CC MIN 1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

219 4 Seismic Report had recommended these precautions specifically , in addition to what is required in theCity generally , and if any other considerations were being over- looked . He noted DMJM Staff and Chief Building Official would answer Council ' s questions regarding these issues and Seismic Report in general . Council asked if other areas in Seismic Report and Study covering " recommendations " or " considerations " were being carried out in all instances , with exception of issue of gas heaters and gas supply line shutoff ; requested opinion of consultants as to these specific issues ; discussed responsibility of consultants in making reports and recommendations to Council to safeguard project from any safety hazards ; responsibility of City if this specific issue a policy decision which could affect all of City , etc . Mr . Reiter , Project Manager of DMJM, advised of the review which had been again made by their Staff this past week of the Seismic Study and recommendations contained therein; and of the 11 recommended items , 10 have been implemented and will continue to be implemented . The 11th recommenda- tion concerns a review or updating of this Report within five years . They are now considering polling the members of the Board to ascertain if , in their opinion , the state of the art has changed enough to justify reconvening . He also felt it should be recognized that there are two aspects to the Seismic review and findings , one relating to public works and other relating to buildings and struc - tures . He proceeded to define where and how their portion of responsibility covered Bridge Parkway Bridge , now out to bid , pumping stations , etc . , all designed and constructed in conformity with stated recommendations , and how other structures in project are under Building Code and reviewed , modified , and approved by the Building Department , and all staffs working together closely . He noted how this too , affected other recommendations still being pursed , such as installation of seismographs and changes still being made at recommendation . of Coast and Geodetic Survey staff . He stated DMJM and the Seismic Board had included a digest of the information in the bibligraphy , but was for informa - tional purposes only , with no attempt to solve all problems discussed in the references . He stated further that , as consultants , they have implemented the eleven recommenda - tions governing their work; that each detail in the recom- mendations affecting specifications on which we go to bid have been attended to . Council asked how determination could be made of what specific standards are advised for Redwood Shores but not ncessary to whole of City . Assistant City Manager stated he was not certain whether stricter requirements could be imposed on one sectionof the City than on others . The foundation requirements in Shores versus the rest of the City were then discussed . Comments were made of specific requirements made for hillside development as to slope density , grading , etc . , and referred to a recent geological report which had been submitted to Council indicating all underlying alluvial material in Redwood City to be the same except for hillside , and questioned reference to Code amendments as to special building requirements being necessary , It was suggested that the Code amendments be referred to Council ' s Ordinance Committee for review , to see if all of City should be updated as to certain special requirements such as point at issue on water heaters and shutoff to gas lines , or refer this latter point to Franchise Committee for discussion with the PGE . tes11 .69