AGENDA and NOTICE
Special Meeting
Thursday, October 23, 2025
5:30 P.M
A. ROLL CALL
B. CITY MANAGER REPORTS
1. Introductory presentation of background and majority of projects for proposed amendments to the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
2. Overview of the Thornton Avenue Overlay Phase 1 (Interstate 880 to Olive Street) Project for Proposed Amendment to the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
3. Overview of Community Park - All Abilities Play Area Project for Proposed Amendment to the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
C. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING INFORMATION
Members of the public may attend the meeting in person, watch online or watch on Cable Channel 26. The ability to observe online or Cable Channel 26 is predicated on those technologies being available and functioning without technical difficulties. Should those platforms not be available, or become non-functioning, or should the City Council otherwise encounter technical difficulties that make those platforms unavailable, the City Council will proceed with business in person unless otherwise prohibited by law.
How to view the meeting remotely:
Livestream online at YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@cityofnewark3077/streams Copy/paste the YouTube URL into your browser if the link does not automatically open.
Cable Channel 26 - if the meeting does not broadcast live, please contact your service provider and request the City of Newark channel lineup.
Zoom will no longer be available for public participation unless required by Assembly Bill 2449. Should a Council Member or the Mayor attend the meeting via Zoom pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449, then the Webinar ID 843 9096 3672 will be activated. The Mayor will make an announcement at the beginning of the meeting that the City will be allowing public comment via Zoom. Raise your virtual hand to notify the City Clerk that you would like to speak during the item that you wish to speak on.
How to submit written Public Comment:
Send an email to City Clerk by 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the agenda item number in the subject line of your email. Emails will be compiled into one file and will be distributed to the City Council before the meeting.
No question shall be asked of a council member, city staff, or an audience member except through the Mayor. No person shall interrupt the meeting. Any person who refuses to carry out instructions given by the Mayor for the purpose of maintaining order may be guilty of an infraction and may result in removal from the meeting.
Council Meeting Access/Materials:
The agenda packet is available for review at Agendas and Minutes. The packet is typically posted to the City website the Friday before the meeting, but no later than 24 hours before a special meeting.
Pursuant to Government Code 54957.5, supplemental materials distributed less than 24 hours before this special meeting, to a majority of the City Council, will be made available for public inspection at this meeting and will be posted at https://www.newark.org/departments/city-manager-s-office/agendas-minutes and will concurrently be made available for public inspection during regular business hours at the David W. Smith City Hall, 37101 Newark Boulevard, Newark CA. Materials prepared by City staff and distributed during the meeting are available for public inspection at the meeting or after the meeting if prepared by some other person. Documents related to closed session items or are exempt from disclosure will not be made available for public inspection. For those persons who require special accommodations, please contact the City Clerk at least two days prior to the meeting at City Clerk or 510-578-4266.
Mission Statement
It is our mission to serve and partner with our community to continually enhance the quality of life of everyone in Newark.
Executive Team
David J. Benoun
City Manager
Lenka Hovorka
Assistant City Manager
Kristopher J. Kokotaylo
City Attorney
Steven Turner
Community Development Director
Jonathan Arguello
Police Chief
Edwin Miranda
CIO/Information Technology Director
Howard Young
Public Works Director
Brittney Frye
Human Resources Director
Krysten Lee
Finance Director
Ryan Nishimoto
ACFD Deputy Chief
Nicholas Cuevas, Recreation and Community Services Director Item B. 1.
DATE 10/23/2025
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Miki Tsubota, City Engineer
SUBJECT Introductory presentation of background and majority of projects for proposed amendments to the 2024-2026 Biennial
Budget and Capital Improvement Plan
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
There are three items on the City Council meeting agenda related to amending the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This first item involves an introductory presentation of the background of the CIP and the majority of projects being considered for inclusion in a CIP Amendment in which no conflicts exist. Due to conflicts of interests for Council Members, discussion will be limited to the projects in this report.
The next two items on the agenda will each focus on an additional project in order to address the conflicts, including a park project and a pavement project.
City staff are currently preparing a new rolling five-year CIP to be presented to City Council in early 2026 with a goal of City Council adoption by June 2026. The rolling five-year CIP improves on existing practices by providing more realistic project delivery forecast, providing more long-term accountability and transparency, better preparing projects for long-term grant readiness, and providing better long-term Council and community alignment.
Before the new rolling five-year CIP is effective, staff will be recommending an amendment to the current 2024-2026 Biennial Budget (Budget) and CIP. This amendment was anticipated, as the Budget and CIP adopted in June 2024 only included a partial list of projects anticipating the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update and the Citywide Facilities Master Plan (collectively, Master Plans) approved in fall 2024. These documents provide strategic frameworks for the future development of parks and facilities across the City. Staff have reviewed the recommendations within the Master Plans, and will present an overview of high priority projects for consideration to be incorporated into the current CIP along with necessary project budgets. In addition, staff will also propose a list of projects for consideration to be reinstated and highlight projects that will achieve substantial progress this fiscal year.
No formal action is needed on this item. Based on City Council and public input, a draft final amendment to the Budget and CIP will be presented to City Council for consideration in late 2025.
consideration in late 2025.
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the 2024-2026 Biennial Budget and CIP on June 27, 2024.
The general purpose of the CIP is to identify and prioritize capital improvement projects for potential funding. Projects typically include improvements to streets, parks, and facilities as well as large maintenance projects or acquisition of new equipment that would fall outside of a department's operating budget. Feasibility studies and master plans to help identify and prioritize projects are also often incorporated into the CIP. Projects submitted for consideration must satisfy at least one of the City's five strategic areas (Public Safety Services, Education, Quality of Life, Community Development, and City Government Operations). Projects are also categorized into priority levels based on meeting legal, grant matching, or regulatory requirements; satisfying a critical risk management issue to ensure public safety; serving to preserve and protect the City's existing assets and public infrastructure; and community benefit.
The City has several major sources of funding for capital improvement projects:
Gas Taxes primarily consists of ongoing direct local distribution of funds through the State of California Highway Users Tax Account, the State Road Maintenance Rehabilitation Account, Measure BB Transportation Sales Tax, and Vehicle Registration funds through the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
Eligible uses of gas tax funds include local street and road maintenance and traffic improvements. The City has typically used gas tax funds for ongoing street maintenance programs that include street resurfacing; curb, gutter and sidewalk replacement; street tree maintenance; traffic calming measures; and other street maintenance needs.
Capital Funds can be used for any type of project and are typically generated through budget surpluses and transfers from the General Fund or other major fund sources.
The Community Development Maintenance Fund is typically used for conducting feasibility studies, master plans, or other similar efforts or projects that directly support the City's General Plan.
Park Impact Fees may only be used to acquire new park land and to complete improvement projects at existing parks.
Development Impact Fees include Public Safety Impact Fees, Community Service Impact Fees, and Traffic Impact Fees. These funds are used when a project-specific nexus has been identified for the respective fee category.
Other sources - The City regularly pursues grant opportunities from various federal, state, regional, and other sources for CIP projects. Outside grant funding for larger projects is essential for preserving local funds in each of the categories above.
For decades, a biennial budget and CIP have been presented to City Council for adoption. Typically, during the first quarter of each even year, staff would present the CIP process, a summary of the projects for consideration, prioritization criteria for project selection, and available funding sources. After providing staff recommendations and receiving City Council direction, a draft CIP is presented, then the CIP is adopted with the biennial budget. Each new CIP replaces the previous version and includes all projects submitted throughout the City's history, noting whether projects are funded or unfunded.
After a CIP overview presentation to City Council in January 2024, the City Council encountered unexpected absences of two Council Members. As a result of these unexpected absences, combined with Council Member recusals, staff presented a draft CIP to the City Council without a number of previously approved CIP projects that was ultimately adopted in June 2024.
Also, after the CIP was adopted, two studies with significant relevance to the CIP were completed and approved by City Council - the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update and the City's first Citywide Facilities Master Plan. Knowing these plans were in progress when the CIP was adopted, no new parks projects were initially approved nor was there a prioritization discussion of previously submitted (funded and unfunded) parks projects. Staff recommended and City Council agreed that this discussion would be part of the CIP update. While building projects were discussed and approved, it was understood that projects might be reprioritized based on the information contained in the Citywide Facilities Master Plan.
On October 10, 2024, City Council approved the Citywide Facilities Master Plan that included analysis of the City's 24 buildings and recommendations for preventative maintenance measures for active facilities, capital projects, new or replacement facilities, and buildings to consider for future sale, demolition or repurposing. The Facilities Master Plan prioritized replacement of Fire Station 27 on Cherry Street, replacement of Fire Station 29 on Ruschin Drive, and replacement of the Newark Community Center on Cedar Boulevard. At the October 10, 2024 City Council meeting, City Council directed staff to explore funding options for the replacement of these three facilities. Since replacement of the two fire stations were identified as a priority based on operational needs and code regulations, funds to initiate contracts and to begin the preliminary assessment work for this effort are included in the CIP amendment. Initial work for the Newark Community Center replacement is planned to be considered in the inclusion of the next CIP cycle that begins in early 2026. Further assessment and community engagement with regard to the City's three vacant buildings - Watkins Hall, Fire Station 1, and the previous Library - is also planned to occur in 2026.
On November 11, 2024, City Council approved the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update (Update) that included 111 projects that modernize or add amenities to the City's 14 parks with an estimated cost of over $37 million. This does not include the developer-funded Grand Park in Sanctuary Village that is currently being designed.
In contrast to the original Parks Master Plan in 2017, the community input in the 2024 Update showed greater interest in upgrading or maintaining current amenities at a higher level, rather than adding new amenities. Areas of interest were categorized into four groups: children's play areas; restrooms; maintenance and playfields; or trails and pathway improvements. Projects in the Update were also categorized into eight groups: safety, community identified priority, fulfillment of unmet needs, service area, operational efficiency, potential revenue generation, legal compliance, and inclusion in previous planning efforts. Among the projects in the highest priority group were the replacement of playgrounds located at Mirabeau Park, Jerry Raber Ash Street Park, and Birch Grove Park.
Since adoption of the 2024-2026 CIP, several projects have been completed or are near completion while anticipating a CIP amendment. Examples include protected bike lane safety corridors along Cherry Street and Newark Boulevard, street paving and striping projects, accessible pedestrian ramps retrofitting, and purchases to increase public safety and assist in law enforcement efforts.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Staff completed an analysis of the status of projects in the 2024-2026 CIP, projects that were not included in the approved CIP due to a lack of a City Council quorum or pending master plan approvals, and the personnel and financial resources required to complete projects. Staff is now proposing a draft amendment to the Budget and CIP (Amendment), which was developed using the same process used for the current CIP - verifying that projects align with the City's strategic goals and assigning appropriate priority levels. The Amendment ensures:
Park Impact Fees are utilized on projects that have been prioritized through community engagement in preparing the Citywide Parks Master Plan Update; Budgets are established for the highest priority Facilities Master Plan projects - replacement of two fire stations - in order to begin the preliminary studies required for new construction. Funding for later phases, including construction, will be discussed in detail during the five-year CIP planning process.
In-progress projects previously prioritized by City Council continue without disruption, such as Old Town Streetscape and Thornton Avenue Overlay projects; Projects that rely on grants or other funding sources continue to make necessary progress to meet grant funding milestones.
The preliminary recommendations of new projects, associated estimated costs, and recommended funding sources are:
Parks Master Plan Priority Group 1
Birch Grove Park - Updated Playground; $2.3 million (Funding: Park Impact Fees) Jerry Raber Ash Street Park - Updated Playground; $824,000 (Funding: Park Impact Fees)
Mirabeau Park - Updated Playground; $620,000 (Funding: Park Impact Fees) The cost of all three projects is approximately $3.74 million, which would reduce the Park Impact Fees balance from $9.93 million to $6.19 million. If the recommended park projects are approved, staff intends to perform outreach to inform adjacent residents and community of the design of the replacement playgrounds.
Facilities Master Plan Priority
Reconstruct Fire Stations #27 and #29 - Preliminary Planning; $3.5 million (Funding: Measure GG)
Measure GG is a 25-year one-half cent transaction and use tax approved by Newark Measure GG is a 25-year one-half cent transaction and use tax approved by Newark voters in 2016. The measure is a general tax that allows the City to use the funds for any legitimate governmental purpose. The City Council prioritized the use of the revenue collected for facilities and services, and is currently making bond repayments for the Civic Center, which replaced aging City Hall (including police operations) and library buildings with Measure GG revenue. The difference between Measure GG revenue and the bond repayments is currently around $2.8 million per year and is expected to increase to over $4 million per year in Fiscal Year 2029. This revenue was identified as a potential funding source for costs related to the replacement of Fire Station Numbers 27 and 29 in a presentation to City Council on February 22, 2024.
The recommendations of reinstated projects, estimated costs, and funding sources are:
Priority Development Area
Old Town Priority Development Area Streetscape Improvements Design; $915,000 (Funding: Measure BB)
Old Town Priority Development Area Streetscape Improvements Construction; $17.1 million (Funding: One Bay Area Grant, Regional Measure 3, Transportation Fund for Clean Air, Priority Legislative Budget Projects funding championed by Assemblymember Alex Lee and Congressman Ro Khanna)
Priority Projects
Railroad Quiet Zones Implementation Design; $915,000 (Funding: Priority Legislative Budget Projects funding championed by Assemblymember Alex Lee) Thornton Avenue Pavement Overlay Phase 2 from Ash Street to Spruce Street; $2.3 million (Funding: Congressionally Directed Spending Program championed by Congressman Ro Khanna)
All recommended reinstated projects are funded by a variety of regional grants and tax measures and state and federal funding.
Next Steps
State law requires that the Planning Commission review all CIP projects for conformance with the City's General Plan. This review ensures that proposed capital projects support Newark's long-term land use, infrastructure, and community development goals. Following incorporation of the feedback during the presentation of this informational report, staff anticipates presenting the draft CIP Amendment to the Planning Commission in October/November 2025 and return to the City Council for consideration of the draft CIP Amendment in November/December 2025. Staff expects to achieve substantial progress or completion of projects included in the CIP Amendment in the current fiscal year (through June 30, 2026).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this informational report. Staff will return to City Council in November/December 2025 to request approval of a draft CIP Amendment and the associated budget actions required to implement the amendment.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Miki Tsubota, City Engineer
Reviewed by - Howard Young, Public Works Director
Reviewed by - Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Summary of Proposed 2024-2026 CIP Amendment
2024-2026 CIP List of Projects
Citywide Facilities Master Plan
Citywide Parks Master Plan Update
Overview of CIP Amendment Presentation
Estimated
Cost
Funding Source
Available Balance
Recommended
Funding Source* Justification
1 Jerry Raber Ash Street Park – Updated Playground $ 824,000 2 Mirabeau Park – Updated Playground $ 620,000
3 Birch Grove Park - Updated Playground $ 2,300,000
Subtotal Parks Projects: $ 3,744,000
4 Reconstruct Fire Stations #27 on Cherry St. & #29 on Ruschin Dr.– Preliminary studies including Program and Construction Management services $ 3,500,000 $ 21,000,000 Measure GG Facilities Master Plan Priority 5 Old Town Priority Development Area Streetscape Improvements (Design) $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Measure BB Priority Development Area $ 5,141,000 OBAG3
$ 1,000,000 PLBP
$ 10,430,000 RM3
$ 68,000 TFCA
$ 437,500 PLBP
Subtotal: $ 17,076,500
7 Railroad Quiet Zones Implementation- Design $ 915,000 $ 915,000 PLBP Priority project $ 1,000,000 CPFCDS
$ 1,300,000 RM3
Subtotal: $ 2,300,000
$ 28,535,500
* Key: CPFCDS: Community Project Funding / Congressionally Directed Spending program Measure GG: one-half percent transactions and use (sales) tax in the City of Newark Measure BB: a one-half cent sales tax for local transportation projects and programs OBAG3: One Bay Area Grant- Federal transportation funding from the Federal Highway Administration PLBP: California Legislature authorized funding for Priority Legislative Budget Projects RM3: Regional Measure 3- Bridge Toll funds for highway and transit improvements TFCA: Transportation Fund for Clean Air $4 surcharge on motor vehicles Old Town PDA Streetscape Improvements and Complete Streets (Construction) $ 17,076,500 Summary of Proposed 2024-2026 CIP Amendment
8 Thornton Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 2 (Ash to Spruce Street) $ 2,300,000 Project Name
Proposed New Projects
$ 9,930,000 Park Impact Fees Parks Master Plan Priority Group 1 Proposed projects for reinstatement
6 Total of all Proposed Projects for CIP Amendment:
Priority Development Area
Priority project
# Project Title Estimated Cost* Potential Funding Source 1 Central Avenue Overpass Phase 2 – R/W and Construction $35,000,000 Measure B / BB / Impact Fees 2 Arterial Landscape Median Upgrades $460,000 Capital Funds 3 Articulated Aerial Lift Truck (35’) $140,000 Capital Funds 4 Bayside TOD Transit Station and Overcrossing – Construction $11,500,000 Measure BB / Other Transportation Grants 5 Bayside TOD Transit Station and Overcrossing – Design $700,000 Impact Fees 6 Birch Grove Park Completion $3,380,000 Park Impact Fees 7 Birch Grove Park Softball Field Night Lighting $300,000 Capital Funds 8 Birch Grove Park Tennis Court Area Re-landscaping $125,000 Park Impact Fees 9 Byington Park Completion $950,000 Park Impact Fees
10 Cedar Boulevard Complete Streets Project $2,800,000 Outside Funding / Gas Tax 11 Central Avenue Median and Sidewalk Improvements (Construction) $250,000 Gas Tax 12 Central Avenue Median and Sidewalk Improvements (Design) $1,200,000 Gas Tax 13 Citywide Bus Shelters $2,400,000 Capital Funds
14 Citywide Document Scanning Services $150,000 Capital Funds 15 Civic Center Park Completion $1,160,000 Park Impact Fees 16 Cultural Arts Center $40,000,000 Capital Funds
17 Document Conversion $45,000 Capital Funds
18 Fire Station No. 27 Cherry Street – Energy Efficient Windows $30,000 Capital Funds 19 Fire Station No. 27 Cherry Street Training Tower – New Construction $2,000,000 Capital Funds 20 History Museum – Phase 2B (Restoration and Construction) $3,000,000 Capital Funds 21 History Museum – Phase 3 (Exhibits) $750,000 Capital Funds 22 Jerry Raber Ash Street Park Completion $1,010,000 Park Impact Fees 23 Lakeshore Park Completion $1,750,000 Park Impact Fees 24 Lakeshore Park Restrooms $350,000 Park Impact Fees
25 Mayhews Landing Park Completion $1,090,000 Park Impact Fees 26 Mel Nunes Sportsfield Park Splash Pad $550,000 Park Impact Fees 27 Mirabeau Park Completion $680,000 Park Impact Fees
28 Mowry Avenue Backup Wall and Landscape Improvements $900,000 Gas Tax 29 Musick Park Completion $720,000 Park Impact Fees
30 Newark Boulevard Backup Wall and Landscape Improvements $1,200,000 Gas Tax 31 Newark Boulevard Complete Streets and Undergrounding Project $6,800,000 Outside Funds / Gas Tax 32 Newark Community Park Completion $3,860,000 Park Impact Fees 33 Public Works Maintenance Mini Excavator $120,000 Capital Funds 34 Public Works Maintenance Robotic Mower $25,000 Capital Funds 35 Senior Center HVAC Replacement $50,000 Potential CDBG Project 36 Senior Center – New Construction $8,000,000 Capital Funds 37 Silliman Activity Center – Energy Conservation Measures $200,000 Capital Funds 38 Silliman Aquatic Center – Hot Tub Replacement $300,000 Capital Funds 39 Silliman Aquatic Center – NinjaCross Obstacle Course System $500,000 Capital Funds 40 Silliman Aquatic Center – Pool Deck Replacement $300,000 Capital Funds 41 Simulated Impaired Driving Experience $50,000 Capital Funds 42 St. Isabel Avenue Street Improvements Completion $285,000 Gas Tax 43 Stevenson Boulevard Gateway Feature Renovation $90,000 Capital Funds / Art in Public Places 44 Susan Johnson Bridgepointe Park Completion $920,000 Park Impact Fees 45 Thornton Avenue Complete Streets Improvements (Construction) $14,000,000 Federal and Regional Grants 46 Traffic Signal at Cherry Street and Robertson Avenue $200,000 Gas Tax 47 Traffic Signal at Jarvis Avenue and Haley Street $180,000 Gas Tax 48 Traffic Signal at Jarvis Avenue and Spruce Street $180,000 Gas Tax 49 Traffic Signal Preemption – Phase 2 $200,000 Capital Funds Total: $150,920,000
2024-2026 CIP: Unfunded Capital Improvement Projects
*Cost estimates are not updated each CIP cycle and therefore represent the estimated cost at the time the project was submitted; not today's costs. # Project Title Estimated Cost* Funding Source
1 Annual Gas Tax Project Administration (Ongoing) $24,000/year Gas Tax 2 Annual Traffic Calming Measures (Ongoing) $100,000/year Gas Tax 3 Annual Citywide Accessible Pedestrian Ramps (Ongoing) $75,000/year Gas Tax / TDA Grant Funds 4 Annual Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Replacement (Ongoing) $400,000 (2024)
$400,000 (2025) Gas Tax
5 Annual Street Asphalt Concrete Overlay Program (Ongoing) $4,000,000/year Gas Tax/varies per year 6 Annual Street Tree Maintenance (Ongoing) $300,000/year Gas Tax 7 Annual Thermoplastic Street Striping (Ongoing) $25,000/year Gas Tax 8 Park Grid Tree Work Project $250,000 Park Impact Fees 9 Citywide Crosswalk Evaluation and Modifications $150,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 10 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles (2) $120,000 Capital Funds 11 Fire Station No. 27 Cherry Street – Roofing $55,000 Capital Funds 12 Fire Station No. 29 Ruschin Drive – Painting $23,000 Capital Funds 13 Citywide Building Painting $77,600 Capital Funds
14 Citywide Building Roof Repairs $121,000 Capital Funds 15 Citywide Building Upgrades $11,000 Capital Funds
16 Citywide Parks Irrigation Systems Upgrade/Modification $170,000 Capital Funds 17 Finance System Replacement $1,250,000 Capital Funds
18 ADA Transition Plan $250,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 19 Cherry Street Median Modifications $400,000 Capital Funds 20 Community Preservation Vehicle $50,000 Capital Funds 21 Emergency Breaching Tools and Training $46,000 Capital Funds 22 Firearms Training System $20,000 Capital Funds
23 Fire Station Nos. 27 and 29 Additional Fencing $500,000 Capital Funds 24 Four Corners Area Plan $350,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 25 Housing Programs – Implementation of Adopted Housing Element $450,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 26 Information Technology Vehicle $80,000 Capital Funds 27 Mel Nunes Sportsfield Park Storage Unit $60,000 Capital Funds 28 NewPark Place Specific Plan Enhancement and Expansion $300,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 29 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Installations $800,000 Gas Tax Funds 30 Police Department Patrol Vehicles (2) $200,000 Capital Funds 31 Police Department Unmarked Vehicles (2) $135,000 Capital Funds 32 Public Works Maintenance Street Sweeper $500,000 Capital Funds 33 Public Works Supervisor Vehicles (2) $160,000 Capital Funds 34 Virtual Reality Police Tactics Training System $100,000 Capital Funds 35 City Hall Security Upgrades $120,000 Capital Funds
36 Civic Center Building Modifications $870,000 Capital Funds 37 Climate Action Plan Update $197,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 38 Newark Resource Center $1,800,000 State Grant, CDBG Pool Funds 39 Public Works Maintenance Water Tank Spray Truck $250,000 Capital Funds 40 Rental Housing Inspection Program Assessment $150,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 41 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Strategies $275,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 42 Second Chance Shelter Repairs $100,000 Capital Funds 43 Security Cameras and Building Access Management $1,352,000 Capital Funds 44 Senior Center Driveway Relocation $60,000 Capital Funds 45 Senior Center Repainting $100,000 Capital Funds
46 Service Center Vacuum Truck Shelter $100,000 Capital Funds 47 Silliman Activity Center – Door Closers Replacement $100,000 Capital Funds 48 Silliman Activity Center – Gym and Dance Floor Refinishing $130,000 Capital Funds 49 Silliman Activity Center – Locker Room Flooring Replacement $150,000 Capital Funds 50 Silliman Activity Center – Partial Roof and Skylight Replacement $250,000 Capital Funds 51 Silliman Activity Center – Shower Tile Replacement $100,000 Capital Funds 52 Silliman Aquatic Center – Pool Sanitation System Retrofit $260,000 Capital Funds 53 Silliman Aquatic Center – Water Slide Replacement $350,000 Capital Funds 54 Softball Fields Retrofit – Scoreboards and Bleachers $150,000 Capital Funds 55 Storage Facility at Service Center $400,000 Capital Funds 56 Title 17 (Zoning) Housing-related Assessment and Update $400,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 57 Urban Forest Master Plan $300,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 58 Vehicle Pursuit Intervention Devices $45,000 Capital Funds 59 Work Area and Cubicle Upgrades $70,000 Capital Funds 60 Active Transportation Plan $195,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 61 BMX Park Location Study and Conceptual Design $150,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 62 Citywide Geographic Information System (GIS) – Phase 2 $150,000 Capital Funds 63 Clean-Up of CalTrans ROW and Landscaping (Thornton Ave/I-880) $200,000 Capital Funds 2024-2026 CIP: Funded Capital Improvement Projects
2024-2026 CIP: Funded Capital Improvement Projects
64 Finance (ERP) System Program Upgrades $100,000 Capital Funds 65 Fuel Management System Replacement $75,000 Capital Funds 66 Jerry Raber Ash Street Park Sports Facilities $95,600 Park Impact Fees 67 MacGregor Fields Cricket Pitch $100,000 Park Impact Fees 68 Mel Nunes Sportsfield Park Completion $1,483,000 Park Impact Fees 69 Mel Nunes Sportsfield Park Synthetic Turf Fields – Additional Netting $50,000 Park Impact Fees 70 Newark Community Park Well and Pump Replacement $165,000 Capital Funds 71 Police Department Crime and Collision Scene Investigation Scanner $84,000 Capital Funds 72 Police Department Utility Vehicle $12,500 Capital Funds 73 Police Department Volunteer Radios $20,000 Capital Funds 74 Portable Outdoor Stage $20,000 Capital Funds
75 Public Works Maintenance Dump Truck $80,000 Capital Funds 76 Public Works Maintenance Mini Street Sweeper $260,000 Capital Funds 77 Recreation and Community Services Mobile Recreation Van $70,000 Capital Funds 78 Revisions to City Truck Routes $73,370 Community Development Maintenance Funds 79 Sanctuary Park Conceptual Design $150,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 80 Senior Center Room Divider $60,000 Capital Funds
81 Service Center Perimeter Wall $120,000 Capital Funds 82 Service Center Fuel Island Replacement $1,000,000 Capital Funds 83 Service Center Fuel Pump Island Drainage System $80,000 Capital Funds 84 Service Center Fuel Tank Canopy $140,000 Capital Funds 85 Service Center Skylights $100,000 Capital Funds
86 Service Center Waste Disposal Upgrades $275,000 Capital Funds 87 Silliman Activity Center – Preschool Playground Renovation $300,000 Capital Funds 88 Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy $15,720 Community Development Maintenance Funds 89 Silliman Activity Center – Partial Roof Replacement $325,000 Capital Funds 90 Silliman Aquatic Center – Air Handler #2 Replacement $350,000 Capital Funds 91 Thornton Avenue Complete Streets Improvements (Design) $700,000 Gas Tax 92 Citywide Park Signage Program – Phase 1 $80,000 Park Impact Fees 93 Citywide Rail Station Alternatives Study $80,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 94 Facilities Master Plan $248,000 Community Development Maintenance Funds 95 Mel Nunes Sportsfield Park Softball Outfield Net Replacement $30,000 Park Impact Fees 96 Newark Civic Center Technology $37,000 Capital Funds 97 Police Department Barn Car Patrol Vehicle $80,000 Capital Funds 98 Police Department Patrol Vehicle $80,000 Capital Funds 99 Police Department Replacement Scheduling and Workforce Management Softw $75,000 Capital Funds 100 Silliman Aquatic Center – Water Tanks/Heater Replacement $100,000 Capital Funds 101 Fire Station No. 27 Cherry Street – Painting $32,000 Capital Funds 102 Citywide Trash Capture Devices – Phase 3 $230,000 Capital Funds 103 Lakeshore Park Tree Project $50,000 Capital Funds
104 Newark Community Park Restroom Restoration $60,000 Capital Funds 105 Service Center Buildings – Painting $80,000 Capital Funds 106 Service Center Rear Garage Overhang Repairs $75,000 Capital Funds 107 Virtual History Museum $60,000 Capital Funds
108 Website Upgrade $77,600 Capital Funds
109 Lakeshore Park Landscape Restoration $326,000 Capital Funds 110 Silliman Activity Center – Light Control Board Replacement $50,000 Capital Funds 111 Irrigation Main Line Partial Replacement at Community Park $200,000 Capital Funds 112 Transition to Paperless Documents $13,000 Capital Funds 113 Service Center Clean Water Requirements $95,000 Capital Funds 114 Central Avenue Overpass Phase 1 – Project Development $2,765,000 Measure B Funds 115 Lakeshore Park Lake Water Quality Analysis $25,000 Capital Funds 116 Cast Iron Stormwater Inlet Grate Replacement Program Phase I $15,000 Gas Tax Total: $ 36,518,390
City of Newark
Facilities Master Plan
FINAL REPORT | 06 SEPTEMBER 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4 Project Goals and Purpose .................................................................................................. 6 Plan Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6 Work Plan and Participation Plan........................................................................................ 7 Analysis of Existing Operations........................................................................................... 8 Facility Condition Assessments........................................................................................... 8 Facility Condition Assessments Summary Table................................................................ 9 Project Participation ........................................................................................................... 14
2. Community, Recreation, and Aquatic Facilities............................................................. 17 Newark Community Center............................................................................................... 18 Newark Community Center Annex ................................................................................... 19 Clark W. Redeker Senior Center........................................................................................ 34 George M. Silliman Community Activity Center.............................................................. 36 Ash Street Recreation......................................................................................................... 40 Birch Grove Park Restrooms .............................................................................................. 41 Lakeshore Park Boathouse ................................................................................................ 42 Newark Community Park Restrooms ................................................................................ 43 Alan L. Nagy Library ........................................................................................................... 44 Sportsfield Restroom.......................................................................................................... 45 Old Newark Library ............................................................................................................ 46 Watkins Hall......................................................................................................................... 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
3. Administration, Public Safety, and Service Facilities..................................................... 49 David W. Smith City Hall .................................................................................................... 51 Fire Station 27..................................................................................................................... 62 Fire Station 29..................................................................................................................... 63 Fire Station 28..................................................................................................................... 68 Newark Police Department ............................................................................................... 72 Newark Service Center....................................................................................................... 76 Second Chance Emergency Shelter ................................................................................. 78 Old Fire Station................................................................................................................... 79
4. Appendix ........................................................................................................................ I Community Engagement Result Images........................................................................... I Facility Condition Assessment Reports .............................................................................XI
INTRODUCTION
4 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
I NTRODUCT I ON
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For 70 years, the City of Newark has been a part of Alameda County, California. The city has changed a lot in those seven decades, evolving from the railroad and agricultural to the biotech and health sciences industries. Though Newark was incorporated within the last century, its community can be traced back 150 years. Today, the City of Newark owns and operates 24 facilities that serve vastly different purposes; aquatic recreation, library, park restrooms, shelters for residents experiencing barriers, public safety, and more. With such a strong community and deep roots in the Bay Area, the investments that Newark makes in their facilities will work to emphasize and improve what already exists, while propelling the city into a new era of service.
The City of Newark began a facility master plan process in 2022 with Group 4 Architecture with the goal of planning for the city’s future growth and developing needs. The objectives for this process included a master plan for the near future (1-3 years), and long term (5-10+ years) as well as a strategy for capital investments in city facilities. Throughout the master planning process, city leadership and staff have been involved during every step of the process so that each decision and recommendation is realistic and caters directly to the needs of all Newark residents.
The thorough engagement process for this master plan helped to create the best plan possible. Newark residents were able to help envision the future of their city by participating in engagement and providing opinions on potential types of public spaces and project site options. Over several months, in-person pop-ups at city events, community meetings, and online surveys were used for two rounds of engagement to ensure a diverse range of needs and opinions were reflected in the final plan and recommendations.
5 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
NEWARK FACILITIES MAP
an
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
6City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
MAP
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
an
MAP
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
84 880 Hanse n Ave
Logan Dr
Nicol et A
ve
Farwell Dr
Alder
Ave
Smith Ave
Mowry
Ave
Blvd
Central Ave
Cherry St
Cherry St
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Quarry Lakes
Regional Rec
Area
Centerville
District
k
629 ft
Auto Mall Pkwy
Logan Dr
Roberts Ave
Porter St
Canyon Height s Dr
Doane St
Carol Ave
Country Dr
Castro Ln
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Fremont Blvd
Washington Blvd
Driscoll
Rd
Walnut Ave
Osgood Rd
Niles
Community
Park
Central Park
Lake Elizabeth
Shinn
Irvington
District
Fremont
Christy St
Boscell Rd
Boyce Rd
S Grimmer Blvd
84 880 Hanse n Ave
Logan Dr
Nicol et A
ve
Farwell Dr
Alder
Ave
Smith Ave
Mowry
Ave
Blvd
Central Ave
Cherry St
Cherry St
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Quarry Lakes
Regional Rec
Area
Centerville
District
k
629 ft
Auto Mall Pkwy
Logan Dr
Roberts Ave
Porter St
Canyon Height s Dr
Doane St
Carol Ave
Country Dr
Castro Ln
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Fremont Blvd
Washington Blvd
Driscoll
Rd
Walnut Ave
Osgood Rd
Niles
Community
Park
Central Park
Lake Elizabeth
Shinn
Irvington
District
Fremont
Christy St
Boscell Rd
Boyce Rd
S Grimmer Blvd
VACANT FACILITIES
1 ASH STREET CENTER, RESTROOM,
AND VIOLA BLYTHE COMMUNITY
SERVICE CENTER
37365 Ash Street
• Ash Street Center: 1,968 SF
• Restroom: 1,100 SF
• Viola Blythe: 960 SF
2 BIRCH RESTROOM @ BIRCH GROVE
PARK
38080 Birch Street
• 900 SF
3 BOATHOUSE@ LAKESHORE PARK
Chelsea Drive
• 300 SF
6 NEWARK COMMUNITY CENTER,
ANNEX AND RESTROOM
35501 Cedar Blvd.
CC000 S
7 FIRE STATION 27
39039 Cherry Drive
• 7,005 SF
8 FIRE STATION 28
7550 Thornton Avenue
• 18,000 SF
9 FIRE STATION 29
35775 Ruschin Drive
• 5,450 SF
8 OLD FIRE STATION LOCATION
7700 Thornton Avenue
• 4,852 SF
9 OLD NEWARK LIBRARY LOCATION
6300 Civic Terrace
• 15,000 SF
11 CLARK W. REDEKER NEWARK
SENIOR CENTER
7401 Enterprise Drive
• 7,300 SF
SECOND CHANCE SHELTER
6516 Central Avenue
• 3,116 SF
12 SERVICE CENTER (NEWARK PUBLIC
WORKS MAINTENANCE)
37440 Filbert Street
• 24,700 SF
13 GEORGE M. SILLIMAN COMMUNITY
ACTIVITY CENTER AND SPORTSFIELD
SCOREKEEPER HUT
6800 Mowry Avenue
• Phase I: 36,410 SF
• Phase II: 32,320 SF
• Sportsfield Scorekeeper Hut: 680 SF
14 SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM @
NEWARK MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL
3911 Cherry Street
• 680 SF
15 WATKINS HALL
18 DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
37101 Newark Blvd.
• 25,638 SF
4 ALAN L. NAGY LIBRARY
37055 Newark Blvd.
• 25,580 SF
5 NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
37077 Newark Blvd.
• 23,987 SF
10 4
10 2
7 15
14 16
17 an
LITIES MAP
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
6City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
6 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
PLAN SUMMARY
Within the last 14 months, the planning process for the City of Newark has included thorough analysis, close work with city staff and administration, and public engagement which led to the development of a plan for Newark’s facilities that works with what the city already has, and channels effort into identified areas of need. The following are strategies that were determined throughout the planning process and target areas that the City of Newark can invest in to increase the number of services and programs provided and functionality across the board.
▪ Protecting capital assets
▪ Reinvesting in the Community Center
▪ Rethinking the Clark W. Redeker Senior Center
▪ Addressing the condition of two Fire Stations
▪ Investing further in aquatic recreation
PROJECT GOALS AND PURPOSE
The goals for this planning process align with the City of Newark’s original vision for the project and created a detailed and focused framework for the planning approach.
1. ASSESS
Assess facility needs and conditions
2. DETERMINE GROWTH
Determine growth and future needs
3. ENGAGE
Engage the Newark community about community program
and space needs
4. DEVELOP
Develop recommendations and options with supporting
cost estimates
5. PLAN
Create an action plan to guide and improve future decisionmaking about programs, services, workflow, and facilities 7 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
TASK 1: EX I ST I NG COND I T I ONS EVALUAT I ON
WORK PLAN AND PARTICIPATION PLAN
This facilities master plan focused on four main studies. The first being an existing space analysis of City Hall to examine the efficiency of the building’s layout. The second study looked at the functionality and health of the city’s existing community facilities such as the Newark Community Center and Annex, Service Center, Senior Center, and Silliman Center. The third study was a space analysis of the remaining Newark facilities, and the last study, performed by TenOver Studio, examined the condition and functionality of Newark’s existing Fire Stations (27, 28, and 29).
The existing City Hall building currently contains staff from six different departments: City Administration (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Human Resources), Information Technology (IT), Finance, Community Development, Public Works, and Fire Prevention. As part of the planning process, Group 4 attended a walkthrough of the building’s public and staff spaces to assess how space is currently used by the city. From this, Group 4 created floor plan diagrams which were confirmed by Newark’s administrative team.
Group 4 then walked through Newark’s community, recreation, and aquatic facilities to determine whether the city’s recreation and community space needs are being met. The project team paid special attention to the current Newark Community Center which is functioning suboptimally. From this, Community Center options were brought to the public for input.
Ten Over Architects walked through and determined the existing conditions of the three Fire Stations in Newark as well as the Police Station and reported their findings back to the project management team.
Additionally, Aquatic Design Group performed an analysis of the Silliman Center, Newark’s aquatic facility. 8 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
To understand the full range of needs for each of Newark’s facilities, facility condition assessments were conducted. These assessments resulted in reports that detail the health of each building structure. They outline maintenance and accessibility issues, if any, as well as provide FCI (facility condition index) percentages for the current year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years into the future. FCI numbers show the percentage of a building and its components that will need replacement or maintenance.
Process:
▪ Pre-Survey: The Project Management Team completed
pre-survey questionnaires prior to site visits and reviewed existing building data.
▪ Assessments: Bureau Veritas (BV) visited each facility and inspected building systems including the surrounding site and infrastructure, exterior and building envelope, roof and rooftop systems, interiors & accessibility, and life safety systems. BV then identified deficiencies in the existing buildings and developed repair/ replace recommendations.
Finally, BV created cost estimations and a maintenance
plan.
Left: Facility Condition Assessment report cover for the Community Center Right: City Hall FCA report building and site information Facility Condition Index (FCI) for the
Community Center projected out 10 years
9 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
Facility Condition Assessments Summary Table
9City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FACILITY CURRENT FCI 3-YEAR FCI 5-YEAR FCI 10-YEAR FCI
Ash Street Park Bldgs 2.1% 5.0% 9.8% 28.9%
Birch Grove Restroom 0.0% 3.3% 22.6% 29.8%
Boathouse 0.9% 0.9% 9.7% 12.4%
Newark Community Center Annex 8.7% 10.0% 14.2% 29.5%
Newark Community Center 13.0% 13.8% 16.2% 23.5%
Community Center RR 2.7% 35.4% 37.5% 93.3%
Fire Station 27 8.8% 10.2% 12.8% 25.2%
Fire Station 28 0.4% 1.2% 3.2% 9.5%
Fire Station 29 5.5% 7.7% 11.7% 19.8%
Old Fire Station 13.1% 13.5% 21.6% 27.1%
Old Library 8.1% 17.1% 18.7% 22.7%
Clark W. Redeker Senior Center 0.3% 2.7% 4.9% 22.9%
Second Chance Shelter 0.7% 2.7% 6.6% 22.6%
Newark Service Center 4.0% 8.5% 14.0% 24.7%
0.8% 2.6% 7.5% 20.5% George M. Silliman Community
Activity Center
Sports Field Restroom 0.6% 8.9% 14.5% 41.0%
Watkins Hall 12.6% 21.9% 24.2% 25.4%
David W. Smith City Hall 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 3.8%
Alan L. Nagy Library 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5%
Newark Police Department 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 3.5%
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL US
Restroom
10 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
TASK 2: FUTURE SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In order to determine the future space needs of Newark, Group 4 engaged with the community through pop-up events and conducted a community survey to ask about public space and recreation needs. With the guidance and approval of the Project Management Team (PMT), Group 4 additionally conducted calculations of existing David W. Smith City Hall space and examined future staff growth to determine adequate space recommendations.
TASK 3: C I TY ALTERNAT I VE FAC I L I T I ES OPT I ONS Based on the results of this plan’s public engagement efforts with the residents of Newark in combination with the prepared facility condition assessments, alternative options were developed specifically for the Newark Community Center located in Newark Community Park. Some of these options include changes to the Clark W.
Redeker Senior Center and Newark’s Old Library.
Further information on the future space needs assessment and the city alternative facilities options for each of Newark’s facilities can be found in the following facility sections.
11 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
TASK 4: COST AND I MPLEMENTAT I ON PLAN
The facility condition assessments included an identification of deficiencies, inventory of assets, repair and replace recommendations and a maintenance plan identifying expenditures for immediate to long-term costs. The table summarizes those expenditures for all facilities as well as expenditures when the City excludes its vacant facilities (the old library, old fire station and Watkins Hall) and those facilities identified to be replaced or renovated (Newark Community Center, Fire Station 27 and Fire Station 29). It also highlights those expenditures specifically associated as safety to be addressed as an immediate need and costs. The facility costs below are costs to maintain and repair the current facilities and do not address costs associated with upgrading a facility to current codes, meet operational requirements or respond to community needs.
10City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FACILITY MAINTENANCE COSTS
Long Term TOTAL
(11-20 yrs.)
Mid Term
(6-10 yrs.)
Near Term
(3-5 yrs.)
Short Term
(1-2 yrs.)
Immediate
Total expenditures for ALL $8.15M $4.08M $9.93M $20.41M $57.53M $100.1M facilities
Total expenditures for facilities $1.72M $2.74M $7.38M $15.63M $44.99M $72.46M EXCLUDING Community
Center-Annex-Restroom, Fire
Station 27 and 29, Watkins Hall,
Old Fire Station and Old Library
Total expenditures for ALL $500K
facilities for Safety Plan Type
costs
Total expenditures for facilities $52K
for Safety Plan Type costs
EXCLUDING Community
Center-Annex-Restroom, Fire
Station 27 and 29, Watkins Hall,
Old Fire Station and Old Library
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Facility Maintenance Cost Table
12 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REVIEW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
Based on the facility maintenance costs, a table was created to determine which facilities the City should maintain, renovate, replace or sell/repurpose. The facilities in the maintain facilities column currently meet the community needs and generally meet operational requirements. Those listed as renovate require futher costs to bring them up to code and operational requirements. Facilities identified as replace require significant costs to bring them up to code and operational requirements and do not address the community needs identified during the community outreach. The facilities listed as sell, demo, or repurpose require further study by the City. During the community outreach no need was identified for those facilities and/or their locations.
These facilities would also require significant cost to bring them up to current building and life safety code if a new use was identified.
13City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FACILITY RECOMMENDATION
FACILITY MAINTAIN RENOVATE REPLACE SELL OR REPURPOSE
Ash Street Park Bldgs
Birch Grove Restroom
Boathouse
Newark Community Center
Annex
Newark Community Center
Newark Community Center RR
Fire Station 27
Fire Station 28
Fire Station 29
Old Fire Station
Old Library
Clark W. Redeker Senior Center
Second Chance Shelter
Newark Service Center
George M. Silliman Center
Sports Field Restroom
Watkins Hall
David W. Smith City Hall
Alan L. Nagy Library
Newark Police Department
BASED ON 5-YEAR FCI
INDICATE SHORT TERM NEEDS
PAGE #
40 41
42 19
18 43
62 68
63 79
46 34
78 76
36 45
47 50
44 72
Newark facility recommendation summary table with corresponding report pages.
SELL, DEMO,
OR REPURPOSE
13 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
At the conclusion of the community outreach, facility assessments, and needs study, an implementation plan for the City was identified. The projects identified take into account, not only the condition of the facility but also respond to the communities’ priorities and needs. The table below summarizes each of the facility projects and categorizes them in immediate/short-term vs long-term needs. The project costs associated with each project is a rough order of magnitude cost that was generated based of a $/SF for building and site costs, and assumes a publicly bid process using prevailing wages. It takes into account any associated furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FFE), and technology costs as well as soft costs including design and construction management fees and city administration and permit fees. These project costs also include a construction and project contingency. The project costs do NOT include escalation as these projects are currently unfunded with no associated timeline for design and construction.
The City also identified a number of funding strategies:
▪ State & Federal grants: a financial award given by a government or other outside agency for beneficial projects.
▪ Measure GG: 1/2 cent sales tax approved by voters in 2016. ▪ Development Impact Fees: One-time charges imposed by the City on new or proposed development projects.
▪ Capital Funds: Newark’s existing or anticipated revenue. ▪ Other: local bond measures
Final recommendations & directions paragraph to be added after City Council presentation
79City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Long Term
(11-20 yrs.)
Mid Term (5-
10 yrs.)
Near Term
(3-5 yrs.)
Immediate &
Short Term
Project Costs
$7-9M
($5-6M)
($1-1.5M)
($1-1.5M)
Improvement to George M. Silliman Center
• Updated pool amenities
• Improve Check-in and Staff Workspaces
• Ninja Cross and Aquatic Fitness
AQUATICS
New 18-32k SF Community & Arts Center @ $31-56M
Community Park
COMMUNITY &
ARTS
$3-4M
$23-28M
Improvement to Silliman Center
• Improved Storage
• Evaluate underutilized space for additional
program opportunities
• Evaluate additional gym and courts
w/indoor walk/run track
RECREATION
Minor improvements to David W. Smith $1.5-2M
City Hall
DAVID W. SMITH
CITY HALL
$18.5-23M
($3-4M)
($7-8M)
($2-3M)
($.5-1M)
($6-7M)
Improvements to Newark Service Center
• New Admin Building
• New maintenance bays (4)
• Update locker/changing rooms and break
room
• Update HVAC in Shop Bldg.
• Additional covered parking
SERVICE CENTER
$15-19M
$15-19M
$1.5-2M
New 8-10k Fire Station 27
New 8-10k Fire Station 29
Upgrades to Fire Station 28
FIRE
Minor improvement to Newark Police $2-2.5M
Department
POLICE
SAFETY ISSUES $52-500K
$45-
57.6M
$15.7-
20.5M
$4.5- $7.4-10M
12.3M
MAINTENANCE
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Facility Improvement Projects
14 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
PROJECT PARTICIPATION
Project Management Team (PMT), City of Newark
Roya Gonzalez, Senior Management Analyst
David Benoun, Newark City Manager
Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
Soren Fajeau, Public Works Director
Nick Cuevas, Recreation & Community Services Director
15 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
CONSULTANT TEAM
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc.
211 Linden Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Andrea Gifford, Principal
Grace Tilghman, Planner
Nicole Ghiselli, Architect
650.871.0709 | www.g4arch.com
TenOver Architects
Candice Wong, Principal
Jesse Pereira, Project Architect
805.541.1010 | www.tenoverstudio.com
Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments
Erik Piller, Senior Vice President
Mary Venable, Lead Project Manager
800.733.0660 | www.bureauveritas.com
TBD Consultants
Gary Holland, Principal
415.981.9430 | www.tbdconsultants.com
Aquatic Design Group
Dennis Berkshire, President
Michelle Gable, Associate
760.438.8400 | www.aquaticdesigngroup.com
16 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
1. INTRODUCTION
COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND
AQUATIC FACILITIES
18 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
NEWARK COMMUNITY CENTER
Address: 35501 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1968
Size: 13,400 square feet
Site Area: 3.75 acres
Estimated Project Cost:
18,000 SF Facility: $30,796,000
25,000 SF Facility: $44,289,000
32,000 SF Facility: $56,399,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 13.0%
3-Year 13.8%
5-Year 16.2%
10-Year 23.5%
19 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
NEWARK COMMUNITY
CENTER ANNEX
Address: 35501 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1991
Size: 3,000 square feet
Site Area: 3.75 acres
Estimated Project Cost:
See Community Center
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 8.7%
3-Year 10.0%
5-Year 14.2%
10-Year 29.5%
20 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
NEWARK COMMUNITY CENTER EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Newark Community Center was built in 1968 and has nearly 14,000 square feet across a single story.
What was once a community space for city activities and programs, room rentals, and childcare, has become mostly unoccupiable to the public except for opportunities to rent out rooms for personal events and parties.
At its peak, there were functioning staff offices, a reception and lobby space, a patio room and social hall for renting, an arts and crafts room, storage, meeting space, and kitchen. In the center of the building is a large courtyard which connects the Newark Community Center to the Newark Community Center Annex, which is presently used for a popular pre-school childcare program. Newark Community Center observations are listed below.
Exterior
▪ Building shows signs of wear and has significant maintenance needs. ▪ Significant water damage to roof and walls.
Interior
▪ Staff offices in the front of the building are not able to be occupied due to water leakage and intrusion, and rooms have been locked.
▪ Poor air quality and water damage in the downstairs area, currently locked and not used. ▪ Roof and skylights leak; have water stains and also actively drip and need buckets to catch falling water. ▪ Interior finishes affected by water damage, include fungal concerns. 11City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
STING FLOOR PLAN COMMUNITY CENTER
Existing Newark Community Center & Newark Community Center Annex Floorplan & Programming
9 City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
COMMUNITY CENTER ANNEX BUILT: 1991 3,000 SF
HOUSE
BACK OF
SPACE
PUBLIC
SPACE
STAFF
Patio Room
21 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ROUND 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Collecting Newark community’s input on city facility needs was an essential part of this planning process. With the PMT’s approval and edits, Group 4 developed 5 large boards to bring to various community events as pop-ups. This first round of engagement included two in-person pop-up events plus a community survey. Nearly 600 residents participated.
The engagement boards explained the current use of each of Newark’s facilities, as well as the regional planning standards for Northern California. The boards asked residents about their opinions (love it or change it) on their facilities as well as asked about their community space priorities. To inquire about residents’ community space priorities, Group 4 provided 23 space options for participants to place a vote/ dot.
These space options fell under four categories; community/ lounge, the arts and performance, exercise and recreation, and aquatics. The purpose of this exercise was to gain a better understanding of what types of spaces Newark’s residents are looking for in their city’s facilities. Below are the events that Group 4 attended for round one engagement pop-ups.
▪ Family Day at the Park (4/12/23)
▪ Groovin’ at the Grove (6/16/23)
290 ft
Alam eda Creek
Marshlands Rd
C o y o t e H i l l s
28 ft
Paseo Padre Pkwy
84 84
84 880 Hanse n Ave
Logan Dr
Nicol et Ave
Farwell Dr
Alder Ave
Smith Ave
Ca bral Dr
Darwin Dr
Haley St
Mowry Ave
Sycamore St
Bett encourt St
Fremont Blvd
Central Ave Central Ave
Cherry St Cherry St
Newark Blvd
Lowry Rd
Deep Creek Rd
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Cedar Blvd
Ardenwood Blvd
Paseo Padre Pkwy
Quarry Lakes
Regional Rec
Area
Ardenwood
Historic Farm
Centerville
District
Jarvis Landing
Newark
4 ft
Plummer C r eek
629 ft
Auto Mall Pkwy
Logan Dr
Roberts Ave
Porter St
Canyon Height s Dr
Doane St
Carol Ave
Country Dr
Castro Ln
Albrae St
Stevenson Blvd
Fremont Blvd
Washington Blvd
Driscoll Rd
Walnut Ave
Osgood Rd
Niles
Community
Park
Central Park
Lake Elizabeth
Shinn
Irvington
District
Fremont
M ud Sl ough Lakeview Blvd
Kato Rd
Christy St
Boscell Rd
Boyce Rd
S Grimmer Blvd
Fremont Blvd
Cushing Pkwy Albrae
City of Fremont, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Total Population (2020)
Median Household
Income (2020)
Median Age (2020)
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
IMAGINE
CITY OF NEWARK
YOUR COMMUNITY
Project Schedule
47,530 36.6 $127,619
Total Housing
Units (2020)
15,371
Average Household
Size (2020)
3.61 persons
Race & Ethnicity Education
% of pop. > 25 years old
Asian
Hispanic/Latino
White
Black/African American
Other groups
High School
Some College
Associates
Bachelor
Graduate
19,800
14,360
10,760
1,580
1,020
27.2%
20.3%
6.0%
23%
14.8%
Source: 2020 Decennial Census; 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
CITY OF NEWARK
FACILITIES MAP
PLANNING STANDARDS Facility Use
CITY OF NEWARK
FACILITY USE MATRIX CITY OWNED
CITY HALL NEWARK LIBRARY CLARK W. REDEKER
NEWARK SENIOR CENTER
SILLIMAN ACTIVITY &
FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER AGE SERVED NEWARK COMMUNITY CENTER Tots – 3-5 years old
Youth – 5-13 years old
Teen – 13-18 years old
Adult – 18+ years old
Senior – 55+ years old
DRAFT
*spaces available to the general public by reservation
FACILITY
WHAT ARE Y
FACILITY USE MATRIX CITY OWNED
NEWARK LIBRARY
(Managed by Alameda County Library) CITY HALL CLARK W. REDEKER
NEWARK SENIOR CENTER
SILLIMAN ACTIVITY &
FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER
NEWARK COMMUNITY
CENTER COMMUNITY SPACES # seats
– MEETING - 12– MEETING - 12
Conference 4 – 14
+ (2) CLASSROOMS - 20
Small Classroom 15 – 30
o MEETING - 45
Medium Classroom 30 – 50
+ CHILDREN’S READING ROOM
oPRESCHOOL
o (2) PRESCHOOL - 15
Preschool Classroom 35 SF/child
+ MAKERSPACE
15 – 50 Art Classroom (Hard Floor)
– MEETING – 44-105
o CHAMBERS - 100
+ ACTIVITY ROOM - 80
o ACTIVITY ROOM - 80
+ PATIO ROOM - 85
Community Meeting 50 – 150
+ SOCIAL HALL - 150
Community Hall 150 – 300
Black Box Theater 150-250
300 – 500 Community
Performance
+ TEEN LOUNGE
+ BILLIARDS AREA + GREAT ROOM
+ TEEN/ GAME ROOM - 75
Lounge varies
Provided and Available +
Provided w/ Limited Availability o
Provided and Not Available –
FACILITY USE MATRIX CITY OWNED
CITY HALL NEWARK LIBRARY CLARK W. REDEKER
NEWARK SENIOR CENTER
SILLIMAN ACTIVITY &
FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER
NEWARK COMMUNITY
CENTER
RECREATION
SPACES
Group Fitness Studio o
Dance Studio o
Gymnasium o
Exercise Room + +
Running Track
Lap pool o
Family Pool o
Lazy River o
Aquatic Event Room(s) o
Provided and Available +
Provided w/ Limited Availability o
Provided and Not Available –
25Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Existing Facilities (SF)
New Facility / Addition
(SF)
Indoor Community Facilities -
Total (SF)
Indoor Community Facilities -
SF/ Resident
.75 43,200 0 79,030
1.00 57,600 0 79,030
1.25 72,000 0 79,030
1.5 86,400 + 7,370 79,030
1.75 100,800 + 21,770 79,030
2.00 115,200 + 36,170 79,030
2040
Population
2020 NEWARK Population
48,000 57,600
DRAFT
FACILITY USE MATRIX CITY OWNED
CITY HALL NEWARK LIBRARY CLARK W. REDEKER
NEWARK SENIOR CENTER
SILLIMAN ACTIVITY &
FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER
NEWARK COMMUNITY
CENTER
RECREATION
SPACES
Group Fitness Studio o
Dance Studio o
Gymnasium o
Exercise Room + +
Running Track
Lap pool o
Family Pool o
Lazy River o
Aquatic Event Room(s) o
Provided and Available +
Provided w/ Limited Availability o
Provided and Not Available –
23Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023 NEWARK
PLANNING STANDARDS INDOOR PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
~0.75-2 SF/RESIDENT
for Indoor Community Facilities
NRPA’s 2022 Agency Performance Review – Indoor Park Facilities Nationwide
Agencies Newark Pacific Southwest
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
✓ 49,903 74% 31,329 64% Recreation Center (Including Gyms) Community Centers ✓ 46,000 67% 29,036 59%
Senior Center ✓ 117,335 54% 59,603 41%
123,850 37% 68,181 36% Performance
Amphitheaters
Aquatics Center ✓ 91,706 31% 53,025 25%
Nature Center 268,689 29% 114,696 31%
Teen Center 98,206 26% 57,109 14%
Stadium 160,731 13% 75,026 17%
Arenas 91,411 10% 65,466 7%
Indoor Ice Rink 141,864 7% 50,863 12%
24Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY/RECREATION/AQUATICS FACILITIES Rental Only
Space
(excluded in
indoor
facilities total)
Early
Childhood
Recreation
(SF)
Youth
Center (SF)
Senior
Center (SF)
Aquatic
Center (SF)
Recreation
Center (SF)
Community
Center (SF)
Indoor Facilities
- Total SF
Indoor
Facilities -
SF/
Resident
2040
Population
2020 CITY Population
20,500 20,000
14,000 14,000 8,100
21,000
2,000
6,000
6,000
Fremont 231,670 275,440 0.41 111,600
8,600
3,000 15,900 14,700 22,400 3,200 56,7001
6,400 66,190 86,390 1.51 130,900 South San
Francisco
Union City 68,700 79,850 1.52 105,000 21,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 14,000 1,200
2,300 31,900 16,900 19,700
13,000 Dublin 71,050 79,726 1.07 85,000
39,500 10,000 12,700 900 4 San Bruno 44,410 57,990 1.09 63,100 39,000 9,600 3 Foster City 32,390 35,420 1.47 52,200 3,600 15,000 17,000
3,800 San Carlos 29,450 34,290 1.04 35,800
13,3406 3,000
8,000 Newark 48,900 57,600 1.37 79,030 24,410 32,320 7,300 4,000 Indoor Park & Recreation Facilities Community Facilities Community/ Recreation/ Aquatics Facilities
*some spaces only available to the public by reservation 22 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
Round 1 Engagement Results
Community members adding votes to their
space priorities at Groovin' at the Grove.
Engagement pop-up tent for Family Day in the
Park.
AQUATICS
The residents of Newark prioritize access to aquatic centers.
Many were in agreement that indoor/ outdoor aquatics
experiences, aquatic recreation such as Ninja Crossovers for pools, and aquatic fitness.
THE ARTS
The Newark community values the arts and sees the importance of public space for opportunities to hold theater performances, somewhere to practice and play music, arts/ makerspaces, a community gallery, and video/ audio recording rooms.
COMMUNITY
Designated space for specific age groups is a priority as well; the Newark community's priorities include early childhood recreation, a senior lounge, a dedicated teen center, community hall/ kitchen, computer lab, and enrichment classrooms.
RECREATION
Newark community members value spaces which allow them
access to fitness and dance, a variety of sports with multi-use courts, health care, and personal fitness through gyms and exercise rooms.
Family Day at the Park 4/12
23 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
24 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
PLANNING STANDARDS
The existing Newark Community Center is not currently open for programs due to water damage like roof leakage and mold concerns in rooms that are not accessible and securely closed off. The only current use of this facility is renting out space to residents for event use. During public engagement, findings identified that Newark lacks an adequate community center. Additionally, there is a growing need for public performance and amphitheater space which a community center could provide.
Newark has just under 50,000 residents. Based on the Pacific Southwest’s community facility planning standards, the City of Newark should have ~0.75-2.0 square feet of indoor community facilities per resident. These planning standards also dictate that a city of Newark's size should have more robust teen center and performance amphitheater square footage. While Newark has some recreation and teen space located at the George M. Silliman Community Activity Center and the Alan L. Nagy Library, the lack of a dedicated community center and performance space creates programming and service difficulties, both of which should be readily available to the community.
23Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023 NEWARK
PLANNING STANDARDS INDOOR PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
~0.75-2 SF/RESIDENT
for Indoor Community Facilities
NRPA’s 2022 Agency Performance Review – Indoor Park Facilities Nationwide
Agencies Newark Pacific Southwest
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
✓ 49,903 74% 31,329 64% Recreation Center
(Including Gyms)
Community Centers ✓ 46,000 67% 29,036 59%
Senior Center ✓ 117,335 54% 59,603 41%
123,850 37% 68,181 36% Performance
Amphitheaters
Aquatics Center ✓ 91,706 31% 53,025 25%
Nature Center 268,689 29% 114,696 31%
Teen Center 98,206 26% 57,109 14%
Stadium 160,731 13% 75,026 17%
Arenas 91,411 10% 65,466 7%
Indoor Ice Rink 141,864 7% 50,863 12%
25 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
24Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY/RECREATION/AQUATICS FACILITIES Rental Only
Space
(excluded in
indoor
facilities total)
Early
Childhood
Recreation
(SF)
Youth
Center (SF)
Senior
Center (SF)
Aquatic
Center (SF)
Recreation
Center (SF)
Community
Center (SF)
Indoor Facilities
- Total SF
Indoor
Facilities -
SF/
Resident
2040
Population
2020 CITY Population
20,500 20,000
14,000 14,000 8,100
21,000
2,000
6,000
6,000
Fremont 231,670 275,440 0.41 111,600
8,600
3,000 15,900 14,700 22,400 3,200 56,7001
6,400 66,190 86,390 1.51 130,900 South San
Francisco
Union City 68,700 79,850 1.52 105,000 21,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 14,000 1,200
2,300 31,900 16,900 19,700
13,000 Dublin 71,050 79,726 1.07 85,000
39,500 10,000 12,700 900 4 San Bruno 44,410 57,990 1.09 63,100 39,000 9,600 3 Foster City 32,390 35,420 1.47 52,200 3,600 15,000 17,000
3,800 San Carlos 29,450 34,290 1.04 35,800
13,3406 3,000
8,000 Newark 48,900 57,600 1.37 79,030 24,410 32,320 7,300 4,000 Comparable cities and Newark's existing community space 25Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Existing Facilities (SF)
New Facility / Addition
(SF)
Indoor Community Facilities -
Total (SF)
Indoor Community Facilities -
SF/ Resident
.75 43,200 0 79,030
1.00 57,600 0 79,030
1.25 72,000 0 79,030
1.5 86,400 + 7,370 79,030
1.75 100,800 + 21,770 79,030
2.00 115,200 + 36,170 79,030
2040
Population
2020
NEWARK Population
48,000 57,600
DRAFT Community facility planning standards
As shown in the chart above, Newark's indoor facility square feet per resident is currently 1.37 SF. Newark's goal SF/capita is between 1.5 and 1.75. The amount of indoor communty square footage needed to achieve those goals is detailed in the chart below.
26 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS PROCESS
Round 1 engagement results and existing space analysis show that a larger and better functioning community center is needed. Because of Newark’s current population and projected population growth, The City needs space to provide programs, services, and recreation space to residents. Additionally identified in outreach was the need for a community performance space and/ or large community rooms.
With the PMT, Group 4 developed new potential site options for a community center, either on its existing site at Newark Community Park, or in Civic Center Park in place of the Old Library which currently is closed to the public.
27 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
COMMUNITY AND ARTS FACILITY
COMMUNITY PROGRAM OPTIONS
SQUARE FEET
~18,000 SF, 1-Story
SQUARE FEET
~25,000 SF, 2-Story
SQUARE FEET
~32,000 SF, 2-Story
1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT
~18,000 SF
1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT
~18,000 SF
1ST FLOOR FOOTPRINT
~20,000 SF
CAPITAL COST
$$$ − $$$$
CAPITAL COST
$$$$ − $$$$$
CAPITAL COST
$$$$$ − $$$$$$
PARKING
~60 – 130 spaces
PARKING
~80 – 150 spaces
PARKING
~105 – 175 spaces
BASE + BASE + B +
A B C
B C
LOBBY/RECEPTION
2 PRESCHOOLCLASSROOMS
STAFF + SUPPORT SPACES
BASE - A
6-8 PEOPLE
16-20 PEOPLE
34 PEOPLE
30-36 PEOPLE
ART/ MAKERCLASSROOM
34-48 PEOPLE
2 MEETING ROOMS
30-36 PEOPLE
CONFERENCEROOM
16-20 PEOPLE
SENIOR LOUNGE CONSULTATION ROOM
DANCE STUDIO MUSIC ROOM
16-20 PEOPLE
ARTS/ CERAMICSSTUDIO
COMMUNITY GALLERY
CAFE & VENDING
EXISTIN
COMMUNITY ROOMDivisible into 2: 500 people assembly, 300 banquet
CHAMBER OFCOMMERCE
COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM OPTIONS
Above are program options for a new community center that range in size from a single story with 18,000 square feet to 32,000 square feet with two stories. Base A includes modern community center spaces such as preschool classrooms, staff space, a large community room, gallery space, and art classrooms. Each option builds off of the last, with Option C including all of A and B program spaces as well. 28 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
NEWARK COMMUNITY PARK ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
The Newark Community Park includes ample green space, parking, multiple sport courts such as basketball and tennis, a playground, and the NewBark Dog Park. The existing Newark Community Center building is surrounded by public and staff parking lots, one of which is shared with the NewBark Dog Park.
The above program options for a new community facility range from 18,000 square feet and 1 story to 32,000 square feet and 2 stories. Base A includes modern community center spaces such as preschool classrooms, staff space, a large community room, gallery space, and art classrooms. Options B and C build off of A, and option C includes A, B, and C spaces as the largest option. 29 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
NEWARK CIVIC CENTER PARK ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
Newark Civic Center Park is connected to the Alan L. Nagy Library, David W. Smith City Hall, and Newark Police Department by a large parking lot and includes a large green lawn, playground, and Newark’s Old Library building that is currently not open to the public. This site option shows that a new community center could take the place of the Old Library, either by repurposing or constructing a new building in place of it.
Option A, with 18,000 square feet, requires less parking spaces, but will still encroach on the park’s existing playground and green space. As the program options get larger, more parking spaces are needed, and more of the park will become used for the new building.
30 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
COMMUNTY CENTER & ANNEX AT
COMMUNITY PARK
OLD LIBRARY AT CIVIC CENTER PARK
Base- A
(18k SF)
Base+B
(25k SF)
Base+B+C
(32k SF)
Base- A
(18k SF)
Base+B
(25k SF)
Base+B+C
(32k SF)
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Renovate
Community
Center &
Annex
Replace
Community
Center &
Annex
Consolidate:
Relocate/
replace Senior
Center
Expanded
Community
Center
Renovate
Old Library
Replace
Old Library
Consolidate:
Relocate/
replace Senior
Center
Expanded
Community
Center
POOR FAIR EXCELLENT
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
COMMUNITY NEEDS
COSTS
VISIBILITY
SYNERGY/ CONNECTIVITY
BLDG/ PARK
RELATIONSHIP
ACCESSIBILITY
ENVIRONMENT
TOP CRITERIA
Is the entrance and wayfinding to the new community
center site clear for visitors? Is the facility visible and easily identifiable as one enters the site? Does it have civic presence?
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY COMMUNITY NEEDS COSTS VISIBILITY Can the City continue to provide excellent programs to the residents of Newark? Does the facility enhance or decrease the number of staff required to operate the facility?
SYNERGY/ CONNECTIVITY BLDG/ PARK ACCESSIBILITY ENVIRONMENT Is there opportunity for the facility to enhance the community and be a dynamic amenity for residents? Does the facility have good connectivity to other community services, such as other community centers, schools, or parks?
Does the facility meet the needs of the Community? Does it support the programs and events for the community?
What are the total development costs? Costs including site infrastructure (sewer, water, power, roads), site entitlement costs (CEQA), site and building construction costs, and potential relocation costs for existing users?
Does the facility offer the opportunities to expand or improve the existing park amenities? Does is complement existing park use? Is there an opportunity to develop shared parking in order to conserve resources?
Are there extraordinary environmental risks associated
with the site (seismic, sea level rise) that will impact the construction costs, longevity, operations, or maintenance costs for the building or site improvements?
Is the facility easy to get to, not only by car but by alternative modes of transportation? Are pedestrians and cyclist able to navigate throughout the site? Is the circulation into and out of the site efficient, disruptive or dangerous?
FUNCTIONALITY SUSTAINABILITY Does the facility prioritize functional design and inherent flexibility to best serve the community, support the operational efficiency, and support programs now and well into the
future?
Sustainability, both environmental and operational, will be fundamental in the location and design of the community center.
GRANTSIMPACT FEES
A financial award given by a
government or other outside agency
for beneficial projects.
1/2 cent sales tax approved by voters in
2016.
One-time charges imposed by the
City on new or proposed development
projects.
Newark's existing or anticipated
revenue.
Local bond measures: a method of
borrowing money.
SITE OPTION EVALUATION
Each of the site options and program options were evaluated based on the criteria outlined above. Most importantly, operational efficiency, community needs, and cost were highlighted for all options as well as functionality and sustainability which are prerequisites and assumed to be included and improved for all future Newark projects.
As seen above, program options B and C at Newark Community Park which suggest consolidating the Newark Community Center and the Clark W. Redeker Senior Center into one new building, and expanding the Newark Community Center have most “excellent” ratings. 31 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ROUND 2 ENGAGEMENT
The second round of community engagement for this master planning process involved bringing the site options and program options that were identified by the PMT and Group 4 to the public. These options were presented through pop-ups, community meetings, and an online community survey. Participants first chose which site they would prefer a new community center to be built on, and then which program option they would prefer on the chosen site.
Community members had the chance to engage with the pop-up boards at the following events:
▪ Newark Days (9/17/2023)
▪ Community meeting and open house at Alan L. Nagy Library (10/17/2023) ▪ Newark Tree Lighting (12/01/2023)
AQUATICS
The residents of Newark prioritize access to aquatic centers.
Many were in agreement that the availability of outdoor splashpads is important as well as indoor/ outdoor
aquatics experiences, aquatic recreation such as Ninja
Crossovers for pools, and aquatic fitness.
THE ARTS
The Newark community values the arts and sees the
importance of public space for opportunities to hold
theater performances, somewhere to practice and
play music, arts/ makerspaces, a community gallery,
and video/ audio recording rooms.
COMMUNITY
Designated space for specific age groups is a priority
as well; the Newark community's priorities include early childhood recreation, a senior lounge, a teen dedicated teen center, community hall/ kitchen, computer lab,
and enrichment classrooms.
RECREATION
Newark community members value spaces which allow
them access to fitness and dance, a variety of sports
with multi-use courts, health care, and personal fitness through gyms and exercise rooms.
Nearly 600 residents and friends of the Newark community were engaged during round 1. Engagement efforts and pop-ups happened at Newark's Day in the Park on 4/12, Groovin' at the Grove concert series, and through an online survey.
AQUATIC NEEDS: SILLIMAN CENTER
5City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
AQUATIC NEEDS
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
SPLASHPAD
$$$
To be evaluated in the
Parks Master Plan.
25-YARD POOL
$$$$$
For competitive use. To
be evaluated in the Parks
Master Plan.
OUTDOOR NEEDS
(may not be at the Silliman Center)
INDOOR NEEDS
(improvements to the Silliman Center)
NINJA CROSS
$$
Located over the lap pool.
Requires coordination with
existing structural system.
AQUATIC FITNESS
$
Located within the lazy
river pool side catch area.
Require storage when not
in use.
POOL AMENITIES
$-$$
Improved food service and
seating such as picnic
tables and cabanas for
both general use and
rentals.
SILLIMAN CENTER
1 NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
ROUND 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
7City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
AQUATIC NEEDS
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
POOL AMENITIES
Food service
Seating: picnic tables &
cabanas
IMPROVE CHECK IN
AND STAFF
WORKSPACES
NINJA CROSS
and
AQUATIC FITNESS
FACILITY CONDITION
INDEX
3-year: 2.6%
10-year: 20.5%
1 FACILITIES MAP PROJECT SCHEDULE
The City of Newark and their consultant hired for this master planning project worked to complete facility condition assessments of all of their city-owned buildings. These assessments resulted in a final report that outlines the health of the physical building. This is shown through an FCI (Facility Condition Index) score which calculates what percent of the building needs to be replaced or renovated 3, 5, or 10 years into the future. These assessments do not focus on programming or whether the building is meeting community needs. 23Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023 NEWARK
PLANNING STANDARDS INDOOR PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
~0.75-2 SF/RESIDENT
for Indoor Community Facilities
NRPA’s 2022 Agency Performance Review – Indoor Park Facilities Newark Pacific Southwest Nationwide
Agencies
Population
per Facility
Facilities -
Prevalence
Population
per Facility
Facilities -
Prevalence
Recreation Center (Including Gyms) ✓ 49,903 74% 31,329 64% Community Centers ✓ 46,000 67% 29,036 59%
Senior Center ✓ 117,335 54% 59,603 41%
Performance
Amphitheaters 123,850 37% 68,181 36%
Aquatics Center ✓ 91,706 31% 53,025 25%
Nature Center 268,689 29% 114,696 31%
Teen Center 98,206 26% 57,109 14%
Stadium 160,731 13% 75,026 17%
Arenas 91,411 10% 65,466 7%
Indoor Ice Rink 141,864 7% 50,863 12%
24Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY/RECREATION/AQUATICS FACILITIES CITY 2020
Population
2040
Population
Indoor
Facilities -
SF/
Resident
Indoor Facilities
- Total SF
Community
Center (SF)
Recreation
Center (SF)
Aquatic
Center (SF)
Senior
Center (SF)
Youth
Center (SF)
Early
Childhood
Recreation
(SF)
Rental Only
Space
(excluded in
indoor
facilities total)
Fremont 231,670 275,440 0.57 131,600
21,000
2,000
6,000
6,000
34,000 8,100 20,000
14,000 20,500
South San
Francisco 66,190 86,390 1.51 130,900 56,7001
6,400 15,900 14,700 22,400 3,200 8,6003,000
Union City 68,700 79,850 1.52 105,000 21,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 14,000 Dublin 71,050 79,726 1.07 85,000 19,700
13,000 31,900 16,900 1,200
2,300
San Bruno 44,410 57,990 1.09 63,100 39,5004 10,000 12,700 900 Foster City 32,390 35,420 1.47 52,200 3,600 39,0003 9,600 San Carlos 29,450 34,290 1.04 35,800 17,000
3,800 15,000
Newark 48,900 57,600 1.37 79,030 24,410 32,320 7,300 4,000 3,000 8,000 15,0006
PLANNING STANDARDS & ENGAGEMENT
CITY OF NEWARK
PLANNING STANDARDS
COMMU
25Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Indoor Community Facilities -
SF/ Resident
Indoor Community Facilities -
Total (SF)
New Facility / Addition
(SF) Existing Facilities (SF)
.75 43,200 0 79,030
1.00 57,600 0 79,030
1.25 72,000 0 79,030
1.5 86,400 + 7,370 79,030
1.75 100,800 + 21,770 79,030
2.00 115,200 + 36,170 79,030
NEWARK 2020
Population
2040
Population
48,000 57,600
DRAFT
COMMUNITY CENTER CC ANNEX SENIOR CENTER
10-YEAR FCI: 23.5%
3-YEAR FCI: 13.0%
26Newark City Facilities Master Plan PMT Meeting 03/22/2023
PLANNING STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Site Options
Program SF
(FLOOR 1)
Circulation SF
(FLOOR 1)
Program SF
(FLOOR 2)
Circulation SF
(FLOOR 2)
Total
Program SF
Total
Circulation
SF
Total SF Per
Option
(Program SF+
Circulation SF)
Option A
(Base) 15,000 3,000 0 0 15,000 3,000 18,000
Option B
(A+B) 15,000 3,000 5,000 2,000 20,000 5,000 25,000
Option C
(A+B+C) 17,000 3,000 9,000 3,000 26,000 6,000 32,000
DRAFT
COMMUNITY PROGRAM OPTIONS
10-YEAR FCI: 29.5%
3-YEAR FCI: 8.7%
10-YEAR FCI: 22.9%
3-YEAR FCI: 2.7%
▪ CONSTRAINTS: mold detected in nonoccupiable areas. water damage from ongoing leaks and potential structural
issues
▪ COMMUNITY BENEFITS: large rooms
for community events with adjacent
outdoor courtyard for indoor/ outdoor
rental use
▪ CONSTRAINTS: mold detected in nonoccupiable areas. lack of proper staff and storage space
▪ COMMUNITY BENEFITS: provides
much needed early childcare with
proximity to park and playground
▪ CONSTRAINTS: current program
rooms are undersized to meet senior
needs. staff spaces are dispersed and
reaching capacity
▪ COMMUNITY BENEFITS: space for
senior activities and the opportunity
for residents to meet and interact
OLD LIBRARY
10-YEAR FCI: 22.7%
3-YEAR FCI: 8.1%
▪ CONSTRAINTS: facility is currently
unoccupied and in need of repair.
limited visibility from street
▪ COMMUNITY BENEFITS: proximity
to City Hall, Newark Library, and Civic
Park
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS TARGET
32 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ROUND 2 ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
Between the two site options, the Newark Community Park option was most voted for during all instances of engagement including the online survey.
The program option most popular amongst people who voted for the Newark Community Park site was Option C at 32,000 square feet.
33 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
34 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
CLARK W. REDEKER
SENIOR CENTER
Address: 7401 Enterprise Drive,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1979
Size: 7,300 square feet
Site Area: 0.84 acres
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.3%
3-Year 2.7%
5-Year 4.9%
10-Year 22.9%
35 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
REDEKER SENIOR CENTER EXISTING CONDITIONS
Located on Enterprise Drive, the Clark W. Redeker Senior Center has 7,300 square feet of building space on a single story and sits on a 0.84-acre site next to Ash Street Park. Clark W. Redeker Senior Center also faces the Newark Service Center across the street. The site was developed in two phases, the first in 1979 and the second in 1992 and it received some updates in 2007.
Free memberships to the Clark W. Redeker Senior Center are available to anyone age 55 or older. Eligible adults can have opportunities to engage in activities such as dance, educational classes, and budget-friendly special events. Members can also get information and referrals to outside agencies for Medicare, relocation help, Social Security, and downsizing resources.
The building itself is in overall good condition, but is small, outdated, and has maintenance needs. Some of the key findings from the facility condition assessment report include the movable partitions, foodservice equipment, and ADA kitchen and laundry areas as immediate needs and in poor condition. Clark W. Redeker Senior Center, though located next to a park, is not in a prime location to provide community programs, especially to an age group that can have limited access to safe transportation options. The building lacks the space and technology to accommodate modern adult recreation needs.
36 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
GEORGE M. SILLIMAN
COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER
Address: 6800 Mowry Avenue, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: Phase I: 2000, Phase II: 2004
Size: 68,740 square feet
Estimated Project Costs:
Recreation Improvements: $3,275,000
Aquatic Improvements: $6,672,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.8%
3-Year 2.6%
5-Year 7.5%
10-Year 20.5%
37 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
GEORGE M. SILLIMAN COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER EXISTING
CONDITIONS
The George M. Silliman Community Activity Center, located on Mowry Avenue, was constructed in two phases, Phase I in 2000, and Phase II in 2004. In total, the activity center has nearly 69,000 square feet of recreation space such as a large aquatic facility, teen center, and sport courts. The aquatic facility includes a large lap pool, water slide, and waterspout play structure. Observations of this facility are listed below.
Indoor Aquatics
▪ Check In and staff workspaces are outdated and limited. Currently, there is one office for the aquatics manager, a small workroom for staff and a small staff lounge. ▪ The lap pool lacks modern aquatic recreation functionality such as aquatic fitness machines and ninja cross systems.
Outdoor
▪ Not many outdoor amenities such as general seating, picnic tables and/ or cabanas.
▪ Food services areas are additionally outdated and small. 11City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
BACK OF
HOUSE PUBLIC
SPACE
STAFF
SPACE
CENTER
22 City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
PHASE II
21City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN PHASE I
21City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN PHASE I
38 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
12City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
AQUATIC NEEDS
Splashpad
$$$
To be evaluated in the
Parks Master Plan
25-Yard Pool
$$$$$
For competitive use. To be
evaluated in the Parks
Master Plan
Outdoor Needs
(may not be at the Silliman Center)
Indoor Needs
(improvements to the Silliman Center)
NINJA CROSS
$$
Located over the lap pool.
Requires coordination with
existing structural system.
AQUATIC FITNESS
$
Located within the lazy
river pool side catch area.
Require storage when not
in use.
POOL AMENITIES
$-$$
Improved food service and
seating such as picnic
tables and cabanas for
both general use and
rentals.
SILLIMAN CENTER
POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJECTS
Throughout the duration of this planning process, several potential projects for the George M. Silliman Community Activity Center were identified for both the general recreation spaces and aquatics.
Recreation Projects*
Recreation spaces within the George M. Silliman Community Activity Center are in need of bigger and better storage solutions for their program spaces. Additionally, there are several areas of the recreation space that are underutilized and could be activated to provide additional programs. The Newark community expressed a need for additional multi-use gym and court space as well as an indoor walk/ run track during the community engagement process for this master plan.
Aquatic Projects*
As identified through community engagement efforts and existing facility analysis, there are aquatic needs that will be addressed through future projects such as improving and modernizing pool amenities. These amenities include food service and outdoor seating options. Additionally, the staff workspaces need updating as well as the public check in station. Also identified by the Newark community is a desire for updated aquatic recreation systems like Ninja Cross and aquatic fitness machines. *Location of potential future projects shown graphically on page 39. 39 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
26City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
RECREATION NEEDS SILLIMAN CENTER
GENERAL
Improved storage for all
program spaces
GENERAL
Look at underutilized space
for additional program
opportunities
FUTURE NEEDS
Multi use gym and courts
with indoor walk/run track
1 Cit
f N
k F
iliti
M
t
Pl
AQUATIC NEEDS
POOL AMENITIES
Food service
Seating: picnic tables &
cabanas
IMPROVE CHECK IN
AND STAFF
WORKSPACES
NINJA CROSS
and
AQUATIC FITNESS
SILLIMAN CENTER
40 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
Address: 37365 Ash Street, Newark,
CA, 94560
Built*: 1970, 1979, 2002
Size: 4,430 square feet total
Site Area: 0.66 acres
*Renovation planned for FY24/25
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
ASH STREET RECREATION
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 2.2%
3-Year 7.6%
5-Year 12.0%
10-Year 25.0%
41 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: RENOVATE
Address: 38080 Birch Street, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1975
Size: 900 square feet
Site Area: 0.2 acres
BIRCH GROVE PARK RESTROOMS
Interior of park restrooms
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 1.8%
3-Year 3.5%
5-Year 22.6%
10-Year 29.8%
42 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
LAKESHORE PARK BOATHOUSE
Address: Chelsea Drive, Newark, CA,
94560
Built: 2019
Size: 300 square feet
Site Area: 0.4 acres
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.9%
3-Year 0.9%
5-Year 9.7%
10-Year 12.4%
43 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
Address: 35501 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1991
Size: 500 square feet
*See Community Center on page 18
NEWARK COMMUNITY
PARK RESTROOMS
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 2.7%
3-Year 35.4%
5-Year 37.5%
10-Year 93.3%
44 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
ALAN L. NAGY
NEWARK LIBRARY
Address: 37055 Newark Blvd. Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 2022
Size: 25,600 square feet
Site Area: 0.66 acres
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.0%
3-Year 0.0%
5-Year 0.0%
10-Year 4.5%
45 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: RENOVATE
SPORTSFIELD RESTROOM
Address: 3911 Cherry Street, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1992
Size: 680 square feet
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.6%
3-Year 8.9%
5-Year 14.5%
10-Year 41.0%
46 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: SELL, REPURPOSE, OR DEMOLISH
Address: 6300 Civic Terrace, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1983
Size: 15,560 square feet
Site Area: 1.00 acre
OLD NEWARK LIBRARY (VACANT)
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 8.1%
3-Year 17.1%
5-Year 18.7%
10-Year 22.7%
The Old Library is currently vacant and
used for city storage. The FCA indicates
a high amount of maintenance needs
and updates to code compliance to be
inhabited by the public. This would be
costly for the City of Newark and would
require a large amount of renovation
to address issues with its structure,
interiors, finishes, and accessibility
compliance.
47 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: SELL, REPURPOSE, OR DEMOLISH
WATKINS HALL (VACANT)
Address: 37013 Ash Street, Newark, CA
94560
Built: 1896
Size: 8,640 square feet
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 12.6%
3-Year 21.9%
5-Year 24.2%
10-Year 25.4%
Newark's Watkins Hall has remained
vacant for several years. Seen in the
table to the right, is faciliy condition
index is high, showing that there are
many deferred maintenance needs.
In order to create a habitable building
for Newark employees or the public,
The City would need to dedicate large
amounts of money and time to its
deficiencies (detailed in the FCA report
in the Appendix).
48 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
2. COMMUNITY, RECREATION, AND AQUATIC FACILITIES
ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY,
& SERVICE FACILITIES
50 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
Address: 37101 Newark Blvd. Newark,
CA, 94560
Built: 2022
Size: 25,600 square feet
Site Area: 3.84 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
City Hall Improvements: $2,037,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.0%
3-Year 0.0%
5-Year 0.1%
10-Year 3.8%
51 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL EXISTING CONDITIONS
The David W. Smith City Hall was designed and constructed in 2020 by Perkins & Will and Webcor as part of the Civic Center campus along with the new Alan L.
Nagy Newark Library and Newark Police Department. It currently has nearly 25,600 square feet across two floors and 68 full time staff with 4 part time. It includes the City Administration (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, HR), Information Technology (IT), Finance, Community Development, Public Works, and Fire prevention departments. Also located within David W. Smith City Hall are Newark’s City Council Chambers and conference room, several department workstations and conference rooms, breakrooms, two public service counters, and a large public lobby. The building is modern and full of natural light with a public staircase and elevator linking the two floors.
Public Lobbies and Service Counters
The David W. Smith City Hall currently has two service counters, a large first-floor lobby with a seating area, and a smaller lobby and two public service windows on the second floor. The service desk on the first floor mainly serves Community Development and the Public Works department, and the two windows upstairs serve the City Administration.
▪ Public lobbies and service desks are redundant and oversized. The first-floor lobby combined with the second-floor landing and second public waiting space oftentimes go unused by the public and would be much more useful as city department space.
▪ The public counter on the first floor is too large and can be reduced to make room for more workstations.
▪ Security for the first-floor service desk should be improved.
CO
CO
CO
CO CO
1 A21-01
1 A21-01
3 A21-01
3 A21-01
2 A21-01
2 A21-01
4 A21-01
4 A21-01
/ 1 A11-01A/ 1 A11-01B
N
PROJECT NORTH
DEVELOPMENT
S
ES (MEETING, BREAK)
CES
BLDG
OFFICIAL
(1)
ECON DEV.
MGR.
(1)
ACCT
MGR.
(1)
CODE
MGR
(1)
DEPUTY
COM. DEV.
MGR
(1)
COM. DEV.
DIR.
(1)
ASST. CITY
ENG.
(1)
ENVR
SRVC
MGR.
(1)
PW
DIRECTOR
(1)
CONFERENCE
ROOM
BLDG
INSPCT
(4)
SR. BLDG
INSPCT
(1)
FIRE
vacant
(2)
FIRE
(2)
WORK
AREA
SNR
PLAN
(1)
PLAN
(1)
COM. PRES. SPECIALIST
(3)
ENG.
STAFF
(2)
ENG.
STAFF
(1)
ENG
STAFF
(1)
PW
STAFF
(1)
ENGINEERING
STAFF
(4)
PW BLDG STAFF
(2)
CONFERENCE
ROOM
FINANCE STAFF
(2)
COUNCIL
CONFERENCE
ROOM
PW
STAFF
(1)
BLDG
STAFF
(1)
WORK
AREA
WOMENS
RR
MENS
RR
RR
WOMENS
RR
MENS
RR
CD
STAFF
(1)
COFFEE
COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
ECON DEV
(2)
ELEC
AV
STG
CASH
FILES JAN
CO
CO
1 A21-01
3 A21-01
2 A21-01
:46 AM BIM 360://Newark Civic Center/NCC_ARCH.rvt
CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY
ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, & HR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FINANCE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
FIRE
SHARED SPACES (MEETING, BREAK)
SUPPORT SPACES
BLDG
OFFICI
(1)
C
WOMENS
RR
STG
55City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN CITY HALL 1ST FLOOR
PUBLIC WORKS (PW)
Current = 23 staff
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Current = 12 staff, 2 part time
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
COUNTY FIRE
Current = 2 staff
Vacant = +2 staff
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
PUBLIC WORKS (PW)
Current = 23 staff
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Current = 12 staff, 2 part time
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
COUNTY FIRE
Current = 2 staff
Vacant = +2 staff
55City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN CITY HALL 1ST FLOOR
PUBLIC WORKS (PW)
Current = 23 staff
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Current = 12 staff, 2 part time
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
COUNTY FIRE
Current = 2 staff
Vacant = +2 staff
52 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Cubicle Work Areas
Both the first and second floor include large, open work areas with cubicles for various department staff. The department staff that work in these stations are from Public Works, Fire Prevention, Community Development, Human Resources, City Administration, Finance, and Information Technology (IT). ▪ Engineering staff workstation size can be reduced to make room for future Public Works staff additions in the southeast corner of the first floor.
▪ The main, larger open workspace has a slightly inefficient layout with some empty workstations and department work areas being used for storage.
▪ Conference room space is limited and does not
accommodate all staff needs. Because of the open cubicle layout, there are not many options for staff to take calls or mitigate noise if they do not have a personal office.
FS FS
FS FS
FS FS
FS FS
FS
1 A21-01
1 A21-01
3 A21-01
3 A21-01
2 A21-01
2 A21-01
4 A21-01
4 A21-01
/ 1 A11-02A/ 1 A11-02B
2 A51-03
7 A32-07
8 A32-07
4 A52-02
3 A32-13
N
PROJECT NORTH
CITY
CLERK
(1)
ASSISTANT
TO CM
(1)
ACCTNT
(1)
ACCTNT
(1)
ACCTNT
(1)
FINANCE
DIRECTOR
(1)
CONF.
ROOM
CITY
ATTORNEY
(1)
IT DIRECTOR
(1)
CONFERENCE
ROOM WORK
ROOM
HR
FILES
COPY
HR WORK
AREA
HR STAFF
(3)
HR TECH
(1)
HR
DIRECTOR
(1)
BREAK ROOM
FINANCE
WORK &
STORAGE
HR
CONF
HR
FP
CM
STAFF
(2)
IT STAFF (5)
FINANCE STAFF (4) CM
STAFF
(1)
LACT.
CLERK
FILES
OCOOG
Y DEVELOPMENT
KS
CES (MEETING, BREAK)
ACES
CITY
MANAGER
(1)
IS WORK
AREA
SR MGMT
ANALYST
(1)
ASST CITY
MANAGER
(1)
RR
MAYOR
(1)
WOMENS
RR
MENS
RR SWITCH
CO
CO
1 A21-01
3 A21-01
2 A21-01
:46 AM BIM 360://Newark Civic Center/NCC_ARCH.rvt
CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY
ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, & HR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FINANCE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
FIRE
SHARED SPACES (MEETING, BREAK)
SUPPORT SPACES
BLDG
OFFICIAL
(1)
B
IN
FIN
COU
CONF
RO
WOMENS
RR
M
R
STG
57City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
MECH
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
FACILITY CONDITION
INDEX
Current: 0.0%
5-year: 0.1%
10-year: 3.8%
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
CITY MANAGER (CM)
Current = 16 staff, 2 part time
IT
Current = 6 staff
+2
+4
+1
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN CITY HALL 2ND FLOOR
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
CITY MANAGER (CM)
Current = 16 staff, 2 part time
IT
Current = 6 staff
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
Open office space with cubicles at David W.
Smith City Hall
Conference room on David W. Smith City
Hall's first floor
57City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
MECH
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
FACILITY CONDITION
INDEX
Current: 0.0%
5-year: 0.1%
10-year: 3.8%
FINANCE
Current = 11 staff
CITY MANAGER (CM)
Current = 16 staff, 2 part time
IT
Current = 6 staff
+2
+4
+1
EXISTING FLOOR PLAN CITY HALL 2ND FLOOR
53 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
STAFF SURVEY RESULTS
To fully comprehend the existing space and needs of all facilities, staff and department head surveys were distributed. The purpose of these surveys was to collect information about both their department’s overall layout as well as their individual workspaces. The questions in the survey went into detail about what they liked about their current workspaces/ departments, what they would change, if their adjacencies were adequate, adequacy of storage, amount of noise, and more.
The general staff survey results summary for all departments can be found below and on the next few pages. 54 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
55 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
56 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL ADMINISTRATION NEEDS
As shown above, David W. Smith City Hall has several space needs that have been determined by examining staff survey results, conducting department head interviews, and completing a thorough walk-through of the work spaces.
▪ Workspace: Limited vacant workstations and offices for future staff growth ▪ Meeting Rooms: Meeting rooms have been reduced to accommodate for current office needs. Need for small focus/ zoom rooms
▪ Public Spaces: Public counters and lobbies are underutilized. Security concerns regarding current public counters.
57 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
PROGRAM OF SPACE NEEDS
With careful analysis of the existing facility layouts, staff surveys, and department head interviews, a space needs program for David W. Smith City Hall was developed.
The table below includes the David W. Smith City Hall’s existing space (square footage) and future space needs that projects out to 10 years in the future. This table was created and adjusted as needed through several iterations in interviews and PMT meetings.
NEWARK CITY HALL
BUILDING PROGRAM
SF USF/person USF/person
FTE Part Time
Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal
1. CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK & HR
1.01 Mayor 1 132 132
1.02 City Manager 1 251 251
1.03 Assistant City Manager 1 182 182
1.04 City Manager Staff 4 1 476 119 3
1.05 City Attorney 1 196 196
1.06 City Attorney Staff
1.07 City Clerk 1 129 129
1.08 City Clerk Staff
1.09 Human Resources Director 1 230 230
1.10 HR Staff 4 318 80
14 2 0 0 1913 120 3 0
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2.01 Chief Information Officer/IT Director 1 175 175
2.02 IT Staff 5 400 80 2
6 0 0 0 575 96 2 0
3. FINANCE
3.01 Finance Director 1 183 183
3.02 Accounting Manager 1 135 135
3.03 Collections Staff 1 65 65
3.04 Cashier 1 65 65
3.05 Finance Staff 7 696 99 3
11 0 0 0 1144 104 3 0
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.01 Community Development Director 1 196 196
4.02 Deputy Community Development Director 1 147 147
4.03 Community Development Staff 1 80 80 5
4.04 Economic Development Manager 1 147 147
Economic Development Staff 2 65 33
4.05 Community Preservation Manager 1 60 60
4.06 Community Preservation Staff 3 180 60
4.06 Senior Planner 1 90 90
4.07 Planning Staff 1 90 90
10 2 0 0 1055 88 5 0
5. PUBLIC WORKS
5.01 Public Works Director 1 196 196
5.02 Public Works Staff 2 160 80 5
5.03 Assistant City Engineer 1 147 147
5.04 Engineering Staff 8 688 86
5.05 Chief Building Official 1 170 170
5.06 Building Staff 8 455 57
5.07 Environmental Services Manager 1 113 113
5.08 Envrionmental Services Staff 0
5.09 Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.10 Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.11 Maintenance Staff 19 0
5.12 Building Manager 1
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
CURRENT SPACE FUTURE SPACE
Community Development Total :
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk &
CURRENT STAFF
Space City Hall Other Locations
Information Technology Total:
Finance Total:
Public Works Total:
Information Technology Total:
FUTURE STAFF
City Hall
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
58 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Department Office Space
Department office space: Currently, David W. Smith City Hall is operating with 99 square feet of office space per person. This number is calculated using the square footage of each office space and how many staff members occupy each space. Total office square footage is divided by total staff members. There are 68 fulltime employees that work at David W. Smith City Hall and 4 part-time. Some departments are more efficient with space than others, but the results of this study show that David W. Smith City Hall’s floor plan is slightly inefficient, with each department needing more space to accommodate future staff growth.
1.06 City Attorney Staff
1.07 City Clerk 1 129 129
1.08 City Clerk Staff
1.09 Human Resources Director 1 230 230
1.10 HR Staff 4 318 80
14 2 0 0 1913 120 3 0
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2.01 Chief Information Officer/IT Director 1 175 175
2.02 IT Staff 5 400 80 2
6 0 0 0 575 96 2 0
3. FINANCE
3.01 Finance Director 1 183 183
3.02 Accounting Manager 1 135 135
3.03 Collections Staff 1 65 65
3.04 Cashier 1 65 65
3.05 Finance Staff 7 696 99 3
11 0 0 0 1144 104 3 0
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.01 Community Development Director 1 196 196
4.02 Deputy Community Development Director 1 147 147
4.03 Community Development Staff 1 80 80 5
4.04 Economic Development Manager 1 147 147
Economic Development Staff 2 65 33
4.05 Community Preservation Manager 1 60 60
4.06 Community Preservation Staff 3 180 60
4.06 Senior Planner 1 90 90
4.07 Planning Staff 1 90 90
10 2 0 0 1055 88 5 0
5. PUBLIC WORKS
5.01 Public Works Director 1 196 196
5.02 Public Works Staff 2 160 80 5
5.03 Assistant City Engineer 1 147 147
5.04 Engineering Staff 8 688 86
5.05 Chief Building Official 1 170 170
5.06 Building Staff 8 455 57
5.07 Environmental Services Manager 1 113 113
5.08 Envrionmental Services Staff 0
5.09 Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.10 Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.11 Maintenance Staff 19 0
5.12 Building Manager 1
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
7.09 Finance Storage/ Work Room 240
7.1 HR Work Area 69
7.11 Floor 2 Work Room 245
7.12 HR Finger Print 100
7.13 Break Room 415
7.14 Coffee Area 77
7.15 Lactation Room 60
7.16 Council Chambers 2032
5,202.81
8. STORAGE & OTHER NON ASSIGNABLE AREAS
8.01 Chair Storage 100
8.02 Chambers AV Closet 41
8.03 Clerk Files 131
8.04 HR Files 150
8.05 Cashier Files 80
8.06 Copy Room 1 77
8.07 First Floor Restrooms 806
8.08 Second Floor Restrooms 496
8.09 First Floor Building Support (Mech, Elec, etc.) 431
8.1 Second Floor Building Support (Mech, Elec, etc.) 280
8.11 Floor 1 Circulation 6,632
812 Fl2 Cilti
3225
Community Development Total :
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk & Information Technology Total:
Finance Total:
Public Works Total:
Meeting Rooms and Other Staff Amenity Spaces Total :
Information Technology Total:
NEWARK CITY HALL
BUILDING PROGRAM
SF USF/person USF/person
FTE Part Time
Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal
1. CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK & HR
1.01 Mayor 1 132 132
1.02 City Manager 1 251 251
1.03 Assistant City Manager 1 182 182
1.04 City Manager Staff 4 1 476 119 3
1.05 City Attorney 1 196 196
1.06 City Attorney Staff
1.07 City Clerk 1 129 129
1.08 City Clerk Staff
1.09 Human Resources Director 1 230 230
1.10 HR Staff 4 318 80
14 2 0 0 1913 120 3 0
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2.01 Chief Information Officer/IT Director 1 175 175
2.02 IT Staff 5 400 80 2
6 0 0 0 575 96 2 0
3. FINANCE
3.01 Finance Director 1 183 183
3.02 Accounting Manager 1 135 135
3.03 Collections Staff 1 65 65
3.04 Cashier 1 65 65
3.05 Finance Staff 7 696 99 3
11 0 0 0 1144 104 3 0
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.01 Community Development Director 1 196 196
4.02 Deputy Community Development Director 1 147 147
4.03 Community Development Staff 1 80 80 5
4.04 Economic Development Manager 1 147 147
Economic Development Staff 2 65 33
4.05 Community Preservation Manager 1 60 60
4.06 Community Preservation Staff 3 180 60
4.06 Senior Planner 1 90 90
4.07 Planning Staff 1 90 90
10 2 0 0 1055 88 5 0
5. PUBLIC WORKS
5.01 Public Works Director 1 196 196
5.02 Public Works Staff 2 160 80 5
5.03 Assistant City Engineer 1 147 147
5.04 Engineering Staff 8 688 86
5.05 Chief Building Official 1 170 170
5.06 Building Staff 8 455 57
5.07 Environmental Services Manager 1 113 113
5.08 Envrionmental Services Staff 0
5.09 Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.10 Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.11 Maintenance Staff 19 0
5.12 Building Manager 1
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
7.09 Finance Storage/ Work Room 240
7.1 HR Work Area 69
7.11 Floor 2 Work Room 245
7.12 HR Finger Print 100
CURRENT SPACE FUTURE SPACE
Community Development Total :
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk &
CURRENT STAFF
Space City Hall Other Locations
Information Technology Total:
Finance Total:
Public Works Total:
Information Technology Total:
FUTURE STAFF
City Hall
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
59 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
Staff Growth
18 future staff are projected to be added to David W. Smith City Hall over the next 10 years. During interviews conducted to determine needs and future growth, each department head identified future staff additions, if any.
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
7.09 Finance Storage/ Work Room 240
7.1 HR Work Area 69
7.11 Floor 2 Work Room 245
7.12 HR Finger Print 100
7.13 Break Room 415
7.14 Coffee Area 77
7.15 Lactation Room 60
7.16 Council Chambers 2032
5,202.81
8. STORAGE & OTHER NON ASSIGNABLE AREAS
8.01 Chair Storage 100
8.02 Chambers AV Closet 41
8.03 Clerk Files 131
8.04 HR Files 150
8.05 Cashier Files 80
8.06 Copy Room 1 77
8.07 First Floor Restrooms 806
8.08 Second Floor Restrooms 496
8.09 First Floor Building Support (Mech, Elec, etc.) 431
8.1 Second Floor Building Support (Mech, Elec, etc.) 280
8.11 Floor 1 Circulation 6,632
8.12 Floor 2 Circulation 3,225
12,449
GRANDTOTAL 64 4 23 0 24,772 364 18 0 0
Storage and Other NonAssignable Area Total :
Public Works Total:
Meeting Rooms and Other Staff Amenity Spaces Total :
Information Technology Total:
NEWARK CITY HALL
BUILDING PROGRAM
SF USF/person USF/person
FTE Part Time
Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal FTE Part Time Seasonal
1. CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK & HR
1.01 Mayor 1 132 132
1.02 City Manager 1 251 251
1.03 Assistant City Manager 1 182 182
1.04 City Manager Staff 4 1 476 119 3
1.05 City Attorney 1 196 196
1.06 City Attorney Staff
1.07 City Clerk 1 129 129
1.08 City Clerk Staff
1.09 Human Resources Director 1 230 230
1.10 HR Staff 4 318 80
14 2 0 0 1913 120 3 0
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2.01 Chief Information Officer/IT Director 1 175 175
2.02 IT Staff 5 400 80 2
6 0 0 0 575 96 2 0
3. FINANCE
3.01 Finance Director 1 183 183
3.02 Accounting Manager 1 135 135
3.03 Collections Staff 1 65 65
3.04 Cashier 1 65 65
3.05 Finance Staff 7 696 99 3
11 0 0 0 1144 104 3 0
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4.01 Community Development Director 1 196 196
4.02 Deputy Community Development Director 1 147 147
4.03 Community Development Staff 1 80 80 5
4.04 Economic Development Manager 1 147 147
Economic Development Staff 2 65 33
4.05 Community Preservation Manager 1 60 60
4.06 Community Preservation Staff 3 180 60
4.06 Senior Planner 1 90 90
4.07 Planning Staff 1 90 90
10 2 0 0 1055 88 5 0
5. PUBLIC WORKS
5.01 Public Works Director 1 196 196
5.02 Public Works Staff 2 160 80 5
5.03 Assistant City Engineer 1 147 147
5.04 Engineering Staff 8 688 86
5.05 Chief Building Official 1 170 170
5.06 Building Staff 8 455 57
5.07 Environmental Services Manager 1 113 113
5.08 Envrionmental Services Staff 0
5.09 Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.10 Assistant Maintenance Superintendent 1 0
5.11 Maintenance Staff 19 0
5.12 Building Manager 1
5.13 Fleet/Street Manager 1
5.14 Code Enforcement Manager 1 114 114
23 0 23 0 2133 93 5 0
6. FIRE
6.01 Fire Marshal 1 90 90
6.02 Fire Inspector 1 60 60
6.03 Fire Staff (Vacant) 1 90 90
6.04 Fire Inspector (vacant) 1 60 60
4 0 0 0 300 75 0 0
SUBTOTAL 68 4 23 0 7120 99 18 0 0
7. MEETING ROOMS & OTHER STAFF AMENITY SPACES
7.01 Chambers Conference 351
7.02 Meeting Room 2 230
7.03 Meeting Room 3 246
7.04 Meeting Room 4 291
7.05 Meeting Room 5 167
7.06 HR Conference Room 165
7.07 IS Work Room 190
7.08 Floor 1 Work Area 325
7.09 Finance Storage/ Work Room 240
7.1 HR Work Area 69
7.11 Floor 2 Work Room 245
7.12 HR Finger Print 100
CURRENT SPACE FUTURE SPACE
Community Development Total :
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk &
CURRENT STAFF
Space City Hall Other Locations
Information Technology Total:
Finance Total:
Public Works Total:
Information Technology Total:
FUTURE STAFF
City Hall
DAVID W. SMITH CITY HALL
60 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
SPACE UTILIZATION
Through calculating current space usage, the space allocation for David W. Smith City Hall was determined and is shown below in percentages. This calculation shows that the layout and current space allocation is slightly inefficient, with 29% percent used for circulation while 20-25% is the average. With some carefully rework of public lobbies and service desks, there could be some shift to increase office space to accommodate future staff growth.
City staff noted a lack of storage in the David W. Smith City Hall workspaces throughout the planning process, though in-person assessment and space utilization analyses concluded that existing storage is not efficiently used and could be reorganized to better handle staff storage needs.
52City of Newark FMP 10/13/2023
CURRENT CITY HALL SPACE UTILIZATION DRAFT
34% 14% 2% 11% 10% 29%
OFFICE SPACE MEETING/
CONF ROOM
NONASSIGNABLEAMENITIES LOBBY &
GATHERING
CIRCULATION
Current Space Utilization
72 Current Staff, 25,000 SF City Hall
Total SF/ person: 347
90 Future Staff, 25,000 SF City Hall
Total SF/person: 278
29% Circulation Factor:
indicates a slightly
inefficient space plan,
planning standards is
20-25%.
I/OWNED 34% OF AREA WE/SHARED 16% WE/SHARED 50%
39-44% 14% 2% 10% 10% 20-25%
OFFICE SPACE MEETING/
CONF ROOM
NONASSIGNABLEAMENITIES LOBBY &
GATHERING
CIRCULATION
Future Space Utilization
I/OWNED 39-44% OF AREA WE/SHARED 16% NON-OCCUPIABLE 40-45% David W. Smith City Hall
David W. Smith City Hall
61 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
62 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
FIRE STATION 27
Address: 3909 Cherry Street, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1981
Size: 6,000 square feet
Site Area: 1.2 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
New 8,000 SF Station: $15,801,000
New 10,000 SF Station: $19,655,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 8.8%
3-Year 10.2%
5-Year 12.8%
10-Year 25.2%
63 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: REPLACE
FIRE STATION 29
Address: 35775 Ruschin Drive, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1962
Size: 5,200 square feet
Site Area: 0.58 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
New 8,000 SF Station: $15,801,000
New 10,000 SF Station: $19,655,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 5.5%
3-Year 7.7%
5-Year 11.7%
10-Year 19.8%
64 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
FIRE STATION 27 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Newark Fire Station 27 was built in 1981 on a corner lot located at Mowry Avenue and Cherry Street. The one-story station is approximately 6,000 SF and sited on a 1.38 acre site. The three-story fire training tower was constructed in 1982.
The fire station accommodates a single engine company, which is staffed with three fire personnel. The apparatus bays were expanded to accommodate longer fire apparatus and the one large dormitory room was divided into semiprivate sleeping areas with partial height walls.
The wood framed building is finished on the exterior, cement plaster on the walls, and metal mansard roof framing around the building perimeter. There is low sloped roof framing and foam roofing material behind the mansards to accommodate mechanical equipment.
The existing station comprised of two apparatus bays, which is also used as the decontamination clean up, turnout gear storage space and exercise space. All these functions are required to have separate ventilated spaces to be code compliant with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and OSHA.
The living quarters is a combined kitchen, dayroom and dining room space with separate locker room for personal gear and one restroom. The sleeping quarters are one large space that has been subdivided. The main public entrance to the fire station opens into a small lobby and reception area. There is no dedicated Fire Captain’s office or Firefighter work area for report writing.
The existing site is not secured along the entire perimeter of the site. There is adequate parking for fire personnel, but no dedicated parking for the public or accommodation for accessibility. The fire station is immediately adjacent to the Newark Skate Park, Sports Field Park and close to the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center.
FIRE STATION 27 – SITE NEEDS
FIRE OPERATIONS ISSUES:
1. Need to repair
intersection pre-empt
signage
2. Need site security with
perimeter fencing and
gates
ESSENTIAL SERVICES ACT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES:
3. Need emergency backup power for entire
station
4. Need seismic
strengthening for entire
station
CODE COMPLIANCE
ISSUES:
5. Need to divert truck
washing to sewer
6. Need to repair leaks at
exterior wall and doors
5 1
2 2
3 4
6 65 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
FIRE STATION 29 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Newark Fire Station 29 was built in 1962 and is located on the corner of Newark Blvd. and Dalewood Drive. The one-story station is approximately 5,142 SF and sited on a 0.58-acre site. The station was renovated and expanded in 1975 to accommodate individual bunk rooms and restrooms with showers and lockers.
The exterior walls are load bearing stack bond concrete masonry block with aluminum framed windows and doors. The roof framing is pitched and is covered with lightweight concrete tiles. There are several areas of dry rot, insect and water damage to the roof eaves and facias.
The fire station accommodates a single engine company, which is staffed with three fire personnel. The apparatus bays were not expanded to accommodate longer fire apparatus as originally planned. The existing station is comprised of two drive through apparatus bays, which are also used as the decontamination clean up and turnout gear storage space. All these functions are required to have separate ventilated spaces to be code compliant with the NFPA and OSHA.
The living quarters is a combined kitchen, dayroom and dining room space. There is a dedicated exercise space. The sleeping quarters is one large space that has been subdivided into semi private sleeping areas with partial height walls. The main public entrance to the fire station opens onto the watch room and reception area. There are dedicated Fire Captain’s office and Firefighter work area for report writing.
The existing site is not secured along the entire perimeter. There is adequate parking for fire personnel, but no dedicated parking for the public or accommodation for accessibility. The fire station is immediately adjacent to single family residential neighborhoods. Newark Junior High School, Newark Community Center Park and NewBark Dog Park are in close proximity.
72City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
ATION 29 – SITE NEEDS
3 3
2 1
1 SUES:
with
and
one
und
es over
f
ACT
S:
back
e
entire
E
ck
4 5
6 FIRE STATION 29
FIRE OPERATIONS ISSUES:
1. Need site security with
perimeter fencing and
gates
2. Need to repair phone
line
3. Need to underground
existing power lines over
emergency path of
response
ESSENTIAL SERVICES ACT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES:
4. Need emergency backup power for entire
station
5. Need seismic
strengthening for entire
station
CODE COMPLIANCE
ISSUES:
6. Need to divert truck
washing to sewer
66 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
32City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FIRE STATION OPTIONS FIRE STATION 27 & 29
FIRE STATION #27 FIRE STATION #29
31City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FIRE STATION NEEDS
CODE COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
Current facilities do not meet
current ADA as well as other
compliance issues with
egress and ventilation.
FIRE STATION 27 & 29
ESSENTIAL SERVICE ACT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES
Both facilities need seismic
strengthening and
emergency back-up power.
OPERATIONS
Improvements to bring
facilities up to current best
practices for fire operations
and security.
#27
#29
LIFE SAFETY ISSUES
Current facilities need fire
alarm systems.
67 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
FIRE STATION 27 & 29 NEEDS
As shown by the facility condition index numbers on pages 62 and 63, Fire Stations 27 and 29 are in need of major improvements projects. Both of the stations have a vast amount of deferred maintenance needs that include code compliance, life safety, and operational shortcomings. Both facilities were constructed several decades ago in the 1960s and 80s, and do not reflect modern fire safety standards. Listed below are the overall needs for both facilities. Facility-specific information can be found on pages 64 and 65.
▪ Essential Service Act Compliance: Both facilities need seismic strengthening and emergency back-up power.
▪ Code Compliance Issues: Current facilities to not meet current ADA as well as other compliance issues with egress and ventilation.
▪ Life Safety Issues: Current facilities need fire alarm systems. ▪ Operations: Improvements are needed to bring facilities up to current best practices for fire operations and security.
68 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
FIRE STATION 28
Address: 7550 Thornton Avenue,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 2005
Size: 18,000 square feet
Site Area: 1.12 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
Station 28 Improvements: $2,060,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.4%
3-Year 1.2%
5-Year 3.2%
10-Year 9.5%
69 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
FIRE STATION 28 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Newark Fire Station 28 was built in 2005 and is located on the corner of Thornton Avenue and Ash Street. The two-story facility is approximately 18,000 square feet which includes a storage loft and walk in attic space. The site is approximately 1.12 acres and has secured parking for fire personnel and an ancillary building, which houses the emergency generator and fuel tank. Renovation to the mechanical system occurred in 2015, but no expansion to the facility was needed.
The existing fire station is constructed with concrete masonry block bearing walls on the first floor and second floors that are clad with traditional detailed face brick and has decorative cast stone features emphasizing the apparatus bays, window heads and sills and along the roof line. The roof assembly is comprised of a pitched metal roofing with traditionally detailed stepped parapet end walls with stone parapet caps.
The fire station accommodates a single engine company, which is staffed with three fire personnel and a Battalion Chief. There are three drive thru apparatus bays with dedicated spaces for medical storage, the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) compressor, work shop, and decontamination clean-up. Though this is a relatively new station, the turnout gear is stored along the apparatus bay walls. Per code the turnout gear should be stored in a separate ventilated space to be code compliant with the NFPA and OSHA.
There is a main public entrance and dedicated lobby, reception area and accessible restroom. The administrative spaces include a conference room, work area for firefighters, and offices for the Fire Captain and Battalion Chief.
The living and sleeping quarters are on the second floor with an open concept kitchen, dayroom and dining room space, individual bunk rooms, gender specific restrooms, exercise room and a large roof patio space.
The existing site is secured along the entire perimeter with metal fencing. There is adequate parking for fire personnel and on street parking for public visitors, which accommodates accessibility. The fire station is immediately adjacent to railroad tracks, single family residences, and commercial businesses.
69City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
ATION 28 – SITE NEEDS
S
ve gate
CES ACT
UES:
se
nerator
ystems
ovide
wer for
ty
1 FIRE STATION 28
FIRE OPERATIONS
ISSUES:
1. Need to improve gate
opening speed
ESSENTIAL SERVICES ACT
COMPLIANCE ISSUES:
2. Need to increase
emergency generator
and fuel tank systems
capacity to provide
emergency power for
the entire facility
70 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
33City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
FIRE STATION NEEDS FIRE STATION 28
INTERIOR
Minor interior improvements
to improve life safety, code
compliance, operations and
security issues.
EXTERIOR
Improvements to site security
and operations.
ESSENTIAL SERVICE ACT
COMPLIANCE
Increase emergency power
capacity for the entire facility
and systems.
FIRE STATION 28 NEEDS
Fire Station 28 is in good condition as shown by the Facility Condition Index numbers on page 68. In order to keep the building maintained, these following needs should be addressed:
▪ Essential Service Act Compliance: Increase emergency power capacity for the entire facility and systems
▪ Interior: Minor interior improvements to improve life safety, code compliance, operations, and security issues
▪ Exterior: Improvements to site security and operations 71 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
72 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
Address: 37077 Newark Boulevard,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 2020
Size: 24,000 square feet
Site Area: 1.76 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
Police Station Improvements: $2,223,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.1%
3-Year 0.1%
5-Year 0.1%
10-Year 3.5%
73 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Newark Police Department was built in 2020 along with the Alan L. Nagy Library and the David W. Smith City Hall as part of the Civic Center campus. The building sits on 1.76 acres and has one story of 24,000 square feet. The central location of the Newark Civic Center gives officers easy access to the Newark community and additionally connects the building to the plaza between the Alan L. Nagy Library and David W. Smith City Hall where community events often take place. The building’s public parking is shared with the Newark Civic Center and has secured police car parking as well.
The building is modern and features a large, light-filled public lobby and service desk.
Beyond the lobby, there is a large training room, open and individual office spaces, evidence storage, men’s and women’s locker rooms, and other detective and interview spaces. Observations are listed below:
▪ New building that serves the Newark community well
▪ Lobby and entryway acoustics: noise carries
▪ Ballistics and glazing need to be repaired
▪ Armory could use second tier security
▪ Patrol space lacks visual and acoustical control
▪ Red light analyst and dispatch supervisor share office 63City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
POLICE HQ STATION – BUILDING NEEDS
DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
3. Repair ballistics
glazing and add
visual control at high
windows
4. Relocate live scan
into a room
5. Repurpose existing
interview room to soft
interview room and
sleeping room
6. Add door for second
tier security at armory
1. Bad acoustics in lobby/
entrance
2. Reallocate existing
sleeping room to court
zoom room
9. Reallocate office
spaces to provide
separate offices for
the red light analyst
and dispatch
supervisor
7. Complete visual
surveillance and
access control systems
8. Add door at patrol for
visual and acoustical
control
5 1
2 3
6 4
7 8
9 74 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
30City of Newark Facilities Master Plan
PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS
INTERIOR
Minor interior improvements
to improve operations and
security.
POLICE STATION
EXTERIOR
• Improvements to site security,
vehicle charging capacity
and operations.
• Improve roof and storm
drainage and waterproofing
issues.
NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT NEEDS
Because the Newark Police Department was built only four years ago, it is operating well and remains a new, modern, effective building. In order to maintain the building well into the future, some minor improvements could be made within the next few years:
▪ Interior: Minor interior projects to improve operations and security ▪ Exterior: Improvements to site security, vehicle charcing capacity and operations as well as improving roof and storm drainage and waterproofing issues 75 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
76 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: RENOVATE
NEWARK SERVICE CENTER
Address: 37440 Filbert Street, Newark,
CA 94560
Built: 1965-1988
Size: 40,000 square feet total (multiple
buildings)
Site Area: 4.9 acres
Estimated Project Costs:
Service Center Improvements:
$13,016,000
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 4.0%
3-Year 8.5%
5-Year 14.0%
10-Year 24.7%
77 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
NEWARK SERVICE CENTER EXISTING CONDITIONS
Located on Filbert Street, the Newark Service Center sits across from the existing Clark W. Redeker Senior Center. There are seven buildings included on the site that were all developed between the years of 1965 and 1988. The seven buildings total just under 40,000 square feet. One of the seven buildings is used for Maintenance administration staff offices and is 2,400 square feet. Newark Service Center observations are listed below.
Administration Building
▪ Office space is not efficiently laid out.
▪ Portable facility that is outdated and small.
Lockers and Break Room
▪ Both genders' lockers are located within the open training/ lunchroom, meaning that staff are changing in the open area. A room divider exists but does not work anymore.
Building Shop and Maintenance Bays
▪ Shop does not have HVAC/ proper air circulation.
▪ Maintenance bays cannot fully accommodate fleet size; fire engines do not fit well.
Covered Parking and Security
▪ The back corners of the Newark Service Center are sometimes used as illegal entry points to the facility; facility security is not adequate. ▪ Not enough coverage for parking needs.
Identified needs at Newark Service Center
78 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: MAINTAIN
SECOND CHANCE
EMERGENCY SHELTER
Built: 1960
Size: 3,200 square feet
Site Area: 0.51 acres
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 0.7%
3-Year 2.7%
5-Year 6.6%
10-Year 22.6%
79 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION: SELL, REPURPOSE, OR DEMOLISH
OLD FIRE STATION (VACANT)
Address: 7700 Thornton Avenue,
Newark, CA 94560
Built: 1980
Size: 4,900 square feet
Site Area: 0.37 acre
YEAR FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Current 13.1%
3-Year 13.5%
5-Year 21.6%
10-Year 27.1%
Newark's Old Fire Station is currently
vacant and has high amounts of
maintenance needs (see FCA report
in appendix for further details). This
building should be sold, repurposed,
or demolished based on its lack of
code compliance and the high cost
of needed renovation to adhere to
modern building operations standards.
80 CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
3. ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SERVICE FACILITIES
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN i
Round 1 Engagement Results
Family Day at the Park 04-01-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN I
Round 1 Engagement Results
Family Day at the Park 04-01-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN II
Round 1 Engagement Results
Family Day at the Park 04-01-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN III
Round 1 Engagement Results
Groovin’ at the Grove 06-20-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN IV
Round 2 Engagement Results
Groovin’ at the Grove 06-20-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN V
Round 2 Engagement Results: Community Center Park
Community Meeting 10-17-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
VI
Round 2 Engagement Results: Civic Center Park
Community Meeting 10-17-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
VII
Round 2 Engagement Results: Community Center Park
Newark Days 09-16-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
VIII
Round 2 Engagement Results: Civic Center Park
Newark Days 09-16-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN IX
Round 2 Engagement Results: Community Center Park
Newark Tree Lighting 12-01-23
APPENDIX
PMT REV I EW DRAFT 09/06/2024
CITY OF NEWARK FACILITIES MASTER PLAN X
Round 2 Engagement Results: Civic Center Park
Newark Tree Lighting 12-01-23
Ash Street Park Buildings
37365 Ash Street
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
6021 University Boulevard, Suite 200
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-001.017
DATE OF REPORT:
July 11, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
February 14, 2023
Bureau Veritas
6021 University Boulevard, Suite 200 | Ellicott City, MD 21043 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.23R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Campus Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Campus Findings and Deficiencies ........................................................................................................ 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 11
2. Ash Street Recreation Center............................................................................................................ 12
3. Ash Street Restrooms........................................................................................................................ 14
4. Viola Blythe ......................................................................................................................................... 16
5. Site Summary...................................................................................................................................... 18
6. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 19
7. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 20
8. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 22
9. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 24 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 24
10. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 26
11. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 27 ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Campus Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Community Center
Number of Buildings Three
Main Address 37365 Ash Street, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed Viola Blythe 1970
Ash Street Recreation Center 1979
Restrooms 2002
Site Area 0.66 acres (estimated)
Parking Spaces Ten total spaces all in open lots; one of which is accessible Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces The building referred to as the Viola Blythe building is leased in its entirety by the Viola Blythe Community Services Center.
Date(s) of Visit February 14, 2023
Management Point of Contact Andrea Marie Gifford
650.871.0709 x218
agifford@g4arch
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Matt Anderson for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Viola Blythe Center was built in 1970, the Recreation Center was built in 1979 and the restrooms were constructed in 2002. The vinyl asbestos tile was removed from Viola Blythe in 2018. The restrooms and recreation center serve in their original purposes. The original use of Viola Blythe is unknown, it is presently serving as a distribution point for food and clothing to the needy.
Architectural
The use of masonry bearing walls brings some visual cohesion to the campus. The wood siding at the Recreation Center is showing rot and deterioration, short term replacement has been budgeted. Typical lifecycle-based interior and exterior finish replacements are budgeted and anticipated.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
HVAC at the Recreation Center consists of two split systems and at Viola Blythe it is a ductless split system. No water heater was found at Viola Blythe and the Recreation Center is served by a six-gallon electric water heater. Lifecycle replacements are budgeted and anticipated.
Site
Parking for visitors is in the adjacent public street cul-de-sac, though much of the site has been covered over with asphalt and concrete. These hard surfaces may become trip hazards, regular upkeep and maintenance is anticipated. At the Recreation Center the route to the exterior play equipment is not wheelchair accessible, correction is budgeted and highly advised.
Recommended Additional Studies
Some areas of the facility were identified as having major or moderate accessibility issues. Bureau Veritas recommends a study be performed to take measurements, provide additional itemized details, research local requirements, and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required improvements. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables.
Due to the lack of measurements and itemized findings at this point in time, the costs for any possible subsequent repairs or improvements are not currently included.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Level FCI:
The vertical bars below represent the year-by-year needs identified for the entire campus. The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the campus FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures over the next ten years. The dollar amounts allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the values along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The table below shows the anticipated costs by trade or building system over the next 20 years.
Systems Expenditure Forecast
Immediate Needs
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Exterior Walls in Poor condition.
Wood Siding
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $5,800
$$$$
The siding is rotting and deteriorating. - AssetCALC ID: 5457340 Drinking Fountain in Failed
condition.
Wall-Mounted, Single-Level
Restroom Ash Street Park Buildings Building
exterior
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 83.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,600
$$$$
This drinking fountain does not produce any water when the button is pushed - AssetCALC ID: 5457205 Flooring in Poor condition.
Concrete
Restroom Ash Street Park Buildings Site
Uniformat Code: C2030
Recommendation: Repair in 2025
Priority Score: 81.7
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $3,300
$$$$
Replacing the concrete will eliminate a possible trip hazard as well as decrease water infiltration - AssetCALC ID: 5457201
Drinking Fountain in Poor
condition.
Wall-Mounted, Single-Level
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Interior
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 65.8
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $2,900
$$$$
Does not comply with accessibility standards - AssetCALC ID: 5457328 ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ADA Parking
Signage, Pole-Mounted
Viola Blythe Ash Street Park Buildings Parking
Area
Uniformat Code: Y1010
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,100
$$$$
The sign should read "van accessible" - AssetCALC ID: 5491126 ADA Paths of Travel
Walkways, Asphalt Pathway
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Walkway to play area
Uniformat Code: Y1020
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $7,900
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5491693
ADA Restrooms
Lavatory, Pipe Wraps/Insulation
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Restrooms
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $400
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5491707
ADA Restrooms
Restroom Layout, Full Reconfiguration
Viola Blythe Ash Street Park Buildings
Restrooms
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Renovate in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $32,700
$$$$
Not adequate space in this restroom - AssetCALC ID: 5491129 ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ADA Miscellaneous
Level III Study, Includes Measurements
Viola Blythe Ash Street Park Buildings
Uniformat Code: Y1090
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $16,400
$$$$
All three buildings - AssetCALC ID: 5495288
ADA Paths of Travel
Protruding Objects, Removal/Adjustments
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
interior
Uniformat Code: Y1020
Recommendation: Modify in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,700
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5491690
ADA Restrooms
Grab Bars & Blocking, Height/Location
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Modify in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $7,200
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 5491706
Fire Suppression System
Full System Install/Retrofit, Low
Density/Complexity
Recreation Center Ash Street Park Buildings
Throughout
Uniformat Code: D4010
Recommendation: Install in 2027
Priority Score: 60.6
Plan Type:
Retrofit/Adaptation
Cost Estimate: $16,100
$$$$
Anticipated improvement - AssetCALC ID: 5458216
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. As h St r eet R ec r e at i on Ce nt e r
Ash Street Recreation Center Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1979
Building Size 2,230 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood trusses and joists, wood framed clerestory over concrete slab foundation Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: Painted CMU
Secondary Wall Finish: Wood siding
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, painted CMU, wood paneling, Floors: VCT, painted concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and ACT
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: Electric water heater with integral tank
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System: Furnaces with split-system condensing units Fair Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Ash Street Recreation Center Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm Smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, pull stations, back-up emergency lights, and exit signs. According to the POC the fire alarm panel is located remotely.
Fair
Equipment/Special None --
Accessibility An ADA of the building is recommended
Key Issues and Findings Non-ADA compliant drinking fountain ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. As h St r eet R es t ro om s
Ash Street Restrooms: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 2002
Building Size 1,100 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wooden trusses over concrete slab foundation
Good
Façade Primary Wall Finish: CMU
Secondary Wall Finish: Wood siding
Windows: No windows
Good
Roof Primary: construction with asphalt shingles Fair
Interiors Walls: Painted CMU
Floors: Sealed concrete
Ceilings: Unfinished/exposed
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC None --
Fire Suppression None --
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Ash Street Restrooms: Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, CFL
Emergency Power: None
Good
Fire Alarm None --
Equipment/Special None --
Accessibility An ADA of the building is recommended
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. V i ol a B ly t he
Viola Blythe: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1970
Building Size 1,100 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists over concrete slab foundation
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: Painted CMU
Windows: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, painted CMU
Floors: VCT
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilet and sink in the restroom
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System Ductless split-systems Good
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Viola Blythe: Systems Summary
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, back-up emergency lights, and exit signs
Fair
Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment Fair
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this building and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. S it e S um m a ry
Site Information
System Description Condition
Pavement/Flatwork
Asphalt area with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs
Fair
Site Development
Building mounted property entrance signage; chain link fencing; Playground
Limited picnic tables, trash receptacles
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including lawn, trees and bushes Irrigation not present
No retaining walls
Low site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities
Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Fair
Site Lighting Building-mounted: LED, HPS, Fair
Ancillary Structures
None --
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this building and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 19 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries and the exterior of the property.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the checklists that are included in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues. Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are not included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The campus was originally constructed in 1970 with additional buildings added and renovated in phases over time.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 21 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The following table summarizes the accessibility conditions of the general site and at each building on campus:
Campus: Accessibility Summary
Facility Year Built/
Renovated
Prior Study
Provided?
Major/Moderate
Issues Observed?
General Site 1970 / 2002 No No
Ash Street Recreation Center 1979 No Yes
Ash Street Restrooms 2002 No No
Viola Blythe 1970 No Yes
Complaints about accessibility issues have been sporadically received by property management at Ash Street Restrooms. although no prior or pending litigation was reported.
Detailed follow-up accessibility studies are included as recommendations because potential moderate to major issues were observed at the buildings identified above. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 22 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 23 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 24 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
9. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall & Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 25 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short-Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 26 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 0. C e rt if ic at io n
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Ash Street Park Buildings, 37365 Ash Street, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have,
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matt Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable,
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 26 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
11. Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - RECREATION CENTER FRONT ELEVATION 2 - RECREATION CENTER SIDE ELEVATION 3 - RECREATION CENTER INTERIOR 4 - RECREATION CENTER INTERIOR 5 - RECREATION CENTER INTERIOR 6 - REC CENTER RESTROOM FIXTURES ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - REC CENTER COOLING COMPONENTS 8 - REC CENTER HEATING COMPONENTS 9 - REC CENTER MAIN ELECTRICAL 10 - REC CENTER SECONDARY ELECTRICAL 11 - RESTROOMS, FRONT ELEVATION 12 - RESTROOMS, SIDE ELEVATION ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - RESTROOM SIGNAGE 14 - RESTROOM PLUMBING FIXTURES
15 - RESTROOM PLUMBING FIXTURES 16 - RESTROOM MAIN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 17 - VIOLA BLYTHE FRONT ELEVATION 18 - VIOLA BLYTHE LEFT ELEVATION ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - VIOLA BLYTHE INTERIOR 20 - VIOLA BLYTHE INTERIOR
21 - VIOLA BLYTHE RESTROOM FIXTURES 22 - VIOLA BLYTHE DUCTLESS SPLIT SYSTEM 23 - VIOLA BLYTHE MAIN DISTRIBUTION PANEL 24 - VIOLA BLYTHE INTRUSION DETECTION ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site Plan
Ash Street Community Center Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-001.017 Ash Street Park Buildings
Source On-Site Date
Google February 14, 2023
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre-Survey Questionnaire
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Ash Street Park Buildings - Restrooms Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated 2002
2 Building size in SF 1,100
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Concrete block
Roof High – composite – metal
Interiors Exposed beam
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
Due to flushing of foreign objects
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Ash Street Park Buildings - Viola Blythe Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated 1970
2 Building size in SF 1,000
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Concrete block
Roof Low – composite
Interiors Drywall – wood
HVAC 2018 New system installed
Electrical
Site Pavement 2018 Front pavement replaced
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date). 2018 – flooring was replaced (contained asbestos) 5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
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
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
Accessibility Review and Photos
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name: Ash Street Park Buildings - Recreation Center BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-001.017
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Parking section not applicable at this site.
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
CURB CUT ACCESSIBLE PATH
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 The play area is not accessible
Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6 No ramps
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 DOOR HARDWARE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2
Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
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
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
NON ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO PLAYGROUND OVERVIEW OF PLAYGROUND Question Yes No NA Comments
Is there an accessible route to the play area /
s? 1
Has the play area been reviewed for
accessibility ? 2
Are publicly accessible swimming pools
equipped with an entrance lift ? 3
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name: Ash Street Park Buildings - Viola Blythe BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-001.017
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA OVERVIEW OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA Question Yes No NA Comments
Does the required number of standard ADA
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 1
Does the required number of van-accessible
designated spaces appear to be provided ? 2
Are accessible spaces on the shortest
accessible route to an accessible building
entrance ?
3 Does parking signage include the International
Symbol of Accessibility ? 4
Does each accessible space have an adjacent
access aisle ? 5
Do parking spaces and access aisles appear
to be relatively level and without obstruction ? 6
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE PATH CURB CUT
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6 No ramps
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
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
Interior Accessible Route section not applicable at this site.
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 Single use toilet roomp Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum
compliant clear floor area ? 7 Single use toilet room
Where more than one urinal is present in a
multi-user restroom, does minimum one urinal
appear to be mounted at a compliant height
and with compliant approach width ?
8 No urinals
Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
ASH STREET PARK BUILDINGS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-001.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Birch Grove Restroom
38080 Birch Street
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-002.017
DATE OF REPORT:
February 16, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
January 24, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Property Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 6
2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 7
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 10
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 11
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 12
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 14 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 14
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 16
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 17 BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Public Restroom
Main Address 38080 Birch Street, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 1975
Site Area 0.2 acres
Parking Spaces Shares parking lot with the adjacent park.
Building Area 900 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 24, 2023
Management Point of Contact Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc.
Andrea Gifford
Principal
415.531.4456
[email protected]
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Roya Gonzalez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Nezar M. Tibi
Reviewed By Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for:
Mary Venable
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Birch Grove Restroom was built in 1975. A new roof was installed in 2020.
Architectural
The building is a heavy concrete block structure with wood framed roof over concrete slab foundation. Exterior walls are painted CMU with no windows. Interior finishes are updated as needed.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
No heating or cooling system is provided for this building. The electrical system is copper wiring and appears to be original to the construction of the building. Plumbing is copper supply with PVC waste system. The waste system has been problematic due to visitors disposing of inappropriate materials down the drain.
Site
The building shares a parking lot with the adjacent park.
Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures. The capital expenditures allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the dollar amounts along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
No immediate needs are identified.
Key Findings
Toilet Partitions in Poor condition.
Metal
Birch Grove Restroom Restrooms
Uniformat Code: C1090
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 81.8
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $3,700
$$$$
Doors and corroded and require replacement. - AssetCALC ID: 5106120 Exterior Door in Poor condition.
Steel, Standard
Birch Grove Restroom Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2050
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 81.8
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $5,200
$$$$
The doors are old and deteriorated. - AssetCALC ID: 5106123 Flooring in Poor condition.
any surface, w/ Paint or Sealant
Birch Grove Restroom Throughout building
Uniformat Code: C2030
Recommendation: Prep & Paint in 2024
Priority Score: 81.7
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,600
$$$$
Floor is deteriorated and requires a new fresh paint. - AssetCALC ID: 5106127 BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. B u il di ng a nd Si t e I nf orm at i on
Systems Summary
System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists and concrete foundation slab
Good
Facade Primary Wall Finish : CMU
Windows: None
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Good Interiors Walls: Painted CMU
Floors: Painted and unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Painted ceiling
Fair
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and PVC waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, urinal, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC No heating or cooling system. n/a
Fire Suppression None n/a
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm None n/a
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Equipment/Special None n/a
Site Pavement Shares parking lots with the adjacent park. n/a Site Development Wrought iron gates Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
None n/a
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric
Good
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: None
Building-mounted: Incandescent
Fair
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property.
Key Issues and
Findings
Rusted entrance doors, flooring repair, and replace toilet partitions.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, the exterior of the property, and the roof.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are not included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The facility was originally constructed in 1975. The facility has not since been substantially renovated.
During the interview process with the client representatives, no complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was reported.
No detailed follow-up accessibility study is currently recommended since no major or moderate issues were identified at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed, or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall & Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. C e rt if ic at io n
Group 4 Arch, City of Newark, Facilities Master Plan (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Birch Grove Restroom, 38080 Birch Street, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site and Floor Plans
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - RIGHT ELEVATION
3 - LEFT ELEVATION 4 - REAR ELEVATION
5 - MAIN ENTRANCE 6 - EXTERIOR DOORS
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - TOILET PARTITIONS 8 - DETERIORATED TOILET PARTITIONS 9 - ROOFING 10 - DETERIORATED FLOORING
11 - STORAGE 12 - PLUMBING SYSTEM
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - SINK/LAVATORY 14 -SERVICE SINK
15 - TOILET 16 - URINAL
17 - SWITCHBOARD 18 - DISTRIBUTION PANEL
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site and Floor Plans
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-002.017 Birch Grove Restroom
Source On-Site Date
Google January 24, 2023
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-002.017 Birch Grove Restroom
Source On-Site Date
Owner January 24, 2023
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre-Survey Questionnaire
BV Facility Condition Assessme nt: Pre-Survey Questionnaire Building / Facility Name: Birch Grove Restroom
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: January 20, 2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated 1975 – utility room in rear of building 2 Building size in SF 900
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade 1975 Concrete block and wood
Roof 2020 Re-roofed - shingles
Interiors 1975 Concrete block
HVAC Design uses natural ventilation with vents in front and rear gables
Electrical 1975
Site Pavement 1975 concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
We will be retrofitting to LED lights – budgeted but not scheduled 6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
Plumbing lines – due to flushing of foreign objects (roughly once or twice per year)
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 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: Birch Grove Restroom
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-002.017
Parking
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Parking section not applicable at this site.
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE PATH ACCESSIBLE PATH
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6
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
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2
Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
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
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds & Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
BIRCH GROVE RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-002.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Boathouse
Chelsea Drive
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-003.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 1, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
February 7, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Property Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 6
2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 7
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 10
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 11
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 13
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 15 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 15
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 17
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 18 BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Boathouse
Main Address Chelsea Drive, Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 2019
Site Area 0.4 acres
Parking Spaces 23 total spaces all in open lots; 1 of which is accessible.
Building Area 300 square feet
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit February 7, 2023
Management Point of Contact Andrea Gifford
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc.
Principal
415.531.4456
[email protected]
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay Van der Have
Reviewed By Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for:
Mary Venable
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
This building was built in 2019 to function as a boat rental center for the City of Newark. The city has since stopped renting boats at this location. As a result the building sits fairly empty.
Architectural
This simple wood framed, slab on grade, building with T-111 exterior siding is relatively recently built and in good condition.
It may have been intended to house rental boats, though currently it holds approximately 20 fishing rods.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
Electrical and plumbing are present and in serviceable condition. There is no heating or cooling equipment.
Site
The asphalt parking area could use sealing and striping.
Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures. The capital expenditures allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the dollar amounts along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
Key Findings
ADA Paths of Travel
Gate at Dock
Boathouse Gate at Boat Dock
Uniformat Code: Y1020
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,200
$$$$
Install wheelchair accessible gate and latch at dock. - AssetCALC ID: 5364567 BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. B u il di ng a nd Si t e I nf orm at i on
Systems Summary
System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation Good Facade Primary Wall Finish : Painted T-111
Window: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Gable construction with asphalt shingles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board
Floors:Unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Painted exposed
Fair
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste and venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilet in the restroom, sink outside of the restroom Fair
HVAC No HVAC n/a
Fire Suppression Fire extinguisher only Fair
Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Alarm None Missing
Equipment/Special None n/a
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs
Fair
Site Development No property entrance signage; chain link fencing; Limited park benches, trash receptacles
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including, trees and bushes Irrigation present
No retaining walls
Low to moderate site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric
Good
Site Lighting Building-mounted: Incandescent Fair
Ancillary Structures Boat dock Fair
Accessibility The Boathouse is currently not in use and from what we could observe is not a public building. It appears to be used for storage. If in the future the building reverts to use as a public building where the general public has access to the interior areas then wheelchair accessibility improvements will need to be added to the building.
n/a
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
System Expenditure Forecast
System Immediate Short Term
(1-2 yr)
Near Term
(3-5 yr)
Med Term
(6-10 yr)
Long Term
(11-20 yr)
TOTAL
Facade - - $3,616 - $4,860 $8,476
Roofing - - - - $3,078 $3,078
Interiors - - $3,743 - $5,030 $8,773
Plumbing - - - $2,195 $8,586 $10,781
Fire Protection - - $257 - $345 $602
Electrical - - - - $2,658 $2,658
Site Development - - - $9,983 $30,712 $40,695
Site Pavement - $5,674 - $17,222 $16,467 $39,363
Accessibility $817 - - - - $817
TOTALS $900 $5,700 $7,700 $29,400 $71,800 $115,500
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries and the exterior of the property.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
▪ Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
▪ Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or ▪ Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with
35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
Generally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of its age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
Buildings completed and occupied after January 26, 1992 are required to comply fully with the ADAAG. Existing facilities constructed prior to this date are held to the lesser standard of compliance to the extent allowed by structural feasibility and the financial resources available. As an alternative, a reasonable accommodation pertaining to barrier removal must be made.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The facility was originally constructed in 2019. The facility has not since been substantially renovated.
The Boathouse is currently not in use and from what we could observe is not a public building. It appears to be used for storage. If in the future the building reverts to use as a public building where the general public has access to the interior areas then wheelchair accessibility improvements will need to be added to the building.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed, or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall & Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. C e rt if ic at io n
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Boathouse, Chelsea Drive, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8 . Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT AND REAR ELEVATION
3 – RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 4 – ENTRY DOORS
5 – SITE PATHWAY 6 – PARKING LOT
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - INTERIOR 8 - INTERIOR
9 - ELECTRICAL PANEL 10 - STAFF TOILET
11 - DOCK AND GATE 12 - FENCING
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site Plan
Boathouse Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-003.017 Boathouse
Source On-Site Date
Google February 7, 2023
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre -Survey Questionnaire
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
A Presurvey Questionnaire was not received
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 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: Boathouse
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-003.017
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
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
ACCESSIBLE PATH BOAT DOCK
Question Yes No NA Comments
1 Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
2 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
3 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes?
4 Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ?
5 Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? No ramps
6 Are exterior features on an accessible route ? Dock not on accessible path and gate is not accessible.
Exterior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Building Entrances section not applicable at this site.
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Interior Accessible Route section not applicable at this site.
Elevators
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Elevators section not applicable at this site.
Public Restrooms
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Public Restrooms section not applicable at this site.
Kitchens/Kitchenettes
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Kitchens/Kitchenettes section not applicable at this site.
Playgrounds and Swimming Pools
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Playgrounds and Swimming Pools section not applicable at this site.
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
BOATHOUSE BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-003.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Community Center/Annex/Restroom
35501 Cedar Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-004.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 15, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
February 14, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Campus Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Campus Findings and Deficiencies ........................................................................................................ 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 4 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 6 Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 14
2. Community Center ............................................................................................................................. 15
3. Community Center Annex ................................................................................................................. 17
4. Community Center Restrooms.......................................................................................................... 19
5. Site Summary...................................................................................................................................... 21
6. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 22
7. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 23
8. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 25
9. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 27 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 27
10. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 29
11. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 30 COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Campus Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Community Center
Number of Buildings Three
Main Address 35501 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California 94506 Site Developed 1968
Site Area 3.75 acres (estimated)
Parking Spaces 110 total spaces all in open lots; six of which are accessible Outside Occupants/Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit February 14, 2023
Management Point of Contact Andrea Marie Gifford
650.871.0709 x218
agifford@g4arch
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Matthew Anderson for
Mary Venable Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
These three buildings, the community center, the community center annex and the community center restrooms were all designed by Aaron Green, who was a protégé and associate of Frank Lloyd Wright. The community center was constructed in 1968 the other two were constructed in 1991, all three retain the functions for which they were designed.
Two offices at the front of the community center have had water intrusion and are no longer used, the rooms are locked. The downstairs area has poor air quality and water damage. This area is no longer used and locked. The rear classroom has efflorescence on the masonry walls during the rainy season. The air quality has been tested several times but does not show elevated levels of mold.
Architectural
The buildings have many of the design aspects for which Frank Lloyd Wright is known: sweeping roof overhangs, use of natural materials and, with glazing and glass doors facilitating bringing the outside into the building. Natural materials include CMU exterior and interior walls, wood panel walls and concrete or Saltillo tile floors.
The buildings are showing their age and have significant condition problems. The roofs and skylights at the community center are leaking; not only are ceilings and walls stained by water intrusion, but ceilings actively drip during rains, requiring buckets to catch the water. Several rooms have been sealed off due to moisture problems. Roof replacement is recommended as a short-term capital improvement. Problems with water extend to efflorescence seen on walls and floors.
Some floors not only show efflorescence but are also pitted. A study to determine why this is happening and how to stop it has been budgeted. Much of the glazing is fixed, the operable units are steel framed and rusting badly, replacement is recommended. Interior finishes affected by water damage and suspected fungal growth must be repaired in the short term, and walls cleaned of water stains and efflorescence, but roofing replacement must precede this work. Typical interior and exterior finish replacements are anticipated for other areas that are not damaged.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The HVAC systems were replaced approximately 10 years ago and functions well. Typical lifecycle replacement is anticipated. The community center does not have a fire sprinkler system, providing one should be considered.
Site
The asphalt parking areas should stay in serviceable condition with regular sealing and striping. Asphalt walkways are presenting some problems with significant uplift due to tree roots. Correction of this is budgeted on a short term basis.
Recommended Additional Studies
The buildings have multiple condition issues that cannot be fully evaluated from a visual assessment alone. Due to the obvious moisture intrusion, there may be extensive issues of mold or deterioration concealed within walls and ceilings that could require extensive demolition and reconstruction. Costs shown in this report for studies and replacements are those that can be reasonably expected from our visual inspection. Bureau Veritas recommends a qualified mold abatement contractor who can investigate enclosed spaces be retained to prepare a thorough investigation into enclosed spaces and remediation costs based on their inspection.
As mentioned above, why the wall and floor efflorescence and the floor pitting and how to stop this from happening should be determined. One possible explanation is the drainage from the flat roof area could lead to an internal drain line that has failed and is leaking water into the under-slab areas. Another explanation could be from domestic water leaks if there is under-slab water supply piping. During dry months the water will drain away but back up in wet winter months. The cause of the problem could not be determined through a visual assessment. A professional consultant must be retained to analyze the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required repairs.
The cost of this study is included in the cost tables. A cost for a professional engineering study is included in the cost tables, as well as a budgetary allowance for repair of the floor and ceiling areas where moisture damage has occurred. Due to the ambiguity of the required repair scope at the time of this assessment, these amounts must be considered a general allowance that must be verified by a detailed engineering study that may involve opening concealed structural spaces.
Evidence of wood rot and insect infestation was seen at the fascia of the annex. A termite or pest control inspection company should be retained to analyze the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required repairs. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables. A budgetary cost allowance to replace the fascia is also included. .
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Some areas of the facility were identified as having major or moderate accessibility issues. Bureau Veritas recommends a study be performed to take measurements, provide additional itemized details, research local requirements, and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required improvements. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables.
Costs for some obvious accessibility needs are included in the tables, hoverer due to the lack of measurements and itemized findings at this point in time, the costs for any possible subsequent repairs or improvements that may be identified in a detailed study are not currently included.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
Overall site (3 Buildings)
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Campus Level FCI:
The vertical bars below represent the year-by-year needs identified for the entire campus. The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the campus FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures over the next ten years. The dollar amounts allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the values along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The table below shows the anticipated costs by trade or building system over the next 20 years.
Immediate Needs
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Sidewalk in Poor condition.
Concrete, Small Areas/Sections
Community Annex Community Center Site
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 94.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $13,100
$$$$
Uplift is causing significant unevenness - AssetCALC ID: 5303740 COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Sidewalk in Poor condition.
Asphalt
Community Center Community Center Site
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 94.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $3,600
$$$$
The unevenness is hazardous - AssetCALC ID: 5304011
Roofing in Poor condition.
Clay/Concrete Tile
Community Annex Community Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $115,000
$$$$
The roof is leaking - AssetCALC ID: 5303732
Roofing in Poor condition.
Clay/Concrete Tile
Community Center Community Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $519,300
$$$$
The shingles are breaking apart, and the roof is leaking - AssetCALC ID: 5304058 Exterior Walls in Poor condition.
Brick
Community Annex Community Center Areas of
Leaks
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Point and Seal in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $41,900
$$$$
Efflorescence is a sign that roof leaks or wall leaks are allowing moisture into the building. - AssetCALC ID:
5303746
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Structural Framing in Poor
condition.
Wood
Community Center Throughout building
Uniformat Code: B1010
Recommendation: Seismic Upgrades,
Allowance in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $83,800
$$$$
Allowance for repairing damage to heavy timber framing identified by building inspector, dependent on engineering study. - AssetCALC ID: 6890240
Roofing in Poor condition.
Built-Up
Community Center Community Center Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $91,600
$$$$
This roof leaks - AssetCALC ID: 5304012
Wood fascia in Poor condition.
Wood
Community Annex Community Center Building
Exterior
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Repair/Install in 2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $12,000
$$$$
Repair, replace rotted, infested fascia - AssetCALC ID: 5303700 Sanitary Sewer in Poor condition.
CCTV
Community Center Community Center Main
lines
Uniformat Code: D2030
Recommendation: Survey in 2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $1,400
$$$$
Regular sewage, back up problems require review by a CCTV camera to determine the extent of the problems. - AssetCALC ID: 5304043
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Sanitary Sewer in Poor condition.
Original Piping
Community Center Community Center site
Uniformat Code: D2030
Recommendation: Partial Replacement in
2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $16,300
$$$$
Periodic clogs and backups into the building were reported. - AssetCALC ID: 5591500 Sidewalk in Poor condition.
Concrete, Small Areas/Sections
Community Center Community Center Site
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2025
Priority Score: 85.7
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $26,200
$$$$
If the uplift continues, this can be hazardous - AssetCALC ID: 5304066 Ceiling Finishes
Gypsum Board/Plaster
Community Center Community Center Mold
and moisture affected areas
Uniformat Code: C2050
Recommendation: Major Replacement -
Allowance in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $546,400
$$$$
Budgetary allowance for major replacment of ceiling finishes affected by moisture and mold, dependent on environmental study. Includes paint and new insulation. - AssetCALC ID: 6890040 COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. C om m un it y C en t e r
Community Center: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1968
Building Size 13,336 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists over concrete slab foundation
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: CMU
Secondary Wall Finish: Wood siding
Windows: Steel
Poor
Roof Primary: Hip construction with concrete tiles
Secondary: Flat construction with built-up finish
Poor
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, unfinished CMU, wood paneling, ceramic tile
Floors: ceramic tile, Saltillo tile, wood strip, terrazzo, sealed & stained concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste & venting Hot Water: Gas water heater with integral
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Good
HVAC Central System: Boiler, air handler feeding fan coil terminal units Non-Central System: Packaged units, Split-system heat pumps --
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Community Center: Systems Summary
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers, kitchen hood system Fair Electrical Source & Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, incandescent, halogen Emergency Power: Diesel generator with automatic transfer switch Fair
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, alarms, pull stations, and exit signs Fair Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment Fair
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this building and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and Findings Rusting windows, leaking roof and skylights, damaged or rotting exterior wood, interior suspect mold issues, interior mold on walls and ceiling, water-damaged ceiling and floors COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. C om m un it y C en t e r A nn ex
Community Center Annex: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1991
Building Size 3,000 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists over a concrete slab foundation
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: CMU
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Gable construction with concrete tiles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board unfinished CMU, wood paneling, ceramic tile Floors: Carpet, VCT, ceramic tile
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste & venting Hot Water: Gas water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Furnaces with split-system condensing units Fair
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers Fair COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Community Center Annex: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, CFL
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm Smoke detectors with exit signs only Fair
Equipment/Special None --
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this building and a detailed accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D
Key Issues and
Findings
Efflorescence on the walls, the recommended moisture study should include this building, leaking roof, outdated fire alarm system
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 19 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. C om m un it y C en t e r R es t ro om s
Community Center Restrooms: Systems Summary
Constructed/Renovated 1991
Building Size 500 SF
Number of Stories One above grade with no below-grade basement levels System Description Condition
Structure Masonry bearing walls with wood roof deck supported by wood joists over a concrete slab
Fair
Façade Primary Wall Finish: CMU --
Roof Primary: Gable construction with concrete tiles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted CMU
Floors: Painted concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board
Fair
Elevators None --
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste & venting Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC No HVAC --
Fire Suppression Fire extinguishers only Fair
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Community Center Restrooms: Systems Summary
Electrical Source & Distribution: Main switchboard with copper wiring Interior Lighting: CFL, incandescent
Emergency Power: None
Fair
Fire Alarm None --
Equipment/Special None --
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this building. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 21 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. S it e S um m a ry
Site Information
System Description Condition
Pavement/Flatwork
Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs, ramps, and stairs
Good
Site Development
Building-mounted and property entrance signage; wood board fencing; CMU wall fence at dumpster enclosures
Limited park benches, trash receptacles
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Significant landscaping features including lawns, trees, bushes, and planters Irrigation present
Timber and brick retaining walls
Low to moderate site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities
Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting
Pole-mounted: LED Good
Ancillary Structures
None --
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for the exterior site areas. See Appendix D.
Key Issues and
Findings
None observed at time of assessment.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 22 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
Most of the interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition.
Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, the exterior of the property, and the roofs.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All areas of the property were accessible and observed.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 23 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local juriFebruary 14, 2023ictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the checklists that are included in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues. Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 24 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The campus was originally constructed in 1968 with additional buildings added in 1991 and renovated in phases over time.
The following table summarizes the accessibility conditions of the general site and at each building on campus:
Campus: Accessibility Summary
Facility Year Built/
Renovated
Prior Study
Provided?
Major/Moderate
Issues Observed?
General Site 1968 No No
Community Center 1968 No Yes
Community Center Annex 1991 No Yes
Community Center Restrooms 1991 No No
Complaints about accessibility issues have been sporadically received by property management the Community Center Annex although no prior or pending litigation was reported.
Detailed follow-up accessibility studies are included as recommendations because potential moderate to major issues were observed at the buildings identified above. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 25 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 26 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 27 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
9. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall & Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 28 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 29 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 0. C e rt if ic at i on
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Community Center 35501 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California 94506, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have,
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable,
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 28 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
11. Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
COMMUNITY CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - REAR/SIDE ELEVATION
3 - SIDE ELEVATION 4 - ROOF OVERVIEW
5 - BUILT UP ROOF 6 - INTERIOR
COMMUNITY CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - STEEL WINDOW 8 - INTERIOR
9 - INTERIOR 10 - KITCHEN
11 - RESTROOM FIXTURES 12 - WATER HEATER
COMMUNITY CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - WATER INTRUSION 14 - WATER INSTRUSION IN LOCKED ROOM 15 - MOISTURE DAMAGE 16 - MOISTURE INTRUSION
17 - MOISTURE INTRUSION 18 - MOISTURE INTRUSION
COMMUNITY CENTER BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - MECHANICAL ROOM 14 - PACKAGED UNIT
15 - EMERGENCY GENERATOR 16 - MAIN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 17 - LANDSCAPING OVERVIEW 18 - PARKING LOT OVERVIEW
COMMUNITY ANNEX BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - REAR ELEVATION
3 - RIGHT ELEVATION 4 - ROOF EDGE
5 - INTERIOR 6 - INTERIOR
COMMUNITY ANNEX BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - INTERIOR - 8 - RESTROOM
9 - MECHANICAL ROOM 10 - SPRINKLER STANDPIPE
COMMUNITY CENTER RESTROOMS BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - SIDE ELEVATION 2 - SIDE ELEVATION
3 - PLUMBING FIXTURES 4 - PLUMBING FIXTURES
5 - DOMESTIC PIPING 6 - MAIN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site Plan
Community Center Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-004.017 Community Center/Annex/Restroom
Source On-Site Date
Google February 14, 2023
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre -Survey Questionnaire
BV Facility Condition Assessment: Pre - Survey Questionnaire Building/Facility Name: Community Center
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title/Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed/renovated 1968
2 Building size in SF 13,336
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Brick/wood
Roof Flat/high/single ply membrane/cement tile
Interiors Drywall/wood/brick
HVAC Approx.
2005
Old system abandoned (wrapped asbestos pipes)
and new
Electrical
Site Pavement concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Two offices in front of facility had water intrusion – no longer used and locked Downstairs area has poor air quality and water damage – no longer used and locked Rear classroom has effervescence during rainy season – air quality tested several times Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
Listed above – also the fireplace was sealed with flashing to prevent water leaks (date unknown)
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
Tested – within normal parameters
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
On average, once a year we experience a backup where
sewage comes out of the nearby access point in the
hallway
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
Only Patio Room and Social Hall have systems installed
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
Side patio
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
BV Facility Condition Assessment: Pre - Survey Questionnaire Building/Facility Name: Community Center Annex
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title/Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated with
property:
7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed/renovated 1991
2 Building size in SF 3,000
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Brick
Roof Med. Wood
Interiors
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Due to the forced floor system, at times the windows present condensation (correlates with the water table) and effervescence appears on the brick walls in front lobby Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
Effervescence – air quality was tested several years ago and cleared
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
In rear conversation pit – depending on water table
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
BV Facility Condition Assessment: Pre - Survey Questionnaire Building/Facility Name: Community Center Restroom
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title/Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated with
property:
7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated 1991
2 Building size in SF 500
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Brick/wood
Roof Flat/high/single ply membrane/cement tile
Interiors Drywall/wood/brick
HVAC Natural
Electrical
Site Pavement concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
Roofing - budgeted
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
On average, once a year we experience a backup where
sewage comes out of the nearby access point in the
parking lot
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting? x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
Accessibility Review and Photos
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name:
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000 - 004.017
Community Center
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 RAMP CURB CUT
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6
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
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENER
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2 Main entrance is accessible Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3 The main entrance is accessible Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
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
SELF-SERVICE AREA
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does an accessible route appear to connect
all public areas inside the building ? 1
Do accessible routes appear free of
obstructions and/or protruding objects ? 2
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant slopes ? 3 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 4 No ramps
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
5 No ramps
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant handrails ? 6 No ramps
MAIN EVENT SPACE
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 Single use restroom
Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum
compliant clear floor area ? 7 Single use restroom
Where more than one urinal is present in a
multi-user restroom, does minimum one urinal
appear to be mounted at a compliant height
and with compliant approach width ?
8 Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
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.
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
COMMUNITY CENTER/ANNEX/RESTROOM BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-004.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Fire Station 27
39039 Cherry Street
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-005.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 15, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
January 28, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Property Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 9
2. Building and Site Information ........................................................................................................... 10
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 13
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 14
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 15
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 17 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 17
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 19
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Fire Station
Main Address 39039 Cherry Street
Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 1981
Site Area 1.2 acres
Parking Spaces Nine total spaces all in open lots; 1 of which are accessible.
Building Area 6,000 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 28, 2023
Management Point of Contact Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc.
Andrea Gifford
Principal
415.531.4456
[email protected]
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Matt.Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for:
Mary Venable
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
This fire station was constructed in 1981. At a certain point, it was enlarged to better accommodate the equipment and personnel. The fire training tower was constructed in 1982 Architectural
The building is wood framed with a stucco exterior and foam roofing. There is a metal mansard roof. The foam roofing is at the end of its life, leaks are reported in both parts of the building. The interior finishes have been periodically replaced as-needed.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
A split system unit provides interior space conditioning. The building has a fire sprinkler system, but no fire alarm system or CO detectors. Electrical, plumbing and HVAC ductwork, are original. Replacements are recommended. The existing emergency generator is not capable of powering the entire station, replacement with a generator that has sufficient capacity is recommended
Site
Site lighting is adequate, the parking and drive areas would greatly benefit from sealing and striping in the next few years.
There is no way to secure the perimeter of the site.
Recommended Additional Studies
A measured accessibility study is recommended. See Appendix D.
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 3 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Facility Condition Index (FCI)
One of the major goals of the FCA is to calculate each building’s Facility Condition Index (FCI), which provides a theoretical objective indication of a building’s overall condition. By definition, the FCI is defined as the ratio of the cost of current needs divided by current replacement value (CRV) of the facility. The chart below presents the industry standard ranges and cutoff points.
FCI Ranges and Description
0 – 5% In new or well-maintained condition, with little or no visual evidence of wear or deficiencies. 5 – 10% Subjected to wear but is still in a serviceable and functioning condition. 10 – 30% Subjected to hard or long-term wear. Nearing the end of its useful or serviceable life. 30% and above Has reached the end of its useful or serviceable life. Renewal is now necessary.
The deficiencies and lifecycle needs identified in this assessment provide the basis for a portfolio-wide capital improvement funding strategy. In addition to the current FCI, extended FCI’s have been developed to provide owners the intelligence needed to plan and budget for the “keep-up costs” for their facilities. As such the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year FCI’s are calculated by dividing the anticipated needs of those respective time periods by current replacement value. As a final point, the FCI’s ultimately provide more value when used to relatively compare facilities across a portfolio instead of being overanalyzed and scrutinized as stand-alone values. The table below summarizes the individual findings for this FCA:
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 4 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
The orange line in the graph below forecasts what would happen to the FCI (left Y axis) over time, assuming zero capital expenditures. The capital expenditures allocated for each year (blue bars) are associated with the dollar amounts along the right Y axis.
Needs by Year with Unaddressed FCI Over Time
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Fire Alarm System
Full System Upgrade, Standard Addressable
Fire Station 27 Throughout
Uniformat Code: D7050
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $39,300
$$$$
This building has no fire alarm system and no carbon monoxide detectors. Both are needed - AssetCALC ID: 5252296
Recommended Follow-up Study:
Environmental, Analysis of
Suspect Fungal Growth
Environmental, Analysis of Suspect Fungal
Growth
Fire Station 27 Skylights
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $7,600
$$$$
Suspected microbial growth by skylight - AssetCALC ID: 7215551 Recommended Follow-up Study:
Structural, Seismic
Structural, Seismic
Fire Station 27
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $43,600
$$$$
Building was designed before - AssetCALC ID: 7215550
Fire Alarm Panel
Fully Addressable
Fire Station 27 Throughout
Uniformat Code: D7050
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $32,700
$$$$
This building has no fire alarm system and no carbon monoxide detectors. Both are needed - AssetCALC ID: 7215458
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Fences & Gates
Fence, Metal Tube 6'
Fire Station 27 Property Perimeter
Uniformat Code: G2060
Recommendation: Provide in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $136,200
$$$$
Currently the property has no fence. - AssetCALC ID: 5253875 Roofing in Poor condition.
Spray Foam
Fire Station 27 Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $130,900
$$$$
There are signs and reports of leaking. (Roof & skylight) - AssetCALC ID: 5251534 Exterior Door in Failed condition.
Aluminum-Framed & Glazed, Residential Slider
Fire Station 27 Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2050
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $1,900
$$$$
This door leaks under the threshold - AssetCALC ID: 5251554 Roof Skylight in Failed condition.
per unit, up to 20 SF
Fire Station 27 Roof
Uniformat Code: B3060
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,800
$$$$
Leakage is occurring - AssetCALC ID: 5251583
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Flooring in Poor condition.
Carpet, Commercial Standard
Fire Station 27 Community room
Uniformat Code: C2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $8,200
$$$$
The carpet has suffered water damage from the leaking sliding glass door - AssetCALC ID: 5251567 ADA Restrooms
Lavatory, Pipe Wraps/Insulation
Fire Station 27 Restrooms
Uniformat Code: Y1050
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $200
$$$$
Insulation needed at this sink drain & kitchen sink drain - AssetCALC ID: 5251543 ADA Miscellaneous
Level III Study, Includes Measurements
Fire Station 27 Throughout building
Uniformat Code: Y1090
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $16,400
$$$$
A complete review of this facility is recommended. - AssetCALC ID: 5251562 ADA Parking
Signage, Wall-Mounted
Fire Station 27 Adjacent to front door
Uniformat Code: Y1010
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $400
$$$$
When the ADA parking space is moved adjacent to the front door, signage must be installed - AssetCALC ID: 5251569
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Plan Types
Each line item in the cost database is assigned a Plan Type, which is the primary reason or rationale for the recommended replacement, repair, or other corrective action. This is the “why” part of the equation. A cost or line item may commonly have more than one applicable Plan Type; however, only one Plan Type will be assigned based on the “best” fit, typically the one with the greatest significance.
Plan Type Descriptions
Safety An observed or reported unsafe condition that if left unaddressed could result in injury; a system or component that presents potential liability risk.
Performance/Integrity Component or system has failed, is almost failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability.
Accessibility Does not meet ADA, UFAS, and/or other handicap accessibility requirements.
Environmental Improvements to air or water quality, including removal of hazardous materials from the building or site.
Retrofit/Adaptation Components, systems, or spaces recommended for upgrades in in order to meet current standards, facility usage, or client/occupant needs.
Lifecycle/Renewal Any component or system that is not currently deficient or problematic but for which future replacement or repair is anticipated and budgeted.
Plan Type Distribution (by Cost)
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. B u il di ng a nd Si t e I nf orm at i on
Systems Summary
System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation Fair Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco and masonry
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Flat construction with foam finish reportedly over the original metal roofing
Secondary: Mansard construction with metal finish
Poor
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board
Floors: Carpet, VCT, sealed concrete
Ceilings: ACT, exposed
Fair
Elevators None -
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast iron waste and venting Hot Water: Gas water heater with integral tank
Fixtures: Toilets and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Gas-fired furnace and split-system condenser.
Suspended unit heater in apparatus bay
Fair
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers, Fair Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: Gasoline generator
Fair
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Alarm No smoke detectors, no fire alarm system, no exit signs Failed Equipment/Special Plymovent Good
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks and curbs
Fair
Site Development Building-mounted signage; No perimeter fencing; CMU wall dumpster enclosure
Fair
Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including trees and bushes Irrigation present
No retaining walls
Low site slopes throughout
Fair
Utilities Municipal water and sewer
Local utility-provided electric and natural gas
Good
Site Lighting Pole-mounted: metal halide
Building-mounted: metal halide
Fair
Ancillary Structures Fire tower Fair
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this property and a detailed accessibility study is recommended.
n/a
Key Issues and
Findings
No fire alarm system, no smoke detectors, leaky roof sliding glass door.
No way to secure the perimeter of the property
-
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, and the exterior of the property.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The facility was originally constructed in 1981. The facility was enlarged at a later date and some accessibility improvements appear to have been implemented at that time.
Complaints about accessibility issues have been sporadically received by property management, although no prior or pending litigation was reported.
A detailed follow-up accessibility study is included as a recommendation because potential moderate to major issues were observed at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. P u rp os e an d Sc op e
Purpose
Bureau Veritas was retained by the client to render an opinion as to the Property’s current general physical condition on the day of the site visit.
Based on the observations, interviews and document review outlined below, this report identifies significant deferred maintenance issues, existing deficiencies, and material code violations of record, which affect the Property’s use. Opinions are rendered as to its structural integrity, building system condition and the Property’s overall condition. The report also notes building systems or components that have realized or exceeded their typical expected useful lives.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five condition ratings. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Condition Ratings
Excellent New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typically within the first third of its lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Fair Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life. Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement is needed, or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful life.
Failed Component or system has ceased functioning or performing as intended. Replacement, repair, or other significant corrective action is recommended or required.
Not Applicable Assigning a condition does not apply or make logical sense, most commonly due to the item in question not being present.
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Scope
The standard scope of the Facility Condition Assessment includes the following:
▪ Visit the Property to evaluate the general condition of the building and site improvements, review available construction documents in order to familiarize ourselves with, and be able to comment on, the in-place construction systems, life safety, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and the general built environment. ▪ Identify those components that are exhibiting deferred maintenance issues and provide cost estimates for Immediate Costs and Replacement Reserves based on observed conditions, maintenance history and industry standard useful life estimates. This will include the review of documented capital improvements completed within the last five-year period and work currently contracted for, if applicable.
▪ Provide a full description of the Property with descriptions of in-place systems and commentary on observed conditions. ▪ Provide a high-level categorical general statement regarding the subject Property’s compliance to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This will not constitute a full ADA survey, but will help identify exposure to issues and the need for further review.
▪ Obtain background and historical information about the facility from a building engineer, property manager, maintenance staff, or other knowledgeable source. The preferred methodology is to have the client representative or building occupant complete a Pre-Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) in advance of the site visit. Common alternatives include a verbal interview just prior to or during the walk-through portion of the assessment. ▪ Review maintenance records and procedures with the in-place maintenance personnel. ▪ Observe a representative sample of the interior spaces/units, including vacant spaces/units, to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas to be observed include the exterior of the property, the roofs, interior common areas, and the significant mechanical, electrical and elevator equipment rooms. ▪ Provide recommendations for additional studies, if required, with related budgetary information. ▪ Provide an Executive Summary at the beginning of this report, which highlights key findings and includes a Facility Condition Index as a basis for comparing the relative conditions of the buildings within the portfolio.
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. O p in io ns o f P ro b ab le C os t s
Cost estimates are attached throughout this report, with the Replacement Reserves in the appendix.
These estimates are based on Invoice or Bid Document/s provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed by construction resources such as R.S. Means, CBRE Whitestone, and Marshall and Swift, Bureau Veritas’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
Opinions of probable costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs most probably will vary from the consultant’s opinions of probable costs depending on such matters as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing or bundling of the work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management exercised, market conditions, use of subcontractors, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. Certain opinions of probable costs cannot be developed within the scope of this guide without further study. Opinions of probable cost for further study should be included in the FCA.
Methodology
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry sources, Bureau Veritas opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replacement records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use, the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a system or component. As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age, whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based primarily on age and condition with the presumption of continued use and maintenance of the Property similar to the observed and reported past use and maintenance practices, in conjunction with the professional judgment of Bureau Veritas’s assessors. Significant changes in occupants and/or usage may affect the service life of some systems or components.
Where quantities could not be or were not derived from an actual construction document take-off or facility walk-through, and/or where systemic costs are more applicable or provide more intrinsic value, budgetary square foot and gross square foot costs are used. Estimated costs are based on professional judgment and the probable or actual extent of the observed defect, inclusive of the cost to design, procure, construct and manage the corrections.
Definitions
Immediate Needs
Immediate Needs are line items that require immediate action as a result of: (1) material existing or potential unsafe conditions, (2) failed or imminent failure of mission critical building systems or components, or (3) conditions that, if not addressed, have the potential to result in, or contribute to, critical element or system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.
For database and reporting purposes the line items with RUL=0, and commonly associated with Safety or Performance/Integrity Plan Types, are considered Immediate Needs.
Replacement Reserves
Cost line items traditionally called Replacement Reserves (equivalently referred to as Lifecycle/Renewals) are for recurring probable renewals or expenditures, which are not classified as operation or maintenance expenses. The replacement reserves should be budgeted for in advance on an annual basis. Replacement Reserves are reasonably predictable both in terms of frequency and cost. However, Replacement Reserves may also include components or systems that have an indeterminable life but, nonetheless, have a potential for failure within an estimated time period.
Replacement Reserves generally exclude systems or components that are estimated to expire after the reserve term and are not considered material to the structural and mechanical integrity of the subject property. Furthermore, systems and components that are not deemed to have a material effect on the use of the Property are also excluded. Costs that are caused by acts of God, accidents, or other occurrences that are typically covered by insurance, rather than reserved for, are also excluded.
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 19 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. C e rt if ic at io n
City of Newark, (the Client) retained Bureau Veritas to perform this Facility Condition Assessment in connection with its continued operation of Fire Station 27, 39039 Cherry Street, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matt.Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 20 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. A p pe nd ic es
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
P h o t o g r a p h i c R e c o r d
FIRE STATION 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - TRAINING TOWER 6 - PRIMARY PARKING AREA
FIRE STATION 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - ROOFING 8 - ENTRY CONTROLS
9 - COMMUNITY AREA 10 - KITCHEN
11 - APPARATUS BAY 12 - CEILING IN ENGINE BAY
FIRE STATION 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - RESTROOM FIXTURES 14 – RESTROOM
15 - WORKOUT ROOM 16 - EMERGENCY GENERATOR
17 - SPLIT SYSTEM CONDENSER 18 - FURNACE AND WATER HEATER Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
S i t e DQG)ORRU3l a nV
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-005.017 Fire Station 27
Source On-Site Date
Google February 7, 2023
Floor Plan – before expansion
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-005.017 Fire Station 27
Source On-Site Date
CSM February 7, 2023
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
P r e -S u r v e y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
BV F a c i l i t y C o n d i t i o n A s s e s s m e n t : P r e - S u r v e y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Building / Facility Name: Fire Station 27
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7.5 years
Date Completed: 1/20/2023
Phone Number: 510 578 4802
Method of Completion: PRIOR: fully completed by client in advance Directions: Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge and in good faith. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses.
Data Overview Response
1 Year/s constructed / renovated Fire station – 1981 and fire tower - 1982 2 Building size in SF 1981 and 730
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade Stucco and concrete
Roof Flat – built up – smooth – metal
Interiors
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date). 2022 – retrofitted the Plymovent (exhaust system) 5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
Property fencing – budgeted
backup generator – budgeted
Roofing – budgeted
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
Side patio needs to be
Mark the column corresponding to the appropriate response. Please provide additional details in the Comments column, or backup documentation for any Yes responses. (NA indicates “Not Applicable”, Unk indicates “Unknown”) Question Response Comments
Yes No Unk NA
7 Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
x
8 Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks? x
9 Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality or mold related
complaints from occupants?
x
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
12 Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural
gas, HVAC supply/return lines, or
steam service?
x
13 Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Any poorly insulated
areas?
x
14 Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or otherwise
problematic?
x
15 Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting?
x
16 Is site/parking drainage
inadequate, with excessive
ponding or other problems?
x
Side patio
17 Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified
above?
x
18 ADA: Has an accessibility study
been performed at the site? If so,
indicate when.
x
19 ADA: If a study has occurred, have
the associated recommendations
been addressed? In full or in part?
x
20 ADA: Have there been regular
complaints about accessibility
issues, or associated previous or
pending litigation?
x
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
A c c e s s i b i l i t y R e v i e w and P h o t o s
Visual Checklist - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
Facility History & Interview
Question Yes No Unk Comments
Has an accessibility study been previously
performed? If so, when?
Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property since original construction?
Describe.
Has building management reported any
accessibility-based complaints or litigation?
1 2
3 Property Name:
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000 - 005.017
Fire Station 27
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 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
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 SIGNAGE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2 Alternate entrance not required Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3 Alternate entrance not required Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
Do pairs of accessible entrance doors in
series appear to have the minimum clear
space between them ?
7 Entry doors not in series
Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear
to have a compliant height ? 8
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH ROUTE TO RESTROOM
Question Yes No NA Comments
Does an accessible route appear to connect
all public areas inside the building ? 1
Do accessible routes appear free of
obstructions and/or protruding objects ? 2
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant slopes ? 3 No ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 4 No ramps
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
5 No
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant handrails ? 6 No ramps
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 Single use toilet room, no stalls Do toilet stalls appear to provide the minimum
compliant clear floor area ? 7 Single used toilet room, no stalls Where more than one urinal is present in a
multi-user restroom, does minimum one urinal
appear to be mounted at a compliant height
and with compliant approach width ?
The urinal is not in the accessible
restroom 8
Do accessories and mirrors appear to be
mounted at a compliant height ? 9
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.
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
C o m p o n e n t C o n d i t i o n R e p o r t
Fire Station 27 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-005.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
R e p l a c e m e n t R e s e r v e s
Fire Station 28
7550 Thornton Avenue
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-006.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 9, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
January 23, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Property Overview and Assessment Details .......................................................................................... 1 Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies ..................................................................................... 2 Facility Condition Index (FCI) ................................................................................................................. 3 Immediate Needs.................................................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Plan Types.............................................................................................................................................. 8
2. Building and Site Information ............................................................................................................. 9
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 12
4. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 13
5. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 15 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 15
6. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 17
7. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 18 FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Fire Station
Main Address 7550 Thornton Avenue, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 2005
Site Area 1.12 acres
Parking Spaces 30 total spaces all in open lots; 2 of which are accessible.
Building Area 18,000 SF
Number of Stories 2
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 23, 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 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/
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
Fire Station 28 consists of a single two-story building. The station was constructed in 2005 with some limited renovations to the HVAC system in 2015.
Architectural
The building is slab on grade construction with masonry bearing walls with steel columns and beams with metal decking for the upper floor. The building exteriors consist of brick veneer with aluminum windows. The roofs are a combination of flat roofs with modified bitumen finishes and gables with metal roofing. Interior finishes are generally carpet, painted walls, and ceiling, ceramic tile walls and floors in the restrooms. In general, finishes are replaced as needed. Typical lifecycle costs are expected and budgeted.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
Individual condensing units and ductless split systems with exhaust fans provide heating and cooling in the station. All equipment is original to the construction of the building and are generally in fair condition. The electrical system has switchboard and distribution panels with copper wiring located in the electrical room. Plumbing is copper supply with PVC waste piping. The fire alarm system is addressable with strobes with alarms, pull stations, smoke sensors, and LED exit signs. No issues were observed or reported. Typical lifecycle costs are expected and budgeted.
Site
The parking lot is a combination of asphalt and concrete pavement. The fire trucks driveway is concrete. Concrete sidewalks and walkways are located throughout the property. Irrigation is located throughout the property and is in fair condition.
Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 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:
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 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
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Roofing in Failed condition.
any type, Repairs per Man-Day
Fire Station 28
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Repair in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $12,000
$$$$
Roof is reported to leak over app bay - AssetCALC ID: 7215555 Plumbing System
any type, Repairs per Man-Day
Fire Station 28 Restroom
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Repair in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $16,400
$$$$
Bathroom plumbing has issues - AssetCALC ID: 7215556
Parking Lots in Poor condition.
Pavement, Asphalt
Fire Station 28 Parking lot
Uniformat Code: G2020
Recommendation: Seal & Stripe in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $11,300
$$$$
ADA parking stall markings barely visible - AssetCALC ID: 5252840 Uninterruptible Power Supply
UPS, 30 KVA
Fire Station 28
Uniformat Code: D5010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 61.9
Plan Type:
Retrofit/Adaptation
Cost Estimate: $54,600
$$$$
UPS requested - AssetCALC ID: 7215554
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Generator in Poor condition.
Diesel
Fire Station 28 Generator enclosure
Uniformat Code: D5010
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 61.9
Plan Type:
Retrofit/Adaptation
Cost Estimate: $126,600
$$$$
Generator is near end of life and replacement should be planned for a larger unit - AssetCALC ID:
5252866
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 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)
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 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 metal roof deck supported by wood joists and concrete raft foundation slab
Good
Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stone veneer
Secondary Wall Finish: Concrete integral to superstructure Windows: Aluminum
Good
Roof Primary: Gable construction with metal finish
Secondary: Flat construction with modified bituminous finish Fair
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, ceramic tile and Unfinished Floors: Carpet, ceramic tile, rubber tiles and unfinished concrete Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and unfinished / exposed Fair
Elevators Passenger: One hydraulic car serving both floors Fair Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and PVC waste and venting Hot Water: Gas water heater with integral tank
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, showers and sinks in restrooms. Sinks in the kitchen and apparatus bay.
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System: Condensing units
Supplemental components: Ductless split-systems and exhaust fans Fair
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers, and kitchen hood system Fair Electrical Source and Distribution: Main switchboard and panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: LED, linear fluorescent, and incandescent Emergency Power: Diesel generator with automatic transfer switch Fair
Fire Alarm Alarm panel with smoke detectors, heat detectors, alarms, strobes, pull stations, and exit signs
Fair
Equipment/Special Commercial kitchen equipment. Commercial and residential laundry equipment Fair Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, and curbs
Fair
Site Development Property entrance signage; metal tube fencing Fair Landscaping and
Topography
Landscaping features include lawns, trees, bushes, and planters 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: LED
Building-mounted: LED, and incandescent
Fair
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property.
Key Issues and
Findings
Accessible parking stall striping is barely visible.
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 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, the exterior of the property, and the roofs.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
Generally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “commercial facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of its age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
Buildings completed and occupied after January 26, 1992 are required to comply fully with the ADAAG. Existing facilities constructed prior to this date are held to the lesser standard of compliance to the extent allowed by structural feasibility and the financial resources available. As an alternative, a reasonable accommodation pertaining to barrier removal must be made.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are 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 2005. The facility has not since been substantially renovated.
During the interview process with the client representatives, no complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was reported.
No detailed follow-up accessibility study is currently recommended since no major or moderate issues were identified at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. 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.
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 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.
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
5. 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.
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Replacement costs are solicited from ownership/property management, Bureau Veritas’s discussions with service companies, manufacturers' representatives, and previous experience in preparing such schedules for other similar facilities.
Costs for work performed by the ownership’s or property management’s maintenance staff are also considered.
Bureau Veritas’s reserve methodology involves identification and quantification of those systems or components requiring capital reserve funds within the assessment period. The assessment period is defined as the effective age plus the reserve term. Additional information concerning system’s or component’s respective replacement costs (in today's dollars), typical expected useful lives, and remaining useful lives were estimated so that a funding schedule could be prepared. The Replacement Reserves Schedule presupposes that all required remedial work has been performed or that monies for remediation have been budgeted for items defined as Immediate Needs.
For the purposes of ‘bucketizing’ the System Expenditure Forecasts in this report, the Replacement Reserves have been subdivided and grouped as follows: Short Term (years 1-3), Near Term (years 4-5), Medium Term (years 6-10), and Long Term (years 11-20).
Key Findings
In an effort to highlight the most significant cost items and not be overwhelmed by the Replacement Reserves report in its totality, a subsection of Key Findings is included within the Executive Summary section of this report. Key Findings typically include repairs or replacements of deficient items within the first five-year window, as well as the most significant high-dollar line items that fall anywhere within the ten-year term. Note that while there is some subjectivity associated with identifying the Key Findings, the Immediate Needs are always included as a subset.
Exceedingly Aged
A fairly common scenario encountered during the assessment process, and a frequent source of debate, occurs when classifying and describing “very old” systems or components that are still functioning adequately and do not appear nor were reported to be in any way deficient. To help provide some additional intelligence on these items, such components will be tagged in the database as Exceedingly Aged. This designation will be reserved for mechanical or electrical systems or components that have aged well beyond their industry standard lifecycles, typically at least 15 years beyond and/or twice their Estimated Useful Life (EUL). In tandem with this designation, these items will be assigned a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) not less than two years but not greater than 1/3 of their standard EUL. As such the recommended replacement time for these components will reside outside the typical Short Term window but will not be pushed ‘irresponsibly’ (too far) into the future.
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 17 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
6. 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 Fire Station 28, 7550 Thornton 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.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 18 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7. 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
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - OVERHEAD/DOCK DOOR AND WINDOWS 6 - BALCONY
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - VEHICULAR ACCESS DEVICES 8 - EXTERIOR DOOR
9 - INTERIOR DOOR 10 - FLOORING
11 – METAL ROOFING 12 – GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - LOBBY 14 - OFFICE
15 - CONFERENCE ROOM 16 - KITCHEN OVERVIEW
17 - LIVING ROOM 18 - BEDROOM
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - APPARATUS BAY 20 - APPARATUS BAY
21 - HALLWAY 22 - WORKOUT ROOM
23 - ELEVATOR DOOR 24 - SHOWER
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
25 - SINK/LAVATORY 26 - TOILET STALL OVERVIEW
27 - URINALS 28 - SINK/LAVATORY
29 - SPLIT SYSTEM 30 – AIR HANDLER
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
31 - SPLIT SYSTEM DUCTLESS 32 - EXHAUST FAN
33 - UNIT HEATER 34 - AIR COMPRESSOR
35 - LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT 36 - WATER HEATER
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
37 - GENERATOR 38 - AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH
39 - SWITCHBOARD 40 - DISTRIBUTION PANEL
41 - FIRE ALARM PANEL 42 - FRONT DRIVEWAY
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
43 - ASPHALT PARKING LOTS 44 - CONCRETE PARKING LOTS
45 - SIDEWALK 46 - EXTERIOR LIGHTS
47 - LANDSCAPING 48 - BACKFLOW PREVENTER
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site and Floor Plans
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-006.017 Fire Station 28
Source On-Site Date
Google January 24, 2023
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-006.017 Fire Station 28
Source On-Site Date
Owner January 24, 2023
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Building / Facility Name: Fire Station 28
Name of person completing form: Assessor
Title / Association w/ property:
Length of time associated w/ property:
Date Completed: 1/24/2023
Phone Number:
Year(s) constructed
Building size in SF
Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
None
None
None
BV FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT: PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 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
1 2
3 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent years;
provide approximate date).
4 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
5 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
6 Response
Accessibility
18,000 SF
Additional Detail
Method of Completion: DURING - verbally completed during assessment Facade
Roof
Interiors
HVAC
Electrical
Site Pavement
None
As needed
None
2015
As needed
None
None
2005
Constructed Renovated
Year
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") Are there any problems with
foundations or structures, like
excessive settlement?
Are there any wall, window,
basement or roof leaks?
Has any part of the facility ever
contained visible suspect mold
growth, or have there been any
indoor air quality complaints?
Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls?
Are there any plumbing leaks, water
pressure, or clogging/backup issues?
Have there been any leaks or
pressure problems with natural gas,
HVAC piping, or steam service?
Are any areas of the facility
inadequately heated, cooled or
ventilated? Poorly insulated areas?
Is the electrical service outdated,
undersized, or problematic?
Are there any problems or
inadequacies with exterior lighting?
Is site/parking drainage inadequate,
with excessive ponding or other
problems?
Are there any other unresolved
construction defects or significant
issues/hazards at the property that
have not yet been identified above?
ADA: Has an accessibility study been
previously performed? If so, when?
ADA: Have any ADA improvements
been made to the property since
original construction? Describe.
ADA: Has building management
reported any accessibility-based
complaints or litigation?
Question Response Comments
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
Signature of Assessor Signature of POC
Yes No Unk NA
Are any areas of the property leased
to outside occupants? 21
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 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: Fire Station 28
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-006.017
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
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
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 DOOR HARDWARE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2
Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
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
LOBBY LOOKING AT CAB 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 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.
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
FIRE STATION 28 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-006.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Fire Station 29
35775 Ruschin 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 #:
159125.22R000-007.017
DATE OF REPORT:
February 23, 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 Fire Station 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 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 ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 10
2. Building and Site Information ........................................................................................................... 11
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 14
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 15
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 16
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 18 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 18
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 20
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 21 FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Fire Station
Main Address 35775 Ruschin Drive
Newark, California 94560
Site Developed 1962 Renovated: 1975
Site Area 0.58 acres
Parking Spaces 10 total spaces all in open lots; 1 of which are accessible.
Building Area 5,142 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) Mark Valdez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Kay van der Have
Reviewed By Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for:
Mary Venable
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The fire station was built in 1962. It was later enlarged, providing more dormitory space as well as more common areas.
The expansion maintained the original exterior architectural vocabulary.
Architectural
The exterior walls are load bearing concrete block, the windows are aluminum framed and the roofing is lightweight concrete tile. These materials provide long, fairly maintenance free service. The roof framing and interior partitions are wood. Some fascia problems were noted, possible termite damage and a dryrot situation, both of these issues should be addressed in the near term. A pest control inspection is recommended. Ffascia replacement with gutter extension has also been budgeted.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
The electrical system appears dated short term replacement is recommended. HVAC and the plumbing infrastructure are in generally serviceable working order. The building has a fire sprinkler system but no fire alarm system and is also missing carbon monoxide detectors. The existing emergency generator is very old and cannot supply the entire building with emergency power. Short term replacement is recommended.
Site
The parking lot has been periodically repaved, sealing and striping is due. There is currently no way to control access to the site, fencing is highly recommended.
Recommended Additional Studies
Some of the wood fascia is showing insect caused damage. A professional consultant must be retained to analyze the existing condition, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the scope and cost of any required repairs. The cost of this study and some fascia replacement is included in the cost tables.
Based on the history of past complaints and some observed areas of non-compliance a full measured ADA Study is recommended.
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 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:
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 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
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Fences & Gates
Fence, Metal Tube 6'
Fire Station 29 Site
Uniformat Code: G2060
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $63,700
$$$$
Security for the site should be provided - AssetCALC ID: 5165179 Recommended Follow-up Study:
Structural, Seismic
Structural, Seismic
Fire Station 29
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $43,600
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 7215559
Fire Alarm Devices in Poor
condition.
Carbon Monoxide Detector
Fire Station 29 Sleeping and living area
Uniformat Code: D7050
Recommendation: Install in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $800
$$$$
No CO detectors are present but there are gas-fired equipment in the facility - AssetCALC ID: 5352964 Wood Fascia in Poor condition.
Damaged
Fire Station 29 Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: A2010
Recommendation: Repair in 2023
Priority Score: 86.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $9,300
$$$$
Damaged fascia, it could be termites, and should be replaced - AssetCALC ID: 5165211 FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Recommended Follow-up Study:
Possible Damage
Possible Damage
Fire Station 29 Fascia & Framing
Uniformat Code: P2030
Recommendation: Inspection in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $3,300
$$$$
Damage at the Fascia appears to be from termites or other wood destroying insect and should be reviewed by a professional. - AssetCALC ID: 5165234
ADA Miscellaneous
Reception Desk, Writing Surface
Fire Station 29 Entry
Uniformat Code: Y1090
Recommendation: Modify in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $2,000
$$$$
Counter not configured for accessibility - AssetCALC ID: 5165222 ADA Kitchen & Laundry Areas
Sink/Counter/Maneuverability, Full
Reconfiguration
Fire Station 29 Kitchen
Uniformat Code: Y1060
Recommendation: Renovate in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $32,700
$$$$
Cabinet not configured for accessibility - AssetCALC ID: 5165193 ADA Van Parking
Signage, Pole-Mounted
Fire Station 29 Parking lot
Uniformat Code: Y1010
Recommendation: Modify in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,100
$$$$
No marked van spaces - AssetCALC ID: 5165182
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
ADA Miscellaneous
Level III Study, Includes Measurements
Fire Station 29
Uniformat Code: Y1090
Recommendation: Evaluate/Report in 2023
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $16,400
$$$$
- AssetCALC ID: 7215653
Residential Appliances
Range, Gas
Fire Station 29 Kitchen
Uniformat Code: E1060
Recommendation: Replace in 2024
Priority Score: 63.9
Plan Type: Accessibility
Cost Estimate: $1,500
$$$$
No front controls, Does not meet ADA. - AssetCALC ID: 5165206 Generator in Failed condition.
Diesel, 35 to 60 KW
Fire Station 29 Building exterior
Uniformat Code: D5010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 61.9
Plan Type:
Retrofit/Adaptation
Cost Estimate: $87,300
$$$$
This generator fails to address the emergency power needs of the station - AssetCALC ID: 5165233 Supplemental Components
Oil Water Separator, Underground
Fire Station 29
Uniformat Code: D2020
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 59.9
Plan Type:
Retrofit/Adaptation
Cost Estimate: $68,300
$$$$
New oil water separator for truck washing - AssetCALC ID: 7215558 FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 10 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)
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 11 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 over a concrete slab on grade
Fair
Facade Primary Wall Finish : CMU
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Hip construction with concrete tiles Fair Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board painted CMU
Floors: Carpet, VCT, sheet vinyl, sealed concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and exposed
Fair
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: Gas water heater with integral tank
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System: Furnace with split-system condensing units Supplemental components: Suspended unit heaters
Good
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers Fair Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent
Emergency Power: Gasoline generator with automatic transfer switch Fair
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Alarm One smoke detector Poor
Equipment/Special Plymovent system for fire truck inspection Good Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement. Concrete sidewalks, curbs, ramps
Fair
Site Development Building-mounted signage; no fencing; CMU wall dumpster enclosure Fair Landscaping &
Topography
Limited 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: HPS
Building-mounted: HPS
Fair
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property. n/a Key Issues and
Findings
No way to secure the site,
Extremely aged emergency generator
No Carbon Monoxide detector observed
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 14 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.
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The facility was originally constructed in 1962. The facility was enlarged, date unknown, but few accessibility improvements appear to have been implemented at that time.
Complaints about accessibility issues have been received by property management, although no prior or pending litigation was reported.
A detailed follow-up accessibility study is included as a recommendation because potential moderate to major issues were observed at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 16 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.
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 17 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.
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 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.
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.
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 19 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.
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.
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 20 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 Fire Station 29, 35775 Ruschin Drive, Newark, California 94560, the “Property”. It is our understanding that the primary interest of the Client is to locate and evaluate materials and building system defects that might significantly affect the value of the property and to determine if the present Property has conditions that will have a significant impact on its continued operations.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Kay van der Have
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 21 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
8. A p pe nd ic es
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site and Floor Plan
Appendix C: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Accessibility Review and Photos
Appendix E: Component Condition Report
Appendix F: Replacement Reserves
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
P h ot o gr a p h ic R ec o rd
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - RIGHT ELEVATION 4 – APARATUS BAY
5 - RECREATION ROOM 6 - WORKOUT ROOM
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - DORMITORY 8 - SHOWERS
9 - HEATING MAIN COMPONENTS 10 - MAIN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 11 - WATER HEATER 12 - GENERATOR
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
S it e a nd F lo o r P l a n
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-007.017 Fire Station 29
Source On-Site Date
Google February 7, 2023
Floor Plan – before addition
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-007.017 Fire Station 29
Source On-Site Date
CSM February 7, 2023
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 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
PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Name of Person Completing Questionnaire: N/A - Not returned to EMG Association with Property:
Length of Assocation with Property:
Date Completed:
Phone Number:
Property Name:
EMG Project Number:
Inspections Date Last
Inspected
List any Outstanding Repairs Required
1 Elevators
2 HVAC, Mechanical,
Electric, Plumbing
3 Life-Safety/Fire
4 Roofs
Question Response
5 List any major capital improvement within
the last three years.
6 List any major capital expenditures
planned for the next year.
7 What is the age of the roof(s)?
8 What building systems (HVAC, roof,
interior/exterior finishes, paving, etc.) are
the responsibilities of the tenant to
maintain and replace?
Question Yes No Unk N/A Comments
9 Are there any unresolved building, fire, or
zoning code issues?
10 Are there any "down" or unusable units?
11 Are there any problems with erosion,
stormwater drainage or areas of paving that
do not drain?
12 Is the property served by a private water
well?
13 Is the property served by a private septic
system or other waste treatment systems?
14 Are there any problems with foundations or
structures?
15 Is there any water infiltration in basements or
crawl spaces?
16 Are there any wall, or window leaks?
17 Are there any roof leaks?
18 Is the roofing covered by a warranty or bond?
19 Are there any poorly insulated areas?
20 Is Fire Retardant Treated (FRT) plywood
used?
PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Question Yes No Unk N/A Comments
21 Is exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS)
or a synthetic stucco finish used?
22 Are there any problems with the utilities, such
as inadequate capacities?
23 Are there any problems with the landscape
irrigation systems?
24 Has a termite/wood boring insect inspection
been performed within the last year?
25 Do any of the HVAC systems use R-11, 12,
or 22 refrigerants?
26 Has any part of the property ever contained
visible suspect mold growth?
27 Is there a mold Operations and Maintenance
Plan?
28 Have there been indoor air quality or mold
related complaints from tenants?
29 Is polybutylene piping used?
30 Are there any plumbing leaks or water
pressure problems?
31 Are there any leaks or pressure problems
with natural gas service?
32 Does any part of the electrical system use
aluminum wiring?
33 Do Residential units have a less than
60-Amp service?
34 Do Commercial units have less than
200-Amp service?
35 Are there any recalled fire sprinkler heads
(Star, GEM, Central, Omega)?
36 Is there any pending litigation concerning the
property?
37 Has the management previously completed
an ADA review?
38 Have any ADA improvements been made to
the property?
39 Does a Barrier Removal Plan exist for the
property?
40 Has the Barrier Removal Plan been approved
by an arms-length third party?
41 Has building ownership or management
received any ADA related complaints?
42 Does elevator equipment require upgrades to
meet ADA standards?
43 Are there any problems with exterior lighting?
44 Are there any other significant
issues/hazards with the property?
PRE-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Question Yes No Unk N/A Comments
45 Are there any unresolved construction
defects at the property?
Comments
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 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?
exterior ramp to entry
1 2
3 Property Name:
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000 - 007.017
Fire Station 29 (2)
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 No Van accessible parking provided 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 RAMP CURB CUT
Question Yes No NA Comments
Is an accessible route present from public
transportation stops and municipal sidewalks
on or immediately adjacent to the property ?
1 Does a minimum of one accessible route
appear to connect all public areas on the
exterior, such as parking and other outdoor
amenities, to accessible building entrances ?
2 Are curb ramps present at transitions through
raised curbs on all accessible routes? 3
Do curb ramps appear to have compliant
slopes for all components ? 4
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have compliant slopes ? 5
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 6
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 No exterior stairways
Building Entrances
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE DOOR HARDWARE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2 Main entry is accessible Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3 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 No doors in series
Do thresholds at accessible entrances appear
to have a compliant height ? 8
Interior Accessible Route
Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist
ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR PATH PUBLIC 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 interior ramps
Do ramp runs on an accessible route appear
to have a compliant rise and width ? 4 No interior ramps Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant end and intermediate
landings ?
5 No interior ramps
Do ramps on accessible routes appear to
have compliant handrails ? 6 No interior 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 There is only one urinal
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 FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 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
FIRE STATION 29 BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-007.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Re p lac e me nt Re s e rv e s
Old Fire Station
7700 Thornton Avenue
Newark, California 94560
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
prepared for
City of Newark
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, California 94560
PREPARED BY:
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100
Owings Mills, MD 21117
800.733.0660
www.us.bureauveritas.com
BV CONTACT:
Mary Venable
Program Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-008.017
DATE OF REPORT:
March 6, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
January 20, 2023
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 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 ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 12
2. Building and Site Information ........................................................................................................... 13
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 16
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 17
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 18
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 20 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 20
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 22
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 23 OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 1 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1. Ex ec ut iv e S um m a ry
Property Overview and Assessment Details
General Information
Property Type Fire Station
Main Address 7700 Thornton Avenue, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 1980
Site Area 0.37 acres
Parking Spaces 20 total spaces all in open lots; 0 of which are accessible.
Building Area 4,852 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit January 20, 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 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/
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The old Fire Station was built in 1980.The building is abandoned and is being used for storage during the last 12 years.
Architectural
The building has a steel structure with steel framed roof over concrete slab foundation. Exterior walls are painted stucco with aluminum windows. Interior finishes are mostly in failed or poor condition and will require replacement.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
Heating and cooling system is provided by one split system unit and one interior unit heater. These units are in failed condition. The electrical system is copper wiring and appears to be original to the construction of the building. There was no power to the building at the time of this assessment. Plumbing is copper supply with PVC waste system. The water is shut down for the building with fair and poor condition plumbing fixtures.
Site
The parking lot is in poor condition and will require a new asphalt pavement. Concrete sidewalk is in poor condition as well due to cracks and broken and uneven sections. Irrigation is present but is not operational. Some trees trimming will be required due to trees growing over the building.
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.
The building contains spray on fireproofing on the roof members. Given the age of the initial construction the material could contain asbestos. Before any renovation takes place the fireproofing should be tested for asbestos. If the City already has an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Plan for the building then testing is not required.
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 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:
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 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
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Exterior Walls in Poor condition.
Stucco and Metal
Old Fire Station Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2010
Recommendation: Prep & Paint in 2023
Priority Score: 89.8
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $49,100
$$$$
New fresh paint is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252661
Roofing in Poor condition.
Inspection and Repairs
Old Fire Station Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Repair in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $4,800
$$$$
Signs of water intrusion observed in the interior. - AssetCALC ID: 5414903 Window in Poor condition.
Aluminum Double-Glazed, up to 15 SF
Old Fire Station Building Exterior
Uniformat Code: B2020
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 87.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $5,700
$$$$
Leaks were reported throughout the building's windows. - AssetCALC ID: 5252667 Sidewalk in Poor condition.
Concrete, Large Areas
Old Fire Station Site
Uniformat Code: G2030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $23,600
$$$$
Uneven and broken concrete surface, replacement is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252666 OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 10 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Exhaust Fan in Poor condition.
Centrifugal, 28" Damper
Old Fire Station Garage bay
Uniformat Code: D3060
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 85.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $8,700
$$$$
The unit has not been used for a long time and will require inspection and possibly replacement. - AssetCALC ID: 5252689
Plumbing System in Failed
condition.
Supply & Sanitary, Low Density (includes
fixtures)
Old Fire Station Throughout building
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $74,100
$$$$
The plumbing system has not been in use for the last 12 years, repair will be mostly required. - AssetCALC ID:
5256859
Parking Lots in Poor condition.
Pavement, Asphalt
Old Fire Station Parking lot
Uniformat Code: G2020
Recommendation: Mill & Overlay in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $29,000
$$$$
New fresh pavement is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252660 Interior Clean up in Poor
condition.
Minor Repairs and Debris Removal
Old Fire Station Throughout
Uniformat Code: C1010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $60,500
$$$$
There is trash and evidence of vandalism in the interior. - AssetCALC ID: 5414891 OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Electrical System in Poor
condition.
Wiring & Switches, Average or Low
Density/Complexity
Old Fire Station Throughout building
Uniformat Code: D5030
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $26,500
$$$$
The electrical system is not operational. - AssetCALC ID: 5252656 Parking Lots in Poor condition.
Pavement, Asphalt
Old Fire Station Parking lot
Uniformat Code: G2020
Recommendation: Seal & Stripe in 2023
Priority Score: 84.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $3,700
$$$$
New fresh seal and stripe is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252650 Toilet in Failed condition.
Commercial Water Closet
Old Fire Station Restrooms
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 83.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $8,500
$$$$
Units are not operational. Replacement is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252687 Sink/Lavatory in Failed condition.
Wall-Hung, Vitreous China
Old Fire Station Restrooms
Uniformat Code: D2010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 83.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $3,300
$$$$
Sinks is broken, replacement is required. - AssetCALC ID: 5252663 OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 12 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)
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 13 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 raft foundation slab Good Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco
Secondary Wall Finish: Metal siding
Windows: Aluminum
Poor
Roof Primary: Flat construction with metal finish Fair
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board
Floors: Carpet, VCT, and unfinished concrete
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board, ACT and Unfinished/exposed Poor
Elevators None n/a
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and PVC waste and ventin Hot Water: None
Fixtures: Toilets, and sinks in all restrooms
Failed
HVAC Non-Central System: Split-system
Supplemental components: Suspended unit heater
Failed
Fire Suppression None n/a
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 14 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
Failed
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 and curbs.
Poor
Site Development No Property entrance signage; chain link fencing; Fair Landscaping and
Topography
Limited landscaping features including lawns, trees, and bushes Irrigation present but not operations
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: None
n/a
Ancillary Structures None n/a
Accessibility Potential moderate/major issues have been identified at this property and a detailed accessibility study is recommended.
Key Issues and
Findings
Exterior painting, broken windows, rusted entrance doors, antiquated HVAC components and infrastructure, building lacks fire suppression, aged electrical infrastructure, heavy asphalt wear, severe alligator cracking and potholes, significant sidewalk trip hazards, widespread irrigation leaks, plumbing fixtures, residential appliances, trees trimming, casework cabinets, replace all interior finishes, roof gutters, exterior light fixtures
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 16 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, the exterior of the property, and the roof was observed from the ground level..
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 17 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.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are not included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The facility was originally constructed in 1980. The facility has not since been substantially renovated and has been abandoned for the last 12 years.
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 potential moderate to major issues were observed at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 18 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.
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 19 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.
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 20 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 FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 21 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 FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 22 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 Old Fire Station, 7700 Thornton 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.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the brief review of the plans and records made available to our Project Manager during the site visit, interviews of available property management personnel and maintenance contractors familiar with the Property, appropriate inquiry of municipal authorities, our Project Manager’s walkthrough observations during the site visit, and our experience with similar properties.
No testing, exploratory probing, dismantling or operating of equipment or in-depth studies were performed unless specifically required under the Purpose and Scope section of this report. This assessment did not include engineering calculations to determine the adequacy of the Property’s original design or existing systems. Although walk-through observations were performed, not all areas may have been observed (see Section 1 for specific details). There may be defects in the Property, which were in areas not observed or readily accessible, may not have been visible, or were not disclosed by management personnel when questioned. The report describes property conditions at the time that the observations and research were conducted.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and Bureau Veritas.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of Bureau Veritas. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client's or recipient's sole risk, without liability to Bureau Veritas.
Prepared by: Nezar M. Tibi
Project Manager
Reviewed by:
Matthew Anderson
Technical Report Reviewer for
Mary Venable
Program Manager
[email protected]
800.733.0660 x7292719
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 21 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 FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
1 - FRONT ELEVATION 2 - LEFT ELEVATION
3 - REAR ELEVATION 4 - RIGHT ELEVATION
5 - EXTERIOR DOOR 6 - OVERHEAD DOORS
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
7 - WINDOWS 8 - ROOFING
9 - ROOF GUTTERS 10 - FRONT LOBBY
11 - INTERIOR FINISHES 12 - OFFICES
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
13 - KITCHEN 14 - APPARATUS BAY
15 - TOILET STALL OVERVIEW 16 - SINK/LAVATORY
17 - SPLIT SYSTEM 18 - EXHAUST FAN
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 Photographic Overview
www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
19 - UNIT HEATER 20 - ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
21 - PARKING LOTS 22 - PARKING LOTS
23 - LANDSCAPING 24 - FENCES AND GATES
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site and Floor Plans
Aerial Site Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-008.017 Old Fire Station
Source On-Site Date
Google January 23, 2023
Floor Plan
Project Number Project Name
159125.22R000-008.017 Old Fire Station
Source On-Site Date
Owner January 23, 2023
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 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 Fire Station
Name of person completing form: Tonya Connolly
Title / Association with property: Maintenance Superintendent Length of time associated w/ property: 7 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 1980
2 Building size in SF 4,515
3 Major Renovation/Rehabilitation
Year Additional Detail
Façade 1980 stucco
Roof 1980 flat – low - metal
Interiors 1980
Ceiling – suspended, acoustical and acoustical tile
Partitions - drywall
HVAC 1980
Electrical 1980
Site Pavement 1980 concrete
Accessibility
Question Response
4 List other significant capital
improvements (focus on recent
years; provide approximate date).
5 List any major capital expenditures
planned/requested for the next few
years. Have they been budgeted?
6 Describe any on-going extremely
problematic, historically chronic, or
immediate facility needs.
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
Damp smell due to leaks over time. Facility is used as
storage and unmanned
10 Are your elevators unreliable, with
frequent service calls? x
11 Are there any plumbing leaks,
water pressure, or clogging/backup problems?
x
Restrooms are stagnant
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
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 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? Unknown
1 2
3 Property Name: Old Fire Station
BV Project Number: 159125.22R000-008.017
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
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
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 ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE
Question Yes No NA Comments
Do a sufficient number of accessible
entrances appear to be provided ? 1
If the main entrance is not accessible, is an
alternate accessible entrance provided? 2
Is signage provided indicating the location of
alternate accessible entrances ? 3
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant maneuvering clearance area
on each side ?
4 Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have compliant hardware ? 5
Do doors at accessible entrances appear to
have a compliant clear opening width ? 6
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 RESTROOM 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 OVERVIEW 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.
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
Component Condition Report
OLD FIRE STATION BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-008.017 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Replacement Reserves
Old Library
6300 Civic Terrace
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
Lead Project Manager
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
BV PROJECT #:
159125.22R000-009.017
DATE OF REPORT:
January 16, 2023
ON SITE DATE:
December 18, 2022
Bureau Veritas
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 | Owings Mills, MD 21117 | www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660 OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 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 ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Plan Types............................................................................................................................................ 10
2. Building and Site Information ........................................................................................................... 11
3. Property Space Use and Observed Areas ....................................................................................... 14
4. ADA Accessibility............................................................................................................................... 15
5. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................ 16
6. Opinions of Probable Costs .............................................................................................................. 18 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 18
7. Certification......................................................................................................................................... 20
8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 21 OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 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 6300 Civic Terrace, Newark, California 94560 Site Developed 1983
Site Area 1 acre
Parking Spaces 10 total spaces all in open lots; 2 of which are accessible.
Building Area 15,560 SF
Number of Stories 1
Outside Occupants / Leased Spaces None
Date(s) of Visit December 18, 2022
Management Point of Contact Andrea Gifford
Group 4 Architecture Research + Planning, Inc.
Principal
415.531.4456
On-site Point of Contact (POC) Roya Gonzalez
Assessment and Report Prepared By Aren Hofland
Reviewed By Mary Venable, CEM, RA
800.733.0660 x7292719
[email protected]
AssetCalc Link Full dataset for this assessment can be found at:
https://www.assetcalc.net/
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 2 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Significant/Systemic Findings and Deficiencies
Historical Summary
The Old Library was built in 1983. The roof has had multiple problems over the years, with ponding occurring on the North side. Additional roof drains were added in 2017 to reduce the ponding. New construction of a modern civic center has occurred and a new library building opened in 2020. The building has been vacant for approximately 2 years.
Architectural
The building has a heavy timber structure with wood framed roof over concrete slab foundation. Exterior walls are painted stucco with aluminum framed windows. Interior finishes are updated as needed. Settlement has occurred with superficial cracking notes towards the front of the structure. Some doors have difficulty opening.
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire (MEPF)
Heating and cooling are supplied by rooftop packaged units. The rooftop packaged units are at the end of their expected useful life and replacement should be budgeted for further building use. A supplementary ductless split system serves the server room. The electrical system is copper wiring and appears to be original to the construction of the building. An active roof leak is above a secondary transformer and should be repaired immediately due to safety concerns. Plumbing is copper supply with cast-iron waste. The waste system has been problematic due to visitors disposing of inappropriate materials down the drain. The library has wet-pipe fire suppression. A fire alarm system monitors for safety, but does not have an addressable panel on site.
Site
The site has property signage and landscaping with irrigation. The building shares a parking lot with the New Library, City Hall, and Police Station. Directly adjacent to the library are 10 parking spots with 2 accessible spots.
Recommended Additional Studies
No additional studies recommended at this time.
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 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:
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 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
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 5 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Immediate Needs
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 6 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 7 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Key Findings
Roof Hatch in Poor condition.
Metal
Old Library Roof
Uniformat Code: B3060
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 90.9
Plan Type: Safety
Cost Estimate: $3,100
$$$$
Difficult to open, damper piston failed, safety latch almost non functional. - AssetCALC ID: 4739675 Roofing in Poor condition.
Clay/Concrete Tile
Old Library Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $564,400
$$$$
Cracked, missing, lifted, leaks are common and frequent - AssetCALC ID: 4739690 Roofing in Poor condition.
Metal
Old Library Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 89.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $2,500
$$$$
Leaks greatly - AssetCALC ID: 4739668
Roofing in Poor condition.
Modified Bitumen
Old Library Roof
Uniformat Code: B3010
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 88.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $77,000
$$$$
Missing asphalt, leaks are common and frequent - AssetCALC ID: 4739677 OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 8 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Secondary Transformer in Poor
condition.
Dry, Stepdown
Old Library Throughout building
Uniformat Code: D5020
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 87.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $24,100
$$$$
Leak from roof directly over transformer - AssetCALC ID: 4739670 Suspended Ceilings in Poor
condition.
Acoustical Tile (ACT)
Old Library Throughout building
Uniformat Code: C1070
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $13,500
$$$$
Leaks are common and frequent - AssetCALC ID: 4739659
Packaged Unit in Poor condition.
RTU, Pad or Roof-Mounted
Old Library Roof
Uniformat Code: D3050
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $86,700
$$$$
Inadequate and inefficient - AssetCALC ID: 4739652
Packaged Unit in Poor condition.
RTU, Pad or Roof-Mounted
Old Library Roof
Uniformat Code: D3050
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $72,200
$$$$
Inadequate and inefficient - AssetCALC ID: 4739655
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 9 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Interior Lighting System in Poor
condition.
Full Upgrade, Medium Density & Standard
Fixtures
Old Library Throughout building
Uniformat Code: D5040
Recommendation: Replace in 2023
Priority Score: 81.9
Plan Type:
Performance/Integrity
Cost Estimate: $168,600
$$$$
Aging light inefficient - AssetCALC ID: 4739688
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 10 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)
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 11 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
2. B u il di ng a nd Si t e I nf orm at i on
Systems Summary
System Description Condition
Structure Conventional wood frame structure over concrete slab foundation Fair Facade Primary Wall Finish : Stucco
Windows: Aluminum
Fair
Roof Primary: Hip construction with modified bituminous finish Secondary: Hip construction with clay/concrete tiles
Tertiary: Pyramid construction with metal finish
Poor
Interiors Walls: Painted gypsum board, ceramic tile
Floors: Carpet, ceramic tile
Ceilings: Painted gypsum board and ACT
Poor
Elevators None -
Plumbing Distribution: Copper supply and cast-iron waste and venting Hot Water: Electric water heaters with integral tanks
Fixtures: Toilets, urinals, and sinks in all restrooms
Fair
HVAC Non-Central System: Packaged units
Supplemental components: Ductless split-systems
Fair
Fire Suppression Wet-pipe sprinkler system and fire extinguishers Fair Electrical Source and Distribution: Main panel with copper wiring Interior Lighting: Linear fluorescent, CFL
Emergency Power: None
Fair
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 12 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
Systems Summary
Fire Alarm Smoke detectors, back-up emergency lights, and exit signs Fair Equipment/Special None -
Site Pavement Asphalt lots with limited areas of concrete aprons and pavement and adjacent concrete sidewalks, curbs, ramps, and stairs
Good
Site Development Property entrance signage; no fencing Fair Landscaping and
Topography
Significant 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
Fair
Site Lighting Building-mounted: HPS, CFL Poor
Ancillary Structures None -
Accessibility Presently it does not appear an accessibility study is needed for this property. - Key Issues and
Findings
Possible structural settlement, warped and loose roof tiles, sticking entrance doors, leaking roof, antiquated HVAC components and infrastructure, -
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 13 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 14 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
3. P r op ert y Sp ac e U s e an d O bs e rv ed Ar eas
Areas Observed
The interior spaces were observed in order to gain a clear understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the site within the property boundaries, the exterior of the property, and the roof near the front of the building.
Key Spaces Not Observed
All key areas of the property were accessible and observed.
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 15 www.us.bureauveritas.com | p 800.733.0660
4. AD A Ac c es s ib il it y
Generally, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public accommodations” and “public facilities” on the basis of disability. Regardless of their age, these areas and facilities must be maintained and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
A public entity (i.e. city governments) shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
However, this does not:
1. Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
2. Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
3. Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Removal of barriers to accessibility should be addressed from a liability standpoint in order to comply with federal law, but the barriers may or may not be building code violations. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines are part of the ADA federal civil rights law pertaining to the disabled and are not a construction code. State and local jurisdictions have adopted the ADA Guidelines or have adopted other standards for accessibility as part of their construction codes.
During the FCA, Bureau Veritas performed a limited high-level accessibility review of the facility non-specific to any local regulations or codes. The scope of the visual observation was limited to the same areas observed while performing the FCA and the categories set forth in the appendix. It is understood by the Client that the limited observations described herein do not comprise a full ADA Compliance Survey, and that such a survey is beyond the scope of this particular assessment. A full measured ADA survey would be required to identify any and all specific potential accessibility issues.
Additional clarifications of this limited survey:
▪ This survey was visual in nature and actual measurements were not taken to verify compliance ▪ Only a representative sample of areas was observed
▪ Two overview photos were taken for each subsection regardless of perceived compliance or non-compliance ▪ Itemized costs for individual non-compliant items are not included in the dataset ▪ For any “none” boxes checked or reference to “no issues” identified, that alone does not guarantee full compliance The facility was originally constructed in 1983. The facility has not since been substantially renovated.
During the interview process with the client representatives, no complaints or pending litigation associated with potential accessibility issues was reported.
No detailed follow-up accessibility study is currently recommended since no major or moderate issues were identified at the subject site. Reference the appendix for specific data, photos, and tables or checklists associated with this limited accessibility survey.
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 16 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.
OLD LIBRARY BUREAU VERITAS PROJECT: 159125.22R000-009.017 17 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.