Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Brown understood the building was “well below” the current life-safety standard. He wondered if the City would have liability should the City experience an earthquake. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that Mike Penwell, Facilities Division Manager, had information on this. He said the lease had not been drafted, but it would provide that the building was being leased as is and the City would not be held liable. Mr. Brown asked if a school could legally move into a building that was not built to the life-safety standard. Mr. Klein replied that he did not know. He understood that the school intended to make a number of changes to the building so that it could be used for school purposes. Mr. Penwell stated that the school was working with the Permit Information Center to ensure they met all of the requirements. He noted that the building on Pearl Street was better than the one the school was currently housed in. He clarified that the building was not unsafe. He said it was at least as good as much of the downtown building stock, adding that the City had done much to the building including seismic work since the report that Mr. Brown had read had been issued. He explained that seismic work had been done to the roof and to the connections of all of the walls. He noted that wood frame buildings tended to perform better in an earthquake. Mr. Brown said the report he referred to had given the building a seismic rating of 0.7. He asked if staff knew what the current seismic rating was. Mr. Penwell replied that the survey he referred to had been a “windshield survey” and not an actual analysis of the building. He said it was an analysis based on the age of the building and the building type; a detailed seismic analysis of the building in its current state had not been conducted. Mr. Brown commented that those were the figures that had been used to base the decision to move the police facility to the Country Club Road site. Mr. Penwell responded that the City Hall building had undergone detailed seismic analyses done on the actual building structure and a very detailed cost analysis. Mr. Brown reiterated that his concern was in regard to safety, but he did not intend to hold up the project. Ms. Ortiz noted that the school system had “a lot of old buildings” and she did not know their seismic capabilities either. She supported the project and was glad to see it moving ahead. She thought it was a good thing to keep students downtown, especially given that Lane Community College was considering a larger presence in the downtown area. Ms. Taylor believed that the groups the school was considering subleasing to would be moving from one building in the downtown area to another and this was “in a way” a disadvantage. She believed the downtown area needed the other buildings to be occupied as well. Ms. Hammitt responded that the details of the subleasing arrangements were not yet known. Ms. Taylor wondered why the proposal included that only 50 percent of the sublease payments would be conveyed to the City. She asked why the City would not receive a greater percentage. Real Property and Lease Manager, Emmy Jenson, replied that the school wanted to keep 50 percent of the money to help manage the building, including custodial maintenance and regular maintenance. Mayor Piercy understood that the school needed to vacate its current location. She said it was not that the school was being shifted from one place to another; it was that its former location was no longer available. She hoped they could consider this to be an opportunity to work with the school and engage the students there regarding downtown public safety. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 6