Loading...
1990-03-27 Special CC Minutes100 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF_ALAMEDA MARCH 27, 1990 The special meeting was convened at 7:32 p.m. with President Corica presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas, Withrow and President Corica - 5. Absent: None. 90-220 Report from Assistant City Manager recommending authorization of transfer of UDAG Account Funds to the Library Construction Fund. President Corica commented the subject is related to the purchase of the Linoaks Motel and documentation will be executed tomorrow. Councilmember Withrow moved approval. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-221 Joint Meeting with the Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Advisory Committee to discuss a proposed City Ordinance to require reduction of hazards posed by Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. (1) Introduction by Chairman Brady of the URM Advisory Committee Chairman Scott Brady introduced Committee Members Linda Soulages, Paul Breitkopf, Rudd Gast, and Denise Rosko; and gave a background of Senate Bill 547, State law dealing with unreinforced masonry buildings, why the law came about, what the law's requirements are, and what Alameda's response has been; noted the three parts to the law: 1) identify all URM buildings that are potentially hazardous, 2) develop and implement a mitigation program to reduce the hazard, and 3) submit the information on the first.two items to the State Seismic Safety Commission; and commented there are three ranges of mitigation options in complying with SB 547: 1) voluntary compliance, 2) mandatory compliance, and 3) a hybrid approach. (2) Presentation by Arnold Luft, S.E., Peter Culley and Associates. Mr. Luft gave a slide presentation, noting the island of Alameda is subject to great liquefaction, and the intent of the slides [showing earthquake damage to buildings] was to show the damage that can result when a building is affected by liquefaction. (3) Comments by the public. Herman VonColditz, 233 Brighton Court, stated earthquakes are March 27, 1990 dangerous chiefly because against their affects; he less expensive to upgrade working in unsafe buildings 101 adequate precautions are not taken favors the proposed ordinance; it is a building than rebuild; and people should be made aware of risks. Fred Delanoy, 126 Weymouth Court, requested reasonable judgment be used in implementing any seismic codes, and that not all unreinforced masonry building owners be forced to sustain as in some cases, open-ended and potentially devastating financial burdens. Jim Thompson, 1911 Park Street, noted City Hall was built about 95 years ago, has been through two major earthquakes and meetings are being held in it; and requested Council and Committee to not place a burden on the property owners by adopting a proposal that does not give owners an opportunity to make a capital budget of five to six years to cover the expenses of upgrading property. David Plummer, 1401 High Street, stated probably the most important building in the City is City Hall, and the City should set an example for unreinforced masonry strengthening, by making City Hall seismically safe. Mr. Brady stated the earthquakes referred to were on the San Andreas fault, but the Hayward fault had major slippage about a 100 years ago, buildings which survived two major earthquakes may not withstand the force of an earthquake from a closer epicenter; in Santa Cruz, where there was leniency on upgrading on seismic requirements because owners claimed financial hardship, there was total loss of some buildings; the State has mandated that cities provide ordinances and if cities do not, there may be more strenuous State-mandated requirements than the City is proposing. Mr. Luft pointed out that the proposed ordinance focuses on brick-bearing wall buildings; City Hall has a structural steel space frame; the Hayward fault has been predicted by geologists to have a 7.5 magnitude event within the next 20 or 30 year period; and the City's implementation plan leaves an open-ended issue on when the vertical-load carrying frames and the foundations are put in. President Corica stated Council appreciates the hard work and good job the Committee has done; his concern is that there is a State-mandated program which does not provide funding; Council can formulate a program but it should be made as easy as possible on citizens who have unreinforced masonry buildings; he does not want to see anyone put out of business; and he believes one of the first things that should be done is to contact the State, and request funding. The Public Works Director summarized the Committee's recommendation, the hybrid approach, and noted the proposed ordinance would require minimal work within a reasonable time frame, and a plan by the owner regarding how he will ultimately bring his building fully to Code. March 27, 1990 1© Council further discussed, liability, minimal work, and cost of work required; explanations of such work was described by Mr. Luft, who estimated about 6$ or $7 per running foot, $4500 to $5500 for small buildings. Wil Garfinkle, 2938 Northwood, stated although a building has come through earthquakes well, it does not mean there has not been movement of the floor and roof, and the building may collapse in the next earthquake; while it will cost money to upgrade, it may be a small percentage of a building's value. (4) Direction from the City Council Councilman Arnerich discussed upgrading, engineering reports and fees with Mr. Luft. Councilmember Camicia commented perhaps the City could establish a list of structural engineers; payment could be made into a fund over a period of years to help the established list of engineers work with owners without charging a great amount; the owners could add to the fund each year, allowing the most urgent need to be fixed early; and perhaps the Finance Committee could look at that possibility. President Corica discussed the Palo Alto approach which requires doing a seismic analysis and submitting a plan, but with no time frame required, and the Los Angeles Division 88 Ordinance which requires buildings be brought to Code within two years or the building will be torn down. Mr. Luft noted the Los Angeles Code was put into effect ten years ago; it is a phased approach; after five years into the program, the City was unhappy with the response and shortened time frames; following the October earthquake, the ordinance was revised again, and the mandatory requirement was imposed, that any buildings remaining would need to be completed by 1992. President Corica clarified that there were ten to twelve years to comply; stated perhaps the Palo Alto ordinance should be tried, to see if people will comply voluntarily, and if they do not, then a certain number of years can be given for completion. Councilmember Withrow stated the Committee has done an excellent job in providing what he considers to be a reasonable approach to a difficult issue; and he proposed a conceptual approval for the ordinance and referral to the City Attorney for appropriate wording, the environmental review be processed, Councilmember Camicia's comments about financial assistance for citizens should be taken into consideration and Council work on it on an exceptional basis; and so moved that the recommendations in the proposal be accommodated. Councilmember Camicia stated if he knew how Council could help people finance the work, he would know better how to approach the matter and perhaps Council could wait two weeks or a month. March 27, 1990 103 President Corica stated Councilmember Camicia's comments are well taken; there will be difficulty distinguishing who will recieve assistance; if there is a funding mechanism, it may need to be across the board; he would like people given time to get funding; if Council can work out financing to make it easier, he would support that, otherwise, he cannot vote for the ordinance right now. Councilmember Thomas stated on Page 5, under Section 7(e), "Demolition of the building, or portions thereof, . . ." is included in the ordinance and she does not believe that should be left out; stated the Committee has done a good job regarding engineering, but the cost is not included; inquired how this interacts with other laws that apply, e.g., if the $50,000 level is reached, is it then necessary to install bathrooms for the handicapped; there may be problems regarding refinancing and sale, and insurance. Mr. Brady commented that as more cities provide plans there may be more pressure on the State to develop funding mechanisms; if the ordinance is accepted in concept, the Committee can move ahead, get further public input from Planning Department hearings, changes can be made, and financial aspects could be written into the ordinance. Mr. Luft stated the reason for discussing the Los Angeles ordinance is because the State is following the Los Angeles program and its severity; and eventually, the State may not permit the Palo Alto approach. Councilmember Withrow stated as a point of clarification that the demolition of a building in the ordinance, Page 5, Section 7 states the option to demolish is an option of building owners if they so wish, but it is not an option of the City to demolish. Councilman Arnerich summarized the three approaches [Palo Alto, Los Angeles and hybrid], and requested comment regarding the Palo Alto approach from Mr. Luft, who responded that the Palo Alto approach was the original approach in Los Angeles ten years ago and Palo Alto is learning.if something is not mandated, it does not get done, with the exception of a few owners; and added there are other cities that have the Los Angeles approach. Councilman Arnerich questioned, since the unreinforced masonry buildings are identified, if the City does not enforce the Code, would the City be held liable if, for example, a building collapsed in an earthquake. The City Attorney replied she would need to research further into the exact requirements of the law, however, the general rule is that cities are not responsible for dangerous conditions existing on private property; there are many governmental immunities and assuming as in this case, the City is complying with the minimum State law requirements, there should not generally be City liability, and discussed public property. March 27, 1990 1 0 Mr. Breitkopf commented on a list of sample types of mitigation plans of about forty cities, noting Palo Alto is the only one with a voluntary ordinance; Alameda has four times the masonry buildings of Palo Alto, so the degree of risk is considerably increased; and the Committee has taken a middle-of-the-road responsible position. Councilmember Camicia suggested continuing the meeting to another time as there have been requests for more information and a number of questions have been raised; Mr. Breitkopf has raised good points; and he would feel comfortable coming back and making a decision based on more information. President Corica agreed, noting as subjects for more information: Councilmember Camicia's suggestion about obtaining a funding mechanism, perhaps assess some persons who need assistance, the time frame [for completion of work], his concern that someone who might have just gone into business could possibly be placed out of business; and suggested perhaps the City Manager and Finance Director could ascertain if there is a financial mechanism that might be workable. Councilmember Camicia so moved. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas, and President Corica - 4. Noes: Councilmember Withrow - 1. Absent: None. President Corica expressed appreciation for the work of the Committee, and adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully s .tt,d, DINE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. March 27, 1990