Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1990-03-21Mayor Richard A. Haffey Council: J ack Drago Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room March 21, 1990 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No, 1) ROLL CALL: 1. Personnel Board interviews. Councilmember Penna arrived: ~.0O0 2J Unreinforced Masonry Buildings ~o~° Mi tigation Program. ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 7:00 p.m. Mayor Haffey presidingJ Council present: Council absent: Drago, Nicolopulos~ Teglia, and Haffey. Penna. Mayor Haffey stated that because of the full agenda the paramedics contract would be rescheduled for a future study session to allow sufficient time to address the subject which was of concern to the Vice Mayor. Council interviewed the following appli- cants: Eugene Paul Terry, Jay Murray, Brian Kramer, Carlo A. Giusti,iAnthony E~ Smith, and Helene M, Swartzell. Councilmember Penna arrived during the first interviewJ Mayor Haffey pointed out that this was not a public hearing, but a study session wherein direction would be given staff after the review of options and alter- natives, He stated that there would be a public hearing with opportunity for public input once an ordinance becomes available. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello stated that she would go through the alternatives stated in the report, and at the end would be asking the Council for direction on their preferred procedures for staff to follow. MrJ Edward Bortugna, Geologist for the Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Project, stated that he would give background information on how geology plays a role in ground shaking; what sur- 3/21/90 Page i AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 2; Unreinforced Masonry - Continued; facings contribute to accentuating ground shaking, or lessoning it during an earth- quake. He stated the following: that it was found in the Loma Prieta earthquake that a building did not have to be on top of the earthquake epicenter to have fairly catastrophic failures of struc- tures; that he would give information on where the next earthquake was likely to occur, and the probability and likeliness for one to occur. He related the following: how the earth responds close to the epicenter; that 40% of the damage issue was due to proximity, and 60% was due to the soil issue and how it bore up to the ground shaking; S.S~F~ had a broad variety of engineering pro- perties in terms of soils than anywhere in the bay area; that the closer one is to the bay - the less stable the soil, and the lower the elevation - the less stable the soil; with elevation the soil becomes somewhat more stable, because there was rock close to the surface; there were places in S.F. Bay where the soils are 1,000 foot thick before you get rock; these were the types of things that tend to accentuate ground shaking from a distant epicenter; as one went westward and got on the more stable soil you are also getting closer to the San Andreas fault; building types and how they respond to earthquakes; in the recent earthquake that was 65 miles from the epicenter, it sought out the weak buildings on the worst ground; earthquake damage in the Marina was the worst example of non-engineered landfill; that other problems in S.F. were on the very weakest structures on the worst ground because the natural shore did not fail, and the mainland failed on identical structures; as the earthquake waves pass from the epicenter through various kinds of rock and propagate outward - as the waves pass through bedrock the rock tends to actually diminish the height of the waves, and shorten the duration of the shaking; as it passes through thick piles of soil the shaking lasts longer, and 3/21/90 Page 2 2. Unreinforced Masonry - Continued. actually accentuates the ground shakings - which was the issue in the Marina; the Foster City and Redwood Shores engineered landfill performed very well during the October earthquake with the homes seismi- cally designed, etc~ Mr. Richard Eisner, Director of the Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness Project, related: that there was tilt up damage near the epicenter; and in the Whittier earthquake there was extensive damage to concrete tilt up buildingsJ He stated that it could not be said that buildings were safe that withstood the earthquake, because it was only that this quake Just did not get to those buildings. He spoke in detail: the closer to the epicenter, the higher the frequency of ground shaking, and the spectrum of ground shaking; there were several hundred buildings built prior to 1973 when they changed the Building Code that were vulnerable to an earthquake of 6JO magnitude; that a detailed map showing expected ground shaking was an expensive proposition; that normally generalized maps were made based on the generalized geology, and to really define a map one had to know a lot about the soils, and that required drilling holes in the ground - which was an expensive proposition. Councilmember Teglia stated that she was interested in identifying the areas of this City that were most vulnerable because of some kind of landfill, or some kind of soil that might lend itself to some kind of liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. She stated that the Mexico City quake was 100 miles from the epicenter, and one building fell and the next building stood. MrJ Eisner stated that there were two sources for those types of maps, and the bay area is unique, and we have fairly detailed geological maps of the region 3/21/90 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 2. Unreinforced Masonry - Continued. developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in the mid 1970s. He stated that ABAG had maps for a range of scales and dif- ferent earthquakes, because the epicenter of the earthquake determines how the soil will be shaken. He suggested getting maps from ABAG for S.S.F. to look at the Peninsula, San Andreas, and Hayward to identify the vulnerable areas. He stated that the worst case scenario would be an epicenter on the San Andreas fault~ Councilmember Nicoloulos stated that there had been an allegation by an elderly citizen that the area where the potential 280/380 bridge crossing, the Samtrans area, had granite underneath it' MrJ Eisner replied, not to his knowledge, and frankly granite shouldn't be on the east side of the San Andreas fault, but on the west sideJ He stated that most people thought that it was only on the east side of the highway where there was liquefaction potential, but actually the old drainage of Colma Creek has a high potential for liquefactionJ He described the following in detail: the unreinforced brick buildings are vulnerable because they are inherently brittle, and there was no way for them to withstand side to side forces; up to the time that there were seismic building codes, starting in 1933, there was a pri- mative way of tying the buildings toge- ther with the floors being steel tied into the walls; this was adequate for wind blowing, and totally inadequate for a seismic building; starting in 1933 with the Long Beach earthquake, we saw these brick buildings peel apart and collapse dumping the front walls into the street, sidewalk or into adjacent buildings; this had been witnessed in all subsequent quakes - that the most vulnerable buildings were the unreinforced brick; aside from the Cypress collapse in the last earthquake, all but 3 of the deaths occurred in unreinforced brick buildings; this was a hazard to anyone walking on the street; two other vulnerable struc- 3/21/90 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Unreinforced Masonry - Continued. tures were tilt up concrete buildings pre 1971, where they didn't tie the walls to the roof, and old concrete frame buildings that have a frame structure, columns and beams, and then a floor slab that are totally inadequate to handle the side to side movement; on the collapse of the Cypress - the columns had literally no mechanical connection to the beams, the reinforcing bar went up and ended - the beams came in and there was no connec- tion, and the structure started to bend and went down catastrophically; high rise concrete buildings, 5-15 stories in height, built in the 1960s were con- sidered pre 1973 frame buildings and massive retrofitting was needed to make the buildings non-collapsible; an econo- mic threat was the pre 1950 wood frame houses as evidenced after the Hollister and Watsonville earthquakes where they were not braced and bolted to their foun- dations; structural reports made for real estate sales do not indicate whether the structure is earthquake safe; that a real estate person could ask for a seismic structural report, but it was not a part of the standard practice for real estate firms at this time to see if buildings were earthquake safe. Councilman Penna stated that from a government standpoint if the City passed something, such as a note to the public, that indicated that any building built before this period of time may have structural failure in the event of a severe earthquake - it would be doing its part in notifying the public to be aware, and they can do their own thing. MrJ Eisner stated that people usually did not ask if a building was bolted down and braced J Councilmember Nicolopulos questioned the bottom line in City responsibilityJ Diretor of Economic & Community Development Costello stated that the Council had in fact met the requirements of the State in terms of a mitigation 3/21/90 Page 5 A G E N D A A C T ! 0" T A K E N (i~!J'i2 Unreinforced Masonry - Continued. program. She stated that the only thing the State requires is that the City notice the property owners of the potential hazard of URM buildings at this time - which had been done; She stated that what was being addressed was the life threatening damage that could be done that makes these buildings more a a focus of State action. She stated that staff had brought forward other alter- natives in case the Council wanted to speak further, but under State Law it was not required; She stated that there were 22 URM buildings, and five historic building which included City Hall and the Library in the report; She stated that the issues before the Council were: do you want some kind of additional engineering studies of the URM buildings; do you want to be requiring retrofit - if so, when do you want to do it, and what standard do you want to use; policy issues; get more data through an engineering analysis to find out what kind of a problem they have, and what it would take to make them more seismically safe; the estimated cost for the engi- neering analysis was $6,000 per building; that the recommendation from staff was for the engineering analysis require- ment. Councilmember Teglia stated that it should be made clear that the property owner would bear the $6,000 expense. Vice Mayor Drago questioned if the $6,000 included a geological study on the prop- erty, because 60% of the problem was with the soil~ He questioned how one could design or retrofit a building regardless of the type of soil, and assume it will work, Mr, Bortugna stated that the problem with brick and soils were somewhat more important as you get away from the epi- center, but if you have an earthquake on San Andreas fault it will not matter so much. He stated that the brick buildings 3/21/90 Page 6 2' Unreinforced Masonry - Continued. were going to fail on bad land and on good land. Mr. Eisner stated that the engineering analysis will address the site and soil conditions, Councilmember Penna stated that the pur- pose of this exercise was to save the building so there is no bodily injury -- it didn't matter if the building tilts and sinks because the soil is bad~ He stated that what mattered was that the building stay in tact so people can get out and not be crushed~ MrJ Eisner related: buildings built to the 1984 Building Code will insure that the building will not collapse, but does not insure that the building will be operational or functional after a quake; by going with the 1973 Building Code we are saying that we will come up to a force level of about 75% of what the current Code provides, but the building may have to be demolished after a major quake; that in most cases the retro- fitting will be above ground unless there were problems with existing foundations; that there were areas in the City where buildings were on pilings. Vice Mayor Drago expressed concern on whether the $6,000 cost per building was realistic and didn't turn out to be $10,000. Chief Building Inspector Baca stated that $6,000 was a little on the high side and should be able to cover that. He stated that the average cost ran between $4,500-$5,000 for a 3,500-4,000 sq. ft~ building. Discussion followed: that the first option was to require the engineering analysis and leave it to the owners to do a voluntary retrofitting within their time frame; a $6,000 cost for the engi-. neering analysis was for a 6,000 sq. ft. building; the second option was to 3/21/g0 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 2J Unreinforced Masonry - ContinuedJ building; the second option was to require retrofitting which was where the major cost came in of $25J00 - $40~00 a sq. ft; total cost to retrofit the 22 URM buildings was approximately $2,500,000; what options to allow the owner on retro- fitting his property; that most of the buildings were located in the downtown area; that additions to the rents of 27¢ - 44~ per sq. ft. for retrofitting could make the rents expensive and the owner may want to demolish the building; econo- mic factors of the downtown property owners; that the recommendation was for a mandatory seven year time frame for retro- fitting, or at the time of sale; and a one year period for an engineering analysis. Councilmember Penna had a problem with the retrofitting being at the time of sale, and suggested a mandatory notice to the owner upon receipt of the engineering analysis that the building had to be retrofitted; and have the engineering analysis recorded on the property. He stated that the URM buildings were poten- tially unsafe, and rather than have a seven year requirement for retrofitting, it should be one or two years. Discussion followed: that severe restrictions on property owners could lead to Court cases; that Japan experiences daily earthquakes; that if a building was sound, the retrofitting would cost less; Council was in agreement on the requirement for the engineering analysis within one year; that other cities were requiring three to five years to retrofit, and staff felt seven years would allow the property owners more time for financing; there was a majority of Council in agreement with the seven year retrofitting requirement; Vice Mayor Drago felt that the standards for City buildings should be the same as the private sector, rather than fall under historic building guidelines set by the Commission; that all historic buildings be handled the same as the private 3/21/90 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 2. Unreinforced Masonry - Continued. 3. Common Greens. 4~ Maintenance standards for parks and o(' public facilities. ~o sector, Director of Recreation & Community Services Jewel l stated that the recommen- dation was to increase the common greens assessment to allow for capital improve- ments, increased maintenance, and staff to maintain the Common Greens Districts. He stated that direction was needed to allow staff to prepare the paper work and notice property owners to implement this decision. He proceeded to relate background infor- mation on the City's responsibility for the four Districts through the property tax funding and augmentation, i.e., West Park i and 2, West Park 3, Stonegate Ridge, and Willow Gardens. Discussion followed on the three options in the staff report: 1) maintain current level of service; 2) reflects a 15% increase; 3).proposed enhanced capital improvements. Further discussion followed: on the per unit assessments; that some of the Districts were in poor condition and in need of repair; the use of augmentation funds to support the poor Districts; that the Stonegate District had higher property values than Willow Gardens; that previous assessments were done on an ad valorum basis, which since Proposition 13 was no longer possible to do; that augmentation funds were created by the County and could only be spent on Special Districts; that public hearing notices with the selected assessment would be sent to all affected property owners. Consensus of Council - To go with Option 3. Director of Recreation & Community Services Jewel l spoke of the proposed service levels of maintenance in City parks and buildings: 1) state of the art maintenance; 2) high level maintenance; 3) moderate level maintenance; 4) minimum 3/21/90 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN __ 4J Maintenance standards - ContinuedJ 5. Review of paramedic contract, CLOSED SESSION Closed session for the purpose of discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property nego- tiations and litigation. maintenance of natural areasJ Mayor Haffey felt that the Council was going to concentrate on the maintenance of City facilities. Councilmember Teglia stated that she and Councilmember Nicolopulos had served on the Budget Committee and had issued a report requesting additional maintenance~ She stated that she did not agree with staff's opinion on the rating of current service levels shown in the staff report~ Mayor Haffey stated that he did not agree with the service level rating for Magnolia Center, City Manager Armas invited each of the Councilmembers to assess the service levels of the various facilities and indicate how they should be, after which staff would identify the cost factors~ Councilmember Penna noted discrepancies in service levels in various parks in the City~ He stated that recently he had seen a City worker picking up paper on Grand Avenue with a stick and needle - when with a blower the person could have taken care of the whole block. Councilmember Nicolopulos felt that more help and better supervision was needed to effect more productive work. He complimented staff for the cleanliness of Grand Avenue. Carried over to the next study session by Mayor Haffey~ CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:50 p.m. to discuss the items noticed. 3/21/90 Page 10 AGENDA ACT'[ON TAKEN RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Haffey recalled the meeting to order at 10:50 p.m., all Council pre- sent, no action was taken~ M/S Penna/Teglia - To adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, 3/28/90, at 6:15 p.m., at the Municipal Services Building Community Room for Park & Recreation Commission interviews. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Time of adjournment was 10:50 pjm; RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, City of South San Francisco City of South San The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 3/21/90 Page 11