Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/2003, C4 - URM BUILDING HAZARD MITIGATION STATUS REPORT G. J council T-aD-03 acEnaa nEpont ".6` C C ITY O F S AN LU I S O B 1 S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direr Prepared By: Tom Baasch,Chief Building Official SUBJECT: URM BUELDING HAZARD MITIGATION STATUS REPORT CAO RECOMMENDATION Accept and file report. DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to review the creation of the City's mitigation program for the hazards presented by buildings of unreinforced masonry (URM) construction, summarize current requirements, and present results achieved to date. Section Al 15.7 of the adopted unreinforced masonry mitigation program requires that an annual report be submitted to the City Council outlining the progress to date concerning reduction of the URM hazard. Background The hazards presented by buildings of unreinforced masonry (URM) construction were first addressed by the State of California with passage of SB 547 in the late 1980s. Recognizing that URM buildings have been the most likely to collapse or sustain damage significant enough to prevent emergency exiting by the occupants, the law directed local jurisdictions to determine the number of URM buildings within their jurisdictional limits and then develop a plan to mitigate the "potential hazards" associated with these buildings. Subsequently, staff conducted a building-by- building survey of the City, researched suspected buildings, and ultimately established an inventory of 126 URM buildings. All affected property owners were notified of these determinations. The Chamber of Commerce created the Seismic Task Force to assist staff in developing a program to reduce or eliminate these potential hazards. The Task Force studied the many sides to creation of a mitigation program over a 2-year period. While the goal of SB547 was to "substantially reduce the hazards presented by URM by the year 2000", the Task Force found this goal difficult to achieve while balancing economic impacts, community will, and the spirit of the law. Ultimately, a "first- step" recommendation resulted in City Council adoption of an ordinance requiring all owners of URM buildings to obtain a structural analysis of their building within two years, which allowed opportunity to gather more information on the extent of the URM problem and the probable cost to strengthen the buildings. After reviewing the findings of the structural analysis results,the Task Force developed a mitigation plan that would place much of the decision-making about when to strengthen in the hands of the property owner. Adopted by the City Council in 1997, the goals of the plan are to achieve some degree of seismic strengthening or risk elimination for all buildings on the inventory by 2007, with 04, Council Agenda Report–Status Report on the URM Building Hazard Mitigation Program Page 2 all URM buildings fully strengthened or eliminated by 2017. To accomplish the 2007 goal, the code requires that(1)all components of the strengthening design at the roof(Level A strengthening) be implemented as a condition of reroofing the building, (2) a change of occupancy classification triggers full strengthening (Level B strengthening), and(3) spending more than 50%of a building's replacement cost to remodel triggers full strengthening. After 2007; a reroofing project will require full strengthening. Ultimately, all URM buildings are to be fully strengthened by January 1, 2017. Progress The following table summarizes the status of URM building mitigation program: URM Hazard Mitigation Progress URM Buildings Number % of Total Occupant % of Total Buildings Load Occupant Load Initial Inventory 126 100 16445 100 Strengthened—Level B 17 13.5 2672 19.5 Partially Strengthened—Level A 8 6.3 905- 5.5 Partially Strengthened—Other 2 1.5 416 2.5 than Level A Demolished 9 7.1 428 2.6 Strengthening Construction In 2 1.5 46 .3 Progress Vacant &Not Occupiable 2 1.5 542 3.2 Progress Percentage 31.4 33.6 During development of the current code requirements, the Seismic Task Force concluded that a reasonable amount of mitigation progress would be achieved if all URM buildings received some degree of strengthening or demolition by 2007. After five years under the current mandatory strengthening program, 31% of the URM buildings on the original confirmed list have been mitigated to some degree, with over 33% of the occupants of these buildings provided with a greater degree of protection during an earthquake. With four years remaining, the Seismic Task Force remains confident that the original projection of reasonable mitigation progress will be achieved by 2007. Members have heard from many property owners about future tenant changes, the need for a new roof, ownership changes, etc., resulting in an optimistic outlook on mitigation that will be achieved in the near future. Task Force members are concerned that some building owners are delaying needed replacement of roof covering to avoid the Level A strengthening requirement. Consequently, members unanimously recommend a new campaign to inform URM building owners of the roof covering "trigger" that will change after 2007, requiring Level B (full) strengthening as a condition of reroof after that date. Opinion prevails that many owners with roof covering in marginal condition can be persuaded to reroof and complete level A over the next few years and delay full strengthening for ten years. The Task Force favors a mailing from the City to URM building C C Council Agenda Report—Status Report on the URM Building Hazard Mitigation Program Page.3 owners that have not completed level A reminding them of the implications of the year 2007 trigger change. Task Force members have pledged to contact each URM building owner after the mailing to personally encourage them initiate a reroof project before the 2007 "trigger" change. The Seismic Task Force feels that the incentives offered by the City to encourage URM strengthening projects are key in realizing the goals of the mitigation program. The grant fund program has distributed $111,074 to assist ten property owners in covering the cost of Level A or B strengthening. Approximately $138,900 remains appropriated for this purpose, and the Task. Force is confident that financial assistance in the form of a grant to offset strengthening costs will encourage URM building owners to "pencil out" economic feasibility and proceed with their project. All other incentives established by City Council Resolution No. 8663 (1997 Series), such as offset or waiver of permit fees, after-hours inspection services, waiver of water and sewer use charges during construction, deferral of fire sprinkler requirements for URM buildings in the downtown zone, and waiver of fees for contractor parking near a URM project site continue to add to the economic feasibility of a strengthening project. As the dates of the original target goals approach, the Task Force believes that additional financial resources and incentives will be necessary to assist URM building owners in achieving the City's mitigation goals. The Task Force intends to advocate for an allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds for this purpose in future years. Conclusion Although staff and the Seismic Task Force had hoped that mitigation progress would have resulted in more than 50% of the URM buildings being strengthened to at least Level A standards or demolished at this point, the 31% mark for number of buildings affected is considered acceptable progress. Satisfactory accomplishment is also registered in the statistics showing greater earthquake safety has been provided for over 33% of the occupants in these buildings. Continued economic vitality and the proposed Copeland's Court Street project should encourage URM building owners in the downtown area to invest in their buildings. The ability to attract national tenants is often predicated on providing a seismically safe building. No changes to the URM building mitigation program, including strengthening standards, triggers requiring Level A or B strengthening, and incentives, are recommended at this time. The reminder mailing will occur in June, 2003. Staff will report back to City Council with an annual update in May, 2004. CONCURRENCES The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force concurs with the progress analysis and recommendation. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —URM Hazard Mitigation Progress Attachment 2—Letter to URM Building Owners a4-3 CAttachment 1 Page 1 URM HAZARD MITIGATION PROGESS IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO May 14, 2003 Address Strengthening Standard FULLY STRENGTHENED—Level B 1141 Chorro (790 Marsh) SLO Ord/1991 UCBC 647 Higuera 97 UCBC Appendix 1 698 Higuera 94 UCBC Appendix 1 777 Higuera SLO Ord/1991 UCBC 778 Higuera Division 88 Model 868 Higuera SLO Draft Ordinance 876 Higuera SLO Ord/1991 UCBC 1001 Higuera SLO Ord/1991 UCBC 951 Marsh 97 UCBC Appendix 1 696 Monterey 97 UCBC Appendix 1 747 Monterey 97 UCBC Appendix 1 861 Monterey 97 UCBC Appendix 1 879 Morro 97 UCBC Appendix 1 955 Morro 91 UCBC Appendix 1 + 1021-1023 Morro Division 88 Model 976 Osos(Courthouse) County of SLO Standards 1185 Pacific 94 UCBC Appendix 1 TOTAL= 17 PARTIALLY STRENGTHENED—Level A only 1110 Garden 94 UCBC Appendix 1 715 Higuera 94 UCBC Appendix 1 736 Higuera 94 UCBC Appendix 1 779 Higuera 94 UCBC Appendix 1 796 Higuera 97 UCBC Appendix 1 742 Marsh 94 UCBC Appendix 1 868 Monterey 94 UCBC Appendix 1 888 Monterey 97 UCBC Appendix 1 TOTAL=8 PARTIALLY STRENGTHENED—Other than Level A 699 Higuera 842 Higuera First Story Partial TOTAL=2 (24 ,4 Attachment 1 Page 2 DEMOLISHED 344 Higuera 875 Higuera 885 Higuera 882 Marsh 888 Marsh 1039 Monterey 1057 Monterey 991 Nipomo 783 Santa Rosa TOTAL=9 STRENGTHENING IN-PROGRESS 705 Higuera 842 Higuera PENDING STRENGTHENING—Building Permit Application Submitted 710 Higuera PROPOSED STRENGTHENING None PROPOSED DEMOLITION None PROGRESS ANALYSIS Total Number of Confirmed URM Buildings(original list) 126 Total Fully Strengthened(Level B) 17 Strengthening In-progress (Level B) 2 Total Partially Strengthened (Level A) 8 Strengthening In-progress(Level A) 1 Total Demolished 9 37 Attachment 2 Page 1 June 1, 2003 RE: (URM Building Address) Dear URM Building Owner: The San Andreas Fault is only 40 miles from the city of San Luis Obispo. Seismic experts predict that a major earthquake will occur along this fault in the near future and is likely to have a devastating effect on the inventory of unreinforced masonry(URM)buildings in San Luis Obispo. URM buildings do not perform well during an earthquake; as unreinforced walls fail, the roof structure may collapse and trap occupants in the rubble. As you know,the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted a long-term program for the strengthening of URM buildings in San Luis Obispo to reduce the potential hazard during an earthquake. The program is designed to allow property owners to determine the best timing for seismically retrofitting their URM buildings,but includes key incentives to encourage improvements to occur soon rather than later. Our records show that you have not yet strengthened your unreinforced masonry building. In an effort the encourage you to do so, I would like to review with you the requirements of our program and the incentives it includes. To summarize,the program establishes two progressive levels of seismic strengthening,partial (Level A) and full (Level B), and currently requires that initial strengthening work(Level A)be done as a condition of reroofing a URM building. However, for URM buildings reroofed after January 1,2007, full strengthening(Level B)will be required in conjunction with installation of the new roof covering. Ultimately, all URM buildings shall be fully strengthened(Level B)by January 1,2017. Incentives to encourage building owners to include strengthening in an individual business plan are: • An opportunity to delay Level B improvements for several years by reroofing and constructing Level A strengthening before January 1,2007. • Credit towards the fees for an architectural review application, plan review, and/or building permit for a URM strengthening related project will be granted, up to the cost of providing the structural analysis for the URM building. • Fees related to a URM seismic strengthening project that does not result in any increase in floor area will be waived, including parking-in-lieu, transportation impact, and sewer C4 -�' Attachment 2 Page 2 and water impact fees. • Building permit and planning fees for replacement of a URM building will be waived. • Fees for inspection of URM strengthening work outside of normal business hours will be waived. • Sewer and water use charges during the construction period for a URM strengthening project, limited to a maximum of 6 months and not to exceed the previous 6 months of occupied use, will be waived. • Fees for contractor parking on the street near the construction site, limited to 3 spaces directly adjacent to the building undergoing URM strengthening, will be waived up to a 6-month duration. If less than 3 spaces are available directly adjacent, contractor may obtain written permission from adjoining business for use of other spaces. • A URM building may be totally converted to a warehouse or residential use up to 5 dwelling units and be exempt from strengthening requirements. • The fire-sprinkler installation deadline for UR�NM buildings in the downtown zone is extended to the final Level B Strengthening deadline (2017), unless triggers cause Level B Strengthening at an earlier date. • The City has grant funds, available on a first-come, first-served basis, to partially offset URM strengthening cost. For Level A Strengthening, the maximum grant shall be 25% of strengthening cost up to $5,000;and for Level B Strengthening,the maximum grant shall be 25%of strengthening cost up to $25,000. As of this letter, ten property owners have taken advantage of the grant program: four for Level A strengthening and 6 for full(Level B) strengthening. Total grant funds distributed to these URM building owners total $131,198. A building permit(at no'fee as noted above) is required by the Uniform Administrative Code for URM building strengthening and roof covering improvements;please make sure that your contractor has obtained necessary permits before work starts. If you have any questions regarding the URM program and its applicability to your building,please call meat 781-7159. Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, Tom Baasch Chief Building Official CI "9 RECEIVED r MAY 15 2003 council memoRanbu sLoCITYCLERK May 15, 2003 TO: Council Members FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO SUBJECT: URM Letter Suggestions (Item C-4) Attached are suggestions prepared by Councilman Schwartz relative to the draft letter to URM building owners prepared by the Chief Building Official. Following Council action on Item C-4, these suggestions shall be referred to staff for consideration in crafting the final correspondence. gCOUN IL .0 coo DIR 'CAO FIN DIR ,g ACAO 2 FIRE CHIEF RED FILEATTORNEY d PW DIR 921CLERWORIG 0 POLICE CHF MEETING AGENDA ohEADE 20REC DIR DA '�' ' ITEM #-OA,, � !r HRL DIR HR DIR Ct, �7n VIC-- � ez'N' � Suggested substitute letter to be sent to owners of URM buildings unde m Baasch's signature—see May 20 agenda page C4-6. Ken Schwartz, May 15 Dear URM Building Owner: As you have received previous notices from the City,you are aware that the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted a long-term program for the strengthening of unreinforced masonry buildings(URM's)in order to reduce potential hazards during an earthquake. You have been made aware that URM buildings do not perform well during an earthquake. Typically,unreinforced walls will fail causing roof structures to collapse; should a URM budding be occupied at the moment,people may be trapped and injured in the rubble,perhaps fatally. The San Andreas Fault is only 40 mites from San Luis Obispo and seismic experts predict that a major earthquake will occur along this fault in the near firture. A major seismic event is likely to have a devastating effect on URM's in our City. The City's program for the strengthening of URM's was designed to allow each property owner to determine the best timing for seismically retrofitting their URM building; however;the program includes key incentives to encourage improvements to occur sooner rather than later. The program does include a final compliance date. Our records show that you have not yet strengthened your unreinforced masonry building. In an effort to encourage you to strengthen your URM at the earliest possible time, I would lice to review with you the requirements of our program and the benefits the incentives may have for you. To summarize, the program establishes two progressive levels of seismic strengthening, Level A,partial strengthening, and Level B, full seismic strengthening. With respect to reproofing your URM,timing is critical. If you choose to reroof your URM in the immediate future,you will be required to perform initial strengthening work (Level A)' However, if you elect to delay reroofing your URM building until after January 1,2007,fiill strengthening(Level B)will be required in conjunction with installation of the new roof covering. All UP4buildmgs shall be fully strengthened(Level B)by January 1,2017. As per previous notice,you know that incentives to encourage you to include strengthening in an individual business plan are: (Note: all bullet statements OK,suggest omitting paragraph "As of this letter. . . . owners total$131,198.') 1 Page 2 of 2 A budding permit(at no fee as noted above)is required by the Uniform Administrative Code for URM budding strengthening and roof covering improvements;please make sure that your contractor has obtained necessary permits before work starts. (Note: The following paragraph has yet to be confirmed.) During its meeting of May 20, 2003, the San Luis Obispo City Council reaffirmed it's determination that the seismic retrofitting program is to be fully implemented and that the dates and strengthening requirements remain firm. If you have any questions regarding the URM program and its applicability to your budding,please call me at 781-7159. As only 3-1/2 years remain for you to take advantage of the benefits of Level A strengthening, I urge you to give serious consideration to this level of seismic work Thank you for your cooperation. Resp y, Tom Baasch Chief Building Official