$90-million Library Investment at Risk? It's Hayward's Fault

On tonight's City Council Consent Agenda is a resolution to award a construction contract for a new library and park plaza.

According to the subject staff report, the cost for the project will be about $65.7-million.

But, let's be honest, that's not really the total amount. What the report neglects to mention is the cost of the required financing. That amount has to be inferred from another source.

Architectural rendering of Hayward's proposed new library--the front entrance at C Street. 

.

A July staff report on financing authorization identifies the need to borrow $53-million for the project. This amount is to be paid back over a period of 20-years at an interest rate of as much as 4-percent. This will result in an overall finance charge of nearly $25-million and an overall project cost of about $90-million.

Allow me to state the obvious: $90-million is a tremendous amount of money. It's equivalent to $600 for every man, woman and child living in Hayward ($90,000,000 ÷ 150,000).

But the expenditure isn't just massive, it's risky as well.

In response to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. It includes eight appendices of investigative reports that collectively total over 1,300-pages of information including such things as tree health, noise levels, and historical resource quality. Yet it doesn't include a single page of what is perhaps the most important document of all, the site's geotechnical study. Why is that?

Planned library location (red square) within a regulatory
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (yellow) and ad-
jacent to known fault creep (C) traces of the Hayward
Fault.        Map Image from CA Dept. of Conservation.

Being that the site is located within a regulated earthquake fault zone, shouldn't the public (and perhaps those who actually authorize the project) know the full extent by which the site's seismic risk was investigated?

More specifically, how does it demon-strate, as required by California's Alquist-Priolo Act and City policy, that the proposed structure won't be built across an active fault? 

There doesn't appear to be any surface disturbance at the project site that is large enough to suggest that a proper trenching study had been performed. In fact, the text of the Neg Dec indicates that only cone penetrometer testing (CPT) was conducted.

If this is true, it's woefully insufficient. For a project of this type, size, and cost, considerably more ought to be done. Guidelines for evaluating the hazard of surface fault rupture published by the California Geological Survey (CGS) state that trenching needs to be conducted in conjunction with other methods. It also states that CPT must be done in conjunction with continuously logged borings. Nothing in the Neg Dec indicates that this has occurred.

It's widely known that a creep trace of the Hayward Fault is located no farther from the building site than the proposed building is wide. This separation is apparently sufficient for some to presume that the Hayward Fault represents a less than significant impact to the safety of the site. But seismologists at both CGS and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have told me that a known creep trace is not a definitive indicator as to where a significant surface displacement might occur during a major seismic event.

A trenching study at Tyson's Lagoon in Fremont, for example, has revealed that adjacent to a known creep trace is another active trace of the Hayward Fault that appears to only move during major events. Additionally, Jim Lienkaemper of USGS has told me that many trenches in the wider Hayward Fault zone have revealed second and third order fault traces away from the main creeping trace that are active and in most cases are believed to have moved in a seismic rupture.

These numerous inconspicuous possibilities for lateral shift across a wide swath of a fault is the reason that the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are as wide as they are and why appropriate investigations are required.

Not withstanding the potential physical danger posed by not properly investigating a site, the failure to demonstrate proper compliance with the Act exposes the City to enormous financial liability for possible negligence.

One section of the Alquist-Priolo Act effectively strips away the "act of God" defense by stipulating that a city that does not comply with specific provisions of the Act "may be liable for earthquake-related injuries or deaths caused by its failure to so adhere."

I've previously heard project proponents brush aside concerns over any seismic risk. They've confidently stated that the proposed library will be a robust steel structure built to modern building code standards.

Design professionals and city officials shouldn't have to be reminded that our modern building code doesn't guarantee anything. It merely defines minimum building standards in an effort to reasonably protect public health, safety, and general welfare. In a worst case scenario, the hope is that today's minimum standards are sufficiently adequate to provide occupants enough time to escape a structure before it might ultimately suffer catastrophic failure.

As demonstrated by past deadly failures constructed to standards that were considered modern for their time, success is not guaranteed. Our knowledge and, consequently, our regulations are constantly evolving.

Case in point, a UC Berkeley study published earlier this year revealed a newly discovered connection between the Hayward Fault and the Calaveras Fault. This connection supposedly increases the amount of energy that could potentially be released during a major event by more than 2½-times that which had previously been thought possible. Will future building standards for this very project site be revised to consider greater local ground accelerations based on the new findings? Probably.

But regardless of regulations, be they modern or not, no building, steel or otherwise, can withstand a massive lateral shift of the earth directly beneath its foundation. During a major seismic event, it's believed that the Hayward Fault has the potential of shifting 4-feet or more. Any building walls straddling such a rupture will most definitely yield.

PG&E map (click to visit the interactive web page). The blue lines indicate
the location of high-pressure gas transmission pipelines. The red pin
indicates the proposed location of the new library, and the red lines indicate
known creep traces of the Hayward Fault (both added by this blog).

There's also a potential-ly exacerbating issue not even mentioned in the Neg Dec. 

Just a few steps from what will be the new library's front door lies a PG&E, high-pressure, gas transmission pipe-line -- the kind that exploded 20-miles to the west in San Bruno in 2010.

As can be seen on the inset PG&E map, this high-pressure gas line crosses the Fault Zone perpendicularly at C Street.

It really won't matter where the ground surface actually ruptures in a major event, at a previously identified fault trace or somewhere adjacent, the shearing of this and other pipelines will be a virtual certainty. (Just last month, the East Bay Municipal Utility District reported nine water pipes broke throughout its service area following a minor quake on the Hayward Fault.)

PG&E believes it has addressed the threat posed by fault crossings with the installation of automatic shut-off valves. However, not being able to find any detail as to the actual extent of its efforts, I remain dubious. And apparently, I'm not alone. The Public Utilities Commission has also indicated a lack of confidence in PG&E's safety policies and practices by announcing last month its consideration of an investigative review.

Don't forget that the principle cause of San Francisco's citywide destruction in 1906 was not due to the shaking earth, but to the relentless fires that ensued--which were abundantly fueled by broken gas lines.

.

Some will suggest that we have nothing to fear. After all, Fire Station No. 1 is only a block away at C Street and Main. Unfortunately, however, that building may be similarly at risk. Like the proposed library, it's located within the earthquake fault zone, across the street from an identified fault trace, and immediately adjacent to the PG&E gas transmission line.

Hayward PD Substation.  Main St at its front, fault trace at its rear.

And if that doesn't suggest a cavalier attitude toward the city's namesake fault, then consider that across from the fire station is the local police substation. It's located in an old masonry structure (constructed in 1927) whose rear wall sits inches from a mapped fault trace, and it too is immediately adjacent to the high-pressure gas transmission line. Clearly, if the City considers a site like this suitable for its public safety personnel, then nothing must be off limits for other civic buildings.

This then begs the question: hasn't anything been learned from history?

Hayward has a rather unfortunate legacy with regard to its public buildings.

The city's first permanent library, the Carnegie Library, was located just over a thousand feet from the proposed project site. It was substantially damaged during the historic 1906 earthquake.

The abandoned City Hall on Mission Blvd, which sits kitty-corner to the proposed project site, was constructed directly atop one of the creep fault traces. It's now slowly being ripped in half.

The city's widely admired Union High School was torn down and the site abandoned because it was considered too seismically hazardous. But then the City Center complex was erected at the very same spot only to be rendered useless by the 1989 Loma Prieta quake.

Two years ago Cal State's iconic Warren Hall was imploded because it was considered the most seismically unsafe building in the entire state university system. (The Hayward Fault lies at the base of the hill upon which Warren Hall was perched.)

How is it that one city can have such an infamous record?

It's partly out of stupidity and partly out of pride, but mostly it's due to simple ignorance. Decision makers generally didn't know any better. The fact is the Hayward Fault wasn't mapped, nor a regulatory fault zone established, until after most of these structures were constructed.

Today, however, we know better.

Therefore, it has to be asked. If in the future this incredibly expensive project becomes prematurely unusable simply because of its risky location (like the fiasco of LA's Learning Center Complex) then what's going to be our excuse?

Proverbs 16:18

Measure C & the Proposed Library - a pre-election update

Campaign Contributions Supporting Measure C

Earlier this past week I was urged to visit City Hall to examine the campaign disclosure statements that were filed by the political action committee supporting Measure C.  I didn't expect them to be all that interesting, but I made the effort anyway. As it turns out, they are rather intriguing.

As of May 22nd, the PAC took in a reported total of $62,450.

The first interesting contribution is that made by the City Manager, Fran David. It would appear that she really wants to see this measure approved. Not even being a Hayward resident, she contributed $2,500. This is more than the contribution made by the Mayor and all of the City Council members combined. In fact, her contribution is more than that of any other individual except one. That honor goes to our district Assemblymember Bill Quirk, who's currently running for re-election.

Mr. Quirk contributed a whopping $7,500. Apparently public service in the State Assembly makes one wealthy and philanthropic. Or perhaps the money is otherwise a quid pro quo payback of the funds previously provided to the Assemblyman's campaign by local unions (as documented in other campaign disclosure statements). 

Direct contributions by labor unions to Measure C are less than I had otherwise expected. So far the total contribution is $9,200 with Hayward Firefighters Local 1909 and Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 providing the bulk of the funding at $5,000 and $3,000, respectively.

Now here's where things get really interesting. The next largest contribution is by the architectural firm Noll & Tam. This is the firm that has been working with the City on the proposed new library since 2007. It currently has an active $3-million contract with the City to complete the library's final design. The firm initially contributed $5,000 to the campaign. But within a week of my posting "Hayward's Proposed New Library - A Costly Mistake," the firm tripled its contribution, bringing its total to $15,000. Now I'm not an authority on campaign financing, so I'm guessing this is legal. But it sure does smack of impropriety to me. This is because the contract includes a contingency pay item that's authorized at the discretion of city staff for issues not previously identified. Seeing how eager our city staff is to have Measure C pass (as evident by the City Manager's generous contribution as well as contributions made by a couple of other executive employees), one has to wonder if the firm will be recouping its contribution through exaggerated contingency claims, contract amendments, or deliverables that would not otherwise meet expectations. An independent audit would be prudent.

Finally, the largest contributor, providing $20,000 so far, is the Friends of the Hayward Public Library. This is particularly surprising; because as a non-profit organization, it is discouraged from political lobbying. In fact, the IRS imposes severe penalties, including revocation of non-profit status, on an organization that spends more than 20-percent of its expenditures on campaigning. This means that the friends group must spend $80,000 (and advisably more) on other endeavors this year. Spending a minimum of $100,000 in one year is a tremendous amount for the group considering that it only takes in about $25,000 annually.

Library Commissioner Criticizes Council over Measure C

At this past week’s City Council meeting, Library Commissioner Kelly Greenne laid into the Council for allowing a long sought library funding measure to evolve into a costly, unrestricted general fund, sales tax referendum. She fears that if approved in this form, the money can be spent any which way, potentially resulting in an undesirable project or possibly none at all. She also called for a public accounting of the $10M in library funding promised by Calpine.

SF Chronicle Highlights Proposed Library Project

In case you missed it, earlier this month the San Francisco Chronicle published an article highlighting the City's proposed library project. The article reveals just how delusional city leaders are in their belief that a new library will be Hayward's salvation. They claim it will have "a huge impact" on economic development by attracting over one million visitors to the downtown each year. They seem to be under the illusion that they're planning the next Disneyland.  The photos in the article are equally revealing. Advocates for a new library trumpet the need for space, yet photos 1 and 4 show that the existing shelving space is significantly underutilized. And why would Hayward citizens want to invest $90-million in a new library when the City is unable or unwilling to maintain it's existing from such things as a window leak as shown in photo 5? Voters ought to take note that it's this kind of deterioration from neglected maintenance that's used as justification for promoting replacement of many of the older City facilities.

Pursuing Library Partnerships

On a more positive note, at the last City Council meeting the Library Director informed the Council of the department’s new goal for FY 2015: expand the library's reach by partnering with local schools. Yep, it looks like we're starting to talk some good sense. Perhaps my arguments aren't falling on deaf ears after all. Whatever way it has come about, let’s hope the endeavor proves fruitful.

Hayward's Proposed New Library - a Costly Mistake

To make its sales tax measure as enticing as possible, the City has made numerous promises. The most expensive of which by far is the promise of a new library. Consequently, if you haven't made up your mind on Measure C (or even if you have), you should be asking yourself, "is this proposed new library really such a good idea?"

I say no; it isn't.

It's not that I dislike libraries or believe nothing should be done to improve our existing library situation. It's just that the proposal before us is ridiculously exorbitant and a big mistake. We really have to strike a better balance between the reality of the digital information age and what we already have available to us, all the while continuing to live within our means.

Presently, the City is proposing to construct a three-story, 55,000-sq-ft library at a cost of $60-million which equates to $1,100 per sq-ft. This would be the most expensive new library endeavor in the Bay Area since the monumental collaboration 12-years ago between San Jose State and the City of San Jose.

The information in the chart above was compiled and presented to the Hayward City Council on March 4, 2014 by library supporter Cheryl Penick.


In addition to the $60-million construction cost, the City would incur a $30-million financing charge (inferred from the City's staff report on Measure C, a snippet of which is shown below).

So when all is said and done, this single building will actually have cost us $90-million. That's $600 for every man, woman, and child living in Hayward today.

The image above is a snippet from the project/services table presented in the March 4, 2014 city staff report on Measure C. The text in red is an annotation by this blog author to show the derivation of the otherwise undisclosed $90M total cost.

Architect's rendering of the proposed library's interior showing patrons wandering around a vast open space. Admittedly pretty to look at, but at an ultimate cost of $90-million one has to doubt if this is at all practical, necessary, or worthwhile.


For 90-million dollars, we're supposed to get 50-percent more shelving space than the existing main library according to city staff. But what exactly is going to go on all this shelving? After-all this is supposed to be a "21st Century Library of the Future," and only an ostrich with its head in the sand can't see that the future is all digital.

Printed books are going the way of the retailers that once sold them--Crown Books, Waldenbooks, Borders Books--all gone. But if you're the ostrich who thinks this isn't going to happen, then invest in Barnes & Nobles. They're currently having a great sale on their stock.

The same can be said for all physical forms of audio and visual media. Say good-bye to CDs and DVDs just as you have to Tower Records and Blockbuster Video.

The fact is, the future has arrived. It's digital, and it doesn't require shelving--not in a store and not in a library.

The problem here is that the City's proposal is based on the wishes of library enthusiasts that were gathered in the latter half of 2007--2½-years before the release of the first iPad. The world of information exchange has changed a lot in seven years. High speed Internet and cheap digital storage memory have become ubiquitous. Today people can access more current information than any library could possibly hold right from the device they carry in the palm of their hand. Odds are you're doing so right this very minute.

Supporters of the proposed library argue that besides more shelving space, the new library is needed for more meeting space. This is nonsense; we already have all we need. We already have invested millions toward the new construction and refurbishment of some really great spaces all throughout our community. We just need to make better use of them.

Not more than a 5-minute walk from the existing main library is our $35-million City Hall. For public meetings (and even private functions) it has a beautiful rotunda, auditorium, and a large, easily accessible meeting room above the lobby. The City Hall also has a vast unused corridor that could be re-purposed as a public Internet cafe if the number of terminals in the existing library are deemed insufficient for the demand.

Existing public meeting spaces in Hayward's City Hall include the rotunda (left), the city council auditorium (right), and Room 2 (not shown) above the lobby.

An unused, off-limits, wasted space corridor in our existing City Hall. Its 100-ft length and generous width could accommodate at least 50 public Internet terminals that could be watched over by the existing lobby receptionist/security-guard.


Additionally, in 2008 voters approved Measure I which authorized $205-million in improvements to our local schools, including: MLK Middle School, Schafer Park Elementary, and Tyrell Elementary. All of these schools serve as excellent locations for meeting and tutoring; after-all that's their principle function. Another great facility is Burbank Elementary School where my neighborhood group meets on a regular basis. In addition to these and other schools, we also have the HARD community centers. Or how about the facilities of other public entities like the Flood Control District offices where the most recent candidates forum took place? The fact of the matter is, we have many decent places to conveniently gather and meet if only we make the effort to arrange for it.

Still not convinced that this proposal is a mistake? Then consider the wisdom of further perpetuating the existing seismic hazard by building a three-story, public assembly building filled with thousands of unrestrained projectiles across the street from "America's most dangerous fault." It sure seems like a mistake to me.

USGS map of Hayward Fault traces and their proximity to the proposed library site.


So, what do we do if not move forward with the City's proposal?

We should work with what we have, just as any sensible Hayward resident or business would do.

We've got an existing library that needs upgrades and renovation, and we have a $10-million "gift" from the Calpine Corporation (at least we did before the City started spending it on Measure C consultants). If we can't accomplish the necessary upgrades and renovation for $10-million, then we're doing something wrong.

But if utilizing what we have is too modest of an approach for the big spenders in the community who just can't do without a dedicated, glistening new building, then at least let's consider collaboration--let's share the cost. We could follow in the footsteps of Albany, Dublin, Fremont, Newark and Union City and join the Alameda County Library system. Or perhaps we could collaborate with the university like San Jose did, or partner with Chabot College or the Hayward Unified School District.

The fact is we can do a lot with what we have and with the partnerships we could form. We do not need a $90-million library, and we definitely don't need to be burdened with more unnecessary taxes.

Vote No on Measure C.