|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The city of Mountain View released a list of hundreds of addresses of residential buildings that could be vulnerable to collapse in a major earthquake — more than 5,000 rental units spread across the city.
The list, which the Voice acquired through a state Public Records Act request in July, was put together by a hired consultant with the task of figuring out which properties in Mountain View appear to be of so-called “soft story” design. Soft-story buildings have structurally weak ground floors that puts them at a heightened risk of collapse in a strong earthquake.
The Voice’s interactive map of the properties is available here.
City officials originally declined to post the list publicly, calling it a preliminary way to take stock of buildings that might be at risk rather than a definitive roster of vulnerable housing units. Some of the buildings, following a detailed inspection, may be deemed safe and not in need of retrofit work. Citing unexpected interest from the public, building officials released the list of addresses Thursday evening — albeit with most of the survey details removed.
Earlier this year, a report drafted by structural engineer David Bonowitz identified 488 suspected soft-story buildings that have at least three residential units, a total of 5,123 housing units representing about 16 percent of the city’s total housing stock — similar to the percentage of earthquake-vulnerable homes in Oakland and San Francisco.
The study was meant to pave the way for a discussion by Mountain View City Council members in June to consider a soft-story retrofit program to improve the safety of residents in vulnerable buildings, but was bumped from the agenda. Council members are scheduled to revisit the item on Tuesday, Sept. 4.
The information shattered older estimates compiled in a San Jose State University study, which identified 111 buildings and 1,129 housing units at risk of collapse in a sizable earthquake.
The city-commissioned survey shows that the vast majority of the potentially hazardous homes follow a similar trend — two- and three-story rental housing structures built between 1950 and 1980 with parking on the first floor and housing units on top. While building designs and layouts vary significantly, more than half of the 5, housing units have what’s called a “long side open,” meaning that the structural vulnerability is along the long side of a rectangular building.
Residential buildings identified in the study range from one single vulnerable housing unit to as many as 184 units on a property. In the Shoreline West neighborhood, for example, the study found 53 small multi-unit rental properties totaling just under 200 housing units are potentially at risk. Larger buildings with more than 40 units, primarily along streets that including Latham Street and Escuela and Montecito avenues, account for 1,700 of the soft-story buildings listed.
The area bounded by Shoreline Boulevard, Showers Drive, Central Expressway and El Camino Real represents the most densely packed region of potentially dangerous buildings, accounting for roughly half of the units identified.
A large portion of the city, encompassing about a quarter of the housing identified in the report, are on ground prone to liquefaction, which increases the risk of buildings being damaged in an earthquake, according to data from the U.S. Geological Survey. The liquefaction zone includes nearly all of the city north of Central Expressway, along with portions of the Old Mountain View and Shoreline West neighborhoods.
Building officials cautioned that the study is preliminary and subject to change, and that not all of the units on each identified property may be at risk. Mountain View is also on fairly stable ground compared to places like Foster City, meaning the liquefaction zone is not a significant factor in terms of public safety.
The release of the information comes just a few days before the City Council is scheduled discuss whether a to impose a voluntary or mandatory retrofit program for soft-story structures. The study by Bonowitz recommended that if the council favors a retrofit program, it would likely need to require mandatory compliance in order to achieve “substantial citywide risk reduction.”
Another key concern is how much the retrofit work will cost property owners, and how much of those costs can be passed on to tenants through a rent increase.
The study session is set for the end of the City Council meeting that begins at 4:15 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 4, in the Council Chambers at 500 Castro St.
Time to Raze all these buildings. To old, rent control, no longer makes sense to keep them.
Council needs to address the zoning of these properties. The properties on the list should automatically be zoned the highest number of units allowed. Each of these properties should not have to go thru one by one asking approval first to rezone them to the highest density allowed.
This should be done at the same time and in the same approval process as mandating any retrofit work.
It is not a question of “if they can not be retrofitted”, if you have enough money you can do anything.
But at this point, with the age and other items that need replacements as well, it is no longer financially feasible to keep these properties around if the city mandates this retrofit work.
Can anyone clarify “Target type”, specifically, what is the difference between “long side open” and “one side open”?
Is there a link to the original Mr Bonowitz’s report?
Make them do very expensive retrofits, or raze and rebuild…this time 4 or 5 stories tall. California Avenue will look a lot different in 5-10 years!
Had you been to last nights council meeting, you would have found that council raised the fee’s so much on developers who want to build housing units in the North Bay Shore that developers said they can not go forward with their plans.
Lenny Siegel of all people said the city needs to find ways to reduce fees to the developers so that they will go forward in building housing units.
When you say “Don’t allow anything to be rebuilt but similarly priced rental units,” that is impossible.
Many of those properties on the list will be too cost prohibitive and will be sold and razed. If you oppose this then ask city to find ways to pay for the work, and or do not make it mandatory.
Building may collapse in a large quake! These are home built from 1950 and 1980 time period. Did we have a large quake since then? Did these building have large damage? Was the risk of large quake increased since 1980? Sounds like a great sales pitch to do a survey and make more expensive housing.
I agree that if they cannot be retrofitted to be earthquake-proof, then they should be razed. Where I disagree is that they should be then zoned for owner-occupied, single-family housing — row houses or townhouses ideally. MV needs more owner-occupied housing because it would bring a more stable and politically responsible pool of new residents.
This could help solve the rent control problem – tear down rather than retrofit. Of course this will displace a lot of families. But think of all the increased property tax revenue from newly constructed townhomes!
I am being a bit snarky, but the reality that this could happen strikes true.
Don’t allow anything to be rebuilt but similarly priced rental units, preferably more than there are currently. Offer displaced tenants first right to return to the new units, at current rents. And be happy that no tragedy and ensuing lawsuits were required.
This report is not an “opportunity” to displace residents and maximize profits. If it becomes one, residents may prefer (and vote) to disallow this kind of safety report. And that isn’t good for anyone.