Neighborhood Seismic Safety Resolution

Van Ness Neighbors empanelled a group of seismic safety professionals from within its membership (structural, fire and water engineers) to draft an action list which VNN then endorsed. VNN is now asking for review by CSFN as we know that CSFN is also concerned about the issue of seismic public safety.

     Whereas,the City and County of San Francisco has upgraded its assessment of the risk of a major seismic event in the next 20 years and has stepped up preparations for such an event, and

     Whereas, seismic public safety is an issue of critical importance to the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods,

     Therefore be it resolved, that the Coalition of San Francisco promotes the following basic steps which enhance San Francisco’s seismic preparedness:

A. Land Use

1. Land use in San Francisco inherently has seismic prerequisites. Self-evacuation is constrained in tall buildings as the SFFD will not be able to assist evacuation. Code change is required to ensure that new high-rises meet seismic safety requirements and can meet our post-quake shelter-in-place goals.

2. The Community Safety Element of the General Plan adopted during the Brown Administration needs revision to strengthen policy and define the implementation program for seismic safety. The pre-1997 Element should be revisited as it contained excellent policies.

B. Housing Stock

1. Foundation retrofit upon title transfer or within 10 years is required to reduce injury and neighborhood fire.

2. NERT certification should be required for all multi-unit property resident managers and staffs.

3. The City should require the posting of signs disclosing seismic risks at building entrances:

a. for those entering and leasing buildings constructed prior to the 1974 code changes

b. that tenants/residents will be responsible for:

1.) self-evacuation

2.) putting out small fires, and

3.) the rescue of others in the building

C. Union Contracts

1. Union contracts should include NERT training and certification as well as annual retraining and re-certification.

2. Pre-positioning of emergency supplies at City offices for City employees: each employee will be a disaster worker. Red Cross survival backpacks should also be issued to those employees.

D. Red Cross survival backpacks should be issued to City voters via vouchers free of charge on election day (absentees to be mailed) as residents are not prepared with supplies that are portable. Backpacks would provide a mobile, 7-day supply of water, food, medical, hygiene and shelter. Volume discounts and vendor donations would reduce the cost per backpack; vouchers would be redeemable at police and/or fire stations.

E. NERT-TV. NERT training can be done en masse via TV (e.g. KQED), cable and internet. NERT training should include the Japanese system of pre-positioned foam fire suppression pumps located in kuras (mini-warehouses) on each City block.

F. Automatic Gas Shutoff: Automatic gas shutoff for buildings subject to fire risk should be required to minimize neighborhood fire risk.

G. Water: In 1906, the PUC low-pressure hydrant water system failed as a result of 23,000 breaks. There must be a continuing program to extend the SFFD AWSS high-pressure system to areas not currently served by it. This may require a bond.

H. Administrative

1. Change the fire code to require foam based fire suppression systems for multi-unit buildings.

2. Change codes to require pre-positioning of emergency supplies (i.e. water) in hotels, residential hotels, schools and offices.

3. All City Departments should also take up DBI’s excellent CAPPS model under the overall direction of the Office of Emergency Services (OES) utilizing SF STAT.

…Charley Marsteller (VNN)

     At its October meeting, CSFN members heard a candid analysis of the challenges awaiting the city when the long-predicted Big One occurs. Department of Building Inspection’s Chief Inspector Laurence Kornfield, accompanied by Structural Engineer David Bonowitz stressed the difference between “damage” and “impact” in disaster planning. They explained that a large SOMA warehouse can crumble causing massive damage but have little impact on people. On the other hand, a single North Beach classroom full of children would have immense impact but might incur only slight building damage.
      Drawing columns on a large piece of paper, Kornfield said that a natural disaster should be viewed in three stages: preparedness, emergency response and rebuilding of infrastructure. Of the three, he said, emergency response is the most talked about and best funded, but greater priority should be given to the other two. “As important as the first 72 hours is, it is the preparation before the fact and long-term rebuilding of infrastructure afterward that should concern us most.
      Kornfield and Bonowitz said that the city’s own standards provide a disincentive to preparedness, noting an absence of any requirement that old buildings meet seismic code. (The exception being unreinforced masonry buildings, which have standards required by special legislation.) Furthermore, the building code allows a destroyed building to be reconstructed just as it was, without seismic considerations.
      They concluded by describing the pressing need to brace the “soft stories,” such as the ground floor garages that collapsed in the Loma Prieta quake, and reface the old concrete buildings of six-to-ten stories typical in the Nob Hill area. Stabilizing a structure doesn’t necessarily mean a major investment for the owner. Said Kornfield, “The first $1,000 spent on first-floor strengthening can give a building protection that far exceeds the cost.” …Karen Crommie (CVIA)