HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2012 ss2 urm update reoprt•counci lAagenda aEpout
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Prepared By :Tim Girvin, Chief Building Officia l
SUBJECT :UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM STATU S
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIO N
Receive and file report regarding status of Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation (URM )
Program .
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report presents an update on the status of the buildings subject to the URM Ordinanc e
requirements . It reviews the URM Program progress, overall success, specific progress within eac h
deadline group and provides a review of the penalties for non-compliance . Although 100 %
compliance was not achieved by July 1, 2012 significant progress has been made by buildin g
owners who have moved forward with strengthening projects, the majority of whom have als o
•included upgraded exteriors, interiors and fire sprinklers in the downtown Commercial Fire Zone .
Since the beginning of the program, the program has resulted in the retrofit of 112 buildings an d
two others have been partially strengthened, three are under construction and two await City
approvals for changes requiring Planning approvals .
DISCUSSIO N
Backgroun d
In 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first seismic retrofit ordinance . This ordinanc e
required seismic strengthening by 2017 of the 126 buildings identified on the "Inventory o f
Hazardous Buildings ." To craft this ordinance, the City worked in conjunction with th e
Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force, a committee comprised of building owners ,
business owners, and engineers formed in 1989 to work with the City to craft the rules an d
regulations governing seismic strengthening in the City of San Luis Obispo .
In 2004, the City adopted changes to the URM Ordinance in response to the destruction an d
deaths in Paso Robles resulting from the December 2003 San Simeon earthquake (Attachmen t
1). The 2004 URM Ordinance established earlier deadlines for seismic strengthening ,
accelerating the deadline from 2017 to 2010, while recognizing the operational needs of buildin g
owners . The Ordinance allowed the improvements to be completed in two stages at th e
discretion of the building owner until July 1, 2007 : "Level A", a partial retrofit consisting o f
specific connections and parapet bracing ; and "Level B", the completion of full strengthening .
•If Level A was completed by July 1, 2007, the Level B deadline was extended from July 1, 201 0
to July 1, 2012 .
Meeting Dat e
November 7, 201 2
qem N.6ee
SS2
SS2-1
Status Report : URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 2
•The 2004 URM Ordinance also required owners to obtain necessary planning approvals and a
construction permit for retrofit projects by January 2006 . These permits were issued for mos t
inventoried buildings and, unlike conventional permits that expire after one year, thes e
strengthening permits remain "open" until the work is accomplished or the applicable completio n
deadline passes . Fees for the strengthening permit, including entitlements and additiona l
upgrades, were established at a significantly reduced rate . By requiring owners to obtain a
construction permit early in the process, the Council sought to eliminate procedural obstacle s
that could slow down an owner's ability to proceed with the strengthening . As a result, al l
building owners possess valid permits to complete seismic strengthening .
2007 Action
In 2007, in accordance with Ordinance provisions, the Council assigned Level B completio n
deadlines to each of the remaining 66 unreinforced buildings . To this end, the Chamber o f
Commerce Seismic Task Force developed a hazard rating system which was used by the Counci l
in conjunction with other practical information for assigning deadlines . These deadlines becam e
effective on July 1, 2007 . Building completion assignments ranged from July 1, 2008, th e
earliest deadline group, to July 1, 2010, the latest deadline group .
2009 Actio n
During the annual update in 2009, the Council responded to the severe economic downturn o f
late 2008 and directed staff to allow building owners with a seismic strengthening deadline o f
July 1, 2009 to request an additional year to retrofit . Staff entered into Extension Agreement s
with ten building owners for an additional year to complete the retrofit . All Extension
Agreements included requirements such as education/posting information in the workplace abou t
what to do in the event of an earthquake and indemnification of the City in the case of damage o r
injury resulting from the hazard .
2010 Actio n
Due in part to the seismic retrofit requirements, three big projects have come forward fo r
permitting in the Downtown since adoption of the earlier strengthening deadlines in 2004 . Thes e
three projects, 1) Chinatown, 2) Garden Street Terraces and the 3) Naman Project includ e
buildings on the Inventory of Hazardous Buildings . Due to the importance of these projects t o
the economic health of the community, on February 16, 2010, Council directed suspension of th e
retrofit deadlines for a period of five years for URM buildings in these three big projects . Thi s
action was requested by the Chamber of Commerce following careful consideration by th e
Seismic Task Force . Deadlines for the three projects were conditionally suspended pending
execution of Agreements to assure compliance, provide- greater information for safety in th e
event of an earthquake, and indemnifying the City . Since that time, all three projects entere d
into agreements with the following provisions :
-
•Complete hazard mitigation by July 1, 2015 .
•Education of occupants of the building about what to do in the event of an earthquake .
•Annual inspections with City Fire Marshall and Building Official .
•That the projects demonstrate continuing progress in the permitting process .
•Indemnification of the City in the event of earthquake damage .
•
•
SS2-2
Status Report :URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 3
The Naman Project is required to meet additional interim compliance deadlines to assure hazar d
mitigation is not delayed due to the permitting process . The Naman Project is a special cas e
because the owner was allowed to bond for retrofit plans in 2006, rather than submit plans an d
for permit issuance, due to the then-active status of a Planning Application for a developmen t
project wrapping the northwest corner of Higuera at Chorro . That plan did not come to fruition .
Instead, during the intervening years several of the buildings in the original development pla n
were strengthened and given attractive facelifts, and a new development plan was proposed a t
the time of Council consideration in early 2010 . Subsequently, a permit for seismi c
strengthening have been submitted for review and approval and simultaneously the plannin g
department has reviewed and approved a facade renovation for 1035 - 1039 Chorro which i s
intended to restore the historic appearance .
Additionally, the Springfield Baptist Church, located at 2747 Broad Street was granted a n
extension until July 1, 2015 . The Church also entered into an agreement with the City whic h
requires :
•Hazard mitigation by July 1, 2015 .
•Education of occupants of the building about what to do in the event of an earthquake .
•Continued effort to either sell the building or raise money to strengthen it .
•Indemnification of the City in the event of earthquake damage :
•Favorable Fee s
Action by the Council in 2010 included amendments to the favorable fees for building an d
planning permits that were adopted by Council with the 2004 Ordinance . These reduced fee s
apply to all improvements done in conjunction with the seismic strengthening of a buildin g
including tenant improvements, disabled access upgrades, facade changes and electrical o r
plumbing system upgrades as well as the planning application fees . The fee reductions do no t
apply to demolitions, or to non-building or planning permits such as encroachment permits . Th e
City's contribution towards completion of State required seismic strengthening projects vi a
reduced fees has been estimated to exceed one million dollars thus far . It is estimated that, o n
average, actual permit costs would be $10,000 per retrofit whereas qualifying UR M
strengthening projects pay $80 . Notably, the large development projects in the Downtown d o
not qualify for the reduced fees .
Reduced fees have definitely contributed to the success of the Seismic Program . However, in
2010 Council contemplated ending the favorable fees as part of the toolkit to spur action on th e
part of owners that fail to make progress toward addressing the seismic hazard . By adoptin g
Resolution 10171 (2010 Series), Council acted to allow the fee reductions to expire when th e
seismic retrofit permit expires . Council has agreed to honor progress which includes a n
application for planning review and approval . So, a permit will not be subject to expiration
unless progress to abate the nuisance ceases, which is determined by the Communit y
Development Director . When inaction on the part of an owner of a URM building causes th e
•permit to expire, a new permit will be required —at the normal fees for planning and buildin g
applications . With only 15 retrofit projects remaining, staff will continue to work as closely a s
possible with individual building owners to encourage the strengthening work to begin in a
timely fashion . However, concurrent loss of the favorable fees can be a powerful motivator fo r
the few owners who fail to take action .
•
SS2-3
Status Report : URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 4
•Overall Progres s
At the inception of the seismic retrofit program, City staff identified 126 potentially hazardous
buildings . As of October 2012, only 14 buildings remain incomplete, three of which have bee n
partially retrofitted as shown in Attachment 2 (URM Hazard Mitigation Summary dated Octobe r
2012 .) This represents an 89 percent compliance level up from 82 percent a year and a half ago .
On July 1, 2012, the ultimate Level B deadline set by the 2004 URM Ordinance arrived .
Although 100% compliance was not achieved nor expected by the July 1, 2012 deadline ,
significant progress has been made by building owners who have moved forward wit h
strengthening projects, the majority of whom have also included upgraded exteriors, interiors an d
fire sprinklers in the downtown Commercial Fire Zone .
In addition to the deadlines for strengthening, Council tied installation of fire sprinklers i n
buildings within the Commercial Fire Zone to the seismic deadlines . Greater emphasis o n
assuring compliance with the sprinkler deadlines alongside the seismic strengthening deadline s
has resulted in sprinkler installation with all current strengthening projects . The majority o f
sprinkler installations are slated to be complete as tenants move back into the strengthene d
buildings with sprinkler deadlines matching seismic deadlines for all buildings granted mor e
time . Although sprinkler installation adds a significant cost to the strengthening projects, thi s
work has continued to be included in the current work to upgrade buildings on the inventory .
The approach that favors progress over penalties has allowed building owners to get credit fo r
making good faith efforts to begin their retrofit, even if they are pushing the deadline . This ha s
resulted in many projects going forward rather than being mired in penalties that do nothing t o
actually enhance public safety . It is important to acknowledge that the Fire Department has als o
supported projects that are moving forward and have aligned installation of fire sprinklers wit h
the seismic strengthening processes .
Ultimately, many thanks go to the building owners' diligent efforts to comply with the seismi c
deadlines . Indeed, the unique combination of low fees, a high degree of outreach by the City t o
building owners, streamlined permitting, the support of the Seismic Task Force and an approac h
that favored progress over penalties have added up to a substantially safer downtown and a
significantly upgraded building stock .
Progress by Deadline Grou p
Progress within each group continues to be good, despite the ongoing economic challenges face d
by building owners . The following describes progress by deadline group .
1 .July 1, 2008 Deadline Group .
Thirteen buildings were originally assigned a completion deadline of July 1, 2008 . At this time ,
all but one of these buildings have been completely strengthened . The building listed as 100 9
Monterey has been worked on extensively since before its 2008 deadline . This retrofit has bee n
one of the most challenging from a structural standpoint . Currently, completion of the retrofi t
requirements is on hold pending planning review of the proposed Imax Theatre . If approved, the
strengthening of 1009 Monterey will be an integral part of the new construction with a hig h
degree of public safety to result .
•
•
SS2-4
Status Report : URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 5
•2 .July 1, 2009 Deadline Group — All 24 complet e
All buildings have been completely strengthened .
3.July 1, 2010 Extension Group — All 17 complet e
This group made very good progress initially with only two buildings that lingered . Al l
strengthening work in now complete for the buildings in this deadline group with spectacula r
results at the Granada Hotel and 1130 Garden street .
4.July 1, 2012 Deadlin e
All buildings in this deadline group have been retrofitted to Level A and are making progress .
One is under construction with work proceeding to the satisfaction of the Chief Buildin g
Official, 742 Marsh . The remaining two buildings within this deadline are seeking required Cit y
approvals prior to moving ahead with the seismic strengthening . These buildings are the Cariss a
Building,736 Higuera, proposed location for SLO Brewing Company and 796 Higuera, th e
current home of the Chamber of Commerce where completion of strengthening must be done in
conjunction with the properties on the Chorro frontage that are subject to the July 201 5
deadlines .
Monterey, the Blackstone Building and 848 Monterey, the Historic Sauer Bakery Buildin g
both of which are being preserved as part of the Chinatown project . 868 Monterey, the
Muzio's Building has completed strengthening work, however other construction and tenan t
improvement work remains . Both the Bello Building at 886 Monterey and the Yun g
buildings located at 861 Palm Street are programmed to be demolished as part of th e
Chinatown approvals . The Yung Building was recently demolished in conjunction with a
phased improvement plan which modifies the parking lot in preparation for further
improvements on the Monterey Street frontage . The Bello building will be removed whe n
construction begins on the Monterey frontage part of the project in the next couple of years .
2.Garden Street Terraces project includes five URM buildings . Recently, evidence of som e
seismic strengthening was discovered during a tenant improvement of 1119 Garden Street ,
the existing location of the SLO Brewing Company, and other structural enhancements wer e
accomplished in conjunction with that tenant improvement . Remaining work on thi s
building, and the other URM buildings located on 1100 block of Garden Street is due by Jul y
1, 2015 .
3.The Naman Project includes two URM buildings where several small shops are currentl y
located adjacent to and including the Chamber of Commerce Visitor's Center . There is no w
an approved strengthening permit and a Planning application is under review to help direc t
facade improvements .
• 4 . The Springfield Baptist Church is in conformance with the agreement which indicates th e
owner should seek opportunities which would facilitate abatement of the hazard . The
property is for sale and several prospective buyers have met with City staff to determine th e
development potential for the site .
5 .July 1, 2015 Deadline Group
This deadline group consists entirely of the URM buildings that are part of the three larg e
downtown development projects, as follows . Progress continues on all projects .
•
1 . Chinatown Project includes four URM buildings with strengthening work occurring at 84 0
SS2-5 -
Status Report : URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 6
Failure to Comply – Penaltie s
As with all imposed deadlines, penalties may be necessary to motivate action . Due to th e
strategic application of leniency and the willingness of owners to comply, the City has not had t o
employ measures beyond an initial notice of violation which has been a productive tool wit h
some members of the 2009 and 2010 deadline groups .
However, if these measures fail to produce action, there are several enforcement mechanism s
available pursuant to the Municipal Code . Decisions regarding which to use are made by th e
Chief Building Official, following consultation with the City Attorney's Office .
1.Fine s
Violations may be treated as infractions, which are similar to traffic tickets, with a first time fin e
of up to $100, a second violation in one year of up to $200, and a third violation in one year up t o
$500 . Each separate day a violation exists may be charged as an additional violation, thus a third
violation in one year can come about quickly . Infractions are administered through the courts ,
and the courts impose additional fees upon violators of approximately $200 on top of th e
infraction fine amounts .
2.Administrative Citation s
The City also has an administrative code enforcement process . Administrative Citations involve
the levying of administrative fines of $100 to $500 per day for each day of violation . Th e
collection of administrative fines owed by violators is processed via the City's standar d
collection practice . If City staff efforts to collect are unsuccessful, accounts are turned over to a n
outside collection agency, which will adversely affect a recalcitrant violator's credit rating .
Violations may also be treated as misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of not more than on e
thousand dollars (plus court imposed fees of several hundred dollars) or by imprisonment in th e
county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or both . Violations may also be addresse d
through civil penalties of up to $250 per day with each day a violation continues treated as a
separate violation. Collection of civil penalties entails the filing of a lawsuit in Superior Court .
3.Injunctive Relie f
In the rare instance that the aforementioned penalties fail to motivate action, violations ma y
necessitate seeking injunctive relief, such as ordering a building vacated, posted for non-entry ,
fenced, secured and otherwise protected at the property owner's expense . Requests for
injunctions are filed with the Superior Court . In some (rare) circumstances, a court could orde r
demolition of a structure .
Each of the above approaches has its pros and cons . All involve utilization of considerable staf f
resources .
Next Step s
The on-going work with owners of URM buildings includes oversight by the Building Divisio n
to insure compliance with plans for construction and oversight of progress on buildings not ye t
started but subject to agreements with the City .
SS2-6
Status Report : URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 7
•
•
•
CONCURRENCE S
The Community Development Department and Fire Department endorse flexibility in th e
deadline for those owners making progress toward completion of their strengthening projects .
The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force remains engaged in the process with periodi c
outreach from City staff in this regard .
FISCAL IMPAC T
Staff projects continuing but minimal fiscal impacts to the City budget resulting from th e
remaining buildings qualifying for favorable fees that may amount to approximately $140,00 0
over the next four years . The potential fiscal impacts result from the fee reductions allowed on
tenant improvement upgrades that are typically done in conjunction with seismic strengthening .
Fee reductions apply to a small number of the remaining URM projects .
Continued fiscal impacts to the building owners and economic benefits derived from thei r
investments are not quantifiable within the scope of this report . What is certain, however, is tha t
this impact will be far less than the impact the City will experience if a severe earthquake strike s
and our buildings are not sufficiently strengthened . This issue is ultimately about life safety an d
protecting the citizens of the community .
CONCLUSIO N
The shorter deadlines adopted by Council in 2007 combined with the 2003 San Simeo n
Earthquake served to renew public interest and private action in the URM Program . With th e
work now largely focused on the eleven buildings in the three large development projects, th e
City can take a more individualized approach to securing compliance . The goal, therefore, is t o
continue to build on the actions that have reaped success in the past while taking into account th e
economic realities facing the City's important development partners .
The economic realities of today will continue to challenge building owners and the community's
resolve . To accomplish the goal within the foreseeable future, difficult decisions will continue t o
be needed along with flexibility and the ability to work with the City's "community partners" t o
achieve success for everyone .
ATTACHMENT S
1.Ordinance No . 1453 (2004 URM Ordinance )
2.URM Hazard Mitigation Summary dated October 201 2
T :\Council Agenda Reports/2012/11/1/2012/URM Update 10_12
SS2-7
Attachment 1 a
ORDINANCE NO . 1453 (2004 Series )
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTERS 15 .04 AND 15 .08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR STRENGTHENING
UNIRED4FORCED MASONRY BUILDING S
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo contains 100 buildings of unreinforced masonr y
construction, determined to be "potentially hazardous" during a seismic event ; that have not bee n
adequately strengthened, and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo is situated near three major earthquake fault s
each capable of generating earthquakes with a magnitude of 7 .5, and is therefore particularl y
vulnerable to devastation should such an earthquake occur ; and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo is located in Seismic Zone 4 and is subject to th e
provisions of Chapter 12 .2, Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and specifically Sectio n
8875 which requires that the City establish a mitigation program to substantially reduce the hazard s
associated with unreinforced masonry buildings ; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo t o
provide citizens with the greatest degree of life safety involving buildings of unreinforced masonry
construction in the most effective manner .
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San this Obisp o
as follows:
SECTION 1 . Section 15 .04 .050 of Chapter 15 .04 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obisp o
Municipal Code is hereby modified as follows .
A.Amend Section A105 to delete previously added Section A105 .4 and retai n
Section A105.4 as written in the Uniform Code for Building Conservation .
B.Amend Section A115 .1 to read as follows :
A115 .1 Compliance Requirements .
A115 .1 .1 Strengthening Deadlines .The owner of a building within the scope o f
this chapter shall structurally alter the building to conform to Level B
Strengthening by July 1, 2010 or when one of the following occurs :
0 1453
SS2-8
Ordinance No . 1453 (2004 Series)
Attachment 1
•
Page 2
•
1.The value of additions, alterations, and/or maintenance repair s
requiring a building permit, cumulative from March 4, 1992, exceeds 50
percent of the replacement cost of the building established by the Buildin g
Official per Section 304 .2 of the Uniform Administrative Code, whic h
may include a certified appraisal report . The cumulative value o f
alterations and maintenance repairs need not include reroofing, Level A
Strengthening, and installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system .
EXCEPTION : Buildings containing more than one tenant space
if the floor area of altered tenant spaces, cumulative from March 4 ,
1992, does not exceed 50 percent of the total . floor area of the
building .
2.The use of the building changes to a different division of the same
occupancy group or to a different occupancy group .
EXCEPTIONS : 1 .. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section .
3405 of the Building Code, buildings containing more than on e
occupancy classification need not be strengthened if the total floo r
area for changes in use, cumulative from March 4, 1992, does no t
exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the building .
2. Occupancy classification changes to Groups F, M, S and U
from an equivalent category as defined in the previous editions o f
this code .
3.An occupancy classification change to a Group R, Division 1
Occupancy with not more than five dwelling units.
4.An occupancy classification change to a Group S Occupancy
used exclusively as a warehouse with no human habitation .
3 . If Level A strengthening work is completed by July 1, 2007 ,
completion of the remaining work to satisfy Level B. strengthenin g
requirements may be delayed until July 1, 2012 . If Level A work is no t
completed by July 1, 2007, the City Council will set a Level B completio n
deadline for each building on the basis of relative hazard, but not later tha n
July 1, 2010 .
EXCEPTION :The Building Official, on a case-by-case basis ,
may approve an alternate strengthening plan deemed equivalent t o
Level A strengthening if :
1 . A greater than 50 percent reduction in the unreinforce d
masonry hazard for the building is accomplished by July 1 ,
2007 ; and,
SS2-9
Attachment 1 4Ordinance No . 1453 (2004 Series )
Page 3
2.A written agreement includes an acceptable work plan-and
timeline ; and ,
3.The plan completes Level B strengthening by July 1, 2012 .
A115.1 .2 Permits. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shal l
submit a complete application for a building permit to the Building Official to
strengthen the building to Level B requirements .by July 1, 2005 . The buildin g
permit shall be obtained by January 1, 2006, and shall remain valid until required.
Level B. strengthening work :is completed per Section A115 .1 .1 .
EXCEPTION: For seismic strengthening or demolition projects tha t
require approval of a planning application by a City process, the planning
application shall be submitted to the Community Developmen t
Department by July 1, 2005 . The application for building or demolitio n
permit shall be submitted following approval of the planning application ,
and a building or demolition permit shall be obtained by January 1, 2006 .
A115.1 .3 Posting of Sign .The owner of a building within the scope of thi s
chapter shall post, at a conspicuous place near the primary entrances to th e
building, a sign provided by the building official stating "This is an unreinforce d
masonry building . Unreinforced masonry buildings may be unsafe in the event of
a major earthquake". The sign shall be posted within 60 days of receipt by th e
building owner per installation standards established by the building official .
C.Amend Section A115 .3 .3 to read as . follows :
A115 .3 .3 Order .The order shall direct the owner to obtain a building o r
demolition permit as required by this chapter and cause the building to b e
structurally altered to conform to the provisions of this chapter,or cause the
building to be demolished.
D.Amend Section A115 .7 to read as follows :
A115.7 Program Monitoring and Annual Report .During January of eac h
year, the Building Official shall submit a report to the City Council outlining th e
progress to date concerning reduction of the hazards presented by th e
unreinforced masonry building inventory for the City . The report shall include :
1.The number of unreinforced masonry buildings strengthened, demolished, o r
otherwise eliminated from the inventory ;
2.The number of unreinforced masonry buildings remaining on the inventory ,
including the status of orders issued pursuant to this Chapter that are not resolved .
SS2-10
Attachment 1 ~•Ordinance No . 1453 (2004 Series )
Page 4
•
SECTION 2. Section 15.08 .020 of Chapter 15 .08 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby modified as follows:
A .Amend Section of 1003 .2 .2.1 to read as follows :
1003.2.2.1 Existing Buildings in Commercial Fire . Zone.Existing buildings
located in the commercial fire zone shown in Figure 10-A that are provided with
an underground fire sprinkler lateral, shall have an automatic fire sprinkler syste m
installed and operational within 24 months of the approval and acceptance of the
lateral by the City .
EXCEPTIONS . 1 . An automatic fire sprinler system required b y
Section 1003 .22.1 in a building of unreinforced masonry construction
may be delayed until the date established in Section A115 .1,1 of the
Uniform Code for Building Conservation, as amended, for completion of
Level B strengthening .
2 . An automatic fire sprinkler system required by Section 1003 .2.2 .1 in a
building of unreinforced masonry construction strengthened to Level A
standards, as defined in Section A103 of the Uniform Code for Buildin g
Conservation, as amended, prior to October 1, 2004, shall be complete d
and operational by ianuary 1, 2017 .
FIGURE I0-A – COMMERCIAL FIRE ZONE
Attachment 1Ordinance No . 1453 (2004 Series)
Page 5
SECTION 3 . If any provision of this Ordinance is for any mason held to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would hav e
passed each and every remaining provision irrespective of such holding in order to accomplish th e
intent of this ordinance.
SECTION 4 . A synopsis of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the names of Council Members voting for and against, shall be published at least 5 days prior to it s
final passage in the The Tribune;a newspaper published and circulated in this City . This ordinanc e
shall go into effect at the expiration of .30 days after its final passage .
INTRODUCED on the 17 `s day of August, 2004 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 70 day of September 2004„ on the following roll
call vote :
AYES :
Council Members Ewan, Mulholland and Settle, Vice Mayor Schwartz
and Mayor Romero
NOES :
None
ABSENT : None
424eirdenOYAgi t
Mayor David F . Romero
ATTEST :
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
Jo athan .Lowel l
Cit
tomey
SS2-12
•
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMAR Y
10/15/201 2
BUILDINGSINCOMPLIANCE
FULLYSTRENGTHENED—Level B
87.1185 Pacific
88.682 Pal m
89.751 Palm
90.798 Palm
91.800 Pal m
92.150 Pism o
93.298 Pism o
94.1880 Santa Barbar a
95.667 Upham
DEMOLISHED
1.344 Higuera
2.1540 Mars h
3.969 Montere y
4.1039 Monterey
5.1057 Montere y
6.2223 Monterey
7.991 Nipom o
8.861 Palm
9.783 Santa Ros a
EXEMP T
1.2180 Johnson (Sunny Acres )
2.2180 Johnson (Old Adobe )
3.1144 Montere y
4.280 Pism o
REASSESSED —
FOUND TO BE REINFORCE D
1.1708 Beach
2.1318 Chorro
3.1500 Mars h
4.1034 Mil l
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANC E
Total Level B
95
Total Demolished
9
Total Exempt
4
Total Reassessed 4
Total in Compliance 11 2
1.1901 Broa d
2.1121 Broa d
3.1131 Broa d
4.1127 Broa d
5.941 Chorro
6.964 Chorro
7.970 Chorro
8.1117 Chorr o
9.1119 Chorr o
10.1127 Chorro
11.1135 Chorro
12.1141 Chorro
13.1110 Garden
14.1130 Garden
15.220 High
16.295 Higuera
309 Higuera
311 Higuera
19.341 Higuera
20.385 Higuera
21.565 Higuera
22.647 Higuer a
23.659 Higuera
24.669 Higuera
25.699 Higuera
26 ..
673 Higuera
27.686 Higuera
28.698 Higuera
29.705 Higuera
30.710 Higuera
31.715 Higuera
32.717 Higuera
33.718 Higuera
34.719 Higuera
35.726 Higuera
36.728 Higuera
37.733 Higuera
38.740 Higuera
741 Higuer a
~.
745 Higuera
41.760 Higuera
42.777 Higuera
43.778 Higuera
44.
779 Higuera
45.
782 Higuera
46.
790 Higuera
47.
793 Higuera
48.
839 Higuera
49.
842 Higuera
50.
853 Higuera
51.
856 Higuera
52.
858 Higuera
53.
868 Higuer a
54.
876 Higuer a
55.
970 Higuera
56.
1001 Higuera
57.
1011 Higuera
58.
664 Mars h
59.
717 Marsh
60.
742 Marsh
61.
777 Marsh
62.
778 Marsh
63.
951 Marsh
64.
1160 Marsh
65.
696 Monterey
66.
747 Montere y
67.
837 Montere y
68.
849 Montere y
69.
857 Montere y
70.
861 Monterey
71.
868 Monterey
72.
888 Montere y
73.
962 Monterey
74.
968 Montere y
75.
978 Monterey
76.
998 Monterey
77.
879 Mono
78.
955 Morro
79.
1021 Mon o
80.
1116 Mon o
81.
1124 Nipomo
82.
1051 Nipomo
83.
976 Oso s
84.
1050 Osos
85.
1609 Oso s
86.
1804 Osos
SS2-13
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY
10/15/2012 Attachment 2•
BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO DEADLINE S
JULY 1, 2008**11 .
PROGRESS ANALYSI S
1 .
1009 Monterey*Total URM Buildings
12 6
Total in Compliance
(112)
JULY 1, 2011 ***
Total Remaining
14
1Subject to July 1,2008 Deadlin e
1 .
2747 Broad Subject to July 1,2009 Deadline 0
Subject to July 1,2010 Deadline 0
JULY 1,2012 -Subject to July 1,2011 Deadline 0
LEVEL A STRENGTHENED Subject to July 1,2012 Deadline 2
1 .
736 Higuera**Subject to July 1,2015 Deadline 1 1
2 .
796 Higuera**
*Italics = in Constructio n
JULY 1,2015 *****Projects pending planning approval .
1 .1029 Chorro ***Agreements in place for suspension of
2 .1035 Chorro enforcement of deadlines .
3 .1119 Garden
4 .1123 Garden
5 .722 Marsh
6 .728 Marsh •
7 .748 Marsh
8 .840 Monterey *
9 .848 Monterey *
10 .886 Monterey
•
SS2-1 4