Loading...
2004-09-14 Regular Meeting Minutes ~~ :~::E ~ Architectural Review Board 14 September 2004 7:00pm KFRC Conference Room A. Call to Order BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE Chairman Scott Arndt called the meeting to order at 7:02p. B. Roll Call Present were: Board members Scott Arndt, Gregg Hacker, Charles Jerling, and Jay Johnston. Absent members were Jerrol Fremd and Robin Heinrichs. Also in attendance were Robert Tucker, Doug Mathers, Barry Still, Gary Carver, Laura Kelly and Mike Brown. Present also were Bud Cassidy and Sharon Lea Adinolfi from the KIB ElF Department. C. Approval of Agenda Brent Watkins moved to accept the Agenda, J. Johnston seconded the motion and there was an affirmative unanimous voice vote. D. Approval of Minutes The Chair advised that the Minutes [10 May and 9 June 2004] would be reviewed at a later date. E. New Business - Seismic Safety Evaluation RFP B. Cassidy began by stating that a process is to be put into place to evaluate public buildings for seismic safety. Through this meeting, and others, he wants the Members of the ARB to be exposed to what is involved in evaluating seismic safety - it is a very technical subject. The ARB's roll in this project will be geared toward a creation of an RFP to find an entity[ies] to perform the evaluations and giving recommendations. B. Cassidy introduced Gary Carver, PhD, a geologist, researcher and professor. He also introduced Laura Kelly, PE, from the CG \\dove\Departments\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Evaluation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 1 of 9 f"""~~~J)r.~."c~C~;(yer is going give a general overview re ~ ~~~ , ;' ~- - ,- -" -.-..., '''~: j' . " ea,tthquakes'ip:-',the Kodiak area. B. Cassidy told the group that there has been a$SOO, 000 Bond approved, by public vote, to go ,. "'~4 . ;: , forward wi th"se:\,srrii;::: evaluation. it,. ,J '1 L~,r":i3"r':""'-car~ver>~~gcm~.J He said he started working here in the mid 80s and hi s expertise is in earthquake research. The possibility of earthquakes is as high here [Kodiak] as any place in the US. On average, earthquakes occur every 25 years. At this point in time there has been a 43 year "silent" period, so we are coming very close to setting a record for this silent time, and that may mean that we are at a significant earthquake hazard risk. During the earthquake in 1964, Kodiak was not at ground -0-, meaning that the ground motions were relative mild. He believes that ground motion has been highly underestimated. Research has identified a dozen faults close to this area. There are 3 main faults: Narrow Cape fault, an offshore unnamed fault and a faul t that runs through Gibson Cove and under the Near Island Bridge. Of concern is the potential of many faults and the difficulty to discern the smaller faults. Smaller faults can generate ground motion that can be extremely destructive. Dr. Carver said that the safety of our schools, and all buildings for that matter, is of grave import and schools need to be assessed to find out if the buildings can withstand an earthquake. B. Cassidy asked if there was any information re ground acceleration here in town. \\dove\Departrnents\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Eva1uation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 2 of 9 Dr. Carver responded that only one study has been done and that study did produce ground motion numbers at Narrow Cape the numbers were quite high. He continued: In the 90s a regional study was done re ground motion. Maps were generated calculating ground motion acceleration. Similar studies have been done in California - San Andreus Fault - and the mapping is similar. PSHA - problematic Seismic Hazard Assessment - this is a study, the results of which are used by the IBC to formulate building codes. Many different kinds of information are gathered in a PSHA and the information is used to evaluate the safety of a building. Some of the things that are looked at - tested - are seismic sources in the region, attenuation of motion, the likelihood of an earthquake based on history, specific site information this kind of information will predict how a building will respond to vibrations. Dr. Carver emphasized the importance of being "site specific" in investigations especially when dealing wi th public buildings such as schools, hospitals, evacuation centers. Laura Kelly addressed the group. She noted that she has been involved in some relevant work at Petersen School. She has been tracking earthquake activity in the area and passed around a map showing activity for the past week - in her words, things are "popping" right under us. So these activities show that there should be a very real concern re earthquakes. She went on to say that the USCG has summarized local seismic vulnerability and that there are many unchartered faults. Other engineers note only a single fault. She believes there are other potential faults very close to home, but that they are difficult to uncover with such limited resources as are available. She said \\dove\Departments\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Evaluation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 3 of 9 that Dr. Carver has reported and classified the probabilities of potential earthquakes. In her mind, the questions become: how soon and are our buildings OK. L. Kelly went on discussing a Federal mandate that buildings need to be evaluated for seismic vulnerability and if the bui Idings are not up to Code rehabilitate. None of the buildings on the CG Base passed so there has been a lot of rehabilitation. Strides have been made in construction, but still some details have been overlooked frequently the connections between roof and walls, floors and walls. She became interested in Petersen School and began looking at it. There were evidences that both she and a structural engineer saw that lead them to be concerned re the safety of the building. To discover where vulnerabilities may be, a walkthrough by a structural engineer is in order. A cursory inspection and gathering of certain information can be used to determine the soundness of a building. To be looked at would be: soil [site upon which the building is built], number of people using building, building date [precode?], height of building. This kind of information can be used to ascertain cost estimates and prioritization of buildings most at risk. Dr. Carver told the group that the world of seismic geology is a rapidly evolving science. Earthquakes become labs and can be learned from - information gained from studying earthquakes has prompted continual upgrading of codes. There have been "devils in the details" so that the more that is learned from earthquakes gives more understanding as to how to correct deficiencies in buildings. \\dove\Departments\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Evaluation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 4 of 9 Dr. Carver said that in his opinion, when an RFP is put out [for seismic evaluation] it is extremely important that the firm be selected not because they are the lowest responder, but because they have the most expertise. R. Tucker questioned the cost of a PSHA. Dr. Carver said the PSHA at Narrow Cape cost approximately $200,000, but that one done for this area should not be as much because some of the basic input data from the Narrow Cape study could be "lifted" and included in the study for this area. He guestimated $100,000 for a PSHA being done here. It was suggested that the High School/Middle School complex would be the most important buildings to contemplate having a PSHA done. The Chair asked B. Still for comments. B. Still said he was inclined to favor L. Kelly's approach - a cursory look at the site to begin with so there is information guiding prioritization. Dr. Carver said that a PSHA would take about 6 months to accomplish. B. Still asked what are the steps ln the process. Dr. Carver said that first there is a preliminary walkthrough by a structural engineer and L. Kelly suggested that this is a small project and could be easily handled locally by a structural engineer. The Chair asked if a complete set of blueprints was available. Both R. Tucker and B. Cassidy noted that they each had some \\dove\Departments\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Evaluation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 5 of 9 blueprints, but were not sure if between them they would have a complete set. The next step [after the initial walkthrough] would be to pick a priority location to do a PSHA. The Chair said that he would like to see all the schools tied together and have just one PSHA done. The Chair asked Mike Brown for any comments. M. Brown, an engineer with the CG, stressed the importance of seismic evaluation [so that at risk locations could be made safe] and that he was willing to be supportive in anyway his services/expertise could be utilized. He said he felt both Dr. Carver and L. Kelly were pointing the Board in the right direction. Jay Johnston asked what exactly it was that was to be accomplished. He asked if there was a plan in place - to first recommend and then implement? B. Cassidy that there is seed money to get evaluations started. The Chair said that there was no plan. B. Still questioned if the initial walkthrough of the main site could be conducted simultaneously with a PSHA. Dr. Carver said that a walkthrough was almost unnecessary. It is already known, based on the age of construction, that the High School/Middle School complex would not pass an inspection for seismic safety. \\dove\Departments\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Evaluation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 6 of 9 R. Tucker said that there is limited money and lots of buildings to be reviewed, and first we need to determine priori ties [of buildings] . FEMA and the State won't pay for the study, but if a study isn't done, the school district will not be eligible for funding to do the rehabilitation. B. Cassidy said that there is a good group of folks around the table - bringing varied skills and expertise to this discussion. He noted that this was a technical issue and that he would like to get copies of some of the documents L. Kelly had brought so that they could be reviewed and the Board could become more comfortable/knowledgeable regarding the processes involved in doing a seismic evaluation. R. Tucker said that he would like to get the ball rolling and get an RFP out for the first two phases of evaluation. The Board would then be able to identify the priorities and move on to the PSHA. R. Tucker's concern lS time/funding constraints imposed by the Bond funding. The Chair recessed the meeting for a brief break at 8:20pm. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30pm. The Chair said he would like to keep it simple and entertained a motion to put out an RFP for a cursory study. B. Watkins said that he would like to see that done as soon as possible. \\dove\Departments\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Evaluation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 7 of 9 i I I I I A motion was made by G. Hacker to proceed with an RFP for a "rapid visual" review. B. Watkins seconded the motion. Discussion J. Johnston questioned if the motion could be amended to include in the RFP a request for preparation of an RFP for future work - a more inclusive package. G. Hacker seconded the amended motion. Discussion Dr. Carver said that the RFP must specifically call for qualified seismic analysis experience. J. Johnston asked if a responder to the preparation of an RFP, as was being discussed, would then be disqualified from responding to the RFP. [I don't have anything written that indicates and answer to this question - I think that Bud or maybe Scott said 'yes'] B. Cassidy said that a lot of information had been put out this evening and he would like to take some time to review the information and the documents provided by Dr. Carver and L. Kelly before making a decision. \\dove\Departments\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Evaluation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 8 of 9 The members of the Board concurred unanimously to put off a vote on making a recommendation to the Assembly for an RFP for seismic evaluation. F. Adj ournment The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:50pm. Respectfully submitted: Date:c?l ~c5 { Approved by: ~ df/- ~o /;/1 Scott Arndt, Chair Architectural Review Board Date: 5 -;2. 7 - ;)..OOS- \\dove\Departments\EF\Projects\Seismic Safety Evaluation\Minutes ARB 14 Sept 2004.doc Page 9 of 9