHEAD DOOR 10 – METAL DOOR
11 - FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM 12 – ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:

Site Plan
Sports Field Restroom Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-014.017 Sports Field Restroom
Source On-Site Date
Google January 31, 2023
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:

Pre-Survey Questionnaire

THE PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE WAS

NOT RETURNED TO EBV
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Accessibility Review and Photos
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: Sports Field Restroom
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-014.017
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA CLOSE-UP OF Curb Cut Question Yes No NA Comments
Does the required number of standard ADA
designated spaces appear to be provided ?
55 total spaces provided. One
standard and one van accessible. 3
accessible spaces are required
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
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 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
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
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE MAIN 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 Existing entrances are accessible Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3 Existing entrances are 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 No hardware
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
Do pairs of accessible entrance doors in
series appear to have the minimum clear
space between them ?
7 No pairs of doors in series
Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear
to have a compliant height ? 8
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH
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
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 No public transaction areas 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 No interior doors
Do doors at interior accessible routes appear
to have compliant hardware ? 11 No interior doors
Do non-fire hinged, sliding, or folding doors on
interior accessible routes appear to have
compliant opening force ?
12 No interior doors
Do doors on interior accessible routes appear
to have a compliant clear opening width ? 13 No interior doors Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.

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
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
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.

Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO PLAYGROUND ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO 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 Unknown
Are publicly accessible swimming pools
equipped with an entrance lift ? 3 No pool
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:

Component Condition Report

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Replacement Reserves

Watkins Hall
37013 Ash 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 #:
159125.22R000-015.017
DATE OF REPORT:

March 23, 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 Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 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 ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 11

2. Building and Site Information ........................................................................................................... 12

3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 15

4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 16

5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 17

6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 19 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 19

7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 21

8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 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 Community Centers / Special Interest Facilities Main Address 37013 Ash Street
Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 1896
Site Area 0.35 acres
Parking Spaces 45 total spaces all in open lots; none of which are accessible.

Building Area 8,640 SF
Number of Stories 3
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 23, 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) Tonya Connolly
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/
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Watkins Hall was built in 1896.The building has been abandoned for more than 12 years and is not being used at present time. .

Architectural
The building is a wood structure with wood framed roof over a concrete slab foundation. Exterior walls are painted stucco, wood siding, or stone veneer with wood windows. Interior finishes are mostly in failed or poor condition and will require replacement. Some wallboard is missing.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The only heating system is provided by one failed furnace. The electrical system is copper wiring and appears to be from the 1970s. There was no power to the building at the time of the assessment. Plumbing is copper supply with cast iron waste system. The water is shut down for the building with failed and poor condition plumbing fixtures. The plumbing fixtures appear to be from the 1940s or 1950s.

Site
The parking lot is in poor condition and will require new asphalt pavement. Concrete sidewalk is in fair condition. Irrigation is present but is not operational.

Recommended Additional Studies
Due to the current condition of the facility, there are possible issues with indoor air quality or mold growth. Before the building can be occupied a 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. Due to the ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this assessment, the cost for any possible subsequent repairs is not included.

The interior walls are in failed condition. Cracks were found throughout the interior walls that may be the result of settling. A professional engineer consultant must be retained to analyze the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required repairs. Due to the ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this assessment only replacement or repair of finishes is included. The cost for any possible subsequent structural repairs is not included.

If the building is going to be occupied for a public use Bureau Veritas recommends an ADA study be performed to take measurements, provide additional itemized details, research local requirements, and, estimate the scope and cost of required improvements. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables. The second floor is not accessible to the disabled and any use on the second floor will likely require the installation of an elevator or lift.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 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.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 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
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Structural Flooring/Decking in
Poor condition.

Concrete
Watkins Hall Staircase
Uniformat Code: B1010
Recommendation: Repair in 2023
Priority Score: 98.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $9,800
$$$$
Staircase has multiple broken steps, repair is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252726 Structural Flooring/Decking in
Poor condition.

Wood
Watkins Hall Throughout
Uniformat Code: B1010
Recommendation: Repair in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $4,800
$$$$
Numerous holes in the flooring apparently from an old removed HVAC system. - AssetCALC ID: 5420302 Exterior Walls in Poor condition.

Stucco and Wood
Watkins Hall Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Prep & Paint in 2024
Priority Score: 89.7
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $81,800
$$$$
New fresh paint is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252713
Window in Poor condition.

Wood, up to 15 SF
Watkins Hall Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2020
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 87.8
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $22,700
$$$$
Warped and deteriorated windows, repair is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252716 Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Furnace in Failed condition.

Gas
Watkins Hall Utility closet
Uniformat Code: D3020
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 86.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $5,500
$$$$
Broken unit. Replacement is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252728 Wall Finishes in Poor condition.

Wood Paneling, Raised Architectural Wainscot
Watkins Hall Throughout building
Uniformat Code: C2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $152,700
$$$$
Broken and missing panels, repair is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252707 Interior Wall Construction in
Failed condition.

Gypsum Board/Plaster
Watkins Hall Throughout
Uniformat Code: C1010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $15,300
$$$$
Missing and damaged gypsum board throughput the interior walls. Replacement is required. - AssetCALC ID:
5256940
Plumbing System in Failed
condition.

Supply & Sanitary, Low Density (includes
fixtures)
Watkins Hall Throughout building
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $132,000
$$$$
The plumbing system has not been used for the last 12 years, repair will be mostly required. - AssetCALC ID:
5256858
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Parking Lots in Poor condition.

Pavement, Asphalt
Watkins Hall Parking lot
Uniformat Code: G2020
Recommendation: Full Replacement in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $102,100
$$$$
Deteriorated parking lot asphalt surface, repair is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252710 Toilet in Failed condition.

Residential Water Closet
Watkins Hall Restrooms
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 83.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $4,600
$$$$
Units are broken, replacement is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252709 Sink/Lavatory in Failed condition.

Vanity Top, Solid Surface or Vitreous China
Watkins Hall Restrooms
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 83.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $4,800
$$$$
Broken sinks, replacement is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252717 Urinal in Poor condition.

Standard
Watkins Hall Restrooms
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 83.9
Plan Type:

Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,400
$$$$
Urinal is not fully working, replacement is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252723 Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 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)
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 12 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 Wood framed structure. There is a likely a concrete foundation slab but it could not be observed.

Fair
Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco
Secondary Wall Finish: Wood siding and stones
Windows: Wood
Poor
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, wood paneling, and Unfinished Floors: Carpet, and wood strip
Ceilings: wood paneling and Unfinished/exposed
Poor
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, urinal, shower and sinks in all restrooms Failed
HVAC Non-Central System: Furnace
Supplemental components: None
Failed
Fire Suppression None n/a
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Incandescent
Emergency Power: None
Poor
Fire Alarm None n/a
Equipment/Special None n/a
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs, and stairs.

Poor
Site Development None n/a
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including lawns
Irrigation present
No retaining walls
Low to moderate site slopes throughout /
Poor
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Missing
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: None
Building-mounted: Incandescent
Poor
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Major issues have been identified at this property and a detailed accessibility study is recommended.

Key Issues and
Findings
Suspect interior mold issues, antiquated HVAC components and infrastructure, building lacks fire suppression, aged electrical infrastructure, heavy asphalt wear, widespread irrigation leaks, inadequate site lighting, broken plumbing fixture, major renovation for all interior finishes, flooring structure issues, exterior wall finishes, exterior door problems.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

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

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 1896. The facility has not since been substantially renovated. The facility has been abandoned for over 12 years. Before any occupancy of the building occurs an ADA study is recommended.

For informational purposes an allowance for ADA upgrades has been estimated and is included as a lump sum cost in year 3 of the reserve tables. The actual cost may be higher depending on costs to replace plumbing piping or other systems in the walls that were not visible during the assessment.

No information about complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was provided during the interview process.

A detailed follow-up accessibility study is included as a recommendation because 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.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 17 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.

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:

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.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 18 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.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 19 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.

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.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 20 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.

Watkins Hall BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-015.017 21 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 Watkins Hall, 37013 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.

Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:

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
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

Pre-Survey Questionnaire

THE PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE WAS

NOT RETURNED TO EBV
SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Accessibility Review and Photos
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.

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 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
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
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

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
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
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.

Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

Component Condition Report

SPORTS FIELD RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-014.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Replacement Reserves

City Hall
37101 Newark 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, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:

Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-016.017
DATE OF REPORT:

March 15, 2023
ON SITE DATE:

January 27, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 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.................................................................................................................................... 4 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 5

2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 6

3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ......................................................................................... 9

4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 10

5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 11

6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 13 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 13

7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 15

8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 16 CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 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 Administration Office
Main Address 37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 2020
Site Area 3.84 acres
Parking Spaces 280 total spaces all in open lots; 8 of which are accessible.

Building Area 25,638 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 27, 2023
Management Point of Contact Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc.

Mary Venable
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The City Hall consists of a multi-story building. The building was constructed in 2020 as part of the Newark Library and Police Station buildings.

Architectural
The building consists of steel framed construction on a concrete slab. The exterior enclosures consist of painted stucco, aluminum curtainwall and windows, entry doors, and steel service doors. The stucco has been designed to resemble panel or stone siding. Roofs primarily consists of flat single-ply membrane, PVC assemblies. The interior finishes and fixtures are original to the 2020 construction and are anticipated for lifecycle replacement.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The MEPF systems and components are original to the 2020 building construction and have been well-maintained since that time. Heating and cooling is provided by rooftop air handler and VAV units with package unit and split system units as backup. The MEPF infrastructure itself is generally in good working condition with no major expenditures anticipated in the short term. In general, the plumbing and electrical systems are adequate to serve the building. A main switchboard and distribution panels are located within the electrical room. The building is protected by both fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems. Only lifecycle replacement of the majority of the MEPF is anticipated.

Site
In general, the sites have been well maintained. The site contains moderate to heavy landscaping, which is served by inground irrigation system. The asphalt paved parking areas is well maintained. The concrete sidewalk is in good condition.

Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 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.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 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
Immediate Needs
No Immediate Needs were identified
Key Findings
The building is relatively new and no problems or short term expenditures were identified.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 5 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)
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

Good
Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco
Secondary Wall Finish: Curtain wall
Windows: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Flat construction with single-ply TPO/PVC membrane Good Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, Laminated paneling (FRP), ceramic tile Floors: Carpet, VCT, ceramic tile, and terrazzo
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and ACT
Good
Elevators Passenger: One hydraulic car serving both floors Good Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and PVC waste and venting Hot Water: Gas water heater with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, Shower, and sinks in all restrooms Good
HVAC Central System: Boilers, air handlers, and heating pumps feeding VAV units Supplemental components: Package units, Ductless split-systems and Exhaust fans
Good
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers Good CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard and panels with copper wiring Interior Lighting: LED, and linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: UPS only
Good
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, and exit signs
Good
Equipment/Special None Good
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, and curbs
Good
Site Development Limited park benches, Bike Racks, trash receptacles Good Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including lawns, trees, bushes, and planters Irrigation present
No retaining walls
Low to moderate site slopes throughout
Good
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: LED
Building-mounted: LED
Pedestrian walkway lighting
Good
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property.

Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

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

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 building was originally constructed in 2020. The building is relatively new and does not require any renovation.

During the interview process with the client representatives, no complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was reported.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 11 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.

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:

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.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 12 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.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 13 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.

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.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 14 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.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 15 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 City Hall, 37101 Newark Boulevard, 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.

Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:

Matt Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 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
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

Photographic Record
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - CURTAIN WALL 6 - EXTERIOR DOOR
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - WINDOWS 8 - EXTERIOR DOORS
9 - INTERIOR DOORS 10 - STAIRCASE
11 - CHARGING STATION 12 - ROOFING
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - LOBBY 14 - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
15 - ENGINEERING 16 - OFFICES
17 - CONFERENCE ROOM 18 - BREAK ROOM
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - TOILET PARTITIONS 20 - SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES 21 - TOILET STALL OVERVIEW 22 - URINAL
23 - AIR HANDLER 24 - PACKAGED UNIT
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
25 - SPLIT SYSTEM DUCTLESS 26 - VARIABLE AIR VOLUME UNIT 27 - PUMP 28 - WATER HEATER
29 - BOILER 30 - SWITCHBOARD
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
31 - ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 32 - FIRE ALARM PANEL
33 - PARKING LOTS 34 - SIGNAGE
35 - SITE BENCHES 36 - LANDSCAPING
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:

Site and Floor Plans
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-016.017 City Hall
Source On-Site Date
Google January 27, 2023
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-016.017 City Hall
Source On-Site Date
Owner January 27, 2023
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:

Pre-Survey Questionnaire
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: City Hall
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property:

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 2021
2 Building size in SF 25,638
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade
Roof
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.

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
CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Accessibility Review and Photos
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: City Hall
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-016.017
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
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE PATH 2ND PATHWAY
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
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 Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

LOBBY LOOKING AT CABS IN-CAB CONTROLS
Question Yes No NA Comments
Are hallway call buttons configured with the
“UP” button above the “DOWN” button? 1
Is accessible floor identification signage
present on the hoistway sidewalls on each
level ?
2 Do the elevators have audible and visual
arrival indicators at the lobby and hallway
entrances?
3 Do the elevator hoistway and car interior
appear to have a minimum compliant clear
floor area ?
4 Do the elevator car doors have automatic reopening devices to prevent closure on obstructions?
5 Do elevator car control buttons appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 6
Are tactile and Braille characters mounted to
the left of each elevator car control button ? 7
Are audible and visual floor position indicators
provided in the elevator car? 8
Is the emergency call system on or adjacent
to the control panel and does it not require
voice communication ?
9 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
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
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

KITCHEN CABINETS KITCHEN OVERVIEW
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
Are the cooktop/range controls front-mounted
(or in a location that does not require reaching
across the burners) ?
7 Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:

Component Condition Report

CITY HALL BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-016.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Replacement Reserves

Newark Library
37055 Newark 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 #:
159125.22R000-017.017
DATE OF REPORT:

March 9, 2023
ON SITE DATE:

January 26, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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.................................................................................................................................... 4 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 NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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 Library
Main Address 37055 Newark Boulevard, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 2020
Site Area 0.66 acres
Parking Spaces Parking is shared with the adjacent City Hall building.

Building Area 25,580 square feet
Number of Stories 2
Outside Occupants/Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 26, 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) Tonya Connolly
Assessment and Report Prepared By Nezar M. Tibi
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/
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Newark Library consists of a multi-story building. The library was constructed in 2020 as part of the Newark City Hall and Police Station buildings.

Architectural
The building structure consists of steel framed construction on a concrete slab. The exterior enclosures consist of painted stucco, aluminum curtainwall, windows, entry doors, and steel service doors. Roofs primarily consist of flat PVC single-ply membrane assemblies. The interior finishes and fixtures are original to the 2020 construction and are anticipated for lifecycle replacement.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The MEPF systems and components are original to the 2020 building construction and have been well-maintained since that time. Heating and cooling is provided by rooftop air handler and fan coils units with multi-zone split system. The MEPF infrastructure itself is in good working condition with no major expenditures anticipated in the short term. In general, the plumbing and electrical systems are adequate to serve the building. A main switchboard and distribution panels are located within the electrical room. Building is protected by both fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems. Lifecycle replacement of the majority of the MEPF is anticipated.

Site
The parking lot is shared by the adjacent City Hall and Police Station buildings. Costs for parking lot maintenance and repair are included in Bureau Veritas' report on the City Hall. The concrete sidewalk is in good condition with a trash enclosure located at the rear of the building.

Recommended Additional Studies
A moisture intrusion was reported at the floor electrical conduits. 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. A wire insulation resistance test should be part of this study. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables. Due to the ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this assessment, the cost for any possible subsequent repairs is not included.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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
Immediate Needs
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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)
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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 Steel frame with concrete-topped metal decks. Concrete pad column footings and a concrete slab on grade.

Good
Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco
Secondary Wall Finish: Curtain wall
Windows: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Flat construction with single-ply TPO/PVC membrane Good Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, ceramic tile and Unfinished Floors: Carpet, VCT, Rubber tile, ceramic tile, terrazzo, and unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and ACT
Good
Elevators Passenger: One hydraulic car serving all two floors Good Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and PVC waste and venting Hot Water: Electric water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, shower and sinks in all restrooms Good
HVAC Central System: Air handler, and fan coil units
Supplemental components: Ductless split-systems, Multi-Zone Split-system, and exhaust fan
Good
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers, and kitchen hood system Good Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard and panels with copper wiring Interior Lighting: LED, and linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: UPS only
Good
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, back-up emergency lights, and exit signs.

Good
Equipment/Special None -
Site Pavement Concrete sidewalks, and curbs. Access drive to the rear of the facility. Good Site Development Metal gate dumpster enclosure Good
Landscaping and
Topography
Drought Tolerant plants and trees. Good
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting Please refer to the City Hall report. -
Ancillary Structures None -
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property.

Key Issues and
Findings
Moisture intrusion study at electrical conduit.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

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.

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 building was originally constructed in 2020. The building is relatively new and does not require any renovation.

During the interview process with the client representatives, no complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was reported.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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.

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:

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.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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.

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.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 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.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 16 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 Newark Library, 37055 Newark Boulevard, 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.

Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:

Matt Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 17 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
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

Photographic Record
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - WINDOWS 6 - EXTERIOR DOORS
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - EXTERIOR DOOR 8 - INTERIOR DOOR
9 - INTERIOR DOOR 10 - ROOFING
11 - LOBBY 12 - LIBRARY
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - OFFICES 14 - STAIRCASE
15 - STORY ROOM 16 - WORK ROOM
17 - LAVATORIES 18 - LAVATORY
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - TOILET 20 - URINALS
21 - AIR HANDLER 22 - SPLIT SYSTEM MULTI-ZONE
23 - EXHAUST FAN 24 - FAN COIL UNIT
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
25 - SWITCHBOARD 26 - DISTRIBUTION PANEL
27 - WATER HEATER 28 - FIRE ALARM PANEL
29 - SIDEWALK 30 - DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:

Site and Floor Plans
Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-017.017 Newark Library
Source On-Site Date
Google January 26, 2023
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-017.017 Newark Library
Source On-Site Date
Owner January 26, 2023
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:

Pre -Survey Questionnaire
BV Facility Condition Assessment: Pre - Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Newark Library
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 1 year
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 2021
2 Building size in SF 25,580
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade
Roof
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.

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
Floor electrical conduits have signs of moisture intrusion 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
NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Accessibility Review and Photos
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: Newark Library
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-017.017
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Parking section not applicable at this site.

Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE PATH 2ND PATHWAY
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
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 Building Entrances
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
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
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

KITCHEN PATH OF TRAVEL 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
Are the cooktop/range controls front-mounted
(or in a location that does not require reaching
across the burners) ?
7 Playgrounds and Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds and Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:

Component Condition Report

NEWARK LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-017.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Replacement Reserves
Replacement Reserves Report
Newark Library
8/21/2023
Location
Newark Library
2023
$11,163
2024
$0
2025
$0
2026
$0
2027
$2,626
Grand Total
Uniformat
Code
B2010
B3010
B3010
C1090
C2010
C2030
C2030
C2030
C2050
D1010
D1010
D2010
D2010
D2010
D3030
D3030
D3030
D3050
D3060
D5010
D5040
D5040
D7030
D7050
D7050
D8010
E1040
E1060
E1060
E2010
G2010
G2060
G2080
G2080
$11,163 $0 $0 $0 $2,626
ID Cost Description
5303324 Exterior Walls, Painted surface, Prep & Paint
5409066 Floor Electrical System, Non-Destructive Moisture Inspection, Evaluate/Report 5303369 Roofing, Single-Ply Membrane, TPO/PVC, Replace
5303351 Toilet Partitions, Metal, Replace
5303335 Wall Finishes, any surface, Prep & Paint
5303347 Flooring, Vinyl Tile (VCT), Replace
5303338 Flooring, Rubber Tile, Replace
5303340 Flooring, Carpet, Commercial Standard, Replace
5303339 Ceiling Finishes, Painted surface, Prep & Paint 5303371 Elevator Controls, Automatic, 1 Car, Replace
5303354 Elevator Cab Finishes, High-End, Replace
5303355 Water Heater, Electric, Commercial ( 36 kW), Replace 5303364 Drinking Fountain, Wall-Mounted, Single-Level, Replace 5303322 Drinking Fountain, Wall-Mounted, Bi-Level, Replace 5303375 Split System Ductless, Single Zone, Replace
5303343 Split System Ductless, Multi Zone, per 1 to 2 TON FCU, Replace 5303377 Split System, Fan Coil Unit, DX, 1 to 1.5 TON, Replace 5303352 Air Handler, Exterior AHU, 401 to 800 CFM, Replace 5303370 Exhaust Fan, Roof or Wall-Mounted, 1 O" Damper, Replace 5303374 Uninterruptible Power Supply, UPS,, Replace
5303341 Interior Lighting System, Full Upgrade, Medium Density & Standard Fixtures, Replace 5303328 Special Fixture w/ Lamp, any type Interior High Bay, w/ LED Replacement, Replace 5303349 Security/Surveillance System, Full System Upgrade, Average Density, Replace 5303353 Fire Alarm Panel, Fully Addressable, Replace
5303333 Fire Alarm System, Full System Upgrade, Standard Addressable, Upgrade/Install 5303345 BAS/HVAC Controls, Extensive BMS or Smart Building System, Upgrade 5303329 Healthcare Equipment, Defibrillator (AED), Cabinet-Mounted, Replace 5303381 Residential Appliances, Dishwasher, Replace
5303359 Residential Appliances, Range, Electric, Replace 5303323 Casework, Cabinetry, Standard, Replace
5457536 Driveways, Pavement, Asphalt, Seal & Stripe
5303365 Dumpster Enclosure, Gates, Metal, Replace/Install 5457535 Irrigation System, Controllers & Valves, Repairs & Adjustments, Repair 5457405 Landscaping, Drought Tolerant, Replace
Totals, Unescalated
Totals, Escalated (5.0% inflation, compounded annually) 2028
$0
$0
Lifespan
(EUL)
10 0
20 20
10 15
15 10
10 20
20 20
15 15
15 15
15 20
20 15
20 20
15 15
20 15
10 10
15 20
5 20
10 20
EAge
3 0
3 3
3 3
0 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
0 3
3 3
3 3
3 2029
$0
$0
RUL
7 0
17 17
7 12
15 7
7 17
17 17
12 12
12 12
12 17
17 12
17 17
12 12
17 12
10 7
12 17
4 17
7 17
2030
$1,028,903
2031
$0
2032
$3,351
2033
$5,331
$1,028,903 $0 $3,351 $5,331
QuantityUnit Unit Cost ";'
1 Markup Subtotal 2023
26500
25580
8800
8 33500
1400
1450
19500
17500
2 7
46 3
25580
18 25580
25580
25580
14 2200
3 14770
12222
SF $6.55 $173,473
SF
SF
EA
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
$3.00
$0.20
$17.00
$0.44 $11,163 $11,163
$37 .09 $326,435
$850.00 $1,854.74 $14,838
$1.50
$5.00
$9.00
$7.50
$3.00
$3.27 $109,648
$10.91 $15,274
$19.64 $28,476
$16.37 $319,125
$6.55 $114,558
EA $5,000.00 $10,910.25 $10,910
EA $16,000.00 $34,912.80 $34,913
EA $18,500.00 $40,367.93 $80,736
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
SF
EA
SF
$1,200.00 $2,618.46 $2,618
$1,500.00 $3,273.08 $3,273
$6,100.00 $13,310.51 $13,311
$4,000.00 $8,728.20 $61,097
$2,100.00 $4,582.31 $210,786
$7,400.00 $16,147.17 $48,442
$1,200.00 $2,618.46 $2,618
$9,600.00 $20,947.68 $20,948
$4.50 $9.82 $251,176
$300.00 $654.62 $11,783
$2.00 $4.36 $111,634
EA $15,000.00 $32,730.75 $32,731
SF
SF
EA
EA
EA
LF
SF
EA
SF
SF
$3.00
$6.00
$6.55 $167,451
$13.09 $334,901
$1,500.00 $3,273.08 $3,273
$700.00 $1,527.44 $1,527
$820.00 $1,789.28 $1,789
$300.00 $654.62 $9,165
$0.45 $0.98 $2,160
$1,700.00 $3,709.49 $11,128
$0.40
$2.80
$0.87 $12,892
$6.11 $74,673
$11,163
$11,163
2024
$0
$0
2034
$0
$0
2025
$0
$0
2035
$1,451,702
$1,451,702
2026 2027
$2,160
$0 $2,160
$0 $2,626
2028
$0
$0
2036
$0
$0
2029
2037
$4,277
$4,277
2030
$173,473
$109,648
$319,125
$114,558
$1,527
$12,892
$0 $731,222
$0 $1,028,903
2031
2038
$59,199
$59,199
2032
$2,160
2033
$3,273
$0 $2,160 $3,273
$0 $3,351 $5,331
2039
$0
$0
2040
$4,069,455
$4,069,455
2041
$0
$0
2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
$15,274
$2,618
$3,273
$13,311
$61,097
$210,786
$20,948
$111,634
$32,731
$334,901
$1,789
$0 $808,362
$0 $1,451,702
$28,476
$2,160
$0 $2,160 $28,476
$0 $4,277 $59, 199
2042
$5,459
$5,459
2043
$8,684
$8,684
Total Escalated Estimate
$6,650,152
$6,650,152
2039 2040
$173,473
2041 2042 2043
Deficiency Repair
Estimate
$346,946
$326,435
$14,838
$109,648
$319,125
$114,558
$10,910
$34,913
$80,736
$48,442
$2,618
$251,176
$11,783
$167,451
$1,527
$9,165
$11,128
$12,892
$74,673
$0 $1,775,490
$0 $4,069,455
$3,273
$2,160
$0 $2, 160 $3,273
$0 $5,459 $8,684
$11,163
$326,435
$14,838
$219,296
$15,274
$28,476
$638,250
$229,115
$10,910
$34,913
$80,736
$2,618
$3,273
$13,311
$61,097
$210,786
$48,442
$2,618
$20,948
$251,176
$11,783
$111,634
$32,731
$167,451
$334,901
$6,546
$3,055
$1,789
$9,165
$8,641
$11,128
$25,783
$74,673
$3,369,900
$6,650,152
Newark Police Station
37077 Newark 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, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:

Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-018.017
DATE OF REPORT:

March 15, 2023
ON SITE DATE:

January 26, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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.................................................................................................................................... 4 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

7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 16

8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 17 NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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 Police Station
Main Address 37077 Newark Boulevard.

Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 2020
Site Area 1.76 acres
Parking Spaces 86 total spaces all in open lots; 2 of which are accessible.

Building Area 23,987 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 26, 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) Tonya Connolly
Assessment and Report Prepared By Nezar M. Tibi
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/
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Newark Police Station consists of a single-story building. The station was constructed in 2020 as part of the Newark City Hall and the Library buildings.

Architectural
The building consists of steel framed construction on a concrete slab. The exterior enclosures consist of painted stucco, aluminum curtainwall and windows, entry doors, and steel service doors. Roofs primarily consists of flat single-ply membrane, PVC assembly. The interior finishes and fixtures are original to the 2020 construction and are anticipated to only need lifecycle replacement.

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The MEPF systems and components are original to the 2020 building construction and have been well-maintained since that time. Heating and cooling is provided by rooftop package units and one make-up air unit. The MEPF infrastructure itself is generally in good working condition with no major expenditures anticipated in the short term. In general, the plumbing and electrical systems are adequate to serve the building. A main switchboard and distribution panels are located within the electrical room. The building is protected by both fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems. Lifecycle replacement of the majority of the MEPF is anticipated.

Site
In general, the sites have been well maintained. The site contains moderate to heavy landscaping, which is served by an in-ground irrigation system. The asphalt paved parking area is well maintained as a result of frequent sealing and striping.

The concrete sidewalk is in good condition. There is a trash enclosure located at the rear of the building.

Recommended Additional Studies
Water is flooding the northwest side of the building entrances during heavy rain due to lack of sufficient drainage and the sidewalk which is sloped poorly toward the building. A building envelope consultant 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. Due to the ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this assessment, the cost for any possible subsequent repairs is not included.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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
Immediate Needs
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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)
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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 Steel frame with concrete-topped metal decks over concrete pad column footings over concrete foundation slab
Good
Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco
Secondary Wall Finish: Curtain wall
Windows: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Flat construction with single-ply TPO/PVC membrane Good Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, ceramic tile and Unfinished Floors: Carpet, VCT, Rubber tile, vinyl sheeting, ceramic tile, terrazzo, and unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and ACT
Good
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and PVC waste and venting Hot Water: Electric water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, showers and sinks in all restrooms Good
HVAC Non-Central System: Packaged units
Supplemental components: Ductless split-systems, Make-up air units and exhaust fans
Good
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers Good NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard and panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: LED, and linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: Diesel generator with automatic transfer switch and UPS Good
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, and exit signs
Good
Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment Good
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons. Concrete sidewalks and curbs
Good
Site Development Sliding gate at parking entrance Good
Landscaping &
Topography
Limited landscaping features including lawns, trees, bushes, and planters Irrigation present
No retaining walls
Low to moderate site slopes throughout
Good
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: LED
Building-mounted: LED
Good
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property.

Key Issues and
Findings
Repair top of wall
Drainage study due to lack of sufficient drainage and sidewalk which is sloped poorly toward the building at the northwest entrance.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

Key Spaces Not Observed
Areas of note that were either inaccessible or not observed for other reasons are listed here: Some rooms; sensitivity to ongoing police operations
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

4. AD A Ac c es s i bil it y
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.

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 building was originally constructed in 2020. The building is relatively new and does not require any renovation.

During the interview process with the client representatives, no complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was reported.

No costs or detailed follow-up study are currently recommended since this facility is not accessible to the general public, and all workers presently employed at the facility are required to possess a degree of physical ability that makes full compliance infeasible and currently unnecessary. Accessibility accommodations will reportedly be made when and if specific needs arise. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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.

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:

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.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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.

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.

Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
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.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 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 Newark Police Station, 37077 Newark Boulevard, 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.

Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:

Matt Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660

8. A p pe nd ic es
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
Appendix G: Equipment Inventory List
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8 . A p pe n d ic es
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
Appendix G: Equipment Inventory List
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:

P h ot o gr a p h ic R ec o rd
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - EXTERIOR DOORS 6 - EXTERIOR WINDOWS
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - EXTERIOR DOORS 8 - INTERIOR DOORS
9 - ROOFING 10 - ROOF SKYLIGHT
11 - LOBBY 12 - HALLWAY
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - FRONT OFFICE 14 - HALLWAY
15 - TRAINING ROOM 16 - BRIEFING ROOM
17 - WORKOUT ROOM 18 - BREAK ROOM
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - SHOWER 20 - SINK, FAUCET HANDLES AND ACCESSORIES
21 - TOILET STALL OVERVIEW 22 - URINAL
23 - HVAC SYSTEM (RTU) 24 - MAKE-UP AIR UNIT
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
25 - SPLIT SYSTEM DUCTLESS 26 - EXHAUST FAN
27 - EXHAUST FANS 28 - WATER HEATERS
29 - GENERATOR 30 - AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCHS
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
31 - SWITCHBOARD 32 - UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY
33 - DISTRIBUTION PANELS 34 - FIRE ALARM PANEL
35 - PARKING LOTS 36 - SIDEWALK
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:

S it e a nd F lo o r P l a ns
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-018.017 Newark Police Station
Source On-Site Date
Google January 26, 2023
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-018.017 Newark Police Station
Source On-Site Date
Owner January 26, 2023
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:

P r e - Su rv ey Q ue s t i o n na i re
B V 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: Newark Police Station
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 1 year
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 2021
2 Building size in SF 23,987
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade
Roof
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.

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
Sally ports and rear entrance – water intrusion when
raining depending on wind pattern
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
Floor electrical conduits have signs of moisture intrusion 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?
x
NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:

Ac c es s ib ilit y Re v i e w a n d P h ot os
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 - 018.017
Newark Police Station
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

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
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
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist

KITCHEN CABINETS BREAKROOM OVERVIEW
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
Are the cooktop/range controls front-mounted
(or in a location that does not require reaching
across the burners) ?
7 Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:

Co m p o n en t C on d it i on R e po r t

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:

Re p lac e me nt Re s e rv e s

NEWARK POLICE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-018.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix G:

E q ui pm e nt I nv e nt ory L is t

DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
2 3
DRAFT Acknowledgements

NEWARK CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Michael Hannon
Luis L. Freitas
Maria Collazo
Matthew Jorgens
Ana M. Apodaca

CITY STAFF
David Benoun, City Manager
Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Nicholas Cuevas, Director of Recreation and Community Services Roya Gonzalez, Senior Management Analyst
Prepared by:

CONSULTANT TEAM
Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey, Landscape Architects Barbara Lundburg, Urmila Venkat, Quinn Uesugi
Ballard King & Associates LTD
Darin J. Barr
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Teifion Rice-Evans
4 5
DRAFT Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: Executive summary ........................................................................9

1.1 PURPOSE

1.2 SCOPE
CHAPTER 2: Introduction................................................................................15

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.2 PLANNING PROCESS

2.3 REVIEW OF EXISTING AND FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS
CHAPTER 3: Existing Framework...................................................................23

3.1 PARK AMENITIES OVERVIEW

3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

3.3 RECREATIONAL TRENDS
CHAPTER 4: Needs Assessment........................................................................35

4.1 DEMAND

4.2 SUPPLY

4.3 FILLING THE GAP
CHAPTER 5: Plan...................................................................................................45

5.1 VISION FRAMEWORK

5.2 OVERARCHING GOALS

5.3 ASSET INVENTORY AND SPECIFIC SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 6: Implementation..........................................................................109

6.1 PROPOSED PROJECTS

6.2 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

6.3 PRIORITY PROJECTS

6.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT

6.5 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING
CHAPTER 7: Appendix........................................................................................137 A. DOCUMENT REVIEW
B. PARK SYSTEM INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
C. DEMOGRAPHIC AND RECREATIONAL TRENDS
D. COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS, NOTES, AND SUMMARY
E. OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
F. PROJECTS BY PRIORITY
G. PLAYGROUND SAFETY AUDIT
Figure 1 – Gap Analysis................................................................................................35 Figure 2 – Birch Grove Park ........................................................................................48 Figure 3 – Byington Park.............................................................................................52 Figure 4 – Cedar Boulevard Linear Park 1 .................................................................54 Figure 5 – Cedar Boulevard Linear Park 2 .................................................................56 Figure 6 – Cedar Boulevard Linear Park 3 .................................................................57 Figure 7 – Cedar Boulevard Linear Park 4 .................................................................58 Figure 8 – Civic Center Park ........................................................................................60 Figure 9 – Grand Park ..................................................................................................64 Figure 10 – Jerry Raber Ash Street Park ....................................................................66 Figure 11 – Lakeshore Park 1 ......................................................................................70 Figure 12 – Lakeshore Park 2 ......................................................................................72 Figure 13 – Lakeshore Park 3 ......................................................................................73 Figure 14 – Lakeshore Park 4 ......................................................................................73 Figure 15 – MacGregor................................................................................................76 Figure 16 – Mayhews Landing Park ...........................................................................80 Figure 17 – Mirabeau Park ..........................................................................................82 Figure 18 – Musick Park ..............................................................................................86 Figure 19 – Newark Community Park ........................................................................88 Figure 20 – Sanctuary Park .........................................................................................92 Figure 21 – Shirley Sisk Grove ....................................................................................94 Figure 22 – Sportsfield Park 1.....................................................................................98 Figure 23 – Sportsfield Park 2....................................................................................100 Figure 24 – Susan Johnson Bridgepointe Park ........................................................102

CHAPTERS FIGURES
6 DRAFT Table of Contents
Table 1 – Newark Public Parks .................................................................................................. 23 Table 2 – 2020, 2023, and 2028 Race and Ethnicity Estimates .............................................. 26 Table 3 – Estimated Maintenance Costs ................................................................................. 109 Table 4 – Models Potential Annual Revenue Based on the Strategies Mentioned ............ 113 Table 5 – LEAF Membership Prices.......................................................................................... 117 Table 6 – Union City Community Garden Membership Price............................................... 117 Table 7 – Operating Cost Model (Assumes 1 acre, or 43,560 sf) ......................................... 119 Table 8 – Revenue Potential from User Fees of Grass Turf Fields ........................................ 119 Table 9 – Rental Rate Comparisons for Grass Turf Fields ..................................................... 120 Table 10 – Annual Maintenance Cost...................................................................................... 121 Table 11 – Fremont Central Park Group Picnic Reservation Fees, by Reservable Area ..... 122 Table 12 – Selection of Union City Picnic Reservation Fees by Park and Site .................... 122 Table 13 – Proposed Newark Park Reservation Fee Structure ............................................. 122 Table 14 – Projected Revenue Estimate .................................................................................. 123 Table 15 – Projects Funded by Parks Impact Fees ................................................................. 130 Table 16 – FY 2024 Parks Impact Fees..................................................................................... 131 Table 17 – Projects Funded by Parks Impact Fees ................................................................. 131 TABLES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9
CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SECTIONS

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

1.1 PURPOSE
Newark’s Citywide Parks Master Plan Update provides a strategic framework for the future development and provision of parks across the city. Building on the foundation of the 2017 Citywide Parks Master Plan, this update re-evaluates prior recommendations considering current needs, community preferences, and existing conditions. The Master Plan Update identifies recreational needs, explores opportunities to enhance the existing parks network, and assesses the feasibility of introducing new amenities. It also includes a thorough evaluation of the city’s current infrastructure, conducts a recreation needs assessment, and establishes a plan for implementing priority projects.

1.2 SCOPE
The scope of the Newark’s Citywide Parks Master Plan Update includes an inventory and needs assessment, community outreach, analysis of potential project expansions, and priority setting. The Consultant team worked closely with city staff, and the community, to understand the demand for and viability of recreation projects in the city’s park system.

INVENTORY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The inventory and needs assessment of the Master Plan Update profiles the city’s existing framework that shapes and informs the demand for recreation services. This element assesses the city’s existing park facilities, understands past and present planning effort, analyzes the community’s demographic and recreational profile, and from this, generates an assessment of need that highlights where community demand is not met by the city’s supply of recreational services.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Community outreach was an integral part of the planning process, ensuring that user input was collected and incorporated into the Master Plan Update. Three public workshops were held to gather community feedback, and the Consultant team collaborated closely with city staff throughout the development of the plan. Additionally, the Update leverages data from the extensive outreach efforts conducted during the city’s 2017 Master Plan, further informing its recommendations.

POTENTIAL EXPANSION ANALYSIS AND PROJECT REFINEMENT
Prior to the creation of the Master Plan Update, the City of Newark had already identified several recreation facilities that were highly desired by the community through previous planning efforts. However, these projects exceeded the city’s short- and medium-term financial capacity, necessitating a thorough needs assessment and prioritization process.

In collaboration with city staff, the Consultant worked to evaluate, refine, and prioritize the city’s vision for its park system. This process led to the development of schematic master plans for both existing parks and those planned for future development, aligning the city’s park infrastructure with its ongoing growth.
10 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

PRIORITY SETTING
To establish priorities for the city’s park system enhancements, the Citywide Park Master Plan Update is guided by the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element of the city’s General Plan, as well as input collected through working with city staff and the community. The goals from the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element of the General Plan that guide this Master Plan include:

Goal PR-1: Protect Newark’s open space for a variety of purposes, including public recreation, the managed production of natural resources, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, aesthetics, and public safety.

Goal PR-2: Expand and improve Newark’s parks and recreational facilities to meet existing and future needs.

Goal PR-3: Manage Newark’s parks in a way that enhances their natural qualities, conveys a positive image of the city and its neighborhoods, and fully meets the community’s recreational needs.

Goal PR-5: Improve Newark’s trail system, with a focus on access to the Newark shoreline, and access between the shoreline and Newark neighborhoods.

These inform the Master Plan’s overarching goals to:
• Protect and support the existing network
• Accommodate demands in service
• Enhance community identity
• Foster connectivity
Combined with a detailed financial analysis of potential park site projects, the overarching goals support the selection of priority projects that, in assessment, will serve the community’s existing and future recreational needs.

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Prior to this update, the City of Newark identified several key recreation projects that were strongly supported by the community. Both the 2017 Citywide Parks Master Plan and the 2013 General Plan emphasized the need for a skate and bike park, multi-purpose all-weather turf fields at Sportsfield Park, and a dog park for public use. Since then, these facilities have been successfully completed.

Drawing from community feedback gathered through outreach events, digital surveys, and stakeholder interviews, the focus of the Master Plan Update has shifted towards upgrading and maintaining existing park amenities and infrastructure, rather than developing new, individual park projects.

With this updated assessment of community needs, the Master Plan Update now prioritizes the following key areas:
• Children’s Play Areas
• Restroom Facilities – Renovation or new installations. • Maintenance and Play Fields – Enhancements to existing fields and facilities.
• Trails and Pathways – Improvements to connectivity and accessibility across the parks system.
11 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
this page is intentionally blank
12 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
this page is intentionally blank

INTRODUCTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 15
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SECTIONS

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Planning Process

2.3 Review of Existing and Future Planning Efforts

2.1 INTRODUCTION
In 2017 a Citywide Parks Master Plan was completed and approved by the Newark City Council. Priority recommendations from the 2017 Master Plan were implemented by the City of Newark including a new dog park at Newark Community Park, and a skate park and all-weather artificial turf sports fields at Sportsfield Park. From the time of adoption, the city demographics along with additional residential development, warranted the need for an update of the Master Plan. A new planning process was initiated to explore the change in demographics, new community interest in recreation, and additional opportunities for new park amenities. The Citywide Parks Master Plan Update is the product of the collaboration of the Consultant team, city staff and the Newark community.

The City of Newark is located along the southwest edge of the San Francisco Bay, surrounded by the City of Fremont within Alameda County. Incorporated in 1955, the city is one of the tri-cities along with Union City and Fremont. The proximity of Newark to Silicon Valley, and impending planning development for urban growth, make Newark an active cultural and economic center in the Bay Area. The city currently has 131 acres of developed parks, with 50% of the city’s open space, nearly 4,500 acres, consisting of undeveloped or non-urbanized land. In addition to Newark’s existing open space network, the community has access to Coyote Hills Regional Park and the Ardenwood Historic Farm for valuable outdoor recreation. As Newark is a landlocked city with limited opportunities to develop new parks, both Parks Master Plans serve as an important tool to make better use of Newark’s existing parks and explore new amenities within them.

2.2 PLANNING PROCESS
Newark’s Citywide Parks Master Plan Update incorporates the input of city staff, local community, and Consultant team recommendations, while building on the city’s existing General Plan. The following process elements were critical to developing a concise and community-oriented Master Plan tailored to meet city needs.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
A series of stakeholder interviews were conducted by the Consultant team for the Master Plan Update. The stakeholder interviews included the members interested in pickleball, cricket groups, men’s and women’s softball and baseball groups, Urban Forest and Friends, and the Deaf Plus Adult Community representative. These interviews offered the opportunity for key stakeholders’ groups to provide focused input and perspective on issues related to Newark’s park and recreation system.

Groups interviewed include:

Pickleball
• Community members that are Pickleball enthusiasts
Cricket
• ASCE (American School Of Cricket Excellence).
• VK Cricket Academy
• Tricity Performance Club Newark
• Blazers Cricket Academy
• Strikers Academy
• CritBay
Soccer
• Newark Soccer Club
• Northern California Chinese Soccer Federation
• SVIDEA
16 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Baseball and Softball
• Little League
• National Championship Sports/All world Sports
• Newark Girls Softball
Other
• Urban Forest and Friends
• Deaf Plus Adult Community

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
Three community workshops were held late Fall 2023 and Winter of 2024 to present the planning process and goals for the Master Plan Update and to collect feedback and community needs Community Workshop #1 was held on September 11, 2023, at the Newark Days Celebration in Newark Community Park. The community gave input on their desire for various recreation amenities for both adults and children. The second community workshop was held January 9, 2024, at the Newark Library’s Community Room. The consultant team introduced the planning process, presented the results of the community survey and described the gap between the amenities and recreation desired by the community and those currently offered. A third community workshop held February 27, 2024, was a prioritization exercise where attendees voted for their desired amenities or activities with “Newark Bucks”. Each attendee was given $500 Newark Dollars or “Newark Bucks” (fake dollars) to place at the image of their most desired amenity or activity. Notices regarding community workshops and updates to the planning process were posted regularly to the city website and Facebook page.

STAFF ENGAGEMENT
Newark’s city staff provided clear guidance in the development of the Master Plan Update, setting concise goals for the direction of the planning process. Prior to the development of the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update, city staff had worked closely with community voices to develop the City of Newark General Plan (2013), the City of Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2017), and the Citywide Parks Master Plan 2017. In working with city staff, the Consultant helped to assess, refine, and prioritize Newark’s vision.

2.3 REVIEW OF EXISTING AND FUTURE PLANNING

EFFORTS
Recent and ongoing planning efforts by the city provide direction for the creation of the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update and emphasize support for protection and enhancement of Newark’s park network. A review of Newark’s existing and future planning efforts was completed as part of the Master Plan to ensure that Plan recommendations support and build upon existing work. For additional information on the city’s existing and future planning efforts, reviewed in the Master Plan, see Appendix A (Document Review).

CITY OF NEWARK GENERAL PLAN, 2013
The City of Newark General Plan is Newark’s comprehensive planning document created to guide the city’s impending growth and development while preserving and enhancing its existing character. To formalize the future of Newark’s existing park system, the city’s General Plan calls for the creation of the Citywide Parks Master Plan to prioritize funds for future park and recreation projects and to create a systematic foundation for the future of Newark’s open spaces.

Throughout the General Plan, planning elements support the protection and enhancement of the city’s park network through various goals, policies, and actions.
17 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
CITY OF NEWARK PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN, 2017 The City of Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan is Newark’s first bike and pedestrian transportation plan, outlining long-range pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects for the city. The Plan’s proposed projects provide access to the Bay Area waterfront, local parks and trails, and regional open spaces for recreation. In relation to Newark’s Citywide Parks Master Plan, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan delineates the importance of pedestrian-scale connectivity to the city’s park and open space resources as an important component of network circulation.

CITY OF NEWARK GREATER NEWPARK MASTERPLAN, 2015
Newark’s Newpark Mall is a regional-serving shopping center set aside for major enhancements in the near future, guided by the work defined in the City of Newark Greater Newpark Master Plan. Along with the Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan and the Southwest Newark Residential and Recreational Project, the Greater Newpark Project is one of three sites in the city envisioned for new residential, workplace, and open space development. The Greater Newpark Masterplan prioritizes the reorientation of the Shirley Sisk Grove, a public open space parcel within the project boundary, to support the creation of a vibrant commercial center.

DUMBARTON TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN, 2010 The Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project consists of approximately 200 acres of industrial land on the west side of Newark.

The railroad right-of-way on the northern edge of the project has been selected as the alignment for a potential new transit line to link southern Alameda County with the Peninsula, creating an opportunity to capitalize on public investment through adjacent development with high-density, residential, retail, and office uses and enhanced pedestrian circulation. The Specific Plan prioritizes the city’s park network through the designation of park areas to be created in accordance with the development, providing collaboration opportunity for the Citywide Parks Master Plan.

SOUTHWEST NEWARK RESIDENTIAL AND RECREATIONAL PROJECT,
2009
In the Newark California General Plan, the city identifies several Focus Areas where major land use change is anticipated. The Southwest Newark Residential and Recreational Project, formerly identified as Area 3 and 4 of the General Plan, is an identified Focus Area for which a Specific Plan was created: the Newark Specific Plan: Area 3 & 4 of the General Plan. The Specific Plan defines parameters for the transition of this undeveloped area into a low-density residential development of up to 1,260 housing units, with a major recreational facility and the dedication of conservation open space on some of the low-lying land south of the railroad tracks. In relation to Newark’s Citywide Parks Master Plan, the Southwest Newark Residential and Recreational Project provides opportunity to expand the city’s public open space.

JOINT USE AGREEMENT
The city has shared joint use of Macgregor Playfields with the Newark Unified School District since 1987. Under the joint use agreement, the city constructed the playfields, parking lot, and structures, and performs ongoing maintenance, while the School District pays for the site’s irrigation. The city’s joint use of fields provides an opportunity to efficiently meet Newark’s open space and recreation needs.

FMC WILLOW AND GRAND PARK PLAN, 2022
The FMC Willow and Grand Park project makes updates to a previously proposed plan that would create a mixed-use development with a 5-acre Grand Park and a future transit station. Located at the northwest corner of Willow Street and Enterprise Drive, the project builds off the Bayside at Newark TOD master planned community. The plan update provides new building and park design.
18 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
The project breaks the site down into 3 housing development areas, the future transit station, and Grand Park. The overall design for Grand Park takes into consideration the connection to existing retail, housing, transit, and the Bayside trail. As the park is designed to include a variety of different activity spaces, it creates an accessible park for all ages.

In relation to Newark’s Citywide Parks Master Plan Update, the proposed development and park provides an opportunity to create an outdoor space for the community by referencing the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update to understand the city’s needs.

CITY OF NEWARK, 2023-2024 HOUSING ELEMENT, HDC DRAFT REVISED AUGUST 7, 2023
The City of Newark 2023-2031 Housing Element HDC Review Draft outlines housing opportunities throughout the city to meet exiting and projected housing needs for all economic levels. Created in response to the California law requiring local governments to adopt a long-range general plan for future Housing Element needs, this draft provides an assessment, trend reports, references to current city plans and provides future development areas. The draft states clear goals needed to meet the City of Newark existing and future housing needs.

By referencing 2021 Bayside Newark Specific Plan, 2021 Old Town Specific Plan, and the 2018 NewPark Place Specific Plan the HDC Review Draft begins to layout potential areas for development. The largest area for potential development is the Bayside Network. This would provide 200 acres for a walkable neighborhood which includes various housing types, open space, and access to the future Dumbarton rail line. The plan reviews access and current networks of pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation in relation to housing areas. Although the City of Newark has a relatively low unhoused population compared to the largest Alameda County, it has the highest perfect of people seeking housing services. The unhoused mainly reside in the Mirabaeu and Mayhews Landing areas where there is more open space.

The Citywide Parks Master Plan Update will consider the locations of future developments in proximity to the city’s parks and how the proposed circulation is affected. The plan will also take into consideration the assessment of the parks which hold the unhoused.

OLD TOWN NEWARK SPECIFIC PLAN, SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
The Old Town Newark Specific Plan proposes a redesign to revitalize the 76-acre area. Originally designed in 1878, Old Town was a thriving downtown area for the middle-class community. Since the incorporation of Newark in 1955, Old Town Newark has slowly become an underused street for through traffic. Currently Old Town Newark has no identifiable identity. The proposed plan aims to bring back a sense of place and community to the neighborhood.

In the last 30 years there have been multiple plans to revitalize Old Town Newark. The current Specific Plan builds off the efforts of these past plans and introduces new concepts that align with current trends and feasibilities. A key area identified to initiate change is Thornton Ave. Thornton Ave is the main corridor in Old Town and provides a connection to Dumbarton Bridge and Silicon Valley. Through major street improvements the downtown area will promote healthy living, reduce traffic congestion, and connect community to open spaces. The plan also adopts the City of Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. The plan highlights the importance of having a pedestrian friendly corridor that aids in connecting the overall community to active open spaces.

The Citywide Parks Master Plan Update will consider all improvements identified in the Old Town Newark Specific Plan in the review process to ensure connectivity between City’s parks and Old Town Newark. 19 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

CITY OF NEWARK NEWPARK PLACE SPECIFIC PLAN, PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS, JUNE 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
The City of Newark NewPark Place Specific Plan 2021 is an amended document to the previous plan proposed in 2018. The plan aims to be used as a tool for development implementation by using the 2013 City of Newark General Plan and the 2015 Greater NewPark Masterplan as a reference for building, policy, and design criteria. NewPark Mall is a 125- acre area which includes approximately 90 stores and the 2-acre Shirley Sisk Grove Park. Under new ownership, NewPark Place has resubmitted plans that make updates to residential, retail, circulation, open space and block layout in response to the changing needs and priorities of the community. The following are goals laid out in the Specific Plan:

The Citywide Parks Master Plan Update will create recommendations for Shirley Sisk Grove Park that asses the future development and wider community needs. It will consider its private/public partnership and how that can create more opportunities for recreational programming.

PLAYGROUND SAFETY AUDIT, MARCH 2024
A certified playground safety inspection and audit of Newark’s playgrounds was conducted by a certified playground inspector with Sedgwick Risk Control on March 19 and 20, 2024. The following parks with playgrounds were inspected:
• Birch Grove Park
• Byington Park
• Civic Center Park
• Newark Community Center Park
• Jerry Raber Ash Street Park
• Mayhews Landing Park
• Mirabeau Park
• Musick Park
• Silliman Preschool Playground
• Susan Johnson Bridgepointe Park
The conditions of the playgrounds observed were measured against the standards established by the American Society for Testing Materials Standard F1487-21 and the guidelines established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission handbook for Public Playground Safety, Publication #325 (2015).

Hazards identified are prioritized based on the following factors:
• Probability – the likelihood that users would encounter the hazard. • Probability – the probability that users could have an accident as a result of the hazard
• Consequences – the most likely level of injury that would result Priority 1 – Permanent disability, loss of life or body part (Condition should be corrected immediately)
Priority 2 – Serious injury resulting in temporary disability (Condition should be corrected as soon as possible)
Priority 3 – Minimum non-disabling injury (Condition should be corrected very soon)
Priority 4 – Potential for injury very minimal (Condition should be corrected if it worsens)
Priority 5 – Existing condition does not present a hazard at this time, or the condition is non-compliant with out posing a risk of injury (Action determined by the entity based on its priorities)
See Appendix G for detailed evaluation of each playground this page is intentionally blank

EXISTING FRAMEWORK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22 23
CHAPTER 3: EXISTING FRAMEWORK DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SECTIONS

3.1 Park Amenities Overview

3.2 Demographic Profile

3.3 Recreational Trends
This portion of the Master Plan Update outlines the existing facility framework and city conditions that inform the Update, including an overview of the city’s park and recreation assets, the community’s demographic profile, and current and emerging trends in recreational planning that impact the Master Plan’s recommendations.

3.1 PARK AMENITIES OVERVIEW

EXISTING PARK NETWORK
The City of Newark applies two types of standards in park planning.

The first standard is the city’s adopted planning requirement of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in the application of the Quimby Act, which establishes a standard for land set aside by current and future developers. In California, dedication requirements under the Quimby Act may range between 3 acres per 1,000 residents to 5 acres per 1,000 residents, dependent on a city’s existing supply of parkland.

As outlined in best practices from urban planning, local government policies, and national guidelines, the second standard of park planning involves the creation and enforcement of service area standards. In the City of Newark, these standards categorize parks into neighborhood parks, community parks, and special use parks.

Neighborhood parks are defined as resident-serving spaces, typically ranging from 5 to 10 acres, and are accessible within a half-mile radius.

These parks often feature lawns, playgrounds, and small recreational facilities such as basketball courts. Community parks, which range from 15 to 20 acres, serve a broader area, providing amenities to residents within a 1- to 2-mile radius. These parks typically offer off-street parking, larger recreational facilities, and are accessible by public transit. Special use parks are not defined by size or service area but are distinguished by the unique function or facility they provide to the city.

The Newark Recreation and Community Services Department operates 13 acres of city parks and several recreation facilities. 124 acres of this parkland is city-owned, with an additional 10 acres leased at MacGregor Play Fields through the Newark Unified School District. The City of Newark maintains 14 parks in total: 9 neighborhood parks, 3 community parks, and the 2 special use parks Shirley Sisk Grove and MacGregor Play Fields. Based on the 2020 census, the city maintains 3.19 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, inclusive of MacGregor Play Fields due to long term joint use.

In recreation facilities, the city owns and operates the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center, the Clark W. Redeker Newark Senior Center, and the Newark Community Center (not programmed, but available for community events and rentals). Table 1 lists the city’s parks, per service area classification, several of the facilities offered, and their location.

Table 1 – Newark Public Parks
Park Acres Facilities Location
Neighborhood Parks
Byington Park 3 Play structures, picnic
facilities, water feature
Central Avenue at
Byington Drive
Civic Center Park 5
Play structures, basketball
court, pathways, picnic
facilities
Civic Terrace Avenue at
Newark Boulevard
Jerry Raber Ash Street
Park 6
Play structures, softball
fields, basketball court,
picnic facilities
Enterprise Drive at Filbert
Street
Lakeshore Park 26
26-acre total includes 10
acres of lawn, paths, and
par course area and a
16-acre water area with
fishing and boating
Lake Boulevard at
Parkshore Drive
Mayhews Landing Park 8 Play structures, basketball
court, picnic facilities
Cherry Street at
Montcalm Avenue
24 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Mirabeau Park 6 Play structures, paths,
picnic facilities
Haley Street at Mirabeau
Drive
Musick Park 1 Play structures, picnic
facilities
Musick Avenue at Cedar
Boulevard
Sanctuary Park 3 Dragonfly St and Sea
Turtle Ave
Susan Johnson
Bridgepointe Park 4 Play structures, picnic facilities
Spruce Street at
Bridgepointe Drive
Community Parks
Birch Grove Park 15
Play structures, water
feature, lit softball field,
basketball court, tennis
courts, picnic facilities,
restrooms
Birch Street at Robertson
Avenue
Newark Community
Park 16
Play structures, warmup wall, basketball
and handball court,
lawn, paths, tennis
courts, picnic facilities,
Community Center
Cedar Boulevard at
Chapman Drive
Sportsfield Park 20
Lighted and non-lighted
softball field, soccer
fields, skate park, George
Silliman Community
Activity Center
Mowry Boulevard at
Cherry Street
Special Use Parks
Shirley Sisk Grove 2 Passive open space for
summer concerts
Cedar Boulevard at
North Magazine
MacGregor Play Fields 11 Soccer and baseball
practice and game fields
Cedar Boulevard at Lake
Boulevard

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
A full inventory of the city’s parks was completed through the original Master Plan process. Over several tours during April and May 2016 each city-owned, or programmed, park was visited with the assistance of city staff and members of the Consultant team. During late Fall of 2023 for the Master Plan Update, the consultant team had staff on-site to engage the park staff and city leadership. The staff were passionate about the park system as a cherished asset to the community. They were also very engaged about opportunities to modernize their operation in terms of a formal park maintenance plan and incorporation of more technology.

Staffing levels were a focused topic of discussion with both staff and the consulting team. The consultant team also visited and assessed the new Sanctuary Park with city staff. Parks were inventoried to assess how each asset currently serves the community and where they hold potential to expand and improve upon recreational opportunities. This assessment aids in determining the level of recreational need currently being met while identifying those recreational wants that are lacking or not being served in the City of Newark. The following information was collected for each park:
• Location: Intersection
• Size: Park acreage
• Use: Serving neighborhood, community, or special use
• Current condition: Description of current conditions
• Facilities and amenities: List of facilities and amenities provided • Recreation provided: City-supported recreation provided • Accessibility: General assessment of ease of access for all users • Constraints: Features that compromise the site’s full potential • Opportunities: Preliminary ideas regarding opportunities to expand or enhance the site’s recreation
In inventorying the city’s existing park network, several issues and opportunities were identified that apply universally across the Newark park system. These issues include accessibility, maintenance, quality of structures and facilities, and a general need for site activation. 25 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Accessibility
Throughout the park system compliance with standards of accessibility can be enhanced, especially in the city’s playground design. To improve accessibility, while decreasing maintenance requirements, the Master Plan recommendations consider replacing engineered wood fibar (“tanbark”) with resilient rubber matting surfaces. The short-term cost of rubber matting may be desirable compared to the long-term maintenance cost of wood fibar. In lieu of replacing existing fibar, the city should ensure that accessible ramps lead into each play area.

In playground accessibility, the Master Plan also considers providing universal play equipment and transfer stations, which allow users to access elevated play structures without use of a wheelchair or mobility tool. Play structures should encourage interactive play for children of all abilities and installing universal play equipment, such as spinners and saucer swings, can provide recreation options to a diversity of users. The Master Plan did not conduct a formal accessibility study.

Maintenance
In the inventory of Newark’s parks, overall park facility maintenance is challenging. As is common in public open space, graffiti, vandalism and litter are unwanted companions to many of the city’s open space assets. To enhance community pride and investment in the daily upkeep of shared green space, the current Master Plan Update continues to reinforce the importance park maintenance.

Quality of Structures and Facilities
Newark’s park system incorporates a variety of essential recreation elements such as playgrounds, picnic tables, walking paths, and lighting.

Though these elements support the existing parks, many are aged and require an update or replacement.

Newark’s playgrounds and play structures can attract a wider range of users through updated design and program. Thematic design, nature play, and the addition of interactive elements create a varied and creative experience for young users. When replacing playground equipment, Newark may consider combining tot and school age play into one allinclusive playground.

Picnic and seating options also provide opportunity for improvement and social interaction. The Master Plan Update considers replacing or enhancing these existing structures to continue accommodating community members for current and future enjoyment. Focusing on variety in aesthetic character, while improving functionality through additional shade structures, is recommended.

The majority of Newark’s parks maintain asphalt walking paths that are frequently in use. As popular modes of pedestrian circulation, the Master Plan Update considers continuation of the park pathway replacement program, which need regular resurfacing, with concrete paths which require less long-term maintenance. The provision of all-weather pathways along park perimeters to further support walking and jogging in the community, is also in consideration. Improved, or added, lighting through park paths will also improve user experience. Night-time visibility for security and safety was identified as a community priority and henceforth has been recommended in the Master Plan Update.

Activation
Though Newark has a variety of open space assets, this inventory and assessment finds that the majority of the city’s parks are underutilized.

The master planning process prioritizes activating use through programming considerations and supporting alternate recreation uses through the creation of unique special use facilities within parks, such as a bike skills track, where opportunity exists.

To see additional, detailed information on the park system inventory, please see Appendix B (Park System Inventory & Assessment). 26 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

PARKS IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Beyond the city’s existing park network, the Master Plan Update incorporates the planned development of two additional parks within the Newark park system: Grand Park and Sanctuary Park.

The FMC Willow and Grand Park project revises a previously proposed plan, introducing a mixed-use development featuring a 5-acre Grand Park and a future transit station. Located at the northwest corner of Willow Street and Enterprise Drive, this project builds on the existing Bayside at Newark TOD master-planned community. The updated plan includes new building designs and a reimagined park layout.

The site is divided into three distinct housing development areas, a future transit station, and Grand Park. The park’s design thoughtfully integrates connections to existing retail, residential areas, transit infrastructure, and the Bayside Trail, creating a well-connected space for the community.

With a variety of activity spaces catering to all age groups, Grand Park is designed to be an accessible and dynamic community hub. This park is an independently funded project, with design and construction costs covered by a private development team.

Sanctuary Park is a 3-acre neighborhood park that has been constructed as part of the Sanctuary Village housing development. Designed to serve the Sanctuary Village neighborhood, this park will provide a vital recreational space for the local community. Located between Sea Turtle Avenue and Brush Rabbit Avenue along Dragonfly Street, the park plans include parcel grading, drainage improvements, and the installation of irrigation systems for turf fields. The park will also feature new tree plantings and understory landscaping to enhance the open space infrastructure.

Sanctuary Park’s open fields are designed to accommodate multi-use play areas, offering a valuable recreational asset to both the Sanctuary Village neighborhood and the broader Newark Parks and Recreation system.

3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
To understand the community, a demographic profile was created using Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) utilizing 2020 Census data and their demographers for 2023-2028 projections. In addition to demographics, ESRI also provides data on housing, recreation, and entertainment spending and adult participation in activities.

The demographic profile supplies information on who comprises the Newark community, informing the recommendations of the Master Plan Update.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND DENSITY
The City of Newark is a diverse and dense, urban enclave with dramatic population growth expected within the next two decades. Newark grew rapidly during the 1960s and 70s, and steadily increased in population at a rate ranging between 12% and 18% through the year 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, however, the City’s growth stalled with only a 0.2% rise in population. From 2010 to 2020 Census, the city returned to moderate growth of 11.6% by expanding from a reported 42,573 to 47,529 persons.

See Table 2 for the city’s race and ethnicity estimates.

Table 2 – 2020, 2023, and 2028 Race and Ethnicity Estimates Estimates 2010 % 2023 % 2028 %
Total Population 47,592 48,855 48,479
Hispanic or Latino 14,360 30.0% 14,712 30.1% 14,815 31.0% White Alone 10,762 23.0% 10,065 20.6% 8,791 18.0%
Black Alone 1,584 3.0% 1,625 3.3% 1,508 3.0%
American Indian Alone 560 1.0% 569 1.2% 553 1.0%
Asian Alone 19,801 42.0% 21,470 44.0% 22,417 46.0%
Pacific Islander Alone 693 1.0% 690 1.4% 652 1.0%
Some Other Race Alone 8,317 18.0% 8,542 17.5% 8,754 18.0% Two or More Races 5,812 12.0% 5,894 12.1% 5,804 12.0%
Totals 100% 100% 100%
27 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Though the city is expected to grow another 2.0% to 48,479, between 2020 and 2028, high demand for housing and action taken by the city to support its development is projected to significantly increase the city’s population over the next two decades, exceeding both Nielsen and ABAG projections. The city’s 2013 General Plan supports a substantial increase in residential development. While ABAG projects a Newark population of 57,000 residents by the year 2040, the city’s General Plan projects a 46% increase in housing units, due to multiple development and housing projects approved by the city, increasing the population to an estimated 60,000 residents by 2035.

In density, Newark had a 2020 population density of 3,424 persons per square mile compared to Alameda County’s density of 2,043 persons per square mile, and 13 times greater than the State of California’s population density of 232 per square mile. Comprising nearly 14 square miles, Newark’s built-out character requires thoughtful planning to better use the city’s existing parks and explore the provision of new facilities within them that meet growing recreational demands while serving the growing population.

AGE GROUPS
The City of Newark, according to the 2020 Census, has three significant age cohorts that define its community profile. The city is comprised of

15.3 Baby Boomers, aged 55+; 23.9% Youth, aged 0 to 17 years; and

36.1% Family Forming Adults, aged 20 to 44 years. These age groups are prime users of city recreation facilities and services.

The Youth cohort drives demand for extracurricular enrichment activities such as before and after school programming, camps, sports, and ageoriented programs for young and teen-age groups. The need for parks and recreation services and amenities will persist as this age group, along with family-forming segments of the population, continues to rely on community recreation for leisure services. Family Forming Adults, aged 21 to 44 years, comprise the largest segment of the population, indicating a continued need for family, youth and preschool services, recreation amenities, and parks within the City of Newark.

The Baby Boomer generation, a cohort aging in place and creating a demand for increased services and programming, comprises 20% of the city’s age groups. 2020 population projections indicate that older adults and retirement age cohorts, including Baby Boomers, will peak and begin to decrease in population as they remain in their Newark residences. The need for senior services, health and wellness, fitness, and support systems for an aging population will remain in demand as elements in the city’s existing recreation network.

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND RESIDENCY
There were 14,946 households in the City of Newark at the time of the 2020 Census. Of these, nearly 85% were family households which include a householder and one or more people living in the same household related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. 37.9% of households had individuals under 18 years of age. Additionally, the median age of householders is growing as homeowners remain in place; in 2020 the median age was 35.4, in 2023 it was 38.2, and is projected to be 39.1 years in 2028.

According to the 2020 Census, there were a total of 15,371 housing units, and 97.2% of those housing units are occupied. Of the occupied units

67.8% are owner occupied and 32.2% are renter occupied. 28 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
INCOME
Overall, Newark is a relevantly affluent community in the Bay Area. The 2023 projected median household income for the City of Newark was $150,574, higher than the State of California at $89,455. From 2023 to 2028 the median household income is projected to increase to $167,640.

There is a portion of the community, however, that will continue to benefit from subsidized programming and fees in order to have access to parks and recreation and community department facilities and services, as 5.8% of households make less than $25,000. While this is a significant number it is less than that of 13.9% of households making less than $25,000 on the state level.

For more information on the city’s demographic analysis and community profile, please see Appendix C (Demographic and Recreational Trends).

3.3 RECREATIONAL TRENDS
Understanding existing and emerging trends in recreational planning is an important tool in projecting interest in and use of recreation services.

For the City of Newark, an analysis of demographic, recreation, social, economic, and regional trends was conducted to best inform the Master Plan Update. Understanding these trends ensures that the city’s planning efforts look ahead while staying relevant with other service providers.

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
Baby Boomers
Baby Boomers are a growing population segment that desire activities and programs that will assist them in maintaining a long and healthy lifestyle. Born between 1946 and 1964, those in this group generally do not view themselves as seniors and many do not plan to retire like generations before them. 7 in 10 Americans plan to work following retirement from their mainstay career, and an additional 14% plan to continue their work as volunteers.1
In the City of Newark, 19% of the
population is aged 52 to 70. Baby Boomers embrace physical fitness and are invested in personal health.2 Park and recreation departments can facilitate Boomers’ needs in physical health, interests and hobbies, resource accessibility, and volunteerism.

Many of today’s Boomers are part of the Sandwich Generation, adults who are providing some kind of care for a parent while raising or supporting their own children. It is estimated that 20 million Americans are currently in this cohort, with that number expected to double within the next 10 years.3 With an aging population and a generation of young adults struggling to achieve financial independence, the burdens and responsibilities of middle-aged Americans are increasing. Nearly half, 47%, of adults in their 40’s and 50’s have a parent aged 65 or older and are either raising a young child or financially supporting a grown child, age 18 older.4 The impact of the Sandwich Generation on recreation is seen in the increased need for multi-generational facilities that serve children, adults, and older adults at a single location and often, simultaneously.

Racial and Ethnic Diversity
According to ABAG, two demographic trends are shaping the growth of Bay Area communities: substantial racial and ethnic diversification, with a 1 John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Center for Survey Research and Analysis, and the University of Connecticut. (2005). Work Trends: Americans Attitudes About Work, Employers, and Government. Retrieved July 6, 2007 from www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/Resources/ Publication/192/WT16%20Press%20Release.pdf
2 Springs, Stephen. “Designing Recreation Centers for Seniors.” Athletic Business Magazine. February 2015.
3 Parker, Kim and Eileen Patten. “The Sandwich Generation: Rising Financial Burdens for Middle-Aged Americans.” (1). Pew Research Center: Social and Demographic Trends. Pew Research Center, 30 Jan 2013. Web. 21 Jan 2014. <www.pewsocialtrends. org/files/2013/01/Sandwich_Generation_Report_FINAL_1-29.pdf> 4 Ibid.
29 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
specific increase in Asian and Latino, or Hispanic, populations.5 Reflected in the city’s own demographic profile, recreational planning will need to meet the needs and expectations of a diverse and growing community.

Millennials
Those born between 1982 and 2000 are referred to as the Millennial Generation. Now between the ages of 16 and 34 years, Millennials number nearly 11 million in the State of California.6
This generation is
the most educated generation of Americans, the most ethnically diverse generation in United States history, and possesses the most disposable income.7 A highly mobile population, recreational planning should take into account the future needs of this demographic.

RECREATION TRENDS
Childhood Obesity and Health
Childhood obesity has gained significant awareness in recent years as a public health concern. In 2010, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese,8
with obesity currently affecting
17% of all children and adolescents in the United States.9 In the City of Newark, nearly 40% of students were categorized as overweight or obese, according to a University of California Los Angeles study on the results of the 2010 California Physical Fitness Test (PFT).10 Parks and 5 Association of Bay Area Governments & Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Plan Bay Area: The Bay Area in 2040 (30)”. Electronic. http://files.mtc.ca.gov/pdf/ Plan_Bay_Area_FINAL/2-The_Bay_Area_In_2040.pdf
6 Nielsen Corporation SiteReports. Figure is based on 2014 estimates for the Town of Windsor, using age groups 15-20, 21-24, and 25-34. See Demographic Analysis for data.
7 California State Parks, Recreation Opportunities publication, March 2010. 8 Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and adolescents, 1999-2010. Journal of the American Medical Association 2012;307(5):483-490.
9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Childhood Overweight and Obesity” <www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/> Atlanta, GA. 5 Aug 2013. Web. 22 Jan 2014. 10 California Dept. of Education, Physical Fitness Testing Research Files (Dec. 2015). recreational planning have the capacity to promote active lifestyles through the provision of active programs and ensuring a safe, accessible open space network.

Unstructured Recreation
Self-directed play and the development of recreation space that allows for unstructured activities is a significant recreational trend that parks and open space environments enable. Linking parks together with green corridors and trails is a feature of community design that encourages mobility, accessibility, socialization, fitness, and an appreciation of the natural environment. The ability to encourage spontaneous play environments is of increasing importance in park design.

SOCIAL TRENDS
Community Design for Social Recreation and Inclusion
Addressing issues of social alienation and physical inactivity through community design, to create usable and vibrant social space, is an emerging trend in recreation planning. 11 As inactivity and social isolation increase, so does the incidence of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, depression, and mental illness.12 Thriving public spaces promote the familiarity and social bonds that make communities and neighborhoods safer and healthier. In promoting social recreation, inclusive design is an important consideration to facilitate interaction by users with various ages, physical abilities, and cultural interests.
11 Project for Public Spaces. (2006). Health and Community Design, Project for Public Places. Retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://www. pps.org/info/placemakingtools/ issuepapers/health_community
12 California State Parks, Recreation Opportunities publication, March 2010. 30 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Sensitivity to Gender Neutrality
Municipal parks and recreation departments are charged with providing healthy and safe recreation programs and services to all community members. As issues of gender and transgender rights gain heightened national awareness, families, communities, and institutions nation-wide are adopting the practice of gender neutrality, defined as creating an environment in which distinguishing roles based on someone’s sex or gender is discouraged. In response, parks and recreation departments are reevaluating policies, facilities, and programs to encourage gender neutrality and not obstruct participation.13
Technology and Social Media
Mobile device technology now plays an important role in recreational lives and habits. Internet and mobile applications are frequently used as tools in activities and programming, with the internet becoming a key method of communicating information. Residents are turning to the web for information, which must be accurate and easy to access to understand their community’s park network.

ECONOMIC TRENDS
Fiscal Accountability
Municipal parks and recreation agencies are required to be fiscally responsible while meeting the challenge of increased demand for services from a growing population. Park and recreation departments must be financially sustainable, competitive in the marketplace, and incorporate sound business practices in operational planning. The City of Newark has experienced these impacts as it grows and develops. The city’s Recreation and Community Services Department has a significant 13 Oakleaf, Linda. “Social Equity in Parks for the Transgender Community.” Parks & Recreation Magazine. October 2015. http://www.parksandrecreation.org/2015/ October/Social-Equity-in-Parks-for-the-Transgender-Community/ challenge in securing sustainable funding to provide the services and facilities needed for the population now and in the future, requiring the creation of a flexible and feasible implementation and operation plan for the city’s park updates and enhancements.

REGIONAL TRENDS FROM RECREATION PROVIDERS
Understanding trends impacting local recreation service providers informs the city’s Recreation and Community Services Department in the provision of services. Recreation Management, a national organization focused on recreation, sports and fitness facilities, conducts an annual survey to assess trends in the field. This survey gathers input from public and private recreation service providers in the United States, with responses organized by region.

The 2016 survey found that service providers in the West Region, which incorporates California, are more likely to:
• Serve all-ages, with a focus on adult and senior programming • Have energy efficient facilities
• Expect development in recreation and additional facilities • Include special use facilities such as dog parks and community gardens
• Provide programming for individual enrichment such as yoga and performing arts
These responses provide benchmarks and assist in shaping the trends and direction of similar jurisdictions in the regional area.

For a detailed description of the recreation trends analysis completed for the Master Plan, see Appendix C (Demographic and Recreational Trends). 31 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
this page is intentionally blank
32 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
this page is intentionally blank

NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34 35
DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SECTIONS

4.1 Demand

4.2 Supply

4.3 Filling the Gap
This section looks at gaps in the city’s park network, established through the collection of community input and collaboration with city staff while incorporating the assessment of the 2017 Citywide Parks Master Plan and the city’s existing framework. Identifying opportunities for enhanced service informs the Master Plan in creating a sustainable and fulfilling park network that addresses community needs and will serve residents for years to come.

The needs assessment for the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update was conducted in the form of a gap analysis. See figure 1 - Gap Analysis.

Gap analysis is generated from an assessment of the city’s existing community profile, current trends in recreation management, a review of the city’s supply of recreation amenities, and the community’s input and expectations. Assessing the level of demand, compared to the city’s supply of recreation services, identifies gaps in service and opportunities to satisfy community needs.

4.1 DEMAND
An understanding of the city’s demand for parks recreation service is informed by an evaluation of the collected community input, the city’s demographic profile, and trends in recreation that may impact city park services.

COMMUNITY INPUT
Community input was gathered through a wide range of data gathering efforts. These could be categorized into three categories: Notices regarding community workshops and updates to the planning process were posted regularly to the city website.
• Community Survey
• Community Outreach events
• Stakeholder Interviews
Community Survey
To assess community needs and interest in Newark’s recreational services, a Community Survey was prepared and accessed via Survey Monkey. The Community Survey was available online through Newark’s city web site. Additionally, seed packets with the QR code to the survey were distributed to the community throughout various community events and outreach workshops during the open data collection period.

Paper copies of the survey were made available at public facilities. The survey was conducted for 5 months from September 2023 to February 2024. The survey resulted in a total of 470 responses.

See Appendix D for a summary of community survey results CHAPTER 4: NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Figure 1 – Gap Analysis
supply demand gap
36 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Community Outreach Events
Throughout the Fall of 2023 and Winter of 2024, three community outreach events were conducted to present the scope and goals of the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update. These outreach events provided an opportunity to gather feedback and community input while sharing updates on the planning process. The outreach events revealed that the Newark community places a higher value on improving and upgrading several existing amenities rather than introducing entirely new ones. The amenities that emerged as the highest priorities include:
• Lighting at sport fields and courts for safety and evening recreational use
• Additional lighting along pathways
• Improved path maintenance
• Playground improvements to several parks
• Field maintenance
Some of the new elements to be included to the park amenities are:
• New Restrooms
• All abilities playground
• Trails and Pathways
Three community outreach events were held late Fall 2023 and Winter of 2024 to present the planning process and goals for the Master Plan Update and to collect feedback and community needs. Community Outreach Event #1 was held on September 17, 2023, at the Newark Days Celebration at the Newark Community Park. The community gave input on their desire for various recreation amenities for both adults and children. The second community outreach event was held January 9, 2024, at the Newark Library’s Community Room. The Consultant team introduced the planning process, presented the results of the community survey and described the gap between the amenities and recreation desired by the community and those currently offered. A third community outreach event, held February 27, 2024, was a prioritization exercise where attendees voted for their desired amenities or activities Notices regarding community outreach events and updates to the planning process were posted regularly to the city website.

See Appendix D (Community Workshops, Notes, & Summary) for notes, photos, and a detailed summary of the community workshops.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW
Community Outreach #1
The first community workshop took place during the Newark Days festival, a popular annual event held at Newark Community Park, centered around the MacGregor Fields and Newark Community Center at 35501 Cedar Blvd. Newark Days is a four-day celebration commemorating the City of Newark’s birthday, attracting a diverse crosssection of the community each September.

During the event, we engaged with a broad spectrum of community members, including adults, seniors, and children of all ages. The booth served as an introduction to the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update, where we explained the planning process, goals, and intent of the update. Attendees were encouraged to provide initial input on their preferences for park amenities and share their vision for the city’s park and recreation network. Alongside the event the community survey was kept open to gather a broader range of feedback from community members.

Feedback from this workshop highlighted an appreciation for Newark’s existing park space, with many attendees noting that the overall size and location of parks effectively served the community. However, there was a strong consensus on the need for improved maintenance and upgrades to existing facilities across the city’s park network. Key concerns included enhanced turf maintenance for sports fields, better trash management, and the modernization of structures such as playgrounds and picnic facilities to ensure ease of access and inclusivity for all users. 37 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Understanding that a significant focus of the Master Plan Update is to assess the feasibility and prioritize the development of new park facilities, attendees were also asked to share their desires for future additions.

Participants strongly advocated for the creation of an all-abilities playground, the installation of new restrooms, and the expansion of trails and pathways to better connect the city’s open spaces and parks.

Community Outreach #2
The second community outreach event took place on January 9, 2024, in the Community Room at the Newark Library. During this session, the Consultant team introduced the planning process, presented the results of the community survey, and discussed the gap between the amenities and park recreational facilities desired by the community (demand) and those currently available (supply). This gap represents the difference between what the community seeks and what is presently offered.

The workshop served as an informational session to update the community on the consensus around desired amenities, the current offerings within the city’s parks facilities, and the identified gaps between the two. Attendees were then organized into smaller breakout groups to participate in a prioritization exercise. Each group was asked to address two key questions: first, to identify sports and recreation facilities they believed would better serve community needs, and second, to prioritize their top three projects or amenities. After the group discussions, each group presented their findings, which were documented for further analysis. Detailed notes, photos, and summaries of these discussions can be found in Appendix D (Community Workshops, Notes, and Summary).

As the workshop concluded, the Consultant team introduced the community to the upcoming “Newark Bucks” exercise, which would take place during the third outreach event. This interactive workshop had been highly popular during the 2017 Citywide Parks Master Plan outreach, and the Consultant team recognized it as a valuable and engaging tool for gathering input on the community’s priorities.

Community Outreach #3
A third community workshop held February 27, 2024, involved a prioritization exercise where attendees were asked to vote for their desired amenities or activities. This was made interactive with an investment-based strategy wherein each attendee was given $500 Newark Dollars or “Newark Bucks” (fake dollars) to put towards 20 identified amenities / activities. They were allowed to spend all their “bucks” on one amenity or distribute them across different amenities.

The key was that all attendees were given a fixed spending amount to place at the station of their most desired amenity or activity. Once the community had an opportunity to complete their spending exercise the bucks were counted, and the valuation of each amenity/activity were tallied up. The results were drafted on flip charts and presented to the attendees. Amenities which were valuated at over $1000 Newark Dollars rose to the top of the chart, of the 20 amenities/activities the following amenities received the highest valuation of “Newark Bucks”:
• Softball Fields
• Restrooms- Update/New
• Play structures- Update/New
• Trails-Hiking/Walking
• Additional Lighting
For a full summary of notes and findings from this workshop see Appendix D (Community Workshops, Notes, & Summary).
38 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Stakeholder Interviews
In addition to community engagement workshops, the Master Plan Update process also included stakeholder interviews. The consultant team conducted stakeholder interviews which included the members interested in pickleball, cricket groups, men’s and women’s softball and baseball groups, Urban Forest and Friends, and the Deaf Plus Adult Community representative. These interviews offered the opportunity for key stakeholders’ groups to provide focused input and perspective on issues related to Newark’s park and recreation system. Groups interviewed include:

Pickleball
• Community members that are Pickleball enthusiasts
Cricket
• ASCE (American School Of Cricket Excellence).
• VK Cricket Academy
• Tricity Performance Club Newark
• Blazers Cricket Academy
• Strikers Academy
• CritBay
Soccer
• Newark Soccer Club
• Northern California Chinese Soccer Federation
• SVIDEA
Baseball and Softball
• Little League
• National Championship Sports/All world Sports
• Newark Girls Softball
Other
• Urban Forest and Friends
• Deaf Plus Adult Community

PRIORITY PROJECTS
During the 2017 Citywide Parks Mater Plan community workshop #2, park projects were selected through collaboration with city staff and the Consultant team as elements to meet recreational demand in the city.

Prior to the Citywide Parks Master Plan, city staff had worked closely with community voices in earlier planning efforts, allowing them to enter this planning process with identified new recreational facilities and park expansions that could serve Newark’s recreational needs. The results of the 2017 workshop revealed the following as top-priority projects in the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan:
• Dog Park
• All-Inclusive Playground
• Synthetic Turf Field(s) with Lights
• Bike Skills Track
• Skate Park
Of the above-mentioned projects the following projects have been completed:
• Dog Park
• Synthetic Turf Field(s) with Lights
• Skate Park
In addition to the new elements to be included to the park amenities identified as a part of the Master Plan Update, the projects that are still pending completion from the 2017 Citywide Parks Master Plan are:
• All-Inclusive Playground
• Bike Skills Track
The schematic master plans were updated to incorporate this community input, some of the significant improvements made to the schematic plans resulted in additional play areas, additional lighting along exterior pathways, outdoor fitness equipment, as well as additional benches and picnic areas.
39 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

COMMUNITY PROFILE
Newark’s community profile shows a city with high demand for recreation and a need for continued park and recreation services as the city expands. The community is family-oriented with aging adults, rooted in their households, prime users of the city’s park network. The city is also racially diverse, dense in population, and largely built-out with substantial expected population growth. This character requires thoughtful planning to better use the city’s existing parks and explore the provision of new facilities within them that will meet growing recreational demands while serving the growing population.

TRENDS IN RECREATION
Communities are moving towards recreational planning that takes into account accessibility, inclusion, and environmental and fiscal sustainability. As the city updates and expands its recreation network it must support user demands. Aging community members and increasing racial diversity impact desired recreation services, while general trends in programming direct user desires. Providing space for flexible and health-oriented activity is a priority for the community. Ensuring that new planning will incorporate inclusion, community cohesion, and technology will be important considerations for the implementation of the Master Plan Update.

4.2 SUPPLY

EXISTING FACILITIES
The city’s existing park network is extensive in size, with parks throughout the city. Neighborhood, community, and special use parks provide community members with programmed recreation and flexible activity, while surrounding open space assets serve as additional places of recreation value. The aged system, however, reveals general issues in accessibility, maintenance, quality of structures and facilities, and an overall need for site activation. Updates to existing infrastructure, regular maintenance, and enhanced safety would add significant value to the city’s parks system. The city is unlikely to acquire substantial new parkland, making it important to efficiently utilize existing facilities and to explore opportunities to add new amenities that satisfy current and future community interests.

4.3 FILLING THE GAP

MEETING COMMUNITY DEMANDS
Before developing the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update, the City of Newark identified several new recreational facilities that the community desired. Newark’s 2013 General Plan included action items such as exploring the development of a skate and bike park, multi-purpose all-weather turf fields at Sportsfield Park, and a dog park for community use. These priorities were reaffirmed in the 2017 Citywide Parks Master Plan. However, the financial constraints of the community at that time prevented these projects from being realized in the short- and mediumterm.

Since then, some of these recommendations have been successfully completed, including the community dog park, synthetic turf fields, and the skate park. The Master Plan Update’s needs assessment recommends prioritizing the completion of the remaining projects identified in 40 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
the 2017 Master Plan. Additionally, the assessment emphasizes the importance of improving and upgrading existing amenities rather than introducing entirely new ones.

The completion of these recreation facilities, along with the implementation of the proposed updates, will greatly enhance Newark’s park system and ensure that the future needs of the community are met.

The community of Newark is composed of prime recreation users, a trend expected to continue as the city grows. Community input indicates that residents highly value recreation, prioritize open spaces for activities, show a growing interest in non-traditional sports, seek adaptive use of the city’s park facilities and resources, and aim to foster community cohesion.

While the city’s existing park amenities are extensive, they are also aging and could be enhanced to meet both current and future recreation demands. Although there is a consensus on the need for improvements, upgrades, and better maintenance of existing features, the planning process has also revealed a strong priority for the creation of unique, special-use facilities that will offer enhanced recreational opportunities in Newark’s built-out urban environment. Notable examples of these facilities include an all-abilities playground and a bike skills track.

The following section will detail the selected projects, including their costs, proposed locations within the city’s park network, and additional park projects identified for the future of Newark’s park system. 41 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
this page is intentionally blank

PLAN 1
234567
44 45
DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SECTIONS

5.1 Vision Framework

5.2 Overarching Goals

5.3 Asset Inventory and Specific Site Recommendations

5.1 VISION FRAMEWORK
As with the 2017 Citywide Park Master Plan the Master Plan Update is guided by the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element of the City’s 2013 General Plan. The goals of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element that guide this Master Plan Update include:

Goal PR-2: Expand and improve Newark’s parks and recreational facilities to meet existing and future needs.

Goal PR-3: Manage Newark’s parks in a way that enhances their natural qualities, conveys a positive image of the city and its neighborhoods, and fully meets the community’s recreational needs.

Goal PR-5: Improve Newark’s trail system, with a focus on access to the Newark shoreline, and access between the shoreline and Newark neighborhoods.

KEY POLICIES RELATED TO THE MASTER PLAN
City of Newark General Plan, 2013
• Creation of the Citywide Parks Master Plan
• Provide adequate and varied recreation opportunities
• Create new high-quality recreational open spaces and enhance existing recreational facilities and open space
• Promote public health and safety
• Develop a more sustainable and healthy community and promote walking and biking through focused development
City of Newark Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, 2017 • Complete the Cedar Boulevard Extension Linear Park to support bike network connectivity
• Support pedestrian-scaled connectivity to the City’s park and open space resources
City of Newark Greater NewPark Masterplan, 2015
• Attract revenue-generating commercial and entertainment uses that complement existing and desired retail and entertainment anchors • Repurpose Shirley Sisk Grove to support the development of Newpark Mall as a vibrant regional commercial center
Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan, 2010 • Develop three park areas - a neighborhood park, a linear park and/or trail that connects to the Bay Trail, and a park adjacent to the Transit Station
CHAPTER 5: PLAN
46 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

5.2 OVERARCHING GOALS
The following overarching goals shape the recommendations proposed in the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update. They are informed by the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element of the city’s General Plan.

PROTECT AND SUPPORT THE EXISTING NETWORK
A leading goal of the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update remains the protection and enhancement of the city’s
existing park network. Protecting and supporting these
spaces enables their use for community recreation,
environmental preservation, visual appreciation and
public safety. Supporting the existing framework is critical in establishing a base for the network’s development and expansion.

ACCOMMODATE DEMANDS IN SERVICE
The recommendations proposed in both the 2017 Master
Plan and the Master Plan Update are dictated by the
community’s existing and future needs in recreational
service. Throughout the planning process, the community has expressed a demand for unique, special-use facilities that will provide enhanced recreation opportunities within the built-out city. The Master Plan Update continues park project recommendations that align with community
desires and available resources. .

ENHANCE COMMUNITY IDENTITY
Parks and open space are valuable amenities that help
define the city’s character, identity, and appeal. Project recommendations aim to meet the community’s needs
while supporting the city’s character in the greater Bay Area.

The recommendations in the Master Plan Update
continue to call for facility updates and modernization of parks that facilitate use by a variety of community
members, improved maintenance for system health,
and responsive design that meets current and future
recreation trends. Additionally, unique, special-use
facilities will not only fulfill community need, but also increase the attractiveness of the city.

FOSTER CONNECTIVITY
Newark’s park system serves as a vital element of the
city’s pedestrian-scale circulation network; destinations for active and accessible recreation. In exploring
enhancements to the existing system, the Master Plan
Update continues the recommendation to incorporate
opportunities to improve connectivity in the city,
particularly through the creation of the Cedar Boulevard Extension Linear Park, which has been identified in the city’s General Plan as an actionable project.

In the following asset inventory and specific site
recommendations, the proposed park projects are listed
along with the overarching project goal, or goals, with which they are aligned.
protect
and
support
demands
in
service
foster
connection
community
identity
47 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

ADDITIONAL THEMES
In addition to the overarching goals, project recommendations incorporate the following themes as elements of a successful park network.

Accessibility
Accessibility is applied in all recommendations made in the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update. Accessibility incorporates ease of access in a variety of ways, including physical accessibility, social inclusion, multigenerational use, and signage and way-finding. Accessibility ensures that all community users will benefit from improvements to the city’s park system. Accessibility is a highly desired need by the community especially with children’s play areas.

Sustainability
Sustainability is applied using best practices in design and operation of park project recommendations. This is applied through the recommended use of lasting materials and environmentally conscious operation standards.

Maintenance and Management
Improved maintenance and management of the park system are key elements in ensuring a lasting network of recreational open space.

Park project recommendations include the need for the city to actively manage and maintain facilities. Ease of maintenance may also include increased community stewardship.

5.3 ASSET INVENTORY AND SPECIFIC SITE

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section reviews the park projects proposed in the 2017 Citywide Parks Master Plan as well as 3 additional park sites that will be added to the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update. These parks include the planned development of Grand Park, MacGregor Park and Sanctuary Park.

The recommendations are organized alphabetically per city park and include the park’s location and size, the opportunities and vision of the park’s plan, specific project recommendations, alignment with the overarching goals of the Master Plan, and total cost at a schematic level.

It is assumed that the implementation of these recommendations will be phased at the city’s discretion.
48 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 2 – Birch Grove Park
*In the detail design process the potential of adding youth baseball fields, with dirt infields, should be considered. This consideration should consider the relative level of utilization of different field types.
49 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

BIRCH GROVE PARK
Location: Birch Street at Robertson Avenue
Size: 15 acres
Use: Community Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Birch Grove Park is a community park in eastern Newark with a variety of existing amenities including grass fields, pedestrian pathways, playgrounds, restroom, group picnic areas, full court basketball, softball field, and tennis courts. The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan envisioned Birch Grove Park to remain a community recreation facility while enhancing the site’s capacity to meet the identified recreational needs of the Newark community. The Master Plan proposed Birch Grove Park to have open park space, dedicated bike skills track and two turf multi-sport fields as major community-serving projects. While the current program for Birch Grove can only accommodate a Bike Skills track the 2022-2024 CIP funded a BMX location study and conceptual design as this type of park requires at least 2 to 5 acres. Additionally, the Master Plan proposed the creation of a reservable sheltered group picnic area and associated amenities such as volleyball and bocce ball courts. The site’s existing playgrounds and water play feature would additionally be updated to best meet the city’s recreation standards.

In addition to the improvements outlined in the Master Plan, the Update recommends adding bleachers along the baseball field and benches near the tennis courts. Given the observed spectator activity during sports events, the community would greatly benefit from increased seating to enhance spectator viewing and encourage greater community engagement during both organized sports and casual games.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at Birch Grove Park:
• 1 dedicated bike skills
• 2 natural turf, multi-sport fields (140 ft x 200 ft)
• 2 sheltered group picnic area, with potential for reservation • 1 volleyball court
• 2 bocce ball courts
• 1 updated school-age play area
• 1 updated tot-age play area
• 1 splash pad
• Bike racks
• Seating Areas
• Trash receptacles
• Updated planting and irrigation
• Field Maintenance

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

community
identity

ESTIMATE OF COST
$4,069,800
50 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

BIRCH GROVE PARK
51 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

BYINGTON PARK
52 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 3 – Byington Park
53 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

BYINGTON PARK
Location: Central Avenue at Byington Drive
Size: 3 acres
Use: Neighborhood Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Byington Park is a designated neighborhood park that was planned as a component of the adjacent housing development. The site contains existing park amenities including a group picnic area, grass field, half court basketball, school-age play area, and splash pad. To enhance the site as a component of Newark’s park system, the 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan proposed the update of Byington Park’s existing playground and adjacent water play area.

Additional recommendations proposed in the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update includes new planting and irrigation.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates are recommended at Byington Park:
• 1 updated school-age play area
• 1 updated splash pad
• New planting and irrigation
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

ESTIMATE OF COST
$1351,411
54 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 4 – Cedar Boulevard Linear Park 1
55 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

CEDAR BOULEVARD LINEAR PARK
Location: Cedar Boulevard from Willow Street to Haley Street Size: 8.5 acres
Use: Community Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Cedar Boulevard is an arterial roadway that circulates throughout the City of Newark, currently terminating at Haley Street. The city, however, has preserved right-of-way for a future extension of Cedar Boulevard to Thornton Avenue. This extension provides potential to create a linear parkway with pathways for dedicated pedestrian and bicycle travel.

To extend the parkway completely, the extension also necessitates the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad.

The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan saw the development of the Cedar Boulevard Linear Park as an opportunity to provide additional park facilities to the city. The Master Plan envisioned Cedar Boulevard Linear Park to be a neighborhood-serving community park, divided into four segments of recreational open space connected through continuous pedestrian circulation. Amid the four segments of the linear park, the Master Plan proposed that Cedar Boulevard Linear Park include a community garden, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian pathways, and outdoor fitness areas as major community-serving features. Additionally, the Master Plan proposed three play areas to serve adjacent neighborhoods, and two decorative gardens for unique and local planting opportunities. A bike and pedestrian bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad will be necessary to complete the extension between Willow Street and Haley Street.

In addition to the proposed improvements in the original Master Plan, the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update included an assessment of current needs and integrated feedback from the community.

Community safety through nighttime lighting emerged as a top priority, the Master Plan Update recommends installing pathway lighting to enhance overall safety and security. Additionally, the Update suggests the addition of picnic tables and more benches to improve seating options throughout the park.

The creation of the Cedar Boulevard Extension is a priority project for the city, referenced in the city’s General Plan through the Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Transportation Elements, and the FY 2014-2016 Capital Improvement Plan. Completing the Cedar Boulevard Linear Park will provide enhanced bike and pedestrian connectivity while serving the community’s recreation and open space needs.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following projects are recommended at the proposed Cedar Boulevard Linear Park:
• 2 school-age play areas
• 1 tot-age play area
• 2 decorative gardens
• 1 community garden
• 4 outdoor fitness areas
• Bike and pedestrian pathway
• Pedestrian overpass
• Planting and irrigation
• Pathway lighting
• Benches and picnic tables
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
demands
in
service

community
identity

foster
connection

ESTIMATE OF COST
$ 5,622,500
56 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 5 – Cedar Boulevard Linear Park 2
57 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 6 – Cedar Boulevard Linear Park 3
58 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 7 – Cedar Boulevard Linear Park 4
59 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
60 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 8 – Civic Center Park
61 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

CIVIC CENTER PARK
Location: Civic Terrace Avenue at Newark Boulevard
Size: 5 acres
Use: Neighborhood Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Civic Center Park is a 5-acre neighborhood park in central Newark, adjacent to the city’s new city hall and the former public library. The park currently has grass lawn, a perimeter path, two group picnic areas, a full court basketball, and a playground. The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan envisioned Civic Center Park to remain neighborhood oriented while improving the site as a civic destination with the addition of added public gathering space. The Master Plan proposed Civic Center Park include a small turf multi-sport field and a sheltered group picnic area as major community-serving projects. As amenities associated with the group picnic area, the Master Plan Update proposes the addition of an updated school-age play area.

Depending on the future use of the former public library building, the recommendations in the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update may need to be revisited. Community priority assessments have highlighted an all-abilities playground as a high-priority amenity. The Master Plan Update identifies Civic Center Park as a potential site for this playground, contingent upon the removal of the existing building.

Additionally, if the existing building is removed, the Master Plan Update recommends the installation of new restrooms at Civic Center Park.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at Civic Center Park:
• 1 natural turf, multi-sport field (140 ft x 200 ft)
• 1 sheltered group picnic area, with potential for reservation • 1 school-age play area
• 1 tot play area
• 1 new restroom (to be added if the former Newark Library is removed) • Updated planting and irrigation
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles
• Chain link fence along the railroad right of way

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

community
identity

ESTIMATE OF COST
$2,092,300
62 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

CIVIC CENTER PARK
63 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

GRAND PARK
64 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 9 – Grand Park
65 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

GRAND PARK
Location: Enterprise Drive at Hickory Street
Size: 5 acres
Use: Proposed Community Park
Note: Plans and execution by private developer

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
The proposed Grand Park, located at the western edge of the city is envisioned as a community park for Newark. The currently undeveloped open space is cited in the 2010 Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan as a site for one of three proposed parks in the planned Dumbarton transitoriented development, serving the area west of the proposed transit center while providing a connection to the existing Bay Trail along Willow Street. According to the Dumbarton TOD plan, the three proposed parks may include restroom facilities, a dog park, and/or an outdoor amphitheater.

The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan envisioned Grand Park to be a community recreation facility serving the proposed TOD development with a group picnic area, school age and tot age play areas, a multi-use grass sports field, restroom facilities, a dog park, and/or an outdoor amphitheater. Additionally, due to the site’s unique location and relationship to Bay wetlands, Grand Park may include environmentally complementary features such as vegetated water treatment swales. Developing the proposed Grand Park will satisfy the goals of the Dumbarton TOD Specific Plan and provide the Newark community with a valuable recreation amenity.

Since the 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan, a private developer has submitted plans for Grand Park. The proposed development includes a grass sports field, open lawn space, dog parks for both small and large dogs, children’s play areas segmented by age group, and a multiuse event area. Additional improvements feature park seating such as benches and picnic tables, bike racks, and a wildflower garden.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS (BY DEVELOPER) – SEE

UPDATED PLANS BY DEVELOPER
The following projects are recommended at the proposed Grand Park:
• ADA Accessible stage and amphitheater
• 1 dog park, with separated small and large dog areas
• 2 sheltered group picnic areas, with potential for reservation • Event lawn with overhead arbor and string lights
• Sports lawn
• Flex lawn
• 1 school-age play area
• 1 tot-age play area
• Interactive play elements for school-age and tot-age play areas • Adult recreation sets such as ping pong and cornhole
• 1 new restroom
• Meandering pathway system with potential connection to Bay Trail, to the north
• Signage including monument signage
• Bike racks and bike lockers (for short term and long-term parking) • Vegetated water treatment swales
• Wildflower Garden
• Planting and irrigation
• Parking lot with designated parking for recreation vehicles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
demands
in
service

community
identity

ESTIMATE OF COST
Per private developer
66 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 10 – Jerry Raber Ash Street Park
67 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

JERRY RABER ASH STREET PARK
Location: Enterprise Drive at Filbert Street
Size: 6 acres
Use: Neighborhood Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Jerry Raber Ash Street Park is a community-serving neighborhood park in western Newark. The park is a well-used and active recreation facility - with existing amenities including sheltered group picnic areas, playgrounds, full court basketball, grass lawn, pedestrian paths, two softball pitches, and restroom. The site additionally includes the privately operated Viola Blythe Community Service Center of Newark, the soon to be Newark Resource Center, and a segment of the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan envisioned Jerry Raber Ash Street Park remain a neighborhood park while enhancing the site’s recreational capacity to meet the active needs of the park’s existing users and the community of Newark. The 2017 Newark Parks Master Plan proposed several projects to strengthen the site’s capacity as a recreational facility. These projects include the creation of a natural turf multi-sport field, an additional group picnic site, a volleyball court, and updated playgrounds. Additionally, a decorative garden and several bocce ball courts are proposed. These latter projects are designed with intent to collaborate with the Clark W. Redeker Newark Senior Center, neighboring the park site. Importantly, the proposed decorative garden is located along the park’s Hetch Hetchy right-of-way segment, utilizing the open space at the utility easement in a passive and non-disruptive, yet activating, manner.

In response to growing demand from the softball community, the Master Plan Update recommends upgrading the existing softball pitch to a fullsized field to better accommodate community needs. In addition to the vision of the original Master Plan, the enhancements recommend in the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update are focused on maintenance and upkeep of equipment. Proper field maintenance in parks is essential to ensure safe, enjoyable, and sustainable recreational spaces for the community. Regular maintenance of play equipment in parks is crucial to ensure the safety and well-being of children, providing a secure and enjoyable environment for play. The Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update recommends that play equipment is replaced every twelve years.

With an increase in the use of bicycles, recommendations include the addition of bike racks for bicycle parking.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at Jerry Raber Ash Street Park:
• 1 natural turf, multi-sport field (140 ft x 200 ft)
• 1 un-sheltered group picnic area, with potential for reservation • 1 volleyball court
• 4 bocce ball courts
• 1 Full Size Softball Field
• 1 updated school-age play area
• 1 updated tot-age play area
• 1 decorative garden
• Updated planting and irrigation
• Field maintenance
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

community
identity

ESTIMATE OF COST
$1,235,100
68 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

JERRY RABER ASH STREET PARK
69 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
this page is intentionally blank
70 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 11 – Lakeshore Park 1
71 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

LAKESHORE PARK
Location: Lake Boulevard at Parkshore Drive
Size: 26 acres (10 acres turf, 16 acres water)
Use: Neighborhood Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Lakeshore Park is a neighborhood park located in northwest Newark.

The park is comprised of a man-made body of water surrounded by a perimeter network of pedestrian pathways and grass lawn. The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan envisioned the activation of Lakeshore Park through an updated parcourse fitness trail and improved recreation amenities for community gathering.

The Master Plan recommended the creation of a new school-age play area, and associated seating, as well as four new outdoor fitness areas to create an active pedestrian and fitness circuit along the perimeter of the park. As the existing restroom is one stall in the boathouse, available to staff only; a new restroom for park users is recommended to better serve user needs.

Feedback from the community survey conducted during the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update indicates that park lighting and additional seating are highly valued priorities. Accordingly, the Master Plan Update recommends enhancing lighting throughout Lakeshore Park, especially along the pathways, to improve safety, security, and ease of navigation. Additional recommendations include the establishment of group picnic areas, increased park seating such as benches, tables, and chairs, as well as the installation of trash receptacles and bike racks near the boat dock for convenient bicycle parking.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at Lakeshore Park:
• 1 school-age play area and seating area
• 4 outdoor fitness areas
• Planting and irrigation
• Lighting
• Group picnic area including tables, chairs and benches • 1 new restroom
• Trash receptacles
• New bike racks at boathouse

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

ESTIMATE OF COST
$3,111,400
72 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 12 – Lakeshore Park 2
73 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 13 – Lakeshore Park 3
74 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 14 – Lakeshore Park 4
75 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 15 – MacGregor Playfields
76 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
77 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

MACGREGOR PLAYFIELDS
Location: Cedar Boulevards
Size: 10.6 acres
Use: Community Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Currently the City of Newark has a joint use agreement with the Newark Unified School District for the use of MacGregor Playfields. The site contains an existing open field area, soccer field and parking lot. Under the joint use agreement, the city constructed the playfield, parking lot and structures, as well as performs ongoing maintenance while the School District pays for the irrigation. The open field area is in poor condition with rough and uneven grass.

A feasibility study was conducted to identify potential locations for a dedicated cricket pitch. Based on the required dimensions, MacGregor Playfields emerged as a viable option. However, to address the community’s prioritized needs, the Master Plan Update recommends enhancing the playfields to support soccer and other field sports. This would involve potential re-grading for a level site and may require additional parking.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at MacGregor Playfields:
• 1 Multi-use field
• 1 Full sized softball field
• Field maintenance
• Lighting
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

community
identity

foster
connection

ESTIMATE OF COST
$551,800
78 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

MACGREGOR PLAYFIELDS
79 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

MAYHEWS LANDING PARK
80 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 16 – Mayhews Landing Park
81 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

MAYHEWS LANDING PARK
Location: Cherry Street at Montcalm Avenue
Size: 8 acres
Use: Neighborhood Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Mayhews Landing Park is a designated neighborhood park near central Newark with existing recreational amenities that include a grass lawn, a perimeter path, playgrounds, an un-sheltered group picnic site, and full court basketball. To enhance the site as a part of Newark’s park system, the 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan proposed the update of Mayhews Landing Park’s existing playgrounds and the addition of a volleyball court as an amenity associated with the existing group picnic area.

During the community meetings conducted for the 2017 Master Plan, volleyball was identified as a desirable amenity. However, the recent community survey and usage assessment conducted during the development of the Newark Citywide Parks Masterplan Update revealed that volleyball is no longer a popular choice. The Master Plan Update recommends dedicating an area to adult fitness instead of a volleyball court, as this would likely see greater use and be a beneficial addition to Mayhews Landing Park. Additionally, the Master Plan Update suggests updating the existing group picnic area with new furnishings to replace the old fixtures alongside the regular upkeep and maintenance of turf fields.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at Mayhews Landing Park:
• 1 updated school-age play area
• Adult fitness equipment
• Update group picnic area furnishings
• Field maintenance
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

ESTIMATE OF COST
$1,844,000
82 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 17 – Mirabeau Park
83 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

MIRABEAU PARK
Location: Haley Street at Mirabeau Drive
Size: 6 acres
Use: Neighborhood Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Mirabeau Park is designated a neighborhood park located in northwest Newark. The site’s existing recreation amenities include a grass lawn, pedestrian paths, and a playground. To enhance the site as a component of Newark’s park system, the 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan proposed the update of the existing playground and the addition of a volleyball court and half court basketball to activate the site for enhanced recreational use.

As previously mentioned, volleyball was considered a desirable community amenity during the 2017 Parks Master Plan process.

However, based on recent community feedback and use assessment, it is no longer a high priority amenity. The Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update now recommends that a climbing wall would be a positive and valued addition to the parks and recreation facilities. Mirabeau Park has been identified as an ideal location for a climbing wall, catering to a wide age group of community members. Regular field maintenance to ensure the upkeep of turf fields is also recommended.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at Mirabeau Park:
• 1 updated school-age play area
• 1 climbing wall
• 1 half court basketball
• Field maintenance
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

ESTIMATE OF COST
$689,500
84 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

MIRABEAU PARK
85 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

MUSICK PARK
86 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 18 – Musick Park
87 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

MUSICK PARK
Location: Musick Avenue at Cedar Boulevard
Size: 1 acre
Use: Neighborhood Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Musick Park is a 1-acre neighborhood park located in northeast Newark.

The park’s existing amenities include grass lawn, a playground, and a pedestrian path utilized for passive recreation. The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan recommended the update of the existing playground and the addition of seating as well as a perimeter fence.

Fencing is recommended due to the high traffic volume on Cedar Boulevard. These features will improve user comfort and safety and enhance the site as a component of the City’s larger park network.

In addition to the updates recommended in the 2017 Master Plan, the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update suggests adding benches throughout Musick Park to enhance usability and comfort for the community.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at Musick Park:
• 1 updated school-age play area
• Seating
• Barrier fence
• Benches
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

ESTIMATE OF COST
$962,500
88 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 19 – Newark Community Park
89 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

NEWARK COMMUNITY PARK
Location: Cedar Boulevard at Chapman Drive
Size: 16 acres
Use: Community Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Newark Community Park is one of the city’s largest and most active community parks. Located in northern Newark, the park contains a grass lawn, pedestrian pathways, playgrounds, picnic areas, full court basketball, wall ball, tennis courts, and a restroom. The park is adjacent to the city’s Community Center.

The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan envisioned Newark Community Park to be a community open space with destination recreation features that will increase the site’s capacity to meet the city’s identified recreational needs. The Master Plan proposed the park to have a community dog park, accessible multi-age playgrounds, and reservable picnic sites. It was also recommended that the proposed picnic sites provide associated recreation features including volleyball courts, basketball, and an updated restroom. The inclusion of the proposed updates and recreational projects will significantly enhance the park’s capacity to meet the community’s current and future recreational needs..

The community dog park proposed in the 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan has been completed and is now fully operational. In addition to the other improvements suggested in the 2017 Parks Master Plan, the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan Update recommends the following:
the creation of an all-abilities children’s playground and replacing one of the two proposed volleyball courts with a bocce ball court, which would be a complementary addition to one of the group picnic areas. Given that Newark Community Park is one of the city’s largest parks and often hosts various community events, the park would benefit from additional lighting as well as regular field and turf maintenance. The community would also benefit from updating the existing restroom facilities and providing an additional restrooms to the park.

As previously mentioned, pickleball has emerged as a rapidly growing sport popular across various age groups. In response to this demand, the Master Plan Update recommends that the City of Newark consider adding a dedicated pickleball court or converting an existing tennis court with appropriate striping for pickleball use.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following updates and projects are recommended at Newark Community Park:
• 4 sheltered group picnic areas, with potential for reservation • 1 all-abilities play area for both school and tot age • 1 volleyball courts
• 2 bocce ball court
• 1 full court basketball
• 1 pickleball court - future
• 1 new restroom
• Updated existing restroom
• Updated planting and irrigation
• Additional lighting
• Field maintenance
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

community
identity

ESTIMATE OF COST
$4,193,000
90 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

NEWARK COMMUNITY PARK
91 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SANCTUARY PARK
92 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 20 – Sanctuary Park
93 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SANCTUARY PARK
Location: Sea Turtle Drive, Dragonfly Street., and Brush Rabbit Avenue Size: 3 acres
Use: Neighborhood Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Sanctuary Park is a 3-acre neighborhood park constructed as part of the Sanctuary Village housing development. It currently consists of an irrigated open grass field with several newly planted trees. The irrigation for the park will be connected to reclaimed water in the future. The community ranked access to walking paths, updated children’s play areas, and group picnic/gathering areas important on the community survey. These elements are all consistent with the development of a neighborhood park and are recommended for Sanctuary Park. A halfcourt basketball is also recommended. An open grass field will provide space for informal field sports.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following projects are recommended for Sanctuary Park:
• 1 school-age play area
• 1 tot-age play area
• 2 group gathering/picnic areas
• 1 half court basketball
• Walking path
• Open playfield
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

ESTIMATE OF COST
$1,636,500
94 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 21 – Shirley Sisk Grove
95 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SHIRLEY SISK GROVE
Location: Cedar Boulevard at North Magazine
Size: 2 acres
Use: Special Use Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Shirley Sisk Grove is designated a special use park located in southwest Newark. The Grove has been host to the city’s summer concert for nearly thirty years, despite the site’s lack of permanent recreation facilities, utilities, or on-site parking. The 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan envisioned Shirley Sisk Grove as a permanent, outdoor performance space for Newark’s community. The suggested improvements include the placement of a permanent outdoor stage and stage shelter, a permanent restroom, storage for event materials, and planting and irrigation for outdoor seating. To further improve the Grove the Master Plan also proposed the addition of a play area and an on-site parking lot to improve site accessibility.

The City of Newark is collaborating with the development team of the NewPark Mall prior to finalizing the plans for the park. The recommendations outlined in the 2017 Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan remain relevant, and the Parks Master Plan Update additionally recommends the installation of drinking fountains to the previously proposed improvements. The inclusion of a loading area for events is also recommended. The city may assess parking needs during the detailed design phase, considering the development of NewPark Mall.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS
The following projects are recommended at Shirley Sisk Grove:
• 1 outdoor amphitheater, including outdoor stage and stage shelter • 1 storage
• 1 school-age play area
• 1 new restroom
• Pedestrian pathway
• Updated planting and irrigation
• Parking lot
• Drinking fountains
• Bike racks
• Trash receptacles
• Loading / unloading zone for events

ALIGNED MASTER PLAN GOALS
protect
and
support

demands
in
service

community
identity

foster
connection

ESTIMATE OF COST
$3,085,300
96 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SHIRLEY SISK GROVE
97 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
this page is intentionally blank
98 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Figure 22 – Sportsfield Park 1
99 DRAFT Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan

SPORTSFIELD PARK
Location: Mowry Boulevard at Cherry Street
Size: 30 acres
Use: Community Park

OPPORTUNITIES AND VISION
Newark’s Sportsfield Park is a community park located in south Newark.

The George M. Silliman Community Activity Center is located within the park. With its active turf fields, Sportsfield Park is the city’s largest dedicated sport facility, regularly hosting soccer, baseball and softball events throughout the year. Sportsfield Park is currently home to natural grass and synthetic turf for recreation and competitive field sports, a youth baseball and softball field, a perimeter pedestrian path, and restroom.

Newark City CouncilOctober 23, 2025

Newark City Council
October 23, 2025