HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2006, PH 1 - 919 PALM PARKING STRUCTURE RATES council ] UaIgoy.
.M 'Y 17.2006
j agenda Report °®Nue.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
Robert Horch, Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: 919 Palm Parking Structure Rates "
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution setting rates at the 919 Palm Parking Structure, as follows:
a. An hourly parking rate of$0.75, $7.50 daily maximum, with the first hour free.
b. A long tern parking rate of$75 a month or$225 per quarter.
2. Conceptually endorse the use of the 919 Palm Parking Structure for Tour of California parking,
if feasible.
DISCUSSION
Background
Consistent with the existing Payment Agreement with the Copelands, the parking structure at 919
Palm will be purchased by the City within the next few months. To date, there has not been a
formal adoption of the parking rates for that facility.
At present, the existing Palm Street and Marsh Street parking structures have the same daily rate for
visitors: first hour free; an hourly rate of $0.75; and a maximum daily rate of $7:50 a day. The
long-term proxcard rates are different: Palm Street has a monthly proxcard rate of$60 per month
($180 a quarter) and Marsh Street has a monthly proxcard rate of $75 a month ($225 quarterly).
Council approved this different long term rate in May of 2001 to encourage employee parking in
Palm while keeping Marsh open for more retail users.
Hourly/Daily Rate Recommendation
In July 2004, both the Palm Street Structure and the Marsh Street Structure hourly rates were
increased from $0.60 an hour with $6 daily maximum to $0.75 an hour with $7.50 daily maximum.
Use of the City structures has not substantially decreased or increased since this change, so staff
recommends charging for 919 Palm the same hourly and daily rates consistent with existing Palm
and Marsh Street structures. Having consistent hourly and daily rates is easier for the public to
understand, particularly for periodic users.
919 Palm Structure Parking Rates Page 2
Long Term Structure Rate Recommendation
Although all of our parking facilities can be and are used by all downtown users, the City has used
rate structures to encourage certain types of parking in certain areas. The new structure at 919 Palm
was intended to handle retail users from Court Street and eventually from Chinatown. The City is
also trying a new "pay-on-foot" system in 919 Palm where users can prepay their parking and exit
the structure quicker by use of non-staffed exit readers. To adequately test this new system, it
would help to keep the primary use at 919 Palm for short-term users, consistent with retail use.
This is even more important since 919 Palm will have the least amount of parking spaces, 242 (192
available to the public) versus 415 at Palm and 520 at Marsh. If the long-term rate was the same
rate as Palm, the proxcard users may want to migrate to 919 Palm because it is closer to their
destination of the Courts, the Library, and the County Government Center. There are currently 121
proxcard users in Palm now. There has been an increase in interest from many of these Palm
proxcard holders who want to move to 919 Palm. If the migration occurred, the intended retail
users would have less space in 919 Palm and may have to go another half block to Palm to park.
This discourages retail use and does not support the downtown core. For these reasons staff
recommends that the long-term rate at 919 Palm be consistent with Marsh to encourage more retail
use and more affordable long term parking in Palm.
Tour of California Special Event
At present, we do not have an exact date for when 919 Palm parking structure will be completed.
However, the contractor continues to make substantial progress on the building with the intention
of completing the project by early February. As such, the facility may be complete and available for
use when the Tour of California Cycling Event takes place. Staff continues to work on the logistics
of the event and parking is definitely an issue that could arise depending on the number of
participants and spectators who come to the event. One option that has been discussed is to use the
new 919 Structure (if it's ready) as a one day special event parking facility and charge a different
rate for that day. This is common practice in cities that have similar events, such as sporting or
concert events. The concept would allow for a $5.00 special event rate (paid upon entrance to the
structure) for the structure the day of the event. Staff is asking Council to endorse this concept, if it
is determined feasible for the event.
Where to from Here
Council will have several opportunities to reconsider these rates, if appropriate. First, it is
anticipated that the parking revenue enhancement recommendations from the Parking Task Force
will be presented to Council for consideration on February 21,2006. These recommendations may
likely cause an adjustment to parking habits within the City and have an impact on structure parking
occupancy rates. Council will consider all rates and their correlation to each other at this time.
Additionally, each year (usually in June or July) the Council is presented with a report on the state
of the Parking Fund. This report will also give the Council an opportunity to review the success of
the proposed rates for 919 Palm.
919 Palm Structure Parldng Rates Page 3
FISCAL IMPACTS
All fiscal calculations for the 2005-07 Financial Plan assumed a rate structure consistent with the
CAO recommendations.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution
1:\ CAR Reports\2006\Parkmg\CAR 919 Pkg Rates.DOC
\/I
J
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES)
A_ RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MONTHLY AND DAILY FEES
AND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE PARKING STRUCTURE AT
919 PALM STREET.
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide secure and user friendly parking for all users of
the parking structures; and
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments;and
WHEREAS, the City has the support of the Downtown Association and the Chamber of
Commerce to implement changes in the parking garage and lot rates; and
WHEREAS, the new parkingstructure located at 919 Palm Street is nearing completion
and is ready to open; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the staff report and held a public meeting on the
proposed changes to the parking garage rates and hours and monthly and daily fees for parking.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The parking rate and hours for charging fees in the City's parking
structures located at 919 Palm Street shall be the first 60 minutes free and 75 cents per hour with
a daily maximum of$7.50 per visit from 8 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. each Monday, Tuesday, and
Wednesday, effective February 1, 2006.
SECTION 2. The parking rate and hours for charging fees in the City's parking
structures located at 919 Palm Street shall be the first 60 minutes free and 75 cents per hour with
a daily maximum of$7.50 per visit from 8:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. each Thursday, Friday and
Saturday, effective February 1, 2006. Sundays will be exempt from any parking garage fees.
SECTION 3. The monthly fee for proximity cards (Proxcards) for the City's parking
structures located at 919 Palm Street shall be $75.00 per month. The monthly fee for proximity
cards (Proxcards) for the Palm Street Parking Structure shall be $60.00 per month. These rates
Resolution No. _(2006 Series_)
Page 2
will be effective on February 1, 2006.
SECTION 4. A new Special Event parking rate of$5.00 per entry to.the various parking
structures is established and staff is authorized to use this special event rate in cases of high
parking demand events such as the Tour of California. These rates will be effective on February
1, 2006.
Upon motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member_and on
the following roll call vote:.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: .
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18`h day of January, 2006.
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST
Audrey Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED
fbnathlkn Lowell, City Attorney
/._S—
counciL 06
acjcn6N zepmt LL®Numbs
CITY OF SAN L IS 0BISPO
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck,Assistant City Administrative Off.cer
Prepared By: Claire Clark,Seismic Coordinator/Interim Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION
PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and discuss status of Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation (URM)Program.
DISCUSSION
Background
Subsequent to the San Simeon Earthquake of December 22, 2003, the City of San Luis Obispo
adopted changes to its existing URM Program by adopting Ordinance No. 1453 (Attachment 1)
now codified at Chapter 15.05.040 of the Municipal Code. During consideration of the then
proposed changes, the Council worked to balance the heightened need to address public safety
issues with the practical needs of the affected building owners and tenants.
The City's current URM Ordinance addresses the need for greater public safety by establishing
separate deadlines to ready permits for timely construction and specific deadlines for the
completion of reinforcement. To insure flexibility in retrofit timing for property owners, the
ordinance requires owners to obtain necessary planning approvals and a construction permit no
later than January 1, 2006. Applications for such approvals were due on July 1, 2005. By
requiring owners to obtain a construction permit, the Council eliminated any procedural
obstacles that could slow down an owner's ability to proceed with the strengthening. These
permits, unlike conventional permits, remain open until the work is accomplished or the
applicable completion deadline passes.
To assist owners affected by the new Ordinance, Council authorized low fees for Planning and
Building applications and permits, reduced the cost of contractor parking fees, and provided a
URM warning sign to all affected properties. In addition, the temporary part-time position of
Seismic Coordinator was established to help owners comply with the deadline requirements,
coordinate services within the City, look for potential funding sources for retrofitting, and
coordinate construction timing.
By July 1, 2005, many property owners had submitted the required plans for strengthening their
buildings. Of the 99 buildings requiring strengthening at that time, 61 had met the requirement.
The remaining 38 buildings had plans still in preparation by engineers who guaranteed that the
plans would be finished and filed with the City no later than November 1, 2005. Since July
2005, building owners and their engineers, along with City staff, have worked to assure that
—/
i
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 2
overdue plans were completed and submitted to the City in accordance with the engineers'
guarantees. Timely requests for permits have been reviewed and issued, planning review of
projects has progressed efficiently, and more strengthening projects have proceeded into
construction. This report summarizes the progress owners have made toward meeting or
exceeding the January 1, 2006 URM construction permit deadline.
Retrofit Progress Overview
Buildings Eliminated from the Inventory of URM Buildings
There are a total of 39 buildings that have been eliminated from the 1989 Inventory of 126 URM
buildings. The buildings strengthened to Level B total 28, an additional seven have been
demolished, and four are exempt from the strengthening rules based on current use or ownership
by the County Government. This leaves a total of 87 buildings remaining in the URM Inventory
after subtracting the Level B reinforced buildings, the exempt buildings, and the demolished
buildings. Attachment 2, Inventory of"Potentially Hazardous" Buildings in the City of San Luis
Obispo,December 21, 2005, lists the buildings that remain unstrengthened.
Compliance with the URM Ordinance
Since the revised URM Ordinance took effect in late 2004, eight Level B strengthening projects
have been completed and six more are in the construction process. As of January 1, 2006, the
remaining 87 buildings were required to have a building permit for the strengthening work or for
an alternative redevelopment plan. Compliance for the 87 buildings falls into five categories, as
outlined below:
1. For 20 buildings, permits have been issued;
2. For 51 buildings, plans have been reviewed and sent back for corrections. It is possible
that some of these properties may slip into the "Non-compliance" category should the
corrections be unduly delayed;
3. For 11 buildings, plans were completed and submitted late in the year. These plans were
all reviewed between January 3 and 13;
4. Four buildings have complied by posting a guarantee to cover the cost of preparing
seismic retrofit plans in the event redevelopment fails and where the redevelopment plans
are progressing through the planning process. These four are all part of the Naman
Family Trust redevelopment project presently under City review. The owner has
complied with all requests for information and is working diligently through the process,
but this complex redevelopment project will take time to complete the City's
development review process; and
5. One building that is already vacant, 1880 Santa Barbara (a.k.a. Railroad Square), has
plans that are presently under development review.
Concrete progress is being accomplished. As shown above, in no instance is there an owner
refusing to do what is necessary to reasonably comply with the January 1, 2006 deadline.
Buildings with Work Underway
Quite a lot of strengthening work is in progress in the City. There are six buildings where
strengthening is currently underway. In addition, seven buildings are reinforced to Level A and
2-z
t
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 3
four are reinforced in part - other than Level Al. Attachment 3 shows the URM Hazard
Mitigation Progress since 1989. Color coded maps will be presented at the Council Hearing.
.AnticiRaated Future Work
Several owners are preparing to begin construction over the winter as weather permits and into
spring. Still others, not listed here, are talking about the timing of their projects and using the
experience of those already in process to plan for the strengthening of their building. Those
already planning to begin construction are:
1. 726 Higuera - NOVO will be relocating temporarily to the former Palindrome's building
at 861 Higuera
2. 717 Marsh - Longs Drug
3. 793 Higuera—Fanny Wrappers, Sanctuary Tobacco
Next Stens
Enforcement Strategy
The few owners who fail to obtain their permit will receive a "Non-Compliance Letter" from the
Chief Building Official. This letter gives the owner 30 days to come into compliance. Where the
property owner fails to take action in a timely manner, the matter will be referred to the City
Attorney for prosecution or other action.
This approach is intended to send a serious message to those property owners who remain out of
compliance along with an opportunity to rectify the non-compliance. In those cases where the
engineer has been unable to complete the work through application approval, the letter will send
the message that there is a specific and limited time for compliance. It is important to recognize
that there is a delicate balance between requiring strict adherence to the deadlines while taking
into account the physical ability to get the work done.
Program Strateey
Over the course of the next year, the Community Development Department is expected to
process several redevelopment projects that include unreinforced masonry buildings. Over the
next year and a half, the City will see a stream of strengthening projects in construction. In
addition, systematic contact with the remaining 87 owners of unreinforced buildings will begin
again, in earnest, to determine whether a roadmap to 100% compliance with the Ordinance can
be developed based on the construction plans of those owners.
The next deadline for reinforcement is July 1, 2007. The URM Ordinance requires "the owner
of a building . . . shall structurally alter the building to conform to Level B Strengthening by July
1, 2010. It further allows the owner to do Level A strengthening (partial strengthening) by July
t ..Other than Level A"means that a variety of reinforcement work has been completed on these four buildings but not in
accordance with building standards for Level A and not a complete Level B reinforcement.
—13
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 4
1, 2007 in order to delay the Level B work until July 1, 2012. Importantly, the Ordinance goes on
to provide "If Level A work is not completed by July 1, 2007, the City Council will set a Level B
completion deadline for each building on the basis of relative hazard, but no later than July 1,
2010."
In order to meet the deadline of Level A on July 1, 2007, approximately 5 projects need to be
started per month beginning now until July 2007. This tall order for the community is not out of
the question, although this pace has not been evidenced so far, even over the past year where
work has progressed at an increased rate. The existing pace is much closer to approximately one
retrofit project starting each month. Interestingly, this pace is substantially similar to the pace
needed to have the inventory entirely strengthened by July 2010. It is imperative, therefore, that
the City encourages the pace to continue through effective use of the July 2007 deadline,
supports those building owners considering starting a retrofit, and promotes the good works of
the owners who undertake strengthening by acknowledging them publicly.
Conclusion
In summary, the program continues to work! It has been particularly gratifying to watch. What
could have been a very negative experience has become the impetus for significant
improvements and revitalization in the City's downtown core. Much has been done to meet the
established deadlines with a large majority of owners complying by hiring an engineer to prepare
the plans, filing the plans with the City, and pulling a building permit as required.
As we look to July 2007, staff will be prepared to report on the progress occurring as seismic
strengthening projects are planned, started, and finished. Staff will also be ready to recommend
action based on the relative hazard of each building, the progress each owner has made toward
retrofitting, and the scope of the work remaining prior to the July 1, 2010 deadline. Coordination
of ongoing retrofit projects will take a higher priority as more projects begin the construction
phase. City departments, the Downtown Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and
surrounding businesses will continue to be appraised of upcoming projects by the Seismic
Coordinator. in addition, periodic reports will continue as work progresses throughout the City.
Formal reporting to the Council each January, as required by the URM Ordinance, will occur.
CONCURRENCES
The Chamber of Commerce's Seismic Task Force continues to be involved at each step in the
process of obtaining compliance with the URM Ordinance. Once again, the Task Force
members offered their wise counsel relative to enforcement of the January 1, 2006 deadline.
Although there was no consensus on the imposition of penalties for non-compliance at this point
in time, there was lively discussion of the merits on both sides of the issue. Clearly, the Task
Force members understand the difficulty of balancing the need to obtain compliance with the
needs of individuals involved in the process. In general, however, they are very pleased with the
progress being made and the level of program support being provided by the City..
� �7
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 1453
I. Inventory of "Potentially Hazardous" Buildings in the City of San Luis Obispo, Dec. 21,
2005
3. URM Hazard Mitigation Progress
Electronic File Path:
GAProjects&Programs\Seismic Program\CouncilAgenda Reports\CouncilAgendaReportl-17-2006
02 's
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.1453(2004 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING TITLE 15,CHAPTERS 15.04 AND ISM OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR STRENGTHENING
UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo contains 100 buildings of unreinforced masonry
construction, determined to be "potentially hazardous" during a seismic event; that have not been
adequately strengthened, and
WI�REAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is situated near three major earthquake faults
each capable of generating earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.5, and is therefore particularly
vulnerable to devastation should such an earthquake occur,and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo is located in Seismia.Zone 4 and is subject to the
provisions of Chapter 12.2,Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and specifically Section
8875 which requires that the City establish a mitigation program to substantially reduce the hazards
associated with unreinforced masonry buildings;and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to
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 Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 15.04.050 of Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby modified as follows.
A. Amend Section A105 to delete previously added Section A105.4 and retain
Section A105.4 as written in the Uniform Code for Building Conservation.
B. Amend Section Al 15.1 to read as follows:
A115.1 Compliance Requirements.
A115.1.1 Strengthening Deadlines. The owner of a building within the scope of
this chapter shall structurally alter the building to conform to Level B
Strengthening by July 1,2010 or when one of the following occurs:
01453
—�o
1 Y
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series)
Page 2
1. The value of additions, alterations, and/or maintenance repairs
requiring a building permit, cumulative from March 4, 1992, exceeds 50
percent of the replacement cost of the building established by the Building
Official per Section 304.2 of the Uniform Administrative Code, which
may include a certified appraisal report. The cumulative value of
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 one
occupancy classification need not be strengthened if the total floor
area for changes in use, cumulative from March 4, 1992, does not
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 of
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 strengthening
requirements may be delayed until July 1, 2012. If Level A work is not
completed by July 1,2007,the City Council will set a Level B completion
deadline for each building on the basis of relative hazard,but not later than
July 1, 2010.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official, on a case-by-case basis,
may approve an alternate strengthening plan deemed equivalent to
Level A strengthening if.
1. A greater than 50 percent reduction in the unreinforced
masonry hazard for the building is accomplished by July 1,
2007; and,
Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series)
ATTACHMENT 1
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 shall
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 building
permit shall be obtained by January 1, 2006, and shall remain valid until required
Level B strengthening work is completed per Section Al 15.1.1.
EXCEPTION: For seismic strengthening or demolition projects that
require approval of a planning application by a City process, the planning
application shall be submitted. to the Community Development
Department by July 1, 2005. The application for building or demolition
permit shall be submitted following approval of the planning application,
and a building or demolition permit shall be obtained by January 1, 2006.
A115.13 Posting of Sign. The owner of a building within the scope of this
chapter shall post, at a conspicuous place near the primary entrances to the
building, a sign provided by the building official stating "This is an unreinforced
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 the
building owner per installation standards established by the building official.
C. Amend Section Al 15.3.3 to read as follows:
A115.3.3 Order. The order shall direct the owner to obtain a building or
demolition permit as required by this chapter and cause the building to be
structurally altered to conform to the provisions of this chapter, or cause the
building to be demolished
D. Amend Section Al 15.7 to read as follows:
A115.7 Program Monitoring and Annual Report. During January of each
year, the Building Official shall submit a report to the City Council outlining the
progress to date concerning reduction of the hazards presented by the
unreinforced masonry building inventory for the City. The report shall include:
1. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings strengthened, demolished, or
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.
��o
II i � G � _ i gun ' � . � • • . � •
. �.
i
Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series) ATTACHMENT 1
Page 5
SECTION 3. If any provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would have
passed each and every remaining provision irrespective of such holding in order to accomplish the
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 its
final passage in the The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance
shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 17d 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
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
d.4 dA I X �4 -
Audrey Hoo
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo than,JKLowell
Ci torney
ATTACHMENT 2
INVENTORY OF"POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS" BUILDINGS
IN THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
December 21, 2005
The following is a listing of addresses for buildings located in.the City of San Luis Obispo which are suspected of being
"potentially hazardous" per State Law, which means any building constructed prior to the adoption of local building codes
requiring earthquake resistant design of buildings, constructed of unreinforced masonry wall construction. Designated
historic buildings of unreinforced masonry constructibn are included. This list is subject to change as additional information
becomes available.StAke-ext Type indicates County-owned Building and others Not Subject to City Mitigation Program.
billy strengthened buildings are removed from this list.
SUMMARY: Total Buildings that Remain Unstrengthened: 91
Unstrengthened Buildings subject to City Mitigation Program: 87
1. 1708 Beach 33. 728 Higuera 65. 840 Monterey
2. 1121 Broad 34. 733 Higuera 66. 848 Monterey
3. 1127 Broad 35. 736 Higuera* 67. 849 Monterey
4. 1131 Broad 36. 740 Higuera 68. 857 Monterey
5. 1901 Broad 37. 745 Higuera 69. 868 Monterey*
6. 2747 Broad 38. 760 Higuera 70. 886 Monterey
T. 941 Chorro 39. 779 Higuera* ' 71. 888 Monterey*
8. 970 Chorro 40. 782 Higuera 72. 962 Monterey
9. 1029 Chorro 41. 790 Higuera 73. 968 Monterey
10. 1035 Chorro 42. 793 Higuera 74. 978 Monterey
11. 1119 Chorro 43. 796 Higuera* 75. 1009 Monterey
12. 1135 Chorro 44. 839 Higuera 76. "^�satetey
13. 1318 Chorro 45. 842 Higuera 77. 1116 Morro
14. 1119 Garden 46. 853 Higuera 78. 1051 Nipomo
15. 1123 Garden 47. 856 Higuera 79. 1124 Nipomo
16. 1130 Garden 48. 858 Higuera 80. 1050 Osos
17. 220 High 49. 970 Higuera 81. 1609 Osos
18. 295 Higuera 50. 2180 T,.w,,se _• 82. 1804 Osos
19. 309 Higuera 51. 2180 khfiSffll Jobe 83. 682 Palm
20. 311 Higuera 52. 664 Marsh 84. 751 Palm
21. 341 Higuera 53. 717 Marsh 85. 798 Palm
22. 565 Higuera 54. 722 Marsh 86. 861 Palm
23. 659 Higuera 55. 728 Marsh 87. 150 Pismo
24. 669 Higuera 56. 742 Marsh* 88. 2pro
25. 673 Higuera 57. 748 Marsh 89. 298 Pismo
26. 686 Higuera 58. 777 Marsh 90. 1880 Santa Barbara
27. 695 Higuera 59. 778 Marsh 91. 667 Upham
28. 710 Higuera* 60. 1160 Marsh
.29. 717 Higuera 61. 1500 Marsh
30. 718 Higuera 62. 1540 Marsh
31. 719 Higuera 63. 1034 Mill
32. 726 Higuera 64. 837 Monterey
*Buildings strengthened to Level"A"
ATTACHMENT 3
URM HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRESS
IN THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
December 21, 2005
FULLY STRENGTHENED-Level B
1. 964 Chorro 16. 1001 Higuera
2. 1117 Chorro 17, 1011 Higuera
3. 1127 Chorro 18. 951 Marsh
4. 1141 Chorro 19. 696 Monterey
5. 1110 Garden 20. 747 Monterey
6. 385 Higuera 21. 998 Monterey
7. 647 Higuera 22. 861 Monterey
8. 698 Higuera 23, 879 Morro
9. 705 Higuera 24. 955 Morro
10. 715 Higuera 25. 1021=1023 Morro
11. 741 Higuera 26. 976 Osos (Courthouse)
12. 777 Higuera 27. 1185 Pacific
13. 778 H guera 28. 800 Palm
14. . 868 Higuera
15. 876 Higuera
DEMOLISHED EXEMPT
1. 344 Higuera 1. 280 Pismo
2. 969 Monterey 2. 2180 Johnson (Sunny Acres)
3. 1039 Monterey 3. 2180 Johnson (Old Adobe)
4. 1057 Monterey 4. 1144 Monterey
5. 2223 Monterey
6. 991 Nipomo
7. 783 Santa Rosa
PROGRESS ANALYSIS
Total Number of Confwmed URM Buildings 126
Total Fully Strengthened (Level B) 28
Total Demolished 7
Total Exempt 4 (39)
Total To Be Fully Strengthened or Demolished 87
ATTACHMENT 3
WORK UNDERWAY
PARTIALLY STRENGTHENED—Level"A"
1. 710 Higuera
2. 736 Higuera
3. 779 Higuera
4. 796 Higuera
5. 742 Marsh
6. 868 Monterey
7. 888 Monterey
PARTIALLY STRENGTHENED—Other than Level A
1. 699 Higuera
2: 842 Higuera
3. 778 Marsh
4. 1009 Monterey
STRENGTHENING IN PROCESS
1. 719 Higuera
2. 745 Higuera
3. 760 Higuera
4. 842 Higuera
5. 888 Monterey
6. 962 Monterey
PROPOSED DEMOLITION
1. 1029 Chorro Planning Application—Johnson Block/Naman
2. 1035 Chorro Planning Application—Johnson Block/Naman
3. 782 Higuera Planning Application—Johnson Block/Naman
4. 790 Higuera Planning Application -Johnson Block/Naman
5. 733 Higuera Planning Application—Bubblegum Alley/Hira