Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/1994, 2 - UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM UPDATE MEETING DATE: City Of San LUIS OBISPO - - am M1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I NUMBER: FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director / PREPARED BY. Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official' SUBJECT: Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program Update CAO RECOMMENDATION: Receive report and provide additional direction, as desired. DISCUSSION: This report provides an update on the progress of the City's unreinforced masonry building mitigation program, established by ordinance in 1992. The City's ordinance reflected the City's obligation to protect the safety of its citizens and recognized the economic impacts of such a program. This report describes how the program is progressing and offers a proposal to ensure compliance-with the September 4, 1994 deadline for submission of a structural analyses on all identified unreinforced buildings in the City. It describes what the City is pursuing to offer financial assistance to building owners. Background on the development of the City's URM program The adoption of Ordinance No. 1203 in 1992 established the City's current unreinforced masonry building mitigation program. That ordinance established seismic strengthening standards for buildings of unreinforced masonry (URM) construction and administrative regulations requiring that all URM buildings be structurally analyzed within an 18-month period beginning March 4, 1993. In addition, it required that any URM building subject to major remodel or occupancy change be strengthened to the established standards. This mitigation program was a compromise resulting from almost ten months of discussions between staff and the Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force. There was agreement on the technical standards but not on a comprehensive mandatory implementation schedule. Staff felt that a mandatory strengthening ordinance requiring all URM buildings be strengthened before the year 2000 was the best recommendation because: ■ it was responsive to the City's obligation to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people; ■ it was consistent with guidelines established by the State of California Seismic Safety Commission; ■ it was consistent with strengthening programs implemented in comparable jurisdictions throughout the State; and ■ it satisfied the intent of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1986 (Government Code § 8875 et sea). ■ it would facilitate putting together a program to provide financial assistance to property owners (Long Beach-type assessment district, for example).. �,ui�►�Ii�lllll@pin�u►i����ll city of san Lai s oBi spo Niis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT URM Update Page 2 The local business community strenuously objected to a mandatory program with this deadline, based largely on the severe economic impact which they felt such a requirement would impose on businesses. Through the Chamber of Commerce Seismic Safety Task Force, as well as other business organizations, the City has been repeatedly told that many businesses located in URM buildings were financially tenuous and the imposition of mandatory retrofitting could cause many such businesses to fail. As a result of these arguments, the City Council chose to defer the imposition of a mandatory deadline for actual retrofitting; however, they did adopt administrative regulations requiring that all URM buildings be structurally analyzed in detail by September 1994. These studies are underway. The adopted plan recognized the business community's concern about the economic impacts of a specific implementation schedule and was still able to set basic mandatory features and demonstrate progress in addressing the hazards. What is the progress to date? Building strengthening accomplished since the effective date of the ordinance has been voluntary and not driven by the mandatory provisions triggered by occupancy change or major remodel. Very few URM buildings have been or will be subject to occupancy change or remodeling in excess of 50%of building replacement value. Reliance on these provisions to achieve progress in reducing URM hazards will not be effective. Voluntarily, one building has been partially strengthened (roof only); one building strengthening project is currently underway; and the City has completed the strengthening work at 955 Morro Street. As of the date of this report, the Building and Safety Division has received 18 structural analysis reports. Several engineers have indicated that they are working on additional reports. The reports received are very thorough and are almost adequate to obtain a building permit. For several building owners, initial efforts towards the structural analysis uncovered additional information that established their buildings to be reinforced masonry. This information, together with demolitions to make way for the Downtown Centre and the City's strengthening of 955 Morro Street, reduced the number of "potentially hazardous" URM buildings to from 138 to 127. The County of San Luis Obispo owns six buildings on the URM list. For the five buildings used solely for government activities, the County intends to handle those structures under the provisions of County code for URM mitigation and informed staff that these structures are to be eliminated from our consideration. The City's URM concern is reduced to 122 buildings. There have been no further developments at the State level that affect the City's URM mitigation program. There have been no additional regulatory measures or rules passed by the legislature. The City's technical standards for strengthening buildings (Appendix 1, Uniform Code for Building Conservation) are identical to the statewide standards established by the State of California Building Standards Commission under AB204. _ ��►�N��+►►�IIIIIIIIIIi° �lU�ll city of san pais ogispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT URM Update Page 3 What are the initial estimates of cost? Results of the structural analyses so far show a range of construction costs from $8.00 to $20.00 per square foot. Cost estimates to complete the work recommended in the structural analyses is most important at this point, since the data is essential for efforts to establish a funding mechanism (Le, Assessment District). What financing programs are under consideration or available? As mentioned in the recent ESTF follow-up report to Council, staff is currently developing a proposed rebate program (e.g., offering up to $10,000 per building upon completion of URM strengthening) for Council's consideration during the final allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds. Staff will continue to explore formation of an assessment district to provide construction financing; however, available information indicates that this mechanism is feasible only when there is a mandato1y program requiring all buildings to be strengthened. As a local incentive, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing a credit to be applied to building permit and/or Architectural Review application fees for strengthening (including any remodeling or expansion done at the same time)or replacing an unreinforced masonry building. The amount of the fee credit is equal to the cost of the structural analysis required by the City's URM mitigation program. What are the next steps? In addition to applying for Community Development Block Grant funds to provide a rebate program to eligible buildings, the City will work with property owners to explore additional financing mechanisms, including an assessment district. Essentially, however, an assessment district approach will probably not work under a voluntary program, since an assessment district may require a "critical mass" of about $5,000,000 in financial need and a defined time period for its use. All URM building owners should be encouraged to obtain the required structural analysis before expiration of the 18-month analysis period. It is critical that staff have complete data on the URM problem in San Luis Obispo for the following reasons: • The extent of the URM problem will be clarified. The final count of affected buildings will be established. • An estimate of the total cost to strengthen all buildings can be fixed,which is crucial information for the formation of an assessment district to make funds available to complete the recommended strengthening work. Building owners will have an understanding of the scope of the work required and the corresponding impact on the tenants. ���w�lru►►�IIIil11�1° IIBIII City of San LaIs osispo MlaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT URM Update Page 4 To foster the necessary encouragement, staff proposes to bring to the City Council at a meeting in the near future a proposed ordinance that would amend the administrative sections of Appendix 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation to establish a penalty for those building owners that fail to comply with the September 4, 1994 deadline for submission of a structural analysis. If Council concurs with the concept, staff will consult with the Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force prior to returning to Council. After the September 4th deadline, staff will review all the data collected, prepare a summary, and submit a report to the City Council. The report should include an analysis of mandatory vs voluntary programs and more definitive funding concepts. Summary The recent Northridge earthquake renewed recognition that local efforts must go beyond studies. Completion of the analyses on time and retrofitting must be strongly encouraged in the near future. The business community supports preservation of the downtown (where 95 of the URM buildings are located); however, they are requesting some level of financial assistance to create an incentive for seismic retrofitting. The data resulting from the URM building survey indicates that approximately 15,600 building occupants in this City alone (based on the maximum occupant load calculated per the Building Code) could be subjected to the hazards of unreinforced masonry building failure during an earthquake. In addition, an unknown number of occupants in adjacent buildings and pedestrians passing by may be at risk due to falling debris from URM failures resulting from an earthquake. Strengthened buildings may survive a seismic event with little or no damage; strengthened buildings will reduce the economic loss in the downtown area due to a seismic event. Strengthened buildings will help to preserve the architectural integrity of the downtown in the event of a major earthquake. However, even if buildings strengthened to the standards suffer irreparable building damage, lives will be saved and injury will be reduced. The major policy matter facing the City on this issue is whether we are doing enough to protect lives and prevent injury to our citizens with a voluntary strengthening program,or whether a mandatory program is necessary to meet our public agency responsibilities to protect our citizen's lives and to develop an effective means of providing financial assistance to property owners. 02" Mr" SVG AGENDA DA Yt ' ' - 9 ITEM # MEMORANDUM March , 1 (As modified on March 9th by the addition of points 12 through 14) To: City Council From: John Duiil/ Subject: Earthquake Preparedness and Recovery Particularly since the Los Angeles earthquake these are the concerns that I have heard expressed: 1. Completeness and adequacy of City's disaster preparedness plan. 2. Status of unreinforced masonry buildings and possible financial assistance program. 3. Danger of older buildings slipping off their foundations (as in Ferndale). 4. Cultural Heritage Commission's concern of preserving architectural integrity of the downtown in the event of a major earthquake (as in Los Gatos). 5. City's compliance with URM program (the County Historical Museum, in particular). 6. Integrity of public facilities and highways and bridges, and recovery methods. 7. Integrity of utility systems and timely restoration of service. 8. Adequacy of record keeping and gaining proper reimbursement to City. 9. 'Tying down" of things that fall (t.v. sets, file cabinets, tall furniture, water heaters, etc.). 10. Possible failure of City Hall roof in the event of an earthquake. 11. Immediate earthquake response needs for building condition notices, inspection supplies, food, water, electricity, housing resources, etc. 12. Concur with structural integrity of "tilt-up" buildings. 13. First responsibility of a public agency is health and safety; therefore, need to prioritize project/programs necessary to save lives. 14. Securing of basic business records in a different, secure location, to help get the business back in operation as soon as possible. The first five of these issues comprise the majority of our agenda for the March 10 study session on this subject. However, staff will be prepared to give information and answer questions in the balance of these areas.