Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/2010, B 1 - STATUS REPORT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM council "'br ry 16,2010 j acEnaa Report hmN=bW� CITY O F SAN LU IS OBISPO FROM: Shelly Stanwyck,Assistant City Manager John Mandeville,Community Development Director Prepared By: Claire Clark,Economic Development Manager Tim Girvin, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive report and discuss status of Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation (URM)Program. 2. Direct staff to return to Council with Extension Agreements with property owners of Garden Street Terraces, Chinatown, and Naman projects to allow additional time for these projects to complete their permitting and construction. 3. Direct staff to return to Council with change to the URM Ordinance as necessitated by Council action. 4. Reaffirm the July 1, 2010 deadline for ten buildings described in the report. 5. Direct staff to return to Council with an amendment to the fee schedule that eliminates the favorable fees for seismic retrofit projects where the original pemvt has expired due to inaction on the project. REPORT IN BRIEF This report presents an update on the status of the buildings subject to the URM Program requirements, with particular attention to those buildings subject to the July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010 deadlines. It reviews specific progress by buildings in the July 1, 2010 deadline group and highlights the excellent work of the owners in the 2012 deadline group. In recognition of the diligent work undertaken to obtain necessary permits for the large projects, it supports the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force to allow additional time for the three large development projects originally assigned a July 1, 2010 deadline. Lastly,it provides an overview of the penalties that may be imposed on building owners in the event they do not comply with the assigned seismic strengthening deadline or the terms of their extension contract. DISCUSSION Background In 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first seismic retrofit ordinance. This ordinance required the seismic strengthening by 2017 of the 126 buildings identified on the "Inventory of Hazardous Buildings". To craft this ordinance, the City worked in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force, a committee comprised of building owners, � 1- l Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 2 business owners, and engineers formed in 1989 and still working with the City to craft solutions today. In 2004, the City adopted changes to the URM Ordinance, Attachment 1, Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 URM Ordinance), in response to the destruction and deaths in Paso Robles resulting from the December 2003 San Simeon earthquake. The 2004 URM Ordinance established earlier deadlines for seismic strengthening, moving them forward from 2017 to 2010, while recognizing the operational needs of building owners. The Ordinance allowed the improvements to be completed in two stages at the discretion of the building owner until July 1, 2007: "Level A", a partial retrofit consisting of specific connections and parapet bracing; and "Level B", the completion of full strengthening. If Level A was completed by July 1, 2007, the Level B deadline was extended from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012. The 2004 URM Ordinance also required owners to obtain necessary planning approvals and a construction permit for their retrofit projects by January 2006. These permits were issued for most inventoried buildings and, unlike conventional permits that expire after one year, these strengthening permits remain "open" until the work is accomplished or the applicable completion deadline passes. Fees for the strengthening permit, including entitlements and additional upgrades, were established at a significantly reduced rate. By requiring owners to obtain a construction permit early in the process, the Council sought to eliminate procedural obstacles that could slow down an owner's ability to proceed with the strengthening. As a result, all building owners possess valid permits to complete seismic strengthening, except for two buildings where the seismic plans were guaranteed through a letter of credit with the City. Since 2004; the Economic Development staff, Planning Division staff and Building Division staff have collaborated to help URM owners achieve compliance with the URM deadlines through permit streamlining, outreach and facilitation of the URM strengthening projects. Outreach efforts continue to include publication of a periodic newsletter, What's Shakin; personal contact with building owners; and responses to questions from building owners, tenants, construction professionals and the public. Deadlines Established on July 1,2007 The 2004 URM Ordinance provides that: "the City Council will set a Level B completion deadline for each building (not strengthened to a minimum of Level A by July 1, 2007) on the basis of relative hazard, but no later than July 1, 2010." The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force, developed a hazard rating system which was used to rate the relative hazard of each building remaining on the Inventory shown in Attachment 2, Hazard Rating Scores. On January 9, 2007, the Council considered the hazard rating system for assigning deadlines. Using this information as well as factoring in practical information, Council assigned Level B completion deadlines to each of the remaining 66 unstrengthened buildings by Resolution No. 9890 (2007), Attachment 3. These deadlines became effective on July 1, 2007. Building completion assignments ranged from July 1, 2008, the earliest deadline group, to July 1, 2010 the latest deadline group as shown on Attachment 4, Seismic Retrofit Completion Dates of July 1, 2007, updated for Status as of 1/1/2010. Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation,Program Page 3 Council Action in 2009 In response to the severe economic downturn of 2008, the Council directed staff to allow building owners with a seismic strengthening deadline of July 1, 2009 to request an additional year to retrofit. Staff entered into Extension Agreements with ten building owners for a new deadline of July 1, 2010. The Extension Agreements included requirements common to all properties in this situation, such as education/posting information in the workplace about what to do in the event of an earthquake and indemnification of the City in the case of damage from an earthquake. In addition, the Agreements also included requirements specific to each individual building such as temporary parapet bracing and timing of needed demolition or redevelopment permit applications. Progress by Deadline Group Progress within each group continues to be good, despite the ongoing recession. Some of the most unexpected projects have been completed, adding to the safety and appeal of the cityscape. The following describes progress by deadline group. July 1, 2008 Deadline Group—Finishing Very Soon Thirteen buildings were originally assigned a completion deadline of July 1, 2008. At this time, all but one of these buildings have been completely strengthened. The building listed as 1009 Monterey, which includes the Mission Cinemas, restaurants and offices, has been worked on extensively since before its 2008 deadline. Work is being completed, including sprinkler installation, with the expectation that it will be finished momentarily. This retrofit has been one of the most challenging from a structural standpoint. July 1, 2009 Deadline Group—One Remaining and it is in Progress Originally encompassing 34 buildings, 19 buildings remained unstrengthened one year ago. On the basis of Council direction, staff worked with the owners of these buildings and granted extensions to ten building owners. This left nine building owners in the original group with a July 1, 2009 deadline. At this time, eight of these owners have completed their retrofits. Those completed include notable buildings such as,the two Wineman buildings, CVS Drug Store, the Stream Building, and the remainder of the five seismic retrofits completed by Mr. Rossi. One building located at 1608 Osos is still progressing diligently toward completion. July 1, 2010 Extension Group As expected, work has been slower in the Extension Group. The leader in this group is Davidson's Furniture. Seismic strengthening has been completed well in advance of the extended deadline and a facelift and new tenant improvements are continuing at that site. An additional four buildings expect to be underway upon completion of the permitting process for additional entitlements to further upgrade these buildings. These include 1130 Garden Street (formerly a hair salon and Benson Properties); 849 Monterey Street (the Sinsheimer Building); and 1804 Osos Street (Luna Caf6 and Alano Club). The owners of 1127 Broad (George and Kay Kartsioukas) lead the way with their 2009 request of Council for additional time to complete their retrofit. During the year, they have addressed a potentially hazardous fire condition at the site and have also made plans to get their retrofit underway. Now including a fagade improvement, the work will commence once permitting is complete. -B/-3 1 Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 4 The locations formerly housing John's Carpets on Higuera at Pacific are still for sale but a retrofit start is anticipated to meet the terms of their Extension Agreement. Strengthening at 733 Higuera adjacent to Bubblegum Alley is in final preparation with the tenants (Charmz and Therapy) having closing sales. Work is anticipated to begin very soon. In the case of the Granada Hotel, this part of Morro Street has blossomed with several new local businesses occupying street level retail spaces. The upstairs continues to be used as a rooming house. The Extension Agreement requires the building be demolished or retrofitted by July 1, 2010. There is uncertainty here due to the effects of the economy. July 1, 2010 Deadline Group Buildings assigned to the July 1, 2010 deadline group were limited to buildings with qualifying active redevelopment applications, buildings with not-for profit owners and buildings qualifying as "planned retrofits". Originally, there were 19 buildings assigned to this group. As of today, twelve remain on the list with a lot of diligent efforts on the part of the building owners. Still awaiting strengthening or incorporation into larger development projects are: 1. Four URM buildings, all part of the Chinatown project. On November 17, 2009, the Chinatown Project received Council approval. Planning for construction permits is underway; 2. Five URM building, all part of the Garden Street Terraces project. This project continues to progress through the environmental and project approval processes; . 3. Two URM buildings, both part of the project proposed by Mr. Naman along Chorro Street near the intersection of Higuera and Chorro; and 4. The Springfield Baptist Church building, fully entitled and permitted for retrofit and facade upgrades. Currently listed for sale. July 1, 2012 Deadline Eight buildings qualified for this deadline group by completing a Level A retrofit by July 1, 2007. Completion of the full retrofit is required by July 1, 2012. Staff has already been receiving questions from some of these owners about details that help them get started... well ahead of the deadline. Street Address Description Status Sprinkler 699 Higuera Lucky Brand Jeans, other shops Level A done 710 Higuera Misc Retail: Wine/Romp!/clothing Level A done 736 Higuera Formerly CCS/offices above Level A 2017 779 Higuera Decades/Novel Experience/ Level A 2017 796 Higuera Avanti/Chamber office above Level A 2017 778 Marsh Former Barber/HepKat Level A 2012 742 Marsh Verizon Store Entitlements 2017 868 Monterey Muzios/Moondoggies Level A 2017 Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 5 Overall Progress At the inception of the seismic retrofit program, City staff identified 126 potentially hazardous buildings. As of January 2010, 95 buildings have been brought into compliance with 79 buildings strengthened to Level B, eight strengthened to Level A, eight demolished, and another eight found exempt or reassessed as shown on the URM Hazard Mitigation Summary dated January 2010 at Attachment 5. This represents a 75 percent compliance level. On the basis of hazard rating scores, 68 percent of the total hazard score has been abated. In addition to the deadlines.for strengthening, Council tied installation of fire sprinklers in buildings within the Commercial Fire Zone to the seismic deadlines. Over the last year or so greater emphasis on the sprinkler deadlines has resulted in sprinkler installation with most strengthening projects. The majority of sprinkler installations are slated to be complete by the 2012 deadline. Looking Forward On July 1, 2010, the City will have reached the Level B deadline set by the 2004 ordinance. Significant progress has been made by building owners who have moved forward with strengthening projects, the majority of which have also included upgraded exteriors and interiors. The unique combination of low fees, a high degree of outreach by the City to building owners, streamlined permitting, the support of the Seismic Task Force and an approach that favored progress over penalties have added up to a substantially safer downtown and a significantly upgraded building stock. For this the City must thank the diligent work of the owners of buildings subject to the City's retrofit ordinance. The approach that favors progress over penalties has allowed building owners to get credit for making good faith efforts to begin their retrofit, even if they are pushing the deadline. This has resulted in many projects going forward rather than being mired in penalties that do nothing to actually enhance public safety. It is important to acknowledge that the Fire Department has also supported projects that are moving forward and have aligned installation of fire sprinklers with the seismic strengthening processes. This approach continues to be supported by the Chamber's Seismic Task Force. For the ten buildings listed below, the Task Force members recommend that the City stay the course and continue to require that strengthening work is completed in accordance with established deadlines and existing extension agreements. With regards to the URM Buildings in the three big development projects now possessing a July 1, 2010 deadline, the Task Force recommends the City give credit for work accomplished in the permitting arena and allow sufficient time for completion of entitlements, building permitting, and construction. The Task Force's recommended action is supported by staff. This course of action will result in two deadline groups. July 1, 2010 Deadline Group The buildings to continue with the July 1, 2010 deadline include all that were granted an extension last year plus one building from the original 2010 deadline group. Ten buildings land in this group and are shown as follows: Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 6 Address Owner/Tenant Status Original 7/1/2010 Group 1127 Broad Springfield Ba tist For Sale-fully entitled and permitted. 2009 Extension Group Deadline of 7/1/2010 per Extension Agreement 1131 Broad George Kartsioukas Planning to start retrofit with fagade enhancements in Tio Albertos the Spring 1130 Garden Alex Benson Entitlements complete;building permit application historic Stover Bldg filed. 309 Hi uera Evon/small former gas station For Sale—retrofit to begin in Spring 311 Hi uera Evon/formerl John's carpets For Sale—retrofit to begin in Spring 733 Higuera Hira February start Charmz and Therapy 664 Marsh Spangler-Auto shop No plans to start. 849 Monterey Sinsheimer Building Building Plan Check-retrofit to begin upon permits being anted 1116 Mono Aurignac Entitlements granted on March 2009. No building Granada Hotel permit application for redevelopment.No submittal of Tans for demolition. 1804 Osos Hodge Spring start. Working on approval of a map that will Luna Cafd allow the seismic strengthening to be completed ahead of the remainder of the project The Chief Building Official will continue to work with owners moving toward completion of the strengthening work for these ten buildings so long as the work is progressing. Of these building owners, active efforts to abate the hazard have been taken by eight of the ten owners even though the economy continues to hamper progress. The other two building owners will continue to be encouraged to start the retrofit process as the deadline approaches. The penalty process will be used to spur action for those owners failing to take action. Large Project Deadline Group Three big projects in the City's processing pipeline on July 1, 2007 were granted the July 1, 2010 deadline because of the time, money, and effort it takes to complete the permitting process. In 2007, these projects were the Chinatown Project, Garden Street Terraces Project, and Naman project. Both Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces have made great progress in their permitting and continue to work to get all approvals. The Naman Project originally consisted of five URM buildings. In 2006, this owner was allowed to post a bond for the seismic retrofit plans then due. Since then, the owner has completed retrofits on two of the five buildings, having previously completed a partial retrofit on one other and full retrofit of the Network on Higuera. The remaining two buildings have been the subject of extensive investigations, primarily structural and historic. Due to the importance of these projects to the economic health of the community, the Seismic Task Force recommends extending the deadlines to continue to assist these projects to come to fruition as follows: � 1-� Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 7 1. The Seismic Task Force endorsed five-year extension agreements to July 1, 2015 for the three large development projects: Chinatown, Garden Street Terraces and the Naman project. 2. They crafted an additional set of recommendations for the Naman Project (explained below) due to the current development review status. These were designed to prompt a decision about development versus retrofit in a timely fashion by the Naman family. Task Force members articulated the following reasons for differentiating these projects from the rest: 1. The current economic times are as significant as the issues that pushed the deadlines forward. 2. Owners of Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown have been actively working with the City to gain approvals for the projects and this progress should be honored. 3. The owner of the Naman Project has been working diligently, outside of City processes, to determine what is possible for the buildings at 1029 and 1035 Chorro via historic and structural analysis of the URM buildings. This work has been time intensive due to some unique attributes, one hangs over the creek, and the evaluation of a public paseo from Chorro Street along the creek bank. Elements of Customized Agreements Based on the recommendations of the Task Force and in conjunction with existing City practice that honors progress on projects, staff recommends entering into customized extension agreements with building owners that are part of the three identified large development projects. Administered through the Chief Building Official, staff recommends additional time for these projects with benchmarks to make more certain abatement of the hazard. 1. Project Plan. For all three projects, a written project plan with benchmark deadlines must be submitted to the Chief Building Official for review no later than April 1, 2010. This plan must include an education plan that will inform the public and occupants of the building about actions to take in the event of an earthquake. It must also include indemnification of the City as required in the existing Extension Agreements. 2. Timeline for Abatement. The project plan must also include a timeline showing how the entire seismic hazard will be abated no later than July 1, 2015 with alternatives that map out what actions will be taken in the event the project stops making progress through the entitlement or building permit process. The Community Development Director will have the authority to determine if progress has stalled. 3. Complete Project Application. For the Naman Project, a development project application must be deemed "Complete" for processing no later than July 1, 2010 to allow this project to continue to be considered "in the pipeline". (Staff provides a letter confirming "completeness".) A development application must be submitted to the City no later than April 1, 2010 to permit timely staff review. If these deadlines are missed, retrofit-only plans must be completed by December 31, 2010 and the retrofit must begin upon issuance of the permits. Status Report: URM Hazard.Mitigation Program Page 8 In the event that the Naman Family proceeds with a timely application for development, it must be recognized that additional information could cause the Naman Family to choose to abandon the development project in favor of retrofit. This decision must be communicated.to the City no later than July 1, 2011. If a decision to retrofit is made at this time, the plans for retrofit must be filed with the City by January 1, 2012 and the retrofit project must be completed by December 31, 2013. The City will continue to allow the seismic retrofit building permits for buildings in these three development projects to stay open until the work is completed or the project stalls. In return for this benefit, the applicants for this extension will provide timely submittals that meet the City's requests for information that further the process of review of applications for entitlements or building permits.. Failure to Comply-Penalties As with all imposed deadlines, penalties may be necessary to motivate action. Due to the strategic application of leniency and the willingness of owners to comply, the City has not had to employ measures beyond an initial notice of violation which was used with some of the owners in the 2009 deadline group. In the event that building owners in the July 1, 2010 deadline group do not take action prior to the deadline, staff will take steps to assure compliance consistent with past practices. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, there are several enforcement mechanisms available. Decisions regarding which to use are made by the Chief Building Official, following consultation with the City Attorney's Office. 1. Fines Violations may be treated as infractions, which are similar to traffic tickets, with a first time fine of up to $100, a second violation in one year of up to $200, and a third violation in one year up to $500. Each separate day a violation exists may be charged as an additional violation, thus a third violation in one year can come about quickly. Infractions are administered through the courts, and the courts impose additional fees upon violators of approximately $200 on top of the infraction fine amounts. 2.Administrative Citations The City also has an administrative code enforcement process. Administrative Citations involve the levying of administrative fines of $100 to $500 per day for each day of violation. The collection of administrative fines owed by violators is processed via the City's standard collection practice. If City staff efforts to collect are unsuccessful, accounts are turned over to an outside collection agency, which will adversely affect a recalcitrant violator's credit rating. Violations may also be treated as misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars (plus court imposed fees of several hundred dollars) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or both. Violations may also be addressed through civil penalties of up to $250 per day with each day a violation continues treated as a separate violation. Collection of civil penalties entails the filing of a lawsuit in Superior Court. � I - Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 9 3. Injunctive Relief In the rare instance that the aforementioned penalties fail to motivate action, violations may necessitate seeking injunctive relief, such as ordering a building vacated, posted for non-entry, fenced, secured and otherwise protected at the property owner's expense. Requests for injunctions are filed with the Superior Court. In some (rare) circumstances, a court could order demolition of a structure. Each of the above approaches has its pros and cons. All involve utilization of considerable staff resources. Favorable Fees A valuable tool for encouraging timely retrofits are the favorable fees for building and planning permits that were adopted by Council with the changed deadlines in 2004. The fees, adopted by resolution, are shown at Attachment 6, Resolution 9600 (2004). These favorable fees currently apply to all improvements done in conjunction with the retrofit work including tenant improvements, disabled access upgrades, fagade changes and electrical or plumbing system upgrades. To date, these fees have not been altered. Over time, the favorable fees have been an effective tool used by the City to encourage progress on retrofits and the attendant upgrades that have made such a remarkable difference in the safety, appearance, and accessibility of buildings in the City. Due to the success of the program, the City's participation in the retrofit projects has amounted to an estimated one million dollars in waived revenues over the past four years. It should be noted that the favorable fees have never applied to projects involving demolition and redevelopment of buildings on the inventory. The 2004 Ordinance limited application of favorable fees to buildings being seismically strengthened. Upon expiration of any seismic retrofit building permit, a new permit will be required— still at the low fee unless Council directs staff to return with an adjustment to the fee schedule. Staff recommends discontinuing this program for those owners who fail to comply with the deadlines. At this point in the program only a few retrofit projects remain. Staff will continue to work as closely as possible with individual building owners to encourage the strengthening work begin in a timely fashion. However, should a retrofit permit be allowed to expire, concurrent loss of the favorable fees can be a powerful motivator for the few owners who fail to take action. In summary, while there have been waived revenues, the favorable fees established with the 2004 Ordinance have been instrumental in encouraging owners to abate the hazard presented by their unreinforced masonry buildings and should continue to be used to encourage those who play by the rules.. Next Steps As a follow-up to this meeting, in keeping with practices of past years, staff will send formal notices to all ten building owners shown on the above table. In addition, the City Attorney will issue a letter advising all owners of the potential fines and penalties for failure to either complete strengthening by the deadline, to show progress via active construction, or show progress via B �-9 Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 10 demonstration of other good faith progress as described above, deemed acceptable by the Chief Building Official, on a case by case basis. Staff will also return to Council with the Extension Agreements for the three identified development projects following the April 1, 2010 Extension Application deadline. At that time, necessary changes to the Ordinance and/or Resolutions that effect the resulting change in deadlines and/or fees will also be brought to Council. 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 and Fire Department endorse flexibility in the deadline for those owners making progress toward completion of their strengthening projects. The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force concurs with the recommendation also. The Task Force met several times in the last year to discuss progress in the Seismic Program and to make recommendations for balancing encouragement and penalties. FISCAL IMPACT Staff projects minimal fiscal impacts to the City budget resulting from remaining fee waivers discussed above. These impacts will result from upgrades in conjunction with seismic strengthening to the small number of URM projects that still have the opportunity to take advantage of the favorable fees. Although there may be some revenue impact to the City caused by higher levels of construction in the Downtown, this is also not quantifiable. Continued fiscal impacts to the building owners and economic benefits derived from their investments are also not quantifiable within the scope of this report. What is certain, however, is that this impact will be far less than the impact the City will experience if a severe earthquake strikes and our buildings are not sufficiently strengthened. This issue is ultimately about life safety and protecting the citizens of the community. CONCLUSION The shorter deadlines adopted by Council in 2007 served to renew public interest and private action in the URM Program. With the work now limited to 10 projects this year, 8 projects due in 2012, and the three large development projects, the City can take this more individualized approach to securing compliance. The goal, therefore, is to continue to take actions that have reaped success in the past while taking into account the realities facing the City's important development partners. The economic realities of today will continue to challenge this goal and the community's resolve. To accomplish the goal within the foreseeable future, difficult decisions will continue to /,/d 1 Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 11 be needed along with flexibility and the ability to work with the City's "community partners" to achieve success for everyone. ALTERNATIVES 1. Require compliance with existing deadlines without exception. As noted, there has been a high degree of compliance by building owners with the deadlines for seismic strengthening. This progress has resulted from the working relationship crafted between City staff and the real world circumstances surrounding each retrofit project. To eliminate this flexibility would seriously affect the City's success rate in obtaining compliance and, thereby, greater public safety. 2. Direct staff to retain the existing fee schedule through the end of the program. The favorable fees established with the 2004 Ordinance have been instrumental in encouraging owners to abate the hazard presented by their unreinforced masonry buildings. However, at this point in the program Council needs to weigh the use of fees for encouragement against the use of fees for deterrence. Given the high level of compliance to date, it is preferable to use the fees for deterrence rather than continuing low fees in cases of non-compliance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 URM Ordinance) 2. Hazard Rating Scores developed by the Seismic Task Force in 2007 3. Resolution No. 9890 (2007) 4. Seismic Retrofit Completion Dates established on July 1, 2007, updated 5. URM Hazard Mitigation Summary dated January 2010 6. Resolution 9600 (2004 Series) Permit Fees for URM Strengthening TASeismic\SeismicCAR2-2010 Attach � went 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 A115.1 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: 3l `lam 01453 Attachment 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 3042 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 floonarea of altered tenant spaces,.cumulative from March 4, 1992, does not exceed 50 percent of the total floor area of the building. 2. The use of the building changes to a different division of the same occupancy group or to a different occupancy group. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3405 of the Building Code, buildings containing more than one occupancy classification need not be strengthened if the total floor area for changes in use, cumulative from March 4, 1992, does not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the building. 2. Occupancy classification changes to Groups F, M, S and U from an equivalent category as defined in the previous editions of this code. 3. An occupancy classification change to a Group R, Division 1 Occupancy with not more than five dwelling units. 4. An occupancy classification change to a Group S Occupancy used exclusively as a warehouse with no human habitation. 3. If Level A strengthening work is completed by July 1, 2007, completion of the remaining work to satisfy Level B strengthening requirements may be delayed until July 1, 2012. If Level A work is not completed by July 1, 2007, the City Council will set a Level B completion deadline for each building on the basis of relative hazard, but not later than July 1, 2010. EXCEPTION: The Building Official, on a case-by-case basis, may approve an alternate strengthening plan deemed equivalent to Level A strengthening if: 1. A greater than 50 percent reduction in the unreinforced masonry hazard for the building is accomplished by July 1, 2007; and, Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series) Affachment F 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 A115.1.1. 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 A115.3.3 to read as follows: A11533 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. s/-lq Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series) Affachment 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 �� Commercial Fire Zone Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 series) Aftachment 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 7t'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: ()JI-4/A f Z 2� Audrey Hoo City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo than . Lowell Cit torney afiC ciCCUi:L'8 C-P.'OI Ordinance m. I L45�7 and flim i`l:' OfGh�;z•^,(:B P:.',bflshOu pl:�liC�ii( 't0 C i I e CtIC, C" Date City Clerl< i vurzoor Chamber ofCommerce I ttachm HAZARD RATING SCORES e n # Location Owner Occ Ld Stories Fre /Od Loc Score 1 1050 Osos Sperry Flour.LLC 1290 1 3 3 24.20 2 1009 Monterey Laird Building 1063 2 3 3 22.17 3 682 Palm Catholic Church Prep 800 2 2 2 16.67 4 941 Chorro Catholic Church SLO 585 1 3 3 14.80 5 839 Higuera Ernest C Wineman TRE 316 3 3 3 13.21 6 1119 Garden Westpac 280 2 3 3 11,73 7 842 Higuera Richard&Jennifer Porter 252 2 3 3 11.36 8 760 Hi uera Warden 395 2 1 3 11.27 9 669 Hi uera Davidsons GW Inc 184 2 3 3 10.45 10 699 Higuera Thomas A McLaughlin 164 2 3 3 10.19 11 793 Higuera Dewar,et al 135 2 3 3 9.80 12 1051 Ni omo Robin L.Rossi 270 1 3 2 9.60 13 849 Monterey Anne Sinsheimer TRE 117 2 3 3 9.56 14 837 Monterey Stream Associates Inc 186 2 2 3 9.48 15 777 Marsh Gregory Johnson TRE 173 2 3 2 9.31 16 1880 Santa Berb.Depot Square LP 167 3 1 3 9.23 17 1121 Broad Biq Sky-Charles Meyers 162 1 3 3 9.16 18 970 Higuera Covey 3,A CA 68 2 3 3 8.91 19 857 Monterey Petra Enterprises 67 2 3 3 8.89 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 24 717 Marsh Charles H Kamm TRE 333 1 1 2 8.44 25 858 Higuera HenryE Madson TRE 99 1 3 3 8.32 26 1029 Chorro DorothyJ Naman TRE 94 1 3 3 8.25 27 733 Hi uera Ja mohan&SB Hiranandani 90 1 3 3 8.20 28 1116 IMorro ISirvart R Haroutunian TRE 156 2 2 2 8.08 29 1 848 IMonterey I Copeland Properties 150 2 1 3 8.00 30 782 Hi uera I Dorothy J Naman TRE 67 1 3 3 7.89 31 728 Higuera I Bill Hale/Edc Swartz 50 1 3 3 7.67 32. 717 Higuera I Michael.Oliazola. 49 1 3 3 7.65 33 886 Monterey ICopeland Properties 49 1 3 3 7.65 34 778 Marsh IMark&Tracy Anderson 45 2 3 2 7.60 35 1035 Chorro Doroth J Naman TRE 44 1 3 3 7.59 36 659 Hi uera IRichard&Catherine Wie ers 40 1 3 3 7.53 37 718 Higuera Kevin&Kathi Main 40 1 3 3 7.53 38 1 1127 Broad Steven L Wise TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40 39 1 1131 Broad Margaret M Cote TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40 40 740 Hi uera Bradley J Bilsten TRE 30 1 33 7.40 41 856 Higuera Van Eck-Grazziano Assn 30 1 3 3 7.40 42 790 Higuera Dorothy J Naman TRE 29 1 3 3 7.39 43 970 Chorro 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 Higuera Ernest C Wineman 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 Higuera David C&Sheryl A Beem 12 1 3 2 6.16 51 748 Marsh Westpac 12 1 3 2 6.16 52 722 Marsh 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 5.40 55 798 Palm Beulah Chang TRE 26 1 2 2 5.35 56 309 Higuera John&Jeanine Evon 15 1 2 2 5.20 57 667 Upham Reeser 11 1 3 1 5.15 58 1804 Osos SLO County Alano Club Inc 16 1 3 1 5.13 59 298 Pismo Rudy Buchanan 84 1 2 1 5.12 60 311 Higuera 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 Hiqh Trian le,A CA 20 1 2 1 4.27 64 1500 Marsh. Obiso Investments Inc 17 1 2 1 4.23 65 1034 Mill jDavid Sutcliff 15 1 2 1 4.20 66 1318 Chorro I Howard E Carroll TRE 11 1 2 1 4.15 67 1901 Broad lAlfred P.Martinelli TRE 5 1 2 1 4.07 68 F-69T SCORE=occupancy load/75+Stories+Frequency of Occu ation+Location ffachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 9890 (2007 Series) 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 17 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 (i.e. project proposals to replace an existing structure with a new structure). 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; R 9890( (J A lachment 5 Resolution No. 9890 (2007 Series) Page 2 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;and 2) Copies of written estimates, contracts, or agreements with a retrofit contractor; and 3) Evidence of financial support for the project; and 4) A proposed timeline for the project; and 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 shalt 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. 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. 31 - iq _Aft h ac ment 3 Resolution No. 9890 (2007 Series) Page 3 Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Settle, and on the following vote: AYES: Council Members Carter and Settle, Vice Mayor Mulholland and Mayor Romero NOES: Council Member Brown ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3`d day of April 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: (' 4� 4 Audrey Hoo r City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo . Lowell City Attorney 112712010 Seismic Retrofit Completion Dates aachment I Established by SLO City Council July 1,2007 # Location Owner Status 1.1-2010 Seismic Sprinkler 1 W0 Ghewe Complete Level B 2012 2 666 1 gaeGamim TRE Complete Level B done 3 747 1 guera Michael-BNazele Complete Level B done 4 740 Higeera Bradley-d-BHsten TRE Complete Level B 2012 5 360 11 guera Warden Complete Level B done 6 703 Higuera Bewar;.at-e1 Complete Level B 2010 7 866 Higuera Van-Eek-Grazziane Assn Complete Level B done 8 979 Higuera Gevey3;A-GA Complete Level B done 9 4460 Marsh RKEPraper0es 1; Complete Level B n/a 10 1009 Monterey Laird Building construction 7/1/2008 partial 11 4324 Hipeme MoDeeald Complete Level B 2012 12 4059 Oses SpeRy FleuctI=G Complete Level B 2010 13 7880 Santa Barb+DepoF&quaretP Complete Level B We JULY 1,2009 DEADLINE±IXTENSIONS_GRANTED 70,2010,_„„„ �,.__ # Location Owner Status 1-1-2010 Seismic Sprinkler 1 4723 Braid Big Sky Ghades Complete Level B done 2 3423 Bread Complete Level B done 3 1131 Broad George/Kay Kartsioukas 7/112010 2010 4 4991 Bread Alfred-P-MaFfineNiTRE Complete Level B n/a 5 4440 Gherm M id-GoasFMongage Complete Level B- done 6 1130 Garden John A Benson 7/12010 2010 7 229 High Triangle.-A-GA Complete 7/12009 n/a 8 206 Higuera Sub-GerporatienLTD Complete 7/1/2009 n/a 9 309 Higuera John&Jeanine Even 7/12010 We 10 311 Higuera John&Jeanine Even 7/12(110 We 11 a44 Higuem 6ard 6&-ShegFA-Beern Complete Level B n/a 12 669 Hkjuem Gnaigiieede Complete Level B done 13 669 Higuera Bavidson&AGW4 a Complete Level B done 14 778 Higuera Kevia-8-Kathi-Mein Complete Level B done 15 733 Higuera Jagmohan&SB Hiranandani 7/12010 2010 16 8W Higuera rmpqt Q Wnenign TRF Complete Level B done 17 842 Higuera F# nifaFPeRer Complete Level B 2010 18 863 Higuera Emes!G VARoman..TRE -..^ � Complete Level B done 19 868 Higuem 1 lenq�Madsen TRE Complete Level B done 20 664 Marsh Katherine L Spangler 7/12010 2010 21 737 Marsh Ghees 11 Kamm TRE Complete Level B done 22 777 Marsh Gregegydehnsen;RE Complete LevelB done 23 7600 Marsh De-listed n/a n/a 24 4834 R& DeNd-9utellg De-listed n/a n/a 25 837 Menterey Stream-Assoc ales No Complete LevelB done 26 849 Monterey Anne Sinshelmer TRE 7112010 2010 27 867 Monterey Petrazntewisas Complete Level B done 28 1116 Morro Patrick Aurignac 7112010 2010 29 4063 PBpeme Rabin-6-Ross! Complete 7/12009 done 30 1609 Osos Harry G Kyle TRE ETAL construction 7/1/2009 rda 31 1804 Osos SLO County Alano Club Inc 7112010 n/a 32 708 Palen Beulah Ghong T-RE Complete Level B n/a 33 760 Pismo Sub-Gerpora#)n--LTD Complete 7/12009 n/a 34 663 Upham Reeser Complete Level B rJa JULY 1,2070_DEADLINE # Location Owner Status 1-1.2010 Seismic Sprinkler 1 2747 Broad Baptist Church SLO 7/12010 n/a 2 4378 Gherre Neward44amoN-FRE De-listed n/a Na 3 1035 Chorro Dorothy J Naman TRE 7/1/2010 2010 4 1029 Chorro Dorothy J Naman TRE 7/1/2010 2010 5 944 ChemoGeWrile lie-Ghuwh-Sin Complete LevelB done 6 1123 Garden Westpac 7/12010 2010 7 1119 Garden Westpac 7/112010 done 8 700 Higuem Bomthy-j Naman TRE Complete LevelB done 9 782 Higuera Bewthy d Names T.RE Complete LevelB done 10 328 Higuera Bill +alelEdeSxvlr>z Complete LevelB done 11 748 Marsh Westpac 7/112010 2010 12 728 Marsh Marsh Street Associates 7/112010 done 13 722 Marsh Marsh Street Associates 7/1/2010 done 14 886 Monterey Copeland Properties 7/112010 2010 15 848 Monterey Copeland Properties. 7/1/2010 2010 16 840 Monterey Copeland Properties 7/12010 2010 17 861 Palm SLO Court Street LLC 7/12010 2010 18 682 Palen GaM0Iio6hurs4-Rrep Complete LevelB n/a 19 298 Pismo Rudy-Buchman Complete LevelB nla 1 JULY_ 11,2Q12 DENDI,INE # Location Owner Status 1-1-2010 Seismic Sprinkler 1 1 699 Higuera Thomas A McLaughlin LevelA 7/12012 done 2 2 710 Higuera Jerry Martin LevelA 7/1/2012 done 3 3 736 Higuera Westpac Realty/Anne Appel LevelA 7/112012 2017 4 4 T79 Higuera Beverly Maytag LevelA 7/12012 2017 5 5 796 Higuem Naman LevelA 7/1/2012 2017 6 6 778 Marsh Mark&Tracy Anderson LevelA 7/1/2012 2012 7 7 742 Marsh Shipsey LevelA 7/1/2012 2017 8 8 868 Monterey Copeland Properties LevelA 7/12012 2017 I ) / 1/28/2010 URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY ~ IN THE Attachment CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO January, 2010 BUILDINGS IN COMPLIANCE FULLY STRENGTHENED-Level B 1. 1901 Broad 41. 842 Higuera 2. 1121 Broad 42. 853 Higuera DEMOLISHED 3. 1127 Broad 43. 856 Higuera 1. 344 Higuera 4. 941 Chorro 44. 858 Higuera 2. 1540 Marsh 5. 964 Chorro 45. 868 Higuera 3. 969 Monterey 6. 970 Chorro 46. 876 Higuera 4. 1039 Monterey 7. 1117 Chorro 47. 970 Higuera 5. 1057 Monterey 8. 1119 Chorro 48. 1001 Higuera 6. 2223 Monterey 9. 1127 Chorro 49. 1011 Higuera 7. 991 Nipomo 10. 1135 Chorro 50. 717 Marsh 8. 783 Santa Rosa 11. 1141 Chorro 51. 777 Marsh 12. 1110 Garden 52. 951 Marsh EXEMPT 13. 220 High 53. 1160 Marsh 1. 1318 Chorro 14. 295 Higuera 54. 696 Monterey 2. 2180 Johnson (Sunny 15. 341 Higuera 55. 747 Monterey Acres) 16. 385 Higuera 56. 837 Monterey 3. 2180 Johnson (Old 17. 565 Higuera 57. 857 Monterey Adobe) 18. 647 Higuera 58. 861 Monterey 4. 1500 Marsh 19. 659 Higuera 59. 888 Monterey 5. 1144 Monterey 20. 669 Mguera 60. 962 Monterey 6. 280 Pismo 21. 673 Higuera 61. 968 Monterey 22. 686 Higuera 62. 978 Monterey REASSESSED- 23. 698 Higuera 63. 998 Monterey FOUND TO BE 24. 705 Higuera 64. 879 Morro REINFORCED 25. 715 Higuera 65. 955 Morro 1. 1708 Beach 26. 717 Higuera 66. 1021 Morro 2. 1034 Mill 27. 718 Higuera 67. 1124 Nipomo 28. 719 Higuera 68. 1051 Nipomo 29. 726 Higuera 69. 976 Osos SUMMARY OF 30. 728 Higuera 70. 1050 Osos COMPLIANCE 31. 740 Higuera 71. 1185 Pacific 32. 741 Higuera 72. 682 Palm Total Level B 79 33. 745 Higuera 73. 751 Palm Total Demolished 8 34. 760 Higuera 74. 798 Palm Total Exempt 6 35. 777 Higuera 75. 800 Palm Total Reassessed 2 36.. 778 Higuera 76. 150 Pismo Total in Compliance 95 37. 782 Higuera 77. 298 Pismo 38. 790 Higuera 78. 1880 Santa Barbara 39. 793 Higuera 79. 667 Upham 40. 839 Higuera �� 11281 0l0 BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO DEADLINES Aftacnment ,' JULY 1,2008 DEADLINE LEVEL A STRENGTHENED 1. 1009 Monterey* 1. 699 Higuera 2. 710 Higuera JULY 1.2009 DEADLINE 3. 736 Higuera 1. 1609 Osos* 4. 779 Higuera 5. 796 Higuera JULY 1,2009 Extended to 6. 742 Marsh JULY 1,2010 with interim plan 7. 778 Marsh 1. 1131 Broad 8. 868 Monterey 2. 1130 Garden .3. 309 Higuera PROGRESS ANALYSIS 4. 311 Higuera Total URM Buildings 126 5. 733 Higuera Total in Compliance (95) 6. 664 Marsh Total Remaining 31 7. 849 Monterey Subject to July 1,2008 Deadline 1 8. 1116 Morro Subject to July 12009 Deadline 1 9. 1804 Osos Extended to July 1,2010 9 Subject to July 1,2010 Deadline 12 JULY 1,.2010 DEADLINE Subject to July 1,2012 Deadline 8 1. 2747 Broad 2. 1029 Chorro 3. 1035 Chorro *Italics = in Construction 4. 1119 Garden WC= Strengthened Pending Paperwork 5. 1123 Garden 6. 722 Marsh 7. 728 Marsh 8. 748 Marsh 9. 840 Monterey 10. 848 Monterey 11. 886 Monterey 12. 861 Palm JULY 1;2012 DEADLINE- 'B ��`� RESOLUTION NO.9600(2004 Sem,*) Attachment A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING PERMIT FEES TO STRENGTHEN UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review service charges on an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required; and WHEREAS, in accordance with this policy the Council adopted Resolution No. 9130 on November 21, 2000 updating the City's master fee schedule; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code authorizes the establishment of various fees for delivery of municipal services; and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has determined that the adoption of the proposed development fee is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines as the purpose of theses charges is to meet operating expenses. WHEREAS, the Council considered amendments to the master fee schedule at a public hearing on August 17,2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the City's master fee schedule is hereby amended to include application and permit fees for unreinforced masonry building strengthening as shown in Exhibit A, effective October 18, 2004, and that Resolution No. 8089 (1992 Series) and Resolution No. 8663 (1997 Series) are hereby repealed and superceded by this resolution. Xpon motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Council Member Ewan, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan,Mulholland and Settle,Mayor Romero NOES: None A13SENT: Vice Mayor Schwartz The foregoing resolution was adopted on August 17,2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Diane Reyn Ids, .M.C. 7 a L Dwell Deputy City erk City Attorney / R 9600 Attdchment 6 EXHIBIT A Amend the BUILDING & SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE to add the following paragraph under Plan Review Fees: The plan review fee for a permit application that includes seismic strengthening of a building of unreinforced masonry construction shall be$40.00. Amend the BUII.DING & SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE to add the following paragraph under Permit Fees—General application: The all inclusive combination permit fee for a construction permit that includes seismic strengthening of a building of unreinforced masonry construction shall be$40.00. Amend the PLANNING SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE to add the following category under OTHER PLANNING SERVICES for Architectural Review: Project with Seismic Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Building $40.00 Establish a Fee for Use of Parking Spaces as follows: For construction projects with a valid building permit to strengthen an unreinforced masonry building, the fee for use of each Metered Parldng Space, up to three for a maximum of six months, shall be$1.00.