Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/2007, PH2 - ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO IMPLEMENT URM HAZARD MITIGATION DEADLINES AND EXCEPTIONS AS CONTEMPLATED IN M o • Council M`"` °U`l-/ 3 67 j acEnc)a REpont ,.N.-b-/p�z CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Shelly Stanwyck,Assistant City Administrative Officer Prepared By: Claire Clark,Economic Development Manager SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO IMPLEMENT URM HAZARD MITIGATION DEADLINES AND EXCEPTIONS AS CONTEMPLATED IN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.04.050. CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution to implement deadlines for buildings not seismically retrofitted to Level A as of January 9, 2007 with exceptions for redevelopment projects, nonprofit building owners, and "planned retrofit"projects. 2. Direct staff to return with changes to the master fee schedule to eliminate favorable fees upon expiration of the building permit for retrofit and related work. REPORT IN BRIEF This report presents background and, by resolution, a method for assigning deadlines to all buildings that are not retrofitted to Level A as of July 1, 2007 as allowed in the URM Ordinance at Municipal Code Section 15.04.050. It employs the Hazard Rating System and the flexibility exceptions that the Council requested at its January 9, 2007 meeting by creating a hazard reduction goal for each of the three years remaining in the program. DISCUSSION Background In 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first seismic retrofit ordinance. This ordinance required the retrofit of 126 buildings in the Requires walls to be "Inventory of Hazardous Buildings," by 2017. In 2004, the City adopted attached at the roof, at changes to the URM Ordinance (Attachment 1) in response to the any intermediate floors, destruction and deaths resulting from the San Simeon earthquake. The and at the foundation to 2004 URM Ordinance established earlier deadlines for retrofits while being stabilize the "box." considerate of the needs of building owners,by continuing to allow them to Level A also requires the make the improvements in two stages, "Level A" and "Level B," parapet to be braced. depending upon their situation. Building owners were given until July 1, According to former 2010 to complete the Level B retrofit unless Level A was completed by Chief Building Official, July 1, 2007, in which case the Level B deadline was extended to July 1, Tom Baasch, "Level A 2012. strengthening results in 80% of the strengthening The 2004 URM Ordinance required owners to obtain necessary planning for about 50% of the approvals and a construction permit for their retrofit projects. These cost." oma.— Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 2 permits, unlike conventional permits, remain "open" until the work is accomplished or the applicable completion deadline passes. The permit costs were at a significantly reduced fee. By requiring owners to obtain a construction permit, the Council sought to eliminate procedural obstacles that could slow down an owner's ability to proceed with the strengthening. Expiration of Level A Exception on July 1, 2007 On July 1, 2007, the ability to qualify for the Level A exception expires. The 2004 URM Ordinance prescribes Council review of all non-compliant buildings as of July 1, 2007 and provides that the Council may assign shorter deadlines for buildings not Level A compliant as of that date. The URM 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. Council's January 9, 2007 Direction On January 9, 2007, in anticipation of the Level A deadline and desiring to establish clear deadlines for building owners, the Council considered a hazard rating system devised by the Chamber of Commerce. At the time, there were 69 buildings that could be subject to the July 1, 2007 deadline (should no work be accomplished on those buildings in the interim). The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force developed a hazard rating system to address its concerns that the high number of retrofits yet to be completed combined with the current pace of retrofitting would result in a bunching projects around July 1, 2010. In addition to causing delays in meeting the URM Ordinance deadlines this bunching could cause significant disruption to downtown. Based on testimony given by building owners and the Chamber of Commerce, the Council generally supported the Seismic Task Force's Hazard Rating System, but directed staff to return with implementation recommendations that include flexibility for: 1. Nonprofit property owners; 2. Buildings that are part of current redevelopment applications; and 3. Buildings where strengthening plans can be documented and guaranteed, the so-called "Planned Retrofit." Staff was also directed to evaluate disclosure mechanisms in the event of the sale of a URM building. Follow-up to Council Direction of January 9, 2007 1. Property Owner Outreach Broad outreach to those property owners who could be subject to the July 1, 2007 deadline assignments was undertaken by the Economic Development Manager. Notification of the Council's action was sent to all potentially affected property owners, their representatives, and O Council Agenda.Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 3 other interested parties, including some tenants. This generated questions and comments from several fronts and ranged from compliant owners looking for follow-through by the Council to owners indicating a new or renewed interest in selling their building. 2. Reviewing Work to Determine Level A Compliance Outreach to owners of buildings partially retrofitted was undertaken by the Chief Building Official and the Economic Development Manager in an effort to refine the list of Level A- compliant properties. Currently, only six buildings have qualified for the later deadline by completing Level A retrofits. An additional six buildings have been retrofitted in part, but not to Level A standards. The owners of all but one of these buildings are working toward Level A qualification with the guidance and assistance of the Chief Building Official. 3. Meetings with the Seismic Task Force Meetings with the Chamber of Commerce's Seismic Task Force were held. The Task Force expressed support for exceptions for non-profits and redevelopment projects because these could be clearly defined. However, they expressed concerns about the "Planned Retrofit" exception due the perception that there could be a high degree of arbitrariness associated with implementation. 4. Staff Research In addition, staff researched methods for creating flexibility in the three areas identified by Council. Proposed Deadline Methodology 1. Hazard Score At the January 9, 2007 Council determined that the Chamber of Commerce Hazard Rating System should serve as a basis for determining hazard rating. The hazard score for URM properties was established using 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. The application of the formula results in a "hazard score" for each building as indicated in Attachment 2 Hazard Scores. For the buildings on the list, application of the formula results in hazard scores ranging from a high of 24.20 to a low of 4.07. It is important to acknowledge that there are other ways to assess relative hazard. The Chamber's suggested system for rating buildings offers one way to fairly rate the buildings. Individual building owners may find fault with details used in obtaining the hazard scores used for this analysis. However, considerable analysis shows that changes in factors and functions do not appreciably change an individual building's relative place on the hazard list. 2. Proposed Exceptions Once the hazard rating scores are determined, the next step is the more difficult process of determining how to assign annual deadlines. As requested by Council, flexibility in the deadline assignments was focused on three areas: nonprofit building ownership, buildings part of current ,-3 0 0 Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 4 redevelopment projects, and "planned retrofits." To implement these exceptions, staff recommends the following: a. Nonprofit Building Owners. Building owners that are Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) corporations shall be eligible for the July 1, 2010 deadline. This will apply to three buildings in the inventory, namely, the Mission Church, Mission College Prep School, and the Springfield Baptist Church. b. Redevelopment Proposals. To be eligible for the July 1, 2010 deadline, building owners with projects that are a part of current redevelopment proposals must show all of the following: 1) A planning application on file with the City prior to January 1, 2007; 2) The application proposes an increase in square footage of at least 25%; and, 3) A "Letter of Completeness" for such application issued by the Community Development Department no later than July 1, 2007. Staff suggests limiting this to redevelopment requests currently under active review and those that include increased square footage. The need for extra time results from the complexity of the review process for such projects. c. Planned Retrofit. To be eligible for the "planned retrofit" exception, a building owner shall submit a written plan to the Chief Building Official no later than May 1, 2007. This plan shall include supporting documents such as: 1) Copies of current leases or other legal documents that limit the ability of the owner to begin a retrofit project prior to the assigned deadline; 2) Copies of written estimates, contracts, or agreements with a retrofit contractor; 3) Evidence of financial support for the project; 4) A proposed timeline for the project; 5) A Statement from the project engineer confirming that the proposed timeline has been reviewed and is realistic. Upon receipt of the written plan by the Chief Building Official, the City Attorney, Assistant City Administrative Officer (ACAO) and the Chief Building Official will evaluate the written plan based on the information submitted. Upon review of the recommendations, the Chief Administrative Officer may approve, deny, or propose modifications to the plan. Once the plan meets with City approval, the City and the Building Owner shall enter into an Agreement. The Agreement will confirm acceptance of the plan and will set forth requirements and penalties. The Agreement shall include language requiring notification to tenants about the timing of the retrofit and posting of a notice to the public about what to do in the event of an earthquake. The Agreement shall be in a form suitable for recordation and shall be executed by the Building Owner no later than July 1, 2007, and shall be subject to Council ratification subsequent to July 1, 2007. The bar for qualifying as a Planned Retrofit vy o • Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 5 is quite high, with a short timeframe, and is not expected to generate a great number of interested owners. 3. Hazard Reduction as the Basis for Assignment of New Deadlines a. Placement on the List The original Chamber of Commerce hazard score list, focused on reducing the risk to as many people as possible, was utilized as a basis for preparing a list that shows the hierarchy of buildings so that deadlines could be assigned. That list was adjusted in keeping with Council direction so that redevelopment projects, non-profit buildings, and potential "planned retrofit"projects moved to the bottom. Then, the list was adjusted to reflect current circumstances. Buildings currently under construction were moved to the top of the list. Following the buildings under construction were buildings where the owner has indicated construction will start this year. After buildings in or soon to begin construction, the list followed with buildings based on the hazard rating score alone until meeting up with the "exceptions" at the bottom. b. How to Allocate the Buildings to each Year? During the meeting of January 9, 2007, Council discussed dividing the total number of buildings by the three remaining years, with earlier deadlines for the highest scoring buildings and later deadlines for lower scoring buildings. Application of the exceptions resulted in issues of fairness. As a result, staff worked with the list to determine how to allocate buildings across the three years in a fair manner. c. Deadlines Based on Total Hazard Reduction Instead of judging annual progress on the basis of the number of buildings retrofitted each year, staff explored judging annual progress on the basis of total hazard reduction. Using the hazard scores, total hazard can be determined by adding together all hazard scores shown on the Chamber of Commerce Hazard Rating List. By adding together the hazard scores for every building, a number representing total hazard results. To obtain an annual goal for hazard reduction, the Hazard Score total is divided by the three years. When the total hazard is divided by the three remaining years, an average annual hazard reduction guideline of 186.36 per year is produced. What this means is that public protection is spread relatively evenly across the three years, even if the number of buildings strengthened is somewhat uneven. Staff proposes assignment of deadlines based on reduction of total hazard, and as set forth in the draft Resolution (Attachment 3). d. Practical Application Attachment 4 shows the proposed deadlines based on an annual hazard reduction goal while achieving paced compliance within the 2010 deadline. This approach allows deadline assignments based on relative hazard to be adjusted for the practical circumstances identified above. OZI—6— o 0 Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 6 Assignment of deadlines on the basis of an overall hazard reduction goal preserves and addresses the Council's concern for non-profit owners, redevelopment projects, and"planned retrofit" exceptions. It also offers the greatest flexibility for property owners by assigning to the first year only those properties with clear intentions to begin their retrofit projects currently and yet overall public protection is spread evenly across the three years. By confining the first deadline year to retrofits in or nearing construction, we can possibly achieve more in year one than expected. On the other end of the timeframe, owners who qualify as redevelopment projects, that are non-profits, or who are able to make the case as a "planned retrofit" have sufficient flexibility to address their unique circumstances prior to the deadline of July 1, 2010. It is anticipated that the list will continue to adjust in accordance with the exceptions and the work accomplished by owners in advance of July 1, 2007. Failure to Comply- Penalties As with all imposed deadlines, penalties occupy part of the bag of tools necessary to motivate action. Individual building owners continue to express their concern for the initial changes in the deadlines that occurred in 2004 and opposition for any changes to deadlines now. It is necessary, therefore to discuss tools for compliance that include penalties. In examining the possible penalties, there are civil and criminal penalties available under the URM Ordinance and the Municipal Code. Additionally, the Ordinance provides that a building may be ordered vacated for failure to comply. In other cities, the penalties range from large to small fines as well as orders to vacate buildings. While vacant buildings are not a goal for the City or the property owner, it remains a viable outside option. Furthermore, should an owner habitually fail to comply with the deadline assigned to their building, civil penalties of$100 per day assessed cumulatively will apply. Noncompliance may also result in criminal prosecution. A valuable tool for encouraging timely retrofits is the elimination of the favorable fees for building and planning permits that were adopted at the time the Council changed the deadlines in 2004. (Ordinance #1453 — Attachment 1) These favorable fees currently apply to all improvements to the property including tenant improvements, fagade upgrades, system upgrades, planning review and parking meter bags for construction vehicles. Building owners who miss their deadline will be required to reapply for a new building permit. Making a change to eliminate the favorable fee levels upon expiration of the building permit may be an effective tool to encourage timely compliance. To make this change, staff will require Council direction to return with a resolution to amend the master fee schedule. Protection of Building Purchasers In addition to the implementation strategy for the deadlines, the Council requested evaluation of the ways potential purchasers are made aware of the URM status of a building. The State law protects potential purchasers in two ways. Signage is required on every building on the URM Inventory as of January 1, 2005. A review of the buildings in our inventory revealed full compliance with this law. Once a building is reinforced, it is removed from the Inventory and Z-� 0 0 Council Agenda Report— Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 7 the sign can be removed. In addition, every rental or lease agreement entered into after January 1, 2005 must include specific language about the potential dangers of the building. These are very powerful safeguards for anyone purchasing a URM in the City of San Luis Obispo. These buildings continue to change hands with small spikes in activity surrounding each deadline. Additionally, any transaction involving funds from a commercial lender will trigger and extensive due diligence review that will reveal the URM status to a potential purchaser or lender. Next Steps Staff will continue to work with building owners relative to the exceptions allowed by Council, including owners of buildings that may qualify for Level A. On July 1, staff will review the list of buildings to confirm the assignment of deadline for each building and contact, via formal notice and order, each building owner. Most importantly, staff will continue to provide a high level of outreach to building owners to encourage timely completion of all retrofit projects. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department, including the Chief Building Official, the Public Works Department, and the Utilities Department concur with the recommendation to adopt a completion deadline for individual buildings as shown in Attachment 3. An orderly process for assuring compliance with the URM Ordinance deadlines is important to the Downtown Association. The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force considered the Council's January 9, 2007 action at its meeting on February 21, 2007. The Task Force will have met again, on March 27, 2007, to consider the approach taken in Council Agenda Report. It is anticipated that the Chamber will further comment in advance of the hearing. 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 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. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not adopt deadlines based on Hazard Reduction. As noted, there are a wide variety of ways by which the deadlines for retrofit completion can be assigned. Staff feels strongly that the methodology proposed provides the level of flexibility Council sought for property owners ,Z-7 V 0 Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 8 uniquely situated, provides a practical approach to phasing, and continues to reduce the significant risks that URM buildings present to the public. 2. Modify Deadlines. Upon review of the proposed deadlines and flexibility in their application under certain circumstances Council may elect to modify the proposal further. If so, staff requests that specific direction is given so that implementation can be clear to the affected property owners. CONCLUSION As time progresses away from the San Simeon earthquake, the job of keeping the issue in the public eye becomes more difficult. Renewal of public interest and private action through shorter deadlines are essential ingredients for continued progress. However, creating an equitable rating system and applying that system is easier said than done. The goal, therefore, has been to present deadlines that balance the need to increase results within the program with the general realities faced by building owners. 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 continue to be needed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 URM Ordinance) 2. Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force List of Hazard Rating Scores 3. Draft Resolution 4. Deadline Assignments G:\Staff\Clark\Seismic-Utilities\Council Report Files ATTACHMENT I 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 2- V J TACHMENT I 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 I 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, r/O * 1 o • Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series) ATTACHMENT I Page 3 2. A written agreement includes an acceptable work plan and timeline;and, 3. The plan completes Level B strengthening by July 1, 2412. 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 iemaining'on the inventory, including the status of orders issued pursuant to this Chapter that are not resolved. a l' o • ATTACHMENT I 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 EAsting 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 1003.22.1 in a building of unreinforced masonry construction may be delayed until the date established in Section A115.1.1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, as amended, for completion of Level B strengthening. 2. An automatic fire sprinkler system required by Section 1003.2.2.1 in a building of unreinforced masonry construction strengthened to Level A standards, as defined in Section A103 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, as amended, prior to October 1, 2004, shall be completed and operational by January 1,2017. FIGURE 10-A—COAIME<RCIAL FIRE ZONE Commercial Fire Zone r• 0 0 ATTACHMENT I 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. 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 17`h day of August,2004 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 7`h 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: Audrey Hoo City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo*than ,Lowell Cit torney ;2 -13 .,. 1. 32Z'"7 O Chamber of Commerce O 1 HAZARD RAI=G SCORES ATTACHMENT 2 a Location Owner Doc Ld Stories Fre 0 Loc Score 1 1050 losos Sperry Flour.LLC 1290 1 3 3 24.20 2 1009Monter, Laird Building1063 2 3 3 22.17 3 682 Palm Catholic.Church Pre 800 2'. 2 2 16.67 4 .941 Chorro Catholic Church SLO 585 1 3 3 14.80 5 839 Hi uera Ernest CWinemanTRE 316 3 3 3 13.21 6 1119 lGarden Westpac 280 2 3 3 11.73 7 842 HI uera Richard&Jennifer.Porter 252 2. 3 3 11.36 8 760 HI uera Warden 395 2. 1 3 11.27 9 837 Monterey Stream Associates Inc 186 2 3 3 10.48 10 669 Hi uera Davidsons GW Inc 184 2 3 3 10.45 11 699 Hi uera Thomas A McLaughlin 164 2 3 3 10.18 12 793 HI uera Dewar,at al. 135 2. 3 3 9.80 13 1051 Ni mo Robin L.Rossi 270 1 3 2 9.60 14 849 Monterey Anne Sinshelmer TRE 117 2. 3 3 9.56 15 777 Marsh Gregory Johnson TRE173 2 3 2 9.31 16 1880 Santa Barb Depot Square LP 167 3 1 3 9.23 17 1121 Broad Big Sky-Charles Meyers 162 1 3 3 9.16 18 970 Hi uera Covey 3,.ACA 68 2 3 3 8.91 19 1 857 Monterey Petra Enterprises 67 2. 3 3 8.89 20 840 Monterey Copeland Prorties 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 24 717 Marsh 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 J.Naman TRE 94 1 3 3 8.25 27 733 Hi uera Ja mohan&SB Hiranandani 90 1 3 3 8.20 28 1116 Morro Slrvart R.Haroutunian TRE 156 2. 2. 2 8.08 29. 848 Monterey Copeland Prorties 150 2 1 3 8.00 30 782 Hi uera Dorothy JNaman TRE 67 1 3 3 7.89 31, 728 Hi uera Bill Hale/Eric Swartz 50 1 3 3 7.67 32 717 HI uera Michael Oliazola 49 1 3 3 7.65 33 886 Monterey Copeland Properties 49 1 3 3 7.65 34 778 Marsh Mark&Tracy Anderson 45 2 3 2 7.60 35 1035 Chorro Dorothy J.Naman TRE 44 1 3 3 7.59 36 659 Hi uera Richard&Catherine W le ers 40 1 3 3 7.53 37 718 Hi uera Kevin&Kathi.Main 40 1 3 3 7.53 38 1127 Broad Steven L Wise TRE 30 1 - 3 3 1 7.40 39 1131 Broad Margaret M Cote TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40 40 740 Hi uera Bradley J Bilsten.TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40 41 856 Hi uera Van Eck-Grazziano Assn 30 1 3 3 7.40 42' 790 Hi uera Dorothy J Naman TRE 29 1 3 3 7.39 43 1 970 IChorro Bradley J Bilsten TRE 22 1 3 3 7.29 44' 1130 Garden John A Benson 20 2 2 3 7.27 45 1119 Chorro Thomas Setser 15 1 3 3 7.20 46 853 Hi uera Ernest C W ineman TRE 150 1 1 3 7.00 47 861 Palm SLO Court Street LLC 70 1 3 2 6.93 48 295 Hi uera Sub Corporation LTD 54 1 3 2 6.72 49. 728 Marsh Marsh Street Associates 49 1 3 2. 6.65 50 341 HI uera David C'&Sheryl A Beem 12 1 3 2 6.16 51 748 Marsh Westpac 12 1 3 2 6.16 52 722 Ilylarsh Marsh Street Associates 10 1 3 2 6.13 53 150 Pismo Sub.Corporation LTD 8 1 3 2 6.11 54 565 Hi uera Vernon L Garcia TRE 30 1 2 2 5.4O- 55 798 Palm Beulah Chong TRE 26 1 2. 2 5.35 56 309 HI uera John&Jeanine Evon 15 1 2. 2 520 57 667 Upham Reeser 11 1 3 1 5.15 58 1804 Osos SLO County Alano Club Inc 10 1 3 1 5.13 59 298 Pismo Rudy Buchanan. 84 1 2 1 5.12 60 311 HI uere John:&Jeanine Evon 5 1 2 2 5.07 61 1609 Osos Harry G Kyle TRE ETAL 50 1 2 1 4.67 62 664 Marsh Katherine L Spangler 30 1 2 1 4.40 63 220 ;ih Trian le,A CA 20 1 2 1 4.27 64' 1500 sh Obis o Investments Inc 17 1 2. 1 4.23 65 1034 David Sutcliff66' 1318 rro Howard E Carroll TRE2 1 4.15 67 1901 ad Alfred Martinelli TRE 5 1 2 1 4.07 68 69 SCORE=Occupancy load/75+Stories+Frequency of Occu ation+Location 2-/y o • RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) ATTACHMENT 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO ESTABLISH DEADLINES FOR ALL UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS NOT RETROFITTED TO LEVEL A BY JULY 1, 2007 WHEREAS, the City Council made changes to the Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Program in 2004; and WHEREAS, said changes to the Program included nearer deadlines for hazard mitigation; and WHEREAS, said changes allowed the City Council to set nearer deadlines for any building not retrofitted to Level A as of July 1, 2007, based on relative hazard, but no later than July 1, 2010; and WHEREAS, in anticipation of the Level A deadline, and desiring to establish clear deadlines for building owners, the Council considered a hazard rating system devised by the Chamber of Commerce at a hearing on January 9, 2007: and WHEREAS, based on testimony given by building owners and the Chamber of Commerce, the Council supported the Seismic Task Force's Hazard Rating System and directed staff to return with implementation recommendations to provide for certain flexibility; and WHEREAS, assignment of deadlines on the basis of an overall hazard reduction goal addresses the Council's concerns for flexibility; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 1. A seismic retrofit deadline, no later than July 1, 2010, shall be assigned to each building not retrofitted to Level A as of July 1, 2007 in accordance with the hazard rating, specified exceptions, and overall hazard reduction goal. 2. The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force Hazard Rating Scores as proposed on January 9, 2007 is adopted. 3. Said exceptions shall be as follows: a. Nonprofit Building Owners. Building owners that are Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) corporations shall be eligible for the July 1, 2010 deadline. This will apply to three buildings in the inventory. b. Redevelopment Proposals. To be eligible for the July 1, 2010 deadline, building owners with projects that are a part of current redevelopment proposals must show all of the following: R • • ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 1) A planning application on file with the City prior to January 1, 2007; 2) The application proposes an increase in square footage of at least 25%; and, 3) A "Letter of Completeness" for such application issued no later than July 1, 2007. c. Planned Retrofit. To be eligible for the "planned retrofit" qualification for the July 1, 2010 deadline, a building owner shall submit a written plan to the Chief Building Official no later than May 1, 2007. This plan shall include supporting documents such as: 1) Copies of current leases or other legal documents that limit the ability of the owner to begin a retrofit project prior to the assigned deadline; 2) Copies of written estimates, contracts, or agreements with a retrofit contractor; 3) Evidence of financial support for the project; 4) A proposed timeline for the project; 5) A Statement from the project engineer confirming that the proposed timeline has been reviewed and is realistic. Upon receipt by the Chief Building Official, the Assistant City Administrative Officer and the Chief Building Official will evaluate the written plan based on the information submitted. The City may approve, deny, or propose modifications to the plan. Once the plan meets with City approval, the City and the Building Owner shall enter into an Agreement. The Agreement will confirm acceptance of the plan and will set forth requirements, deadlines, and penalties. The Agreement will include language requiring notification to tenants about the timing of the retrofit and posting of a notice to the public about what to do in the event of an earthquake. The Agreement shall be in a form suitable for recordation and shall be executed by the City and Building Owner no later than July 1, 2007, and shall be subject to Council ratification subsequent to July 1, 2007; and 4. The overall hazard reduction goal, in each year, as more specifically set forth in Attachment 4 to the April 3, 2007 staff report is hereby adopted. o • Resolution No. (2007 Series) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 Upon motion of seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of April 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney INTERIM DEADLINE ASSIGNMENTS ATTACHMENT 14 JULY 1 2008 DEADLINE # Location Owner Occ Ld Stories Fre 0 .Loc Score 1 1 760 Hi vera (Warden 395 2 1 3 1127 21 2 793 Hi uere Dewar,et al 135 2 3 3 9.80 3 3 717 Hi uera Michael Oliazola 49 1 3 3 7.65 41 4 856 Hi uere Van Eck-Grazzlano Assn 1 30 1 3 3 1 7.401 51 5 1124 INi omo McDonald 1 63 1 2. 2 5.84 61 6 565 Hi ue2. Vernon L Garcia TRE 1 30 1 2 2 5.40 71 7 970 Hi uera Covey 3,A CA 68 2 1 3 3 8.91 81 8 1880 Santa Barba Depot Square LP 167 3 1 3 923 9 9 740 Hi ue2 Bradley J Bilsten TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40 10 10 970 Chorro Bradley'J Bilsten TRE 22 1 3 3 729 11 11 699 Hi uera Thomas A McLaughlin 164 2. 3 3 10.19 121 12 1160 Marsh IPIKE Proeries II 200 3 2 1 8.67 131 13 1050 Osos I Sperry Flour LLC 1290 1 3 3 24120 141. 14.I 1009 Monterey Laird Building 1063 2. 3 3 22.17 145.41 JUDY 1 2009 DEADLNE # Location Owner Coo Ld Stories Freq/O Loc Mre 1 15 839 Hi uere Ernest C Wineman TRE- 316 3 3 3 13.21 2 16 842 Hi uere (Richard&Jennifer Porter 252 2 3 3 11.361 3 17 837 Montero Stream Associates Inc 186 2 3 3 10.481 4 18 669 Hi uera I Davidsons GW Inc 184 2 3 3 10.45 5 19 1051 Ni omo Robin L.Rossi 270 1 3 2 9.60 61 20 849 Monterey Anne Sinsheimer TRE. 117 2 3 3 9.56 71 21 777 Marsh Gr e o r Johnson TRE. 173 2 3 1 2 9.311 8 22 1121 Broad Big S -Charles Meyers 162 1 3 3 9.161 9 23 857 !Monterey Petra Enterprises 67 2 3 3 8.89 10 24 1 717 IMarsh Charles H Kamm TRE .333 1 1. 2 8.44 11 25 858 IHiguera I HenryE Madson,TRE 99 1 3 3 1 8.32 12 26 1116 IMorro Sirvart R Haroutunian TRE 156 2 2 2 8.08 13 27 778 Marsh (Mark&Trac Anderson 45 2 3 2 7.60 14 28 659 Hi uere Richard&Catherine Wie ers 40 1 3 3 7.53 15 29 1 718 IH' uere I Kevin&.Kathi.Main 40 1 3 3 7.53 1630 1 1127 (Broad Steven L Wise TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40 171 7 31 1731 Broad I Margaret M Cote TRE 30 1 1 3 3 7.40 181 32 1130 1 Garden iJohn A Benson 20 2 1 2 3 7.27 191 33 1119 IChorro IThomas Setser 15 1 1 3 3 .7.20 2 20 01 341 9.53 Higuera - I Ernest C Wineman TRE 150 1 1 3 7.00 211 35 295 H' uera ISub Corporation LTD 54 1 3 2 6.72 22 36 341 Hi uere 1 David C&She!yl A Beem 12 1 3 2 6.16 2337 150 Pismo I Sub Corporation LTD 8 1 3 2 6.11 24 38 798 Palm Beulah ChongTRE 26 1 2 -2 5.35 25 39 I 309 Hi ue2 John&Jeanine Evon 15 1 2 2 5.20 - 26 40 667 IU ham Reeser 11 1 3 '1 5.15 27 41 1804 Osos SLO County Alan Club Inc 10 1 3 1 5.13 28 42. 311 IHi ue2 John&Jeanine Evon 5 1 2 2 5.07 29 43 1609 Osos Harry G Kyle TRE ETAL 50 1 2 1 4.67 30 44664 Marsh Katherine)Spangler 30 1 2 1 1 4.40 31 45 1 220 High Triangle,A CA 20 1. 2 1 4.27 321 46 1500 1Marsh Obispo Investments Inc 17 1 2 1 4.23 331 47 1 1034 1Mill David Sutcliff 15 1 2 1 4.20 341 48 1 1318 Chorro Howard E Carroll TRE 11 1 2 1 4.15 351 49 1 1901 (Broad Affred P Martinelli TRE 1 5 1 _ 2 1 .4.07 250.65 JULY 1 2010 77800 # Location Owner Stories Fre O Loc Scrore 150 1 682 Palm Catholic Church Pre 2 2 2 16.67 2 51 941 Chorro Catholic ChurchSLO 1 3 3 14.80 31 52 1 2747 Broad Baptist Church SCD. 3501 2 1'. 1 .8.67 41 53 1 1119 IGarden Westpac 280 2 3 3 11.73 51 54 1 B40 Monterey Copeland Properties 57 3 2 3 8.76 6 55 L 1123 Garden Wes ac 56 2 3 3 8.75 7 56 1029 Chorro I Dorothy J.Naman TRE 941 1 1 3 1 3 8.25 81 57 733 H' ue2 IJagmohan&SB Hiranandanl 901 1 1 3 1 3 8.20 91 58 1 848 IMonterey ICopeland Proerties150 2 1 '3 8.00 10 59 782 IHi ue2 DorothyJ Naman TRE 67 1 3 3 7.89 111 601 728 Hi uera Bill Hale/Eric Swartz 501 1 3 3 7.67 121 61 1 886 IMonterey Co eland Properties 49 1 3 3 7.65 13 62 1035 Chorro DorothyJ Naman TRE 44 1 3 3 7.59 14 63 790 Hi ue2 Dorothy J Naman TRE 291 1 3 3 '7.39 151 64 867 1 Palm SLO Court Street LLC 701 1 1 3 2 6.93 161 65 1 728 Marsh Marsh Street Associates 491 1 3 ? 6.65 171 Wes ac 12 1 3 2 6.16 .181 67 1 722 IMarsh Marsh Street Associates 10 1 3 2 6.13 191.68-1 298 1Pismo. Rud .Buchanan 84 1 2 1 5.121 163.01 yi3l 3 April 2007 To: Claire Clark From: Deborah Cash Re: URM Hazard Mitigation Deadlines The SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors voted unanimously at its Retreat meeting of 30 March,2007 to support the CAO recommendation to move forward with implementing retrofit deadlines using the hazard rating system. Previously,when the hazard rating system was proposed,the Board chose to remain neutral on offering support. Since most of those on the list are Downtown Association members,the Board felt it could not endorse a proposal in which some of its members could be negatively impacted. It did agree,though,the system was a better approach than none. However, since that time, other considerations have arisen that necessitated the Board revisit the matter, including the exceptions devised and the fact that should a majority of properties experience retrofit at about the same time, Downtown as a whole could be negatively impacted to a level beyond what individual owners/tenants may experience. After reviewing the Council agenda report,the Board realizes that the CAO recommendation offers an equitable and feasible approach and urges Council to adopt the resolution. CC: Board of Directors Shelly Stanwyck & 02S Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The Seismic URM Hazard Mitigation Program is silent on the pros and cons related to retrofit versus demolition. This is to be expected as its primary mission is to address public safety. I am in support of providing incentives for seismic retrofits. But I am opposed to providing incentives for demolitions, especially demolitions of historically- listed properties. Why provide seismic retrofit incentives to redevelopment projects that have planned demolitions for historically-listed buildings?I'm speaking specifically about the 2 year retrofit extension that staff is recommending Council grant to Westpac and Copeland properties knowing that the developers have stated their intention of demolishing all or most of the following buildings which are included on the Contributing Properties List or Master List of Historic Resources: 1119 Garden—The Union Hardware Building, 1123 Garden—The Smith Building, 840 Monterey—The Blackstone Hotel and 848 Monterey-The Sauer Bakery. If we are prepared to provide these developers with incentives by extending their retrofit deadlines,then the City should condition this with the requirement that all historically-listed buildings will be retrofitted instead of demolished and replaced. Thank you. Allan Cooper 756 Broad St. San Luis Obispo,CA ��]s;7r•"i'f?� BOO©�i7� ©© do©Wxo� wtl ®mm" 7� <1QdQmm� WO C� so KIN mm--?! OWTOE�OQ� unm©C E30©OSS mI1©aWMKU i" 7r ®®lmml . mlmoQoEFT,2i mlam� MT OwOwn ©if7©�""'m-i © � will" 7d©QE3� �o®oma � moo©tee moo® NKMQ©omm� ELMmr moo ®oEKMo©©sEffulsom � Imn©mom immmQmmwmmm~ ImE7®a E QOoi7�� 6icaEEFaKmm Imlawrrs IMEIWI-W QE Im- QQ©ffjm-� Fii0mG7: - SLQOO�F7Qr Elnmlmx� IOM©� �Q©0�� mmol"M"� _ � lffl 0O � oo�� • �o©o�� =MOM =3==,F Wm m" ui ©mm®mug oma �'l�®fiu7 QQ�7Q�� mus®ammn ©� SEooa �o©oma o Es EIVED 2 2007 ♦/�San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 TY CLERK March 29, 2007 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 David E. Garth, President/CEO Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council RED FILE City of San Luis Obispo MEETING AGENDA 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DATEITEM # � Re: Item PH2, Council agenda for April 3,20079 URM Mitigation Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, As you consider assigning deadlines to all buildings that are not retrofitted to Level A as of July 1;2007, as allowed by the URM ordinance, we ask that you take in to careful account the progress that has been made up to now and a system for completion that will serve the best interests of property owners, leasees, and the general public. Clearly, the safety of all our citizens is the goal of the ordinance and of our Seismic Task Force. We have been working with city staff for over 15 years on getting the necessary seismic retrofit work completed. With the accelerated deadline from 2017 to 2010 (or 2012 if Level A is completed), we have remained very involved in helping to accomplish this somewhat daunting task considering the total number of buildings needing work. Since the new ordinance went into effect in 2004, we have seen significant progress; however, we recognize that the number of URM buildings remaining may result in additional action on your part. With that in mind,we helped to create a relative hazard risk ranking as a possible tool should you move forward with assigning specific deadlines to individual properties. The current position of our Board of Directors on the matter is that the Council should maintain objective program criteria for the completion of required retrofit work by the July 1, 2010 deadline with possible exceptions for non-profit, re- development, and planned retrofit projects only. Sincerely, 24L COUNCIL i/CD7, CAO eff n am F,C".O jc r�IAE CHIEF Chai erson of the Board AT CF:rdEv PW DIR ki CLERKCRIG e POLICE CHF 11 DEPT HEADS 1E, AEC DIR I F Zo UTIL DIR I' 4o8a.�/E Go HIR D R Cc: Shelly Stanwyck, ACAO Y e01-4tie4'<- Claire.Clark, Economic Development Manager e C-f° email: slochamber@)slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com Page I of 1 Council SloCi evnaFlsJa . From: Forden's Sales sales@fordens.com Sent: Mon 4/2/2007 2:28 PM Ctf,) ; [ l h &04.. � e:rye cicok To: Council,SloCitY RECEIVED Cc: Clark,Claire APR 03 2007 cour,al p CDD DIR .J CAO 23 FIN DIR Subject: URM Building Issues ® ACAO E FIRE CHIEF Attachments: SLO CITY COUNCIL ® ATTORNEY 17 PW DIR IS] CLERK/ORIG El POLICE CHF Dear Mayor& Council Members: ❑ DEPT HEADS 2 REC DIR 9- kKa-g $1 UTIL DIR RED FILE 2 Ada t- N 9 HR DIR We feel compelled to clarify some issues with your council. - MEETING AGENDA pA o� ITEM # We purchased our building in December 1999 with full disclosure from the city that we had until 2017 to retrofit. We built our business plan on that premise knowing we had 17 years to save and plan for the required retrofit. You have changed the deadline once and now want to change it again. The issue is not whether we want to comply with the retrofit plan but more importantly trying to make the forced change work with our business plan. Planning, adjustments,financing and for us, continuing to operate a downtown business (operating for 68 years) are all items we must address. Initially and continually throughout the time since the December 2003 earthquake you have taken the position that the URM deadlines be shortened due to public safety. If public safety is the critical issue then the idea of a non-profit exemption is incongruent and arbitrary. We believe Mr. Settle has the best approach when at the last meeting he suggested the city"allow the market place to work it through". When the deadline is reached then it would be appropriate for enforcement and penalties for those non-compliant. It.is our plan to retrofit in 2008. Dean Moore& Partners P.E.T.R.A. Enterprises/Forden's 1 https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/s locitycounciUlnbox/URM%20Building%2OIssues.EML?Cmd=open 4/3/2007