HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/2009, B3 - RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM, ACKNOWLEDGE FLEXIBILITY IN f
counaL a
j ac,Enaa izEpout
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Shelly Stanwyck,Assistant City Manager
John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Claire Clark,Economic Development Manager
Tim Girvin, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD
MITIGATION PROGRAM, ACKNOWLEDGE FLEXIBILITY IN DEADLINE
COMPLIANCE AND ACKNOWLEDGE POTENTIAL PENALTIES FOR NON-
COMPLIANCE.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive report and discuss status of Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation (URM) Program.
2. Acknowledge use of existing enforcement tools by the Chief Building Official as outlined in
this staff report.
3. Acknowledge potential use of penalties in the event building owners fail to comply.
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report presents an update on the status of the buildings subject to the URM Program
requirements, particularly those buildings subject to the July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2009 deadlines. It
reviews progress and recommends continuation of the City's limited deadline flexibility for building
owners still performing the strengthening work as of the deadline. It recommends additional
flexibility for building owners firmly in the development review process, with safeguards to
encourage work being accomplished no later than July 1, 2010. Lastly, it provides an overview of
the penalties that may be imposed on building owners in the event they make no effort to
accomplish the seismic strengthening work by the assigned deadline.
DISCUSSION `
Background
In 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first seismic retrofit ordinance. This ordinance
required the retrofit of 126 buildings on the "Inventory of Hazardous Buildings," by 2017.
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 resulting from the December
2003 San Simeon earthquake. The 2004 URM Ordinance established earlier deadlines for
seismic strengthening, moving them forward from 2017 to 2010-12, while recognizing the
B3- 1
Council Agenda Report-Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 2
operational needs of building owners. The Ordinance continued to allow the improvements to be
completed in two stages, "Level A", a partial retrofit consisting of specific connections and
parapet bracing, and "Level B", the completions of the strengthening work, until July 1, 2007.
Building owners were given until July 1, 2010 to complete the Level B strengthening. If Level
A was completed by July 1, 2007, the Level B deadline was extended to July 1, 2012. As of
July 1, 2007, eight buildings qualified for the extended deadline of July 1, 2012 by completing
strengthening to Level A.
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 all
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, 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.
Since 2004, the Economic Development staff and the 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 response to questions from building owners, tenants, construction professionals, and
the public.
Council 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, a committee comprised of building owners, business owners and engineers that has
participated with the City in. evaluating seismic rules and deadlines since the early 1990s,
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. At the time, 69
buildings remained unstrengthened. Using this information as well .as factoring in practical
information, Council assigned Level B completion deadlines to each of the unstrengthened
buildings 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.
In response to testimony from building owners and the Chamber of Commerce, the Council
allowed only three categories of buildings to be placed in the last deadline group, July 1, 2010.
These three categories were:
1) Buildings that were part of active redevelopment applications,
2) Building owned by not-for-profit corporations, and
3) Buildings that qualified (via application) as "planned retrofits".
I
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 3
All other buildings were given the earlier deadlines of either July 1, 2008 or July 1, 2009 as
shown on Attachment 3, Seismic Retrofit Completion Dates of July 1, 2007.
Progress by Deadline Group
July 1, 2008 Deadline Group
Thirteen buildings were originally assigned a completion deadline of July 1, 2008. At this time,
ten of these buildings have been completely strengthened. The remaining three continue to
advance in their work with completion for all slated in the next few months. All three have
experienced extenuating circumstances that have caused delays. These projects have made
significant progress toward the completion of the seismic upgrades, however due to project re-
design, work has continued past the deadline date. These buildings are 793 Higuera, 1009-1025
Monterey, and 1880 Depot Square (known as the Railroad Square Building). The work on 793
Higuera is drawing to a close. The Railroad Square building is undergoing a dramatic
retrofit/remodel with subsequent approvals to add elevator access and new mixed use additions
in place of two demolished wooden extensions. Lastly, housing a collection of restaurant and
theatre spaces, the building identified as 1009 Monterey has been partially completed. Delays
caused by the discovery of past partially completed strengthening work have forced redesign of
the strengthening plans which continue to stretch this project beyond the July 2008 deadline.
July 1, 2009 Deadline Group
Originally encompassing 34 buildings, the July 1, 2009 deadline has already been met by the
owners of nine buildings. An additional six buildings have their strengthening projects
underway. Staff has undertaken a concerted outreach effort to contact the remaining 19 building
owners by telephone, email and newsletter. On the basis of this outreach, the remaining 19
buildings fall into the following categories:
Projects in the entitlement process. These projects will not have construction 2
permits by the deadline.
Projects contemplating actions that will require entitlements as part of the 6
seismic strengthening - no construction by the deadline
Projects with a stated timeline for strengthening before the deadline. Owners 6
are planning ahead to begin construction and have responded to City
outreach
Projects without stated timeline —Owners have not responded to outreach or 5
have not articulated a timeline for the strengthening roject
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". The result was 19 buildings assigned to this group.
�3 - 3
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 4
All three buildings owned by not-for-profit owners have made good progress. The Mission and
the Mission College Prep School retrofits have been completed. The Springfield Baptist Church
plans to soon apply for a building permit for a redesigned strengthening process and a facelift
that has already received architectural approvals.
Of the 2010 redevelopment applications, construction has started on three buildings on this list.
Two buildings on I iguera at 782 and 790 are moving forward with strengthening and the
building located at 298 Pismo is undergoing a dramatic renovation.
Awaiting strengthening or abatement are:
1) Four URM buildings part of the Chinatown project. These have received Council.
approval for demolition;
2) Five URM buildings part of the Garden Street Terraces project. This project is making
progress through the environmental and project approval processes;
3) Two URM buildings part of the former project owned by Mr. Naman along Chorro Street
near the intersection of Higuera and Chorro;
4) The Frog and Peach building now slated for retrofit rather than redevelopment; and
5) One "planned retrofit" at 1318 Chorro that rounds out this group of buildings with a July
1, 2010 deadline.
In summary, fourteen of the original nineteen buildings remain unstrengthened.
July 1, 2012 Deadline
Eight buildings qualified for this deadline group by completing a Level A retrofit by July 1,
2007. In this group, two owners are considering early completion of the strengthening projects.
Overall Progress
At the inception of the Seismic Program, City staff identified 126 potentially hazardous
buildings. As of January 1, 2009, 72 buildings have been fully strengthened with another eight
strengthened partially to Level A. This represents completion to Level B of 57 percent of the
buildings in the inventory. With another 12 buildings presently under construction, full
strengthening of 67 percent of the inventory is forecasted for the short-term future.
In addition to the deadlines for strengthening, Council tied the requirement to install fire
sprinklers in buildings within the Commercial Fire Zone to the seismic deadlines. As a result,
sprinkler installation is occurring at the same time as most strengthening projects. The vast
majority of sprinkler installations are slated to be being complete by the 2012 deadline.
Two thirds of the total progress in the Seismic Program has occurred since the Council passed
the 2004 Ordinance following the San Simeon Earthquake. Along with new deadlines, the 2004
ordinance also changed the City's approach to the program by providing a high degree of
outreach to all buildings owners, tenants, and neighbors to strengthening projects. The outreach
has allowed the City to honor progress made by building owners rather than forcing strict
53 -�
Council Agenda Report-Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 5
adherence to the deadlines. This flexibility coupled with favorable permit fees have added up to
a substantially safer downtown and a significantly upgraded building stock. For this we must
thank the diligent work of the owners of buildings subject to the City's retrofit ordinance.
Limited Deadline Flexibility
To perpetuate the momentum of the Program, continuing to provide limited flexibility in the
2009 deadlinegroup is suggested. Substantial progress is at hand and further progress is possible
with continued flexibility for building owners who are committed to completing their projects.
The deadline for overall seismic strengthening was established in 2004. Except for those
buildings that were strengthened to Level A by July 1, 2007, all buildings were to be fully
strengthened by July 1, 2010. To facilitate completion of strengthening efforts underway, staff
has adopted a practice of support for progress rather than penalties for strict non-compliance. As
described above, the Chief Building Official has provided flexibility for projects that have
suffered extenuating circumstances. This flexibility has been granted in cases where the building
owners were unwavering in their commitment to complete the strengthening project and where
significant work had already been completed (thereby reducing the hazard risk). Providing for
flexibility rather than fines has resulted in success for the City, success for building owners, and
has generated the appreciation of owners for this cooperative effort.
Flexibility in the application of seismic deadlines also requires flexibility in application of the
fire sprinkler deadlines. It is important. to acknowledge that the Fire Department has also
allowed flexibility because they see the value of supporting projects that are moving forward and
have aligned installation of fire sprinklers with the seismic strengthening processes.
Flexibility that rewards actual progress is supported by the Chamber's Seismic Task Force. The
Task Force recommends limited flexibility, namely for building owners who are either making
real, construction, progress or are in the City's entitlement or building permit processes with an
active and complete permit application: Task Force members suggest the City stay the course
relative to requiring strengthening work be accomplished according to the timetable already
established. The Task Force members articulated the following reasons for staying the course:
1) A high degree of effort has been undertaken to help building owners comply,
2) There are many owners now in the process of complying, and
3) Owners who are already in compliance need to be honored for the work they have
accomplished within established timeframes.
Based on the recommendations of the Task Force and in conjunction with existing City practice
that honors progress on projects, staff recommends continued flexibility for owners whose
building is in construction or "in the pipeline". Administered through the Chief Building
Official, staff could allow additional time for projects so long as the following requirements are
met:
1) For all projects, including those requiring planning review, a written project plan with
benchmark deadlines must be submitted to the Chief Building Official for review no later
than April 1, 2009. This plan must include a phasing plan that will reduce the hazard to
the public and occupants of the building.
83 -5
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 6
2) The project plan must also include a timeline showing how the entire seismic hazard will
be abated no later than July 1, 2010.
3) For projects requiring planning review, a project application must be deemed "Complete"
for processing no later than July 1, 2009 to be considered "in the pipeline". (Staff
provides a letter confirming"completeness".)
Curtailing the seismic hazard in systematic ways is the underpinning of the proposed system for
allowing flexibility in the 2009 seismic deadlines. In assessing the written project plans,
emphasis will be placed on plans that address pedestrian safety early in the project. As was the
case when the Council adopted the Level A partial retrofit concept, a project plan that alleviates
the highest degree of hazard through strategic strengthening early in the extended term will be
viewed more favorably than one that does not prioritize the safety of the public and building
occupants.
The Chief Building Official will continue to have the authority to allow or deny more time to
complete the strengthening work so long as the work is completed no later than July 1, 2010. The
Chief Building Official may also require actions to assure public safety during the delay, such as
pedestrian protection, based on a building's relative hazard rating applying the rating scale
developed by the Seismic Task Force and approved by the City Council.
Failure to Comply—Penalties
As with all imposed deadlines, penalties occupy part of the bag of tools necessary to motivate
action. In the event that building owners get to the July 1, 2009 deadline without taking action,
the following penalties may be used to motivate compliance. The penalties have not been
employed to date, in part due to the City's flexibility as a means to encourage compliance and in
part due to ongoing work by building owners requiring "encouragement" upon passage of the
2008 deadline. The 2009 group includes owners who are looking to see whether the City will
enforce the deadlines. As such, it is important to look closely at the City's enforcement tools to
understand how they could be employed to encourage compliance without unintended
consequences.
In order to avoid "red tagging" buildings as unsafe; staff examined the penalties provided under
the Municipal Code to encourage compliance following the July 1, 2009 deadline. 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.
83-67
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 7
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 that do not comply are turned over to an
outside collection agency to secure payment. This mechanism carries with it the possibility of
affecting 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.
3. Injunctive Relief. .
More egregious violations may necessitate seeking injunctive relief, e.g.; 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 is 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 4, Resolution 9600 (2004). These favorable fees currently
apply to all improvements done in conjunction with the retrofit work including tenant
improvements, disabled access upgrades, facade changes and electrical or plumbing system
upgrades. In April 2007, Council directed 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. To date, these fees have not been altered.
Given the current economic climate, staff recommends retention of the favorable fees in order to
continue 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. 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.
Next Steps
As a follow-up to this meeting, staff will send formal notices to all building owners in the 2009
group, in keeping with practices of past years. 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
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 8
demonstration of other good faith progress as described above, deemed acceptable by the Chief
Building Official, on a case by case basis.
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 during 2008 to discuss progress in the Seismic Program and
recommendations for balancing encouragement and penalties.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no fiscal impacts to the City budget resulting from action based on this report. The
additional staff time required to analyze projects requiring flexibility is not expected to be a
significant budget issue. 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. This issue is ultimately about life safety and protecting the citizens of
our community.
CONCLUSION
The shorter deadlines adopted by Council in 2007 have served to renew public interest and
private action in the URM Program. However, there is more work to be done. The goal,
therefore, is to continue to take actions that have reaped success in the past while taking into
account the difficulties of our present economic climate.
To achieve greater community safety through this program, the City must remain vigilant until
all buildings have achieved Level B strengthening. The realities of today will challenge this goal
and the community's resolve. To accomplish the goal within the foreseeable future, tough
decisions will continue to be needed along with flexibility and the ability to work with our
"community partners" to achieve success for everyone.
ALTERNATIVES
Council Agenda Report—Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program
Page 9
1. Reject the flexible approach to handling compliance with the deadlines. 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. Require Changes to the Fee Schedule. The favorable fees, adopted in 2004, have been the
lone "incentive" for seismic strengthening projects. These fees make an increasingly big
difference as the favorable economy enjoyed over several previous years recedes. Increasing the
fees to "normal" levels will not generate significant revenues for the City but will send a
message to building owners that the City is no longer participating in their success through the
gesture of lower fees.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 URM Ordinance)
2. Hazard Rating Scores developed by the Seismic Task Force in 2007
3. Seismic Retrofit Completion Dates established on July 1, 2007
4. Resolution 9600 (2004 Series) Permit Fees for URM Strengthening
T ASeismic\Seis micCAR I-20-09
13,3
ATfACHME '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 REQUIREMIINTSFOR STRENGTHENING
UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
'AWREAS, the.City of San Luis Obispo contains 100 buildings of unreinforced masonry
construction, determined to be "potentially hazardous" during a seismic event; that have riot 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
WIILREAS, 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 imreinforced 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.
A1151.1 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
83 -/o
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series)
Page 2
1. The value of additions, alterations, and/or maintenance repairs
requiring a building permit, cumulative from March 4, 1992, exceeds 50
percent of the replacement cost of the building established by the Building
Official per Section 304.2 of the Uniform Administrative Code, .which
may include a certified appraisal report. The cumulative value of
alterations and maintenance repairs need not.include reroofing; Level A.
Strengthening,and installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system..
EXCEPTION: Buildings containing more than one tenant space
if the floor area of altered tenant spaces,cumulative from March 4,
1992, does not exceed 50 percent of the total floor area of the
building.
2. The use of the building changes to a different division of the same
occupancy group or to a different occupancy group.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
3405 of the Building Code, buildings containing more than one
occupancy classification.need'not be strengthened if the total floor
area for changes in use, cumulative from March 4, 1992, does not
exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the building.
2. Occupancy classification changes to Groups F, M, S and U
from an equivalent category as defined in the previous editions of
this code.
3. An occupancy classification change to a Group R, Division 1
Occupancy with not more than five dwelling units.
4. An occupancy classification change to a Group S Occupancy
used exclusively as a warehouse with no human habitation.
3. If Level A strengthening work is completed by July 1, 2007,
completion of the remaining work to satisfy Level B strengthening
requirements may be delayed until.July 1, 2012. If Level A work is not
completed by July 1,2007,the City Council will set a Level B completion
deadline for each building on the basis of relative hazard,but not later than
July 1,2010.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official, on a case.-by-case basis,
may approve an alternate strengthening plan deemed equivalent to
Level A strengthening if:
1. A greater than 50 percent reduction in the unreinforced
masonry hazard for the building is accomplished by July 1,
2007; and,
Ordinance No. 1453(2004 Series) ATTACHMENT 1
Page 3
2. A written agreement includes an acceptable work plan and
timeline; and,
3. The plan completes Level B strengthening by July 1,2012.
A115.1.2 Permits. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall
submit a complete application .for a building permit to the Building Official to
strengthen the building to Level B requirements by July 1, 2005. The building
permit shall be obtained by January 1, 2006, and shall remain valid until required
Level B strengthening work is completed per Section Al 15.1.1.
EXCEPTION: For seismic strengthening or demolition projects that
require approval of a planning application by a City process, the planning
application shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department by July 1, 2005. The application for building or demolition
permit shall be submitted following approval of the planning application,
and a building or demolition.permit shall be obtained by January 1,.2006:
A115.1.3 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. Umeinforced masonry buildings may be unsafe in the event of
a major earthquake", The sign shall be posted within 60 days of receipt by the
building owner per installation standards established by the building official.
C. Amend Section Al 15.3.3 to read as follows:
A115.3.3 Order. The order shall direct the owner to obtain .a building or
demolition permit as required by this chapter and cause the building to be
structurally altered to conform to the provisions of this chapter, or cause the
building to be demolished.
D. Amend Section A115.7 to read as follows:
A115.7 Program Monitoring and Annual Report. During January of each
year, the Building Official shall submit a report to the City Council outlining the
progress to date concerning reduction of the hazards presented by the
unreinforced masonry building inventory for the City. The report shall include:
1. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings strengthened, demolished, or
otherwise eliminated from the inventory;
2. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings remaining on the inventory,
including the status of orders issued pursuant to this Chapter that are.not resolved.
1 1
• • • il•
1 • (: 1 1 • . . - is • • . r • r r•
t0v- INN
IOWA
• r r r _. . - • 11
� � ����I;.a �e0� � ♦ ®� S��
,r
I
Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series) ATTACHMENT 1
Page 5
SECTION 3. If any provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held.to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would have
passed each and every remaining provision irrespective of such holding in order to accomplish the
intent of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. A synopsis of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the names of Council Members voting for and against, shall be published at least 5 days prior to its
final passage in the The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance
shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 17`b day of August,2004 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 7`"day of September 2004,on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ewan,Mulholland and Settle,Vice Mayor Schwartz
and Mayor Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor David R Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hoo
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo than .Lowell
Cit tomey
X33-/
Chamber of Commerce
AITACHMENT2r
EEAZARn RATDFG SCORES
# Location Owner Occ Ld Stories FreqfOd Loc Score
1 1050 Osos Sperry Flour LLC 1290 1 3 3 24.20
2 1009 Monterey Laird Buildina 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 Hi uera Ernest C Wineman TRE 316 3 3 3 13.21
6 1119 Garden Westpac 280 2 3 3 11.73
7 842 1 Hf uera Richard&Jennifer Porter 252 2 3 3 11.36
8 760 IHiguera Warden 395 2 1 3 11.27
9 837-[Monterey Stream Associates Inc 186 2 3 3 10.48
10 669 Hi uere Davidsons GW Inc 184 2 3 1 3' 10.45
11 699 1 Hf uera Thomas A McLaughlin 164 2 3 3 10.19
12 793 Hi uera Dewar,at al 135 2 3 3 9.80
13 1051 Ni omo Robin L Rossi 270 1 3 2 9.60
14 849 Monterey Anne Sihsheimer TRE 117 2 1 3 3 9.56
15 777 Marsh Gregory Johnson TRE 173 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,A CA 68 2 3 1 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 11 200 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 Hiranandanl 90 1 3 1 3 8.20
28 1116 Morro Sirvart R Haroutunian TRE 156 2 2 2 8.08
29 848 Monterey Copeland Properties 150 2 1 3 8.00
30 782 Hi uera Dorothy J Naman TRE 67 1 3 3 7.89
31 728 Hi uera Bill HalatEric Swartz 50 1 3 3 7.67
32 717 Hi uera Michael Ofiazola 491 1 3 3 7.65
33 886 Monterey Copeland Properties 491 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 1 3 7.59
36 659 1 Hi uera Richard&Catherine Wie 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 7.40
39 1131 Broad Margaret M Cote TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40
40 740 Hi uera Bradley J Biisten TRE 30 1 3 3 7.40
41 856 Hi uera Van Eck-Grazaano Assn 30 1 3 3 7.40
42 790 Hi uera Dorothy JNaman 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 1 3 7.20
46 853 1 Hi uera Ernest C Wineman TRE 150 1 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 era 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 1 2 1 2 5.40
55 798 Palm Beulah Chong TRE 26 1 2 1 2 5.35
56 309 Hi uera 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 10 1 3 1 5.13
59 298 Pismo Rudy Buchanan 84 1 2 1 5,12
60 311' Hi uera 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 IMarsh Katherine L Span ler 30 1 2 1 1 4.40
63 220 High Triangle,A CA 20 1 2 1 4.27
64 1500 Marsh Obispo Investments Inc 17 1 2 1 4.23
65 1034 Mill David Sutcliff 15 1 2 1 4.20
66 1318 Chorro Howard E Carroll TRE 11 1 2 1 4.15
67 1901 Broad Alfred P Martinelli TRE 5 1 2 1 4.07
68 553.24
69 SCORE=Occupancy load/75+Stories+Frequency of.Oce ation+Location ^j�
Seismic Retrofit Completion Dates ��� ��',�
Established by SLO City Council '61•pe'rt
July 1,2007
JULY 1 2008 DEADLINE
Y Location Owner Status 10.1-2008 Seismic Sprinkler
1 938 Cherrg awdley-JBik1AR ZRN Complete Level B 2012
2 666kliOUR ra Wamen 6 GaFG!a T-Rfi 6emp1e4a Level R 49Ae
3 373 Higueta MgsMaeF9Naa64a Gemplete Levels done
4 340 kiguera Wadleyd-RilstensA6 Complete Level B 2012
5 369 Wigwam WnFdAn Complete Lev" dens
6 793 Higuera Dewar,et al construction 7/1/2008 2010
7 666 Wigueva Vatsssk-6maiane•Ass A Gempleto 6svel8 done
8 936 Hig9era Covey-2.A COMPlete Wye!13 dens
9 7469 Marta AK6-PrePeniaeJ1 Complete bevAl A Wa
10 1009 Monterey Laird Building construction 7/1/2008 partial
17 4724 NOUFAM MGDenaW Complete Level B 2012
12 4669 Asan SpeRy-Raw L66 Complete Level 2010
13 1880 Santa Barbi Depot Square LP construction 7/1/2008 Na
JULY 1,2 W91DEADLTkNE
Y Location Owner Status 10.1-2008 Seismic Sprinkler
1 7423 Bread R g Sky Ghages MAyera complete 6evelR dens
2 1127 Broad JohNCarolyn Fagnani 7/1/2009 2009
3 1131 Broad George/Kay Kartsioukas 7/1/2009 2009
4 3893 Bread A*etlRMardNeNF7A6 6emple1e Levels we
5 1119 Chorro Mid Coast Mortgage construction 7/112009 2009
6 1130 Garden John A Benson 7/1/2009 2009
7 220 High Triangle,A CA 7/1/2009 Na
B 295 Higuera Sub Corporation LTD construction 7/1/2009 n4a
9 309 Higuera John&Jeanine Evon for sale 7/1/2009 We
10 311 Higuera Jahn&Jeanine Evon for sale 7/1/2009 Na
11 243 kiiguera 6omPlete k.Bvel6 A/a
12 659 Higuera Craig Reade construction 7/112009 progress
13 669 Higuera Davidson GW Inc 7/1/2009 2009
14 746 kgg9ere Kevin•B.Kami•Main GgmpWfa k.eve48 done
15 733 Higuera Jagmohan&SB Hiranandani 7/1/2009 2009
16 839 Higuera Ernest C Wineman TRE. 7/1/2009 2009
17' 842 Higuma Rispard 8-JennI19F Peder Complete Level B 2010
18 853 Higuera Ernest CWineman TRE 7/1/2009 2009
19 ace miquera SIRE Complete Levels WAS
20 664 Marsh Katherine L Spangler for sale 7112009 2009
21 717 Marsh Charles H Kamm TRE 7/12009 2009
22 777 Marsh Gregory Johnson TRE. construction 7112009 progress
23 1500 Marsh Obispo Investments Inc 7/1/2009 Na
24 1034 Mill David SutcliH 7112009 We
25 837 Monterey Stream Associates Inc construction 7/12009 progress
26 849 Monterey Anne Sinsheimer TRE 7/1/2009 2009
27 857 A9ememy AetrasmerPases Gemplew Levels dens
28 1116 Morro Patrick Aurignac 7/i2009 2009
29 7654 Nipeme AehlA,Aessi Complete 7/1/2009 2009
30 1609 Osos Harry G Kyle TRE ETAL 7/1/2009 We
31 1804 OSOs SLO County Alan Club Inc 7/12009 We
32 768 palm ReWah Cho%:;Rfi Complete Leveiii tUa
33 150 Pismo Sub Corporation LTD construction 7112009 rVa
34 667 Upham Reeser 7/1/2009 Na
JU-LTY 1,.2010 DEADLINE
Y Location Owner Status 10-1-2008 Seismic Sprinkler
1 2747 Broad Baptist Church SLO 7/1/2010 Na
2 1318 Chorro Howard E Carroll TRE Planned Retrofit 7/1/2010 We
3 1035 Chorro Dorothy J Naman TRE 7/1/2010 2010
4 1029 Chorro Dorothy J Nathan TRE 7/1/2010 2010
5 943 chgrre 6adiB1IG Ghtlreb•S60 Complete 71117636 deme
6 1123 Garden Westpac- 7/1/2010 2010
7 1119 Garden Westpac. 7/1/2010 done
8 790 Higuera Dorothy J Naman TRE construction 71112010 progress
9 782 Higuera Dorothy J Naman TRE construction 7112010 progress
10 728 Higuera Bill Hale/Eric Swartz 7/12010 2010
11 748 Marsh Westpac. 7/1/2010 2010
12 728 Marsh Marsh Street Associates 7/1/2010 done
13 722 Marsh Marsh Street Associates 7112010 done
14 886 Monterey Copeland Properties 7/12010 2010
15 848 Monterey Copeland Properties 7/1/2010 2010
16 840 Monterey Copeland Properties 7/1/2010 .2010
17 861 Palm SLO Court Street LLC 7/12010 2010
18 682 Amor 6au4e116ShWFGh Prep complete 6eveL8 rua
19 298 Pismo Rudy Buchanan construction 7112010 n/a
JULY 1,2012TDE- UD NE '
Y Location Owner Status 10-1-2008 Seismic. Sprinkler
1 1 699 Higuera Thomas A McLaughlin Level A 7/1/2012 done
2 2 710 Higuera Jerry Martin Level A 7112012 done
3 3 736 Higuera Westpac Realty/Anne Appel Level A 7112012 2017
4 4 779 Higuera Beverly Maytag Level A 7/1/2012 .2017
5 5 796 Higuera Naman Level A 7/12012 2017
6 6 778 Marsh Mark&Tracy Anderson Level A 7/1/2012 2012
7 7 742 Marsh Shipsey Level A 7/1/2012 2017
8 8 B68 Monterey Copeland Properties Level A 7/12012 2017
83 -/�
RESOLUTION NO.9600(2004 Series) ATTACHMENT 4
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.
Upon 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
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Schwartz
The foregoing resolution was adopted on August 17,2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
ane Reyn ds, .M.C.
Deputy City 1=6rk
R 9600
83-«
Resolution No. 9600(2004 Series) ATTACI ME9 4
Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jdaa .Lowell
City Attorney
�3 -l�
i
ATTACHMENT 4
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 BUILDING & 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 Parking Space, up to three for a
maximum of six months, shall be$1.00.
kC)DGE - „
:_; a -•.f ,,
Land Planning + Civil engineering
January19,2009 _ FeLE G �� �fq-IL
7 ��u UNCIL Gr cDD DIA
City of San Luis Obispo MEET!i G AGETi"DA '3�6� CTFIN DIR
as5re.-r�.rt`+s2"FIRE CHIEF
919 Palm Street DATE �P-Q`G { is B3 C�ATTORNEY a PW DIR
San Luis Obispo, Ca.93401 �EIDEPT
LERKlORIG R-POLICE CHF
HEADS a`REC DIR
Pi3
Attention: City Council Members re-UTILDIR C1'FIR DIR
Re: Seismic Retrofit for Ten 10 f�ailrwJ Avenue -
1804 81814 Osos Street ll/L�r r[nr� ou vc�L
c�-ni �tGa.
Dear Council Members: C� �
I write this letter with the hope of having your Council consider extending the time limit for the seismic
retrofit for 1804 Osos Street.The building in question is one story, located at the comer of Osos and
Church Streets and has the Luna Cafe as the tenant.
The entitlement process is underway with the redevelopment of the property,which includes the
historic Alano Club building, an expansion of the aforementioned brick building and a new mixed use
building behind the two existing buildings and adjacent to Cafe Roma.Weare scheduled for ARC on
January 21st,Planning Commission on February 11", and City Council on March 17N.
The reason for our time extension request is to have the project construction and seismic retrofit
coincide and avoid two construction activities,which in turn will reduce the disruption to the
surrounding businesses and residences.
We believe it's important for the surrounding restaurants, residences and the railroad station to limit
construction noise,dust, additional workforce parking,and having a property in transition to one
single event, rather than two.
Furthermore,if the seismic retrofit occurs prior to the construction of the larger project it would cause
the Luna Caf6 business to be dosed for a much longer period of time because of the closure time
between the two construction efforts.
Following the completion of the aforementioned hearings,we expect the preparation and plan
checking of the construction documents to take approximately eight months, or to the end of 2009.
Construction financing and bidding will take an additional three months,which allows the
m
commenceerd of construction to start in March,2010.The construction effort will take approximately
12 months with occupancy occurring in March of 2011.
Since construction plans have been prepared for the retrofit of the building in question and reviewed
by the City, and given that this small building is one story, out of the downtown core and part of a
larger proposed project,we're hopeful the City can giant our request for an extension to the seismic
retrofit.
Please contact me or our City planner,Jaime Hill, if you have any questions.Thank you for your
consideration of our request.
ly,
Micha H ge
jeCt nt
351 San I lig l Ave. San Luis Q6ispo, Ca. 93405 (0) 215-8753 549-0730