HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2007, PH1 - JANUARY 2007 STATUS REPORT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM council q r)
j acEnaa uEpoRt i
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck,Assistant City Administrative Officer
Prepared By: Claire Clark,Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: JANUARY 2007 STATUS REPORT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD
MITIGATION PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive report and discuss status of Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation (URM)Program.
2. Consider the hazard rating system devised by the Chamber of Commerce Task Force.
3. Direct staff to return in the spring with a final program for implementation of the hazard
rating system and new deadlines for properties not strengthened to Level A by July 1, 2007.
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report summarizes the progress unreinforced building owners have made toward.strengthening
their buildings between January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007. It also addresses the upcoming July 1,
2007 deadline that allows buildings strengthened to Level A additional time to complete Level B
strengthening. This deadline also allows the Council to designate a shorter timeline for buildings
not strengthened to Level A as of July 1, 2007. Facts are presented regarding the language of the
Ordinance, the current level of compliance, and the Chamber Task Force's recommendations
regarding a hazard rating system.
This report presents options for addressing the July 1, 2007 mandate in the URM Ordinance
recommending that the staff return in the spring with a considered method for using the Chamber's
hazard rating system. Because near-term mandatory deadlines have proved to be the most effective
tool for motivating owners to retrofit their buildings, this report recommends use of the Chamber's
hazard rating system for assigning new completion deadlines. However, given the complexities of
strict assignment of deadlines on the basis of hazard rating alone, this report also recommends
further staff analysis, including consultation with URM building owners, the Seismic Task Force,
and other interested parties to formulate recommended deadlines for further consideration in the
spring.
DISCUSSION
Background: Toughening Our Program Over Time--But With Added Help
In 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first seismic retrofit ordinance. This ordinance
required retrofit of buildings in the "Inventory of Hazardous Buildings", then consisting of 126
buildings, to be completed by 2017. During consideration of the then proposed Ordinance, the
Council worked to balance the heightened need to address public safety issues with the practical
( - I
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 2
needs of the affected building owners and tenants. While deadlines were established with this
initial Ordinance, the program allowed building owners great discretion with respect to timing.
Unfortunately, the results of this "kinder, gentler" approach were very disappointing. Between
1997 and 2004, only 26 buildings were addressed showing little progress in improving the safety
of over 100 URM buildings. With an average of 3.7 retrofits per year, it would have taken
another 26 years to complete all the retrofits at the pace established during the first seven years
of the program.
In 2004, the City adopted changes to the URM Ordinance (Attachment 1) in response to the
destruction and deaths resulting from the San Simeon Earthquake just to our north in Paso
Robles. The 2004 changes to the URM Ordinance addressed the need for greater results by
establishing earlier, and more serious deadlines for retrofits, while being considerate of the needs
of building owners by continuing to allow them to make the improvements in two stages, "Level
A" and "Level B", depending upon their situation.
Level A requires walls to be attached at the roof, at any intermediate floors, and at the foundation
in order to stabilize the "box". Level A also requires the parapet to be braced. According to then
Chief Building Official, Tom Baasch, Level A strengthening results in 80% of the needed
structural strengthening, at about 50% of the cost. The aim of Level A is to encourage owners to
"stabilize their boxes" in order to afford greater public safety in the near term, while funds are
saved for the next stage, Level B. Level B requires completion of the strengthening including
moment frames and other steel members that represent a costly part of a retrofit.
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. In January 2006, the activities of Seismic Coordinator were
blended into the duties of the Economic Development Manager.
To insure flexibility in retrofit timing for property owners, the 2004 ordinance required owners
to obtain necessary planning approvals and a construction permit by January 1, 2006. 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.
A Look Back at the Results from the New Deadlines Imposed by the 2004 Ordinance
With the new ordinance came new deadlines, including some that soon followed passage of the
Ordinance. Upon the deadline for permit applications, July 1, 2005, many property owners had
complied with the new regulation by submitting plans for strengthening their buildings. Building
owners and their engineers worked with City staff to assure that all buildings came into
compliance. All requests for permits were reviewed, planning review of projects progressed
- a
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 3
efficiently, and by June 2006 all projects had complied with the requirement to have a permit.
Since the revised URM Ordinance took effect in late 2004, eighteen Level B strengthening
projects plus two demolition projects have been completed showing improvement in the average
number of retrofits per year. Under the pre-2004 ordinance, the average was 3 per year. Under
the current ordinance, the average rose to 10 per year. Initial progress was encouraging, as
momentum appeared to be gaining in response to the fresh deadlines set by the City Council.
However, since issuing the permits, this momentum has waned as the memory of the effects of
the San Simeon earthquake has dimmed.
Where Does This Leave the Program
Retrofit Status Today
38
❑ Fully Strengthened/Off List
❑ Demolished
❑ Exempt
75 ® Not Strengthened
8
4
The URM Program has been in place for 10 years. During that time, 51 buildings have been
eliminated from the Inventory as seen on the Hazard Mitigation Summary (Attachment 2). This
represents completion of 40% of the Inventory leaving 60% still to be completed. Although the
pace has increased, at today's pace it will take another 9 years to complete the remaining 75
retrofits.
One thing is certain: near-term deadlines resulted in the high level of compliance in building
permit issuance and in the increased pace immediately following the 2004 Ordinance.
Issues to Consider in Light of July 1,2007 Level A Deadline
1. July 1, 2007 Level A Deadline
The next deadline under the URM Ordinance 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
t- 5
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 4
strengthening) by July 1, 2007 in order to delay the Level B work until July 1, 2012. Importantly,
the Ordinance states: 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 .
2. Compliance with Upcoming Deadline
As a preview to July 2007, there are currently 69 buildings that would be subject to the July 1,
2007 deadline. The existing pace is well below what was optimistically anticipated one year ago
and well below an annual average that will result in completion of these buildings by July 1,
2010. The list of 69 includes buildings not yet strengthened, buildings being strengthened now,
buildings in varying stages of development review for redevelopment, and buildings where some
strengthening work has been accomplished but not to Level A. It does not include the six
buildings now in compliance with Level A. Since the list remains long—if we remain committed
to a serious program—it is imperative that the City find ways to encourage owners to undertake a
consistent flow of these projects. Based on recent progress, failure to do so will result in an
annual allocation of retrofits as shown on this graph:
Projection Based on Present Retrofit Rate
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 _ ..
7/1/2007-6/30/2008 7/1/2008-6/30/2009 7/1/2009-6/30/2010
As noted above, the Ordinance gives the Council the opportunity to spur an adequate annual
completion rate through setting specific new deadlines for retrofit completions prior to 2010.
Specific new deadlines could result in an annual allocation of retrofits as shown in the following
graph.
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 5
Preferred Retrofit Projection
25 -
20
15
10
5
0
7/l/2007-6/30/2008 7/1/2008-6/30/2009 7/l/2009-6/30/2010
3. Chamber's Seismic Task Force Recommendations: Early Council Direction, Aided by a
Proposed Hazard Rating System
The Chamber of Commerce reactivated the Seismic Task Force in 2004 to evaluate the City's
proposed modifications to the URM Ordinance. Since that time, the Task Force has worked to
encourage compliance, while balancing the needs of building owners involved in the process. In
anticipation of the July 1, 2007 deadline, the Task Force studied ways to formulate a hazard
rating system that would take into account the building owner's needs and also react to concern
about the effect of the majority of retrofits languishing until much closer to the 2010 deadline..
The Task Force has urged the Council to consider this system several months prior to the July
2007 deadline to allow building owners as much time as possible to move their plans forward in
accordance with any newly prescribed deadlines. Earlier direction from Council would also
reduce uncertainty for tenants thereby helping them proceed with yearly business planning. As
the program has progressed, tenants within URM buildings and tenants adjacent to retrofit
projects have become more vocal about the impacts of the construction and the inability to plan
due to the uncertainty related to retrofit deadlines. Thus, greater certainty — while somewhat
painful to establish—is beneficial to all involved in this difficult task.
The rating system suggested by the Chamber's Seismic Task Force offers one way to determine
the relative hazard of the non-compliant buildings by creating a hazard rating system based on
more concrete and quantifiable attributes. The Chamber's system uses a formula consisting of
four factors that emphasize the potential for harm to the greatest number of people, rather than
weighing the relative structural integrity of each building:
1. Occupancy Load as defined by the building code for each building's use(s);
2. Number of stories
3. Intensity of pedestrian and vehicle traffic at the building's location;and
4. Frequency of occupation of the building (seven days/week, five days/week or two
days/week)
Application of the formula results in a "hazard score" for each building. For the 69 buildings on
the list, application of the formula results in hazard scores ranging from 24.20 to a low of 4.07 as
P
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 6
seen on the List of Hazard Rating Scores. (Attachment 3) Again, note that the score is an
indication of the potential for harm to the greatest number of people rather than the relative
structural hazard, such as whether one building will survive an earthquake better than another.
The Chamber submitted a letter to the Council on October 16, 2006 during the public comment
period (Attachment 4) requesting early consideration of the rating system. A list of the Task
Force rated buildings was posted on the Chamber website and, in response to the letter, the
Council directed staff to include a link to the list on the City's website. Staff added the link to the
City's "splash page" in order to inform the greatest number of readers. Additionally, staff
included information about the list along with the Chamber's link in a recent edition of the
"What's Shakin"' Newsletter. Electronic editions were sent to the "What's Shakin"' email list
and hard copies of the newsletter and list were mailed to all owners who do not use email.
As intended, the fist and rating system has resulted in interest by owners of the highest rated
buildings and owners who have completed partial retrofits (but not Level A compliant). The
Chief Building Official and Economic Development Manager have met with concerned building
owners to discuss compliance measures. Staff contacted owners on the "Partially Strengthened—
Not Level A" list to encourage them to contact the Chief Building Official to see what would be
required to obtain Level A compliance status in advance of the July 1, 2007 deadline. Thus,
even though this rating system has not yet been adopted, it has generated recent activity.
4.Application of Hazard Rating to Assign New Deadlines
Following determination of hazard rating score, the Task Force considered assignment of a year-
by-year completion date with the highest rated buildings going first. For discussion purposes,
the list was divided by thirds with the top third getting a July 1, 2008 deadline, the second third a
deadline of July 1,2009 and the final third a deadline of July 1, 2010. The idea of breaking the
list into three groups is to more evenly "meter out" the improvements in order to lessen the
disruption to the City as a whole.
However, it was immediately apparent that there were some major difficulties in assigning
deadlines solely on the basis of hazard rating. For instance, the buildings within redevelopment
projects presented timing issues. Why, for example, should a building that may be demolished
(or improved) as a part of a current development application be forced to retrofit ahead of the
larger project? Chinatown, the Johnson Block and Garden Street Terraces offer three such
examples. Furthermore, staff believes that more analysis is needed to consider the relationship
of the list to planned City utility and public works construction projects (are there potentially
"clusters" of retrofits that might conflict with major capital projects in the works?).
Additionally, certain non-profits' projects (such as the Mission De Tolosa and the Mission Prep
School) rank high, yet are challenged by fund-raising. Both are in the process of raising the
substantial funds for the retrofits and will meet the 2010 deadline only with the greatest of
endeavors.
L ` 1
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 7
Yes, a strict approach to the deadlines based solely on hazard scores is an option, and some will
argue that this is the only "fair" way to apply a hazard rating. This leads to the heart of the
matter...and the brutal facts of life relative to the goal of making URM buildings safer.
The Heart of the Matter...and a Brutal Truth
Simply put, there are no easy answers if we wish to remain committed to strengthening URM
buildings. We have tried a more voluntary program. It didn't work. We committed to a more
stringent program after the December 2003 "reminder", and we have now reached a crucial fork
in the road: Will we remain committed to the path of greater safety by 2012, or will we fall back
to a more voluntary program?
As time progresses away from the San Simeon earthquake, the job of keeping the issue in the
public eye becomes more difficult and staff believes that renewed deadlines are an essential
ingredient for continued progress. However, creating an equitable rating system and applying
that system is easier said than done. No matter what choice is made, it won't be perfect. Our
goal, therefore, should be to craft the best option, not a perfect or"pain free" option.
Options for complying with the July 1, 2007 mandate of the URM Ordinance
There are two conceptual decisions the Council needs to make, if we wish to use a "relative
hazard" approach in establishing the deadlines required by July 1, 2007, pursuant to our
ordinance. First, the Council must decide what form the hazard rating system should take, and
second, the Council must decide how to apply the hazard rating system to establish year-by-year
completion deadlines for rated buildings. Staff offers the three main options below, and
recommends Option 1 as the best of the three.
Option 1 — Support the Seismic Task Force Hazard Rating System and Direct Staff to
Return with Implementation Recommendations in Spring 2007
1. Form of Rating System. This "four factor" system represents considerable deliberation
about which factors to include in the hazard score in light of the URM Ordinance language.
2. Application of Rating System. The Task Force developed the rating system and offered one
example of "where the lines could be drawn" — but, they are not recommending those lines.
They believe that further analysis is needed and that the determination relative to specific
buildings should ultimately be decided by the City. Therefore, in order to define the
application system, the Council should instruct staff to return with a recommended year-by-
year assignment of deadlines this spring. In order to do so, staff will contact all interested
parties including building owners, tenants, the Task Force and others, to determine
extenuating factors to be taken into consideration in making deadline assignments. These
extenuating factors may include the timing requirements for the redevelopment projects as
well as other issues, such as planned City construction and the unique challenges of non-
profit entities. However, the assignments should be largely influenced by relative hazard and
should be roughly equal in number from year to year. (�
I - t
0
Council Agenda Report-Status Report: TJRM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 8
3. Benefits. This option presents the following benefits:
a. The hazard rating system is the product of the Chamber Task Force's detailed
consideration of the many factors that could be included in such a hazard rating;
b. It encourages building owners to move forward with their retrofit based largely on their
hazard rating;
c. It provides project timelines upon which tenants can make business plans;
d. It affords the City the opportunity to keep the issue in the public eye consistently over the
next three years;
e. It affords an opportunity for discussion of extenuating circumstances that should be
factored into the assignment of deadlines; and,
f. It allows for adoption of a `hazards' based approach to the deadlines without losing sight
of the practicalities of retrofit timing.
4. Concerns. It will be challenging for staff to formulate a rational basis for assignment of
deadlines outside of strict adherence to the hazard score. It will require more dedication of
staff time than is currently available. Determining appropriate exceptions to deadlines based
strictly on hazard score has potential pitfalls; by giving allowances to some for all the right
practical reasons will shift others on the list to a nearer completion timeline.
Option 2—Support the Seismic Task Force Rating System and Assign Deadlines Strictly on
the Basis of Hazard.Score.
1. Form of Rating System. Same as above.
2. Application of Rating System. Instruct staff to assign deadlines based on hazard rating alone
and return to Council with the deadlines. The assignments shall be roughly equal in number
from year to year with no deadlines later than July 1, 2010 as required by the URM
Ordinance.
3. Benefits. The benefits of this option are:
a. Same as a-d above.
b. It allows for adoption of a strict hazard based approach to the deadlines, and thus may be
perceived as more fair.
I - g
V -
Council Agenda Report-Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 9
4. Concerns.
a. It affords no opportunity for discussion of extenuating circumstances that may be
factored into the assignment of deadlines;
b. It may diminish the economic benefits that could be derived from working with owners'
plans for upgrading their buildings; and,
c. It may overlook major construction conflicts, or require delay in needed City
infrastructure improvements.
Option 3- Consider All Buildings Essentially Equal in Hazard and Retain the July 1, 2010
Deadline for All Buildings
1. Form of Rating System. Essentially, there is not a rating system with this option.
2. Application of Rating System. Let the market continue to determine when retrofits will
occur in advance of the July 1, 2010 deadline..
3. Benefits. It provides the greatest flexibility for the building owner while accomplishing
retrofits without compromising the deadline currently established by the URM Ordinance.
4. Concerns.
a. The market approach omits early elimination of the buildings with the highest hazard
rating which could lower public safety value;
b. It fails to provide near-term deadlines, which have been shown to be an effective tool in
motivating owners to retrofit their buildings;
c. It may serve to encourage more retrofit projects to start as the 2010 deadline nears
resulting in a large number of projects lagging into 2010 with the attendant increased
disruption to existing businesses;
d. It provides greater uncertainty for tenants thereby complicating business planning; and
e. It continues to lack opportunities for the City to promote near-term retrofits.
Conclusion
Determination of a system for orderly completion of the 69 retrofit projects not yet strengthened
is the current challenge for the Council. Options 1 and 2 presented above represent alternative
ways to encourage owners to maintain a consistent flow of these projects and avoid early gaps
and late bulges in retrofit activity during the remaining three years before the deadline. While not
an easy option (none of them are), staff believes that Option 1 provides the most systematic
( -q
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 10
approach for assessing relative hazard. Option 1 maintains flexibility while obtaining a method
for promoting orderly progression through the retrofit projects. Option 1 also allows for balance
between public safety concerns and the needs of building owners. It also recognizes the
economic benefits of an orderly process of retrofit projects in our Downtown.
The City's current URM program has benefited from consistent emphasis on near-term
deadlines. The Chamber and the Downtown Association have worked closely with the City to
keep the deadlines in the forefront. Following issuance of the permits for retrofit of all URM
buildings, no near-term mandatory deadlines remained and, thus progress has appeared to lag as
a result. The imposition of new completion deadlines as mandated in the URM Ordinance gives
the Council the opportunity to use new near-term deadlines to encourage greater and more
orderly compliance by building owners who fail to have Level A strengthening completed by
July 1, 2007. If we truly wish to achieve greater community safety through this program, we
must remain vigilant until all buildings have achieved Level B strengthening. But there is no
"magic bullet" that will make achieving this goal easy. If we wish to accomplish the goal within
the foreseeable future, tough decisions will need to be made.
Next Steps
Staff will contact all building owners to inform them of the direction provided by the Council.
Staff will contact interested parties as directed by Council, will formulate a method for assigning
deadlines in accordance with Council direction, and will return to Council in the spring with a
recommended action that conforms to the Council direction.
On July 1, 2007, staff will review the list of buildings to confirm those buildings not
strengthened to Level A. Staff will notify each building owner of their new deadline in
accordance with the future Council resolution. In the interim, staff will continue to assist
building owners to encourage them to begin their retrofit in a timely fashion, to understand the
deadlines, and to address any questions from owners, tenants and other interested parties.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department, including the Chief Building Official, the Public
Works Department and the Utilities Department concur with the recommendation to adopt the
Chamber hazard rating system and, by springtime, prescribe a completion deadline for individual
buildings based Option 1 on as presented in of this Report. An orderly process for assuring
compliance with the URM Ordinance deadlines is important to the Downtown Association. The
Chamber of Commerce indicated support for their hazard rating system and early Council action
as described in their letter dated October 12, 2006 (Attachment 4).
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no fiscal impacts to the City budget resulting from action based on this report.
Continued fiscal impacts to the building owners and economic benefits derived from their
investments are not quantifiable within the scope of this report. Although there may be some
I I l �
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 11
revenue impact to the City caused by higher levels of construction in the Downtown, this is also
not quantifiable. What is certain, however, is that this impact will be far less than the impact we
will experience if a severe earthquake strikes and our buildings are not sufficiently strengthened.
And, bottom line, temporary fiscal considerations are a subordinate consideration within the
overall context of this issue. This issue is ultimately about life safety and protecting the citizens
of our community.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 1453
2. URM Hazard Mitigation Summary, Dec. 2006
3. Chamber of Commerce List of Hazard Rating Scores
4. Chamber of Commerce Letter dated October 12, 2006.
G:\Staff\Clark\Seismic-Utilities\Council Report Files
ATTACHMENT f
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
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
WHEREAS, 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 Seismic 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 1 r�
l d—
® 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
completedby 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,
I - 1V
I
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.
A115.1.3 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 A115.7 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.
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 system
installed and operational within 24 months of the approval and acceptance of the
lateral by the City.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. An automatic fire sprinkler system required by
Section 1003.2.2.1 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 Building
Conservation, as amended, prior to October 1, 2004, shall be completed
and operational by January 1, 2017.
FIGURE 10-A—COMMERCIAL FIRE ZONE
t
® Commercial Fire Zone
® ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series)
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.
SEC'T'ION 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 17`h day of August,2004 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of Sari 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 R Romero
ATTEST:
9,11A//I If A
Audrey Hoo
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo than . Lowell
Cit tomey
ATTACHMENT 2
URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY
IN THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
December 2006
BUILDINGS IN COMPLIANCE
FULLY STRENGTHENED-Level B DEMOLISHED
1. 964 Chorro 1. 344 Higuera
I. 1117 Chorro 2. 1540 Marsh
3. 1127 Chorro 3. 969 Monterey
4. 1135 Chorro 4. 1039 Monterey
5. 1141 Chorro 5. 1057 Monterey
6. 1110 Garden 6. 2223 Monterey
7. 385 Higuera 7. 991 Nipomo
8. 647 Higuera 8. 783 Santa Rosa
9. 686 Higuera
10. 698 Higuera EXEMPT
11. 705 Higuera
12. 715 Higuera 1. 280 Pismo
13. 719 Higuera 2. 2180 Johnson (Sunny Acres)
14. 726 Higuera 3. 2180 Johnson (Old Adobe)
15. 741 Higuera 4. 1144 Monterey
16. 745 Higuera
17. 777 Higuera REASSESSED-
18. 778 Higuera FOUND TO BE REINFORCED
19. 868 Higuera
20. 876 Higuera 1. 1708 Beach
21. 1001 Higuera
22. 1011 Higuera
23. 951 Marsh SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE
24. 696 Monterey
25. 747 Monterey Total Level B 38
26. 861 Monterey Total Demolished 8
27. 888 Monterey Total Exempt 4
28. 962 Monterey Total Reassessed 1
29. 968 Monterey Total in Compliance 51
30. 978 Monterey
31. 998 Monterey
32. 879 Morro
33. 955 Morro
34. 1021 Morro
35. 976 Osos
36. 1185 Pacific
37. 751 Palm
38. 800 Palm
ATTACHMENT 2
BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO DEADLINES
BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO
TULY 1,2010 DEADLINE
1. 1121 Broad 46. 778 Marsh
2. 1127 Broad 47. 1160 Marsh
3. 1131 Broad 48. 1500 Marsh
4. 1901 Broad 49. 1034 Mill
5. 2747 Broad 50. 837 Monterey
6. 941 Chorro 51. 840 Monterey
7. 970 Chorro 52. 848 Monterey
8. 1029 Chorro 53. 849 Monterey
9. 1035 Chorro 54. 857 Monterey
10. 1119 Chorro 55. 886 Monterey
11. 1318 Chorro 56. 1009 Monterey
12. 1119 Garden 57. 1116 Morro
13. 1123 Garden 58. 1051 Nipomo
14. 1130 Garden 59. 1124 Nipomo
15. 220 High 60. 1050 Osos
16. 295 Higuera 61. 1609 Osos
17. 309 Higuera 62. 1804 Osos
18. 311 Higuera 63. 682 Palm
19. 341 Higuera 64. 798 Palm
20. 565 Higuera 65. 861 Palm
21. 659 Higuera 66. 150 Pismo
22. 669 Higuera 67. 298 Pismo
23. 673 Higuera 68. 1880 Santa Barbara
24. 699 Higuera 69. 667 Upham
25. 717 Higuera
26. 718 Higuera
27. 728 Higuera BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO
28. 733 Higuera JULY 1,2012 DEADLINE-
29. 740 Higuera LEVEL A STRENGTHENED
30. 760 Higuera
31. 782 Higuera 1. 710 Higuera
32. 790 Higuera 2. 736 Mguera
33. 793 Higuera 3. 779 Higuera
34. 839 Higuera ' 4. 796 Higuera
35. 842 Higuera 5. 742 Marsh
36. 853 Higuera 6. 868 Monterey
37. 856 Higuera
38. 858 Higuera
39. 970 Higuera PROGRESS ANALYSIS
40. 664 Marsh
41. 717 Marsh Total URM Buildings 126
42. 722 Marsh Total in Compliance (51)
43. 728 Marsh Total Remaining 75
44. 748 Marsh Subject to July 1,2010 Deadline 69
45. 777 Marsh Subject to July 1,2012 Deadline 6
Chamber of Commerce
rrA9.ARD RATING SCORES s�
# Muera
Owner Occ Ld Stories Fre O Loc Score - ATTACHMENT aB
1 1050 Sperry Flour LLC 1290 1 3 3 24.20
2 1009 Laird Building1063 2 3 3 22.17
3 682 Catholic Church Pre 800 2 2 2 16.67
4 941 Catholic Church SLO 585 1 3 3 14'.80
5 839 Ernest C Wineman TRE - 316 3 3 3 13.21
6 1119 Wes ac 280 2 3 3 11.73
7 842. Richard&Jennifer Porter '252 2 3 3 11.36
8 760 Hiuera Warden 395 2 1 3 11.27
9 669 HI uera Davidson GW Inc 184 2 3 3 10.45
10 699 Hi uera Thomas AMcLaughlin 164 2 3 3 10.19
11 1051 Ni omo Robin L.Rossi :270 1. 3 . 2 9.60
12 849 Monterey Anne Sinsheimer TRE 117 2 3 3 9.56
13 837 Monterey Stream Associates Inc 186 2 2 3 9.48
14 777 Marsh Gregory Johnson TRE 173 2 3 2 9.31
15 1880 Santa Barb Depot Square LP 167 3 1 3 9.23
16 1121 Broad Big Sky-Charles Meers 162 1 3 3 9.16
17 970 Hi uera - Covey 3,A CA 68 2 3 3 8.91
18 857 Monterey Petra Enterprises 67 2 3 3 8.89
19 793 Hi uera Dewar,et al 135 2 3 2 8.80
20 840 Monterey Copeland Properties 57 3 2 3 8.76
21. 1123 Garden Westpac 56 2 3 3 8.75
22 2747 Broad Baptist Church SLO 350 2 1 1 8.67
23 1160 (Marsh RKE Properties II .200 3 2 1 8.67
24 '717Marsh Charles H Kamm TRE 333 1 1 2 8.44
25 858 HI uera HenryE Madson TRE 99 1. 3 3. 8.32
26 1029 Chorro Dorothy JNaman TRE- 94 1 3 3 8.25
27 733 Hi uera Ja mohan&SB Hiranandani 90 1 3 3 8.20
28 1116 Morro Sirvart R Haroutunian TRE 156 2 2 2 8.08
29 848 Monterey Copeland Properties 150 2 1 3 8.00
30 673 Hi uera Bradley J Bilsten TRE 67 1 _ 3 3 7.89
31' 782 Hi uera Dorothy J Naman TRE 67 1 3 3 .7.89
32 728 Hi uera Bill Hale/EricSwartz 50 1 3 3 7.67
33 717 Hi uera Michael Oliazola 49 1 3 3 7.65
34 886 Monterey Copeland Properties 49 1 3 3 7.65
35 778 Marsh Mark&Tracy.Anderson. _ 45 2 3 - 2 7.60
36 1035 Chorro Dorothy J Naman TRE 44 1 3 3 7.59
37 659 Hi uera Richard&Catherine Wie ers 40 1 3 3 7.53
38 718 Hi uera Kevin&"KathiMain 40 T 3 3 7.53
39 1127 Broad Steven L Wise TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40
40 1131 Broad Margaret M Cote TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40
41 740 Hi uera Bradley JBilsten TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40
42 856 Hi uera Van Eck-Grazziano Assn 30 1 3 3 7.40
43 790 Hi uera Dorothy J Naman TRE 29 1 3 3 7.39
44 970 Chorro Bradley J Bilsten TRE 22 1 3 3 7.29
45 1130 Garden iJohn A Benson 20 2 2 3 7.27
46 1119 Chorro iThomas Setser 15 1 3 3 7.20
47 853 Hi uera I Ernest C Wineman TRE 150 1 1 3 7.00
48 861 Palm ISLO Court Street LLC 70 1 3 2 6.93
49 295 Hi uera Sub Corporation LTD 54 1 3 2 6.72
50 728 Marsh Marsh Street Associates 49 1 3 2 6.65
51 341 Hi uera David C&Sheryl A Beem 12 1 3 2 6.16
52 -748 Marsh Westpac: - 12 -1 3 2 6.16
53 722 Marsh Marsh Street Associates 10 1 3 2 6.13
54 150 Pismo Sub Corporation LTD 8 1 3 2 6.11
55 1124 Ni omo McDonald. 63 1. 2 2 5.84
56 565 Hi uera Vernon L Garcia TRE 30 1 2 2 5.40
57 '798 Palm - Beulah Chong TRE 26 1. 2 2 5.35
58 309 Hi uera John&Jeanine Evon 15 1 2 2 5.20
59 667 Upham Reeser 11 1. 3 1 5.15.
60 1804 Osos SLO CountyAlan Club Inc 10 T 3 1 5.13
61. 298 Pismo Thomas TL Chou TRE ETAL 84 1. 2- 1 5.12
62 311 Hi uera John&Jeanine Evan 5 1 2 2 5.07
63 1609 Osos Harry G-Kyle TRE ETAL 50 1 2 1 4.67
64 664 Marsh Katherine L Spangler 30 1- 2 1 4.40
65 220 High Triangle,A CA - 20 1 2 1 4.27
66 1500 Marsh Obispo Investments Inc 17 1 2 1 423
67 1034 Mill David Sutcliff 15 1 2 1 4.20
68 1318 Chorro Howard.E Carroll TRE 11 1. 2 1 4.15
69 1901 Broad Alfred P Martinelli TRE 5 1 2 1 4.07
SCORE=Occupancy load/75+Stories+Frequencyof Occu anon+Location
l � 19
i.
ATTACHMENT 4
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) (805) 543-1255
October 12, 2006 Da E. Garth,
David President/CEO
Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo Qcj 13 2006
990 Palm St. city Qj,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Admini�ffation
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members,
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force has been working for
the past 15 years on the issue of getting needed unreinforced masonry work completed.
During that time, we have worked closely with city staff and you, our elected officials,
to have a reasonable and comprehensive seismic ordinance.
The stated purpose of the task force is to continue monitoring seismic retrofit progress.
With that mission in mind, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the number
of buildings (67 as of September, 2006) still needing URM work by the July, 2010
deadline. Some of these may have completed Level A work by July 1, 2007 and would
then get an extension to the 2012 deadline for Level B work. Nonetheless, at the current
pace, we fear that significant construction activity, congestion and disruption of the
downtown will occur as the 2010 deadline approaches.
For this reason, we have worked with the city's Economic Development Manager Claire
Clark and Chief Building Official Tom Baasch to produce a relative risk ranking for each
URM building. This hazard "score" is based on the occupancy load, the duration of
occupancy, and the location of the building within the city. The city's Ordinance No.
1453 adopted in September, 2004, gives you, our city council, the option of prioritizing
and accelerating the completion dates if Level A work is not completed by July, 2007.
The ordinance also requires a report on January of each year from the Chief Building
Official as to the status of URM work; however, we are concerned that should the
Council decide at that time to enforce a year by year schedule for buildings based on
relative risk, several months will have been lost in alerting the property owners and/or
in motivating them to complete Level A.
email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com
ATTACHMENT 4
In our view, the sooner this information is reported to the Council and given to
property owners, the better it will be for all concerned. Our Chamber has posted a
relative risk list on our website for the information of property owners with the caveat
that it is the Council's option to decide how to proceed. We want to again remind you
that many owners, with this knowledge in hand, may be motivated to get Level A work
underway; however, if no Council review is done until January, only a few months
remain to plan and get the work underway for completion by July 1, 2007. In other
words, we have a window of opportunity that needs to be accessed sooner rather than
later. In the event that you cannot get a review agendized until January, we would
recommend that the relative hazard list be sent to property owners now with the
appropriate disclaimers.
Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to commend the fine work of Chief
Building Official Tom Baasch. He has served the city and the community with the
highest integrity and utmost effectiveness these past 20 years. It has been a privilege for
the volunteers on our Chamber Seismic Task Force to work with him for the last 15 of
those years. Tom has that rare gift of understanding the needs of both the public and
private sector and of doing his best to produce solutions beneficial to all. He will be
greatly missed.
Sincerely,
ph;u
ary erdin
Chairperson of the Board
cc: Ken Hampian, CAO
Claire Clark, Economic Development Manager
Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official
I '