HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/2011, B1 - UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM STATUS REPORT I i
council M January 4,2010
j acEnaa wpout B` 11
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O -
FROM: Michael Codron,Assistant City Manager
John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Claire Clark,Economic Development Manager
Tim Girvin,Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM STATUS
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file report regarding status of Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation (URM)
Program.
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report presents an update on the status of the buildings subject to the URM Ordinance
requirements. It reviews the URM Program progress, overall success, specific progress within each
deadline group and provides a review of the penalties for non-compliance. Although 100%
compliance was not achieved by July 1, 2010 significant progress has been made by building
owners who have moved forward with strengthening projects, the majority of whom have also
included upgraded exteriors, interiors and fire sprinklers in the downtown Commercial Fire Zone.
Since the beginning of the program, the hazard has been completely abated in 103 buildings and an
additional seven have been partially strengthened.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first seismic retrofit ordinance. This ordinance
required 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,
business owners, and engineers formed in 1989 to work with the City to craft the rules and
regulations governing seismic strengthening in the City of San Luis Obispo.
In 2004, the City adopted changes to the URM Ordinance in response to the destruction and
deaths in Paso Robles resulting from the December 2003 San Simeon earthquake (Attachment
1). The 2004 URM Ordinance established earlier deadlines for seismic strengthening, moving
them up 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.
B14
i
council memojzanbum
hwd-
a COUNCIL a CDD DIR
a CRYMGR a FIT DIR
a AWCM a FIRE CHIEF.
December 29, 2010 a ATTORNEY a PW DIR
O CIERVORIG a POLICE CHIEF
a PS a PAW&RECDIR
TRIBUNE
TO: City Council a NEWTIAM a HR
a SLGCrrYXEWS a COUNCIL
a CITY MGR
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manage a BEAK
Michael Codron, Assistant C yy ager
Prepared by: Claire Clark, Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: RID FILE: Item Bl: Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Program Status
Report
In preparation for the January 4, 2011 Council meeting, Council Member Carter on December
28, 2010, emailed questions to Claire Clark, Economic Development Manager regarding the
report for the Agenda item.
Question 1. On page B1-15, can you tell me why me the five buildings shown are
exempted? I assume#1 & #2 are because they are unoccupied and uninhabitable, but what
about#3,#4,and#5?
The reasons for the exemptions are a matter of state law. An exemption is not given for unoccupied
or uninhabitable buildings as suggested in the question. Rather, buildings shown at# 1, 2 and 4 are
owned by the County, a superior agency. Superior agency requires compliance with state law
which, in this case, has no deadlines for seismic strengthening. All deadlines are local regulations.
The superior agency is not subject to the local regulation.
Government code Section 8875-8875.10 defines "potentially hazardous building" and specifically
excludes "...warehouses or similar structures not used for human habitation...." and "...any
building having five living units or less." As a result, conversion of the building at#3 back into a
single family house exempted it from the requirements to strengthen. The building at#5 was shown
to be a warehouse situated in a district where warehouse uses are allowed. As a result, it is not
subject to the strengthening requirements until and unless the use changes.
1. 2180 Johnson (Sunny Acres-County property) = RED FILE
2. 2180 Johnson (Old Adobe-County property)
3. 1500 Marsh (Single family home) — MEETING AGENDA
4. 1144 Monterey(County property) DATEit i ITEM,# 8!
5. 280 Pismo (Old Gas Works)
Question 2. On page B1-16,please provide the safety scores for the buildings on this list.
1. 1009 Monterey* Hazard score was originally 22.17. This building has been
extensively strengthened including lowering parapets to reduce the hazard at the public
right of way. It is 98% complete and requires finalization of the work at the back wall
and a steel post and footing at the front wall. Work is progressing as a priority of the
owner and as finances permit. Staff is in close contact with the owner to monitor
progress.
• Insert Report Title Page 2
2. 1130 Garden* Hazard score was originally 7.27. This building is in the process
of being retrofitted and is 95% complete.
3. 849 Monterey* Hazard score was originally 9.56. This building is in the process of
being retrofitted and is 99% complete.
4. 1116 Morro 8.08 -Granada Hotel
5. 2747 Broad 8.67 - Springfield Baptist Church
6. 1029 Chorro 8.25 - Naman Project
7. 1035 Chorro 7.59 - Naman Project
8. 1119 Garden 11.73 -Brew building-Garden Street Terraces
9. 1123 Garden 8.75 -Smith Building-Garden Street Terraces
10. 722 Marsh 6.13 -Garden Street Terraces
11. 728 Marsh 6.65 -Garden Street Terraces
12. 748 Marsh 6.16-Garden Street Terraces
13. 840 Monterey 8.76-Vacant-Chinatown Project
14. 848 Monterey 8.00 - Vacant-Chinatown Project
15. 886 Monterey 7.56-Vacant - Chinatown Project
16. 861 Palm 6.93 - Vacant-Chinatown Project
No hazard rating scores were given to the following group of buildings as these were all
strengthened to Level A at that time. The scores were only formulated for the buildings which had
received no strengthening as of 7/1/2007.
1. 699 Higuera-Corner of Higuera and Broad/Lucky Jeans, etc.
2. 710 Higuera-Comer of Higuera and Broad/Sports,Wine, hair salon and restaurant
3. 736 Higuera-Formerly Central Coast Surfboards. Now LaRouge and Francie.
4. 796 Higuera-Avanti,Chamber offices upstairs
5. 742 Marsh-Verizon store and a vacant space
6. 778 Marsh-Beauty shop and comics, offices upstairs
7. 868 Monterey-Formerly Muzio's and Moondoggies
Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 2
The 2004 URM Ordinance also required owners to obtain necessary planning approvals and a
construction permit for 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.
2007 Action
In 2007, in accordance with Ordinance provisions, the Council assigned Level B completion
deadlines to each of the remaining 66 unreinforced buildings. To this end, the Chamber of
Commerce Seismic Task Force developed a hazard rating system which was used by the Council
in conjunction with other practical information for assigning deadlines. 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 in Attachment 2
(Seismic Retrofit Completion Dates of July 1, 2007, updated for Status as of 1/1/20111.
2009 Action
During the annual update in 2009, the Council responded to the severe economic downturn of
late 2008 and 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 an additional year to complete the retrofit. All Extension
Agreements included requirements 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 or
injury resulting from the hazard.
2010 Action
Due in part to the seismic retrofit requirements, three big projects have come forward for
permitting in the Downtown since adoption of the earlier strengthening deadlines in 2004. These
three projects, Chinatown, Garden Street Terraces and the Naman Project include buildings on
the Inventory of Hazardous Buildings. Due to the importance of these projects to the economic
health of the community, on February 16, 2010, Council directed suspension of the retrofit
deadlines for a period of five years for URM buildings in these three big projects. This action
was requested by the Chamber of Commerce following careful consideration by the Seismic
Task Force. Deadlines for the three projects were conditionally suspended pending execution of
Agreements to assure compliance, provide greater information for safety in the event of an
earthquake, and indemnifying the City. Since that time, all three projects entered into
agreements with the following provisions:
• Complete hazard mitigation by July 1,2015.
• Education of occupants of the building about what to do in the event of an earthquake.
• Annual inspections with City Fire Marshall and Building Official.
• That the projects demonstrate continuing progress in the permitting process.
• Indemnification of the City in the event of earthquake damage.
B1-2
Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 3
The Naman Project is required to meet additional interim compliance deadlines to assure hazard
mitigation is not delayed due to the permitting process. The Naman Project is a special case
because the owner was allowed to bond for retrofit plans in 2006, rather than submit plans and
for permit issuance, due to the then-active status of a Planning Application for a development
project wrapping the northwest corner of H guera at Chorro. That plan did not come to fruition.
Instead, during the intervening years several of the buildings in the original development plan
were strengthened and given beautiful facelifts, and a new development plan was proposed at the
time of Council consideration in early 2010.
Additionally a one-year suspension of the July 2010 deadline was granted to the Springfield
Baptist Church. The Church also entered into.an agreement with the City which requires:
• Hazard mitigation by July 1, 2011.
• Education of occupants of the building about what to do in the event of an earthquake.
• Indemnification of the City in the event of earthquake damage.
Favorable Fees
Action by the Council in 2010 included amendments to the favorable fees for building and
planning permits that were adopted by Council with the 2004 Ordinance. These reduced fees
apply to all improvements done in conjunction with the seismic strengthening of a building
including tenant improvements, disabled access upgrades, fagade changes and electrical or
plumbing system upgrades as well as the planning application fees. The fee reductions do not
apply to demolitions, or to non-building or planning permits such as encroachment permits. The
City's contribution towards completion of State required seismic strengthening projects via
reduced fees has been estimated to exceed one million dollars thus far. It is estimated that, on
average, actual permit costs would be $15,000 per retrofit whereas qualifying URM
strengthening projects pay $80. Notably, the large development projects in the Downtown do
not qualify for the reduced fees.
Reduced fees have definitely contributed to the success of the Seismic Program. However, in
2010 Council contemplated ending the favorable fees as part of the toolkit to spur action on the
part of owners that fail to make progress toward addressing the seismic hazard. By adopting
Resolution 10171 (2010 Series), Council acted to allow the fee reductions to expire when the
seismic retrofit permit expires. When inaction on the part of an owner of a URM building causes
the permit to expire, a new permit will be required —at the normal fees for planning and building
applications. With only 23 retrofit projects remaining, staff will continue to work as closely as
possible with individual building owners to encourage the strengthening work to begin in a
timely fashion. However, concurrent loss of the favorable fees can be a powerful motivator for
the few owners who fail to take action.
Overall Progress
At the inception of the seismic retrofit program, City staff identified 126 potentially hazardous
buildings. As of January 2010, only 23 buildings remain incomplete, seven of which have been
partially retrofitted as shown in Attachment 3 (URM Hazard Mitigation Summary dated
December 2010.) This represents an 82 percent compliance level up from 75 percent a year ago.
On the basis of the hazard rating scores, 78 percent of the total hazard score has been abated, up
10% from the prior year.
B1-3
Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 4
On July 1, 2010, the ultimate Level B deadline set by the 2004 URM Ordinance arrived.
Although 100% compliance was not achieved nor expected by the July 1, 2010 deadline,
significant progress has been made by building owners who have moved forward with
strengthening projects, the majority of whom have also included upgraded exteriors, interiors and
fire sprinklers in the downtown Commercial Fire Zone.
In addition to the deadlines for strengthening, Council tied installation of fire sprinklers in
buildings 'within the Commercial Fire Zone to the seismic deadlines. Greater emphasis on
assuring compliance with the sprinkler deadlines alongside the seismic strengthening deadlines
has resulted in sprinkler installation with all current strengthening projects. The majority of
sprinkler installations are slated to be complete by 2012 with sprinkler deadlines matching
seismic deadlines for all buildings granted more time. Although sprinkler installation adds a
significant cost to the strengthening projects, this work has continued to be included in the
current work to upgrade buildings on the inventory.
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.
Ultimately, thanks goes to the building owners' diligent efforts to comply with the seismic
deadlines. Indeed, 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.
Progress by Deadline Group
Progress within each group continues to be good, despite the ongoing recession. The following
describes progress by deadline group.
1. July 1, 2008 Deadline Group
Thirteen buildings were originally assigned a completion deadline of July 1, 2008. At this time,
all but one of these buildings has 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 continues, slowly at this point in time due to
lingering effects of the recession. Despite the slowdown in work, this building received
structural strengthening prior to the program's inception and continues to add structural
elements, including sprinkler installation, with the expectation that it is the owner's priority to
complete this project. This retrofit has been one of the most challenging from a structural
standpoint.
2. July 1, 2009 Deadline Group—All 24 complete including sprinklers
Originally encompassing 34 buildings, ten buildings were moved to the July 1, 2010 deadline
group by Council action. The remaining 24 buildings have been completely strengthened.
B1-4
Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 5
Facade improvements associated with the strengthening work continue on some buildings
notably at 1609 Osos Street where the pedestrian protection barrier has lingered and 1127 Broad,
formerly the bagel shop and the bamboo shop, where a facade remodel was undertaken following
the seismic work. The Building Division continues to encourage progress and inspect work at
these locations.
3. July-1, 2010 Extension Group
Nineteen buildings were originally assigned to the July 1, 2010 deadline group. Via Council
action, ten were added into the group and twelve were removed from this group resulting in a
total of seventeen buildings with a deadline of July 1, 2010. This group has made very good
progress with only three buildings still requiring work. Two buildings, the historic Sinsheimer
Building and the two story building at 1130 Garden Street are close to completion. The
Sinsheimer Building has received interior upgrades in addition to sprinklers and seismic
strengthening. In addition, the carriage house in the back is also being strengthened and
upgraded for use as office space. At 1130 Garden Street, the owner sought and was granted
approvals for changes to both the interior and exterior of this building. The strengthening work
is 95%complete with tenant improvements following.
The only building not progressing in the normal course is the Granada Hotel. Although this part
of Morro Street has blossomed with several new local businesses occupying street level retail
spaces in the Granada, the building has been mired in the effects of foreclosure. Prior to
completion of the foreclosure, the Bank proactively sought City staff consideration of the
alternatives for the building. The Bank became the new owner of the building at the passing of
the deadline and has been working diligently all summer and fall to find a buyer. Several parties
have approached the City with interest in the building or in the lot should the building be
demolished. City staff has clarified the minimal requirements for a demolition permit. The Bank
is expected to complete negotiations with potential buyers and move the building into escrow in
early January.
Several buildings have been strengthened but appear to be incomplete. These buildings include
Davidson's Furniture at 669 Higuera with prominent scaffolding along the frontage, 1131 Broad
which has transformed the former Tio Alberto's location, and 733 Higuera bordering Bubblegum
Alley. All three of these buildings have moved into the facade renovation and/or tenant
improvement phase with work on-going on each. 1131 Broad will be occupied by a
Greek/Mexican Restaurant operated.by the building owners, George and Kay Kartsioukas. 733
Higuera will be occupied by a new restaurant, Enzo's Italian Eatery. Davidson's Furniture is in
the process of completing its facade improvements. There has been a lot of interest by
prospective tenants in the Davidson's building, particularly restaurants and larger retailers.
4. July 1, 2011 Deadline Group
The Springfield Baptist Church building, fully entitled and permitted for retrofit and facade
upgrades is currently listed for sale. A few potential buyers have explored options with City staff
for reuse of that building for housing. However, none of these inquiries have resulted in a sale of
the property. Currently there are no viable options for the Church and any reasonable solutions
are very uncertain.
B1-5
Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 6
5. 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. Of this group, 779 Higuera has
been strengthened with work on tenant improvements coming to a close. Three of the four
businesses formerly located in this building have returned with a small space still waiting to be
occupied. Other building owners with this deadline have been working on plans to move
forward with completion of the strengthening work.
6. July 1, 2015 Deadline Group
This deadline group consists entirely of the URM buildings that are part of the three large
downtown development projects, as follows. Progress continues on all projects.
1. Chinatown Project includes four URM buildings. On November 17, 2009, the Chinatown
Project received Council approval. Work by the Copeland team on finding tenants is
underway.
2. Garden Street Terraces project includes five URM buildings. This project received
environmental approvals and is in redesign by the applicant team with design resubmission
expected early in 2011. Some upgrades have been completed at 1119 Garden Street, the
Brew Building, and evidence of some seismic strengthening work has been discovered in the
process.
3. The Naman Project includes two URM buildings where several small shops are currently
located adjacent to the Chamber of Commerce Visitor's Center. The project has been
positively reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee with a positive recommendation for
consideration by the Architectural Review Commission in early February.
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 has been a productive tool with
some members of the 2009 and 2010 deadline groups.
However, if these measures fail to produce action, there are several enforcement mechanisms
available pursuant to the Municipal Code. 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.
Z. 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
B1-6
Status Report: URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 7
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.
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.
Next Steps
The on-going work with owners of URM buildings includes oversight by the Building Division
to insure compliance with plans for construction and oversight of progress on buildings not yet
started but subject to agreements with the City. The Economic Development Manager continues
to be involved in shepherding the three large development projects in to downtown and being a
welcoming contact for owners who still have work to do. Outreach with What's Shakin occurs
periodically, as necessary to transmit information and news. However, with the dwindling
number of buildings on the Inventory, personal contact has proven to be effective.
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. As the
Program has progressed following Council action in 2010, there has been no need for meetings
with the Seismic Task Force.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff projects continuing but minimal fiscal impacts to the City budget resulting from the
remaining buildings qualifying for favorable fees that may amount to approximately $175,000
over the next four years. The potential fiscal impacts result from the fee reductions allowed on
tenant improvement upgrades that are typically done in conjunction with seismic strengthening.
Fee reductions apply to a small number of the remaining URM projects.
Continued fiscal impacts to the building owners and economic benefits derived from their
investments are not quantifiable within the scope of this report. What is certain, however, is that
B1-7
Status Report:URM Hazard Mitigation Program Page 8
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 combined with the 2003 San Simeon
Earthquake served to renew public interest and private action in the URM Program. With the
work now largely focused on buildings that have been partially strengthened and the eleven
buildings in the three large development projects, the City can take a more individualized
approach to securing compliance. The goal, therefore, is to continue to build on the actions that
have reaped success in the past while taking into account the economic realities facing the City's
important development partners.
The economic realities of today will continue to challenge building owners and the community's
resolve. To accomplish the goal within the foreseeable future, difficult decisions will continue to
be needed along with flexibility and the ability to work with the City's "community partners" to
achieve success for everyone.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 URM Ordinance)
2. Seismic Retrofit Completion Dates of July 1, 2007, updated for Status as of 1/1/2010
3. URM Hazard Mitigation Summary dated January 2011
T:\Seismic\Council1-4-2011\CARSeismic 14-2011
B1-8
- ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1453(2004 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING TITLE 15,CHAPTERS 15.04 AND 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
WAEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is situated near three major earthquake faults
each capable of generating earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.5, and is therefore particularly
vulnerable to devastation should such an earthquake occur;and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo is located in Seismic Zone 4 and is subject to the
provisions of Chapter 12.2,Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code;and specifically Section
8875 which requires that the City establish a mitigation program to substantially reduce the hazards
associated with unreinforced masonry buildings;and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to
provide citizens with the greatest degree of life safety involving buildings of unreinforced masonry
construction in the most effective manner.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 15.04.050 of Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby modified as follows.
A. Amend Section A105 to delete previously added Section A105.4 and retain
Section A105.4 as written in the Uniform Code for Building Conservation.
B. Amend Section Al 15.1 to read as follows:
A115.1 Compliance Requirements.
A115.1.1 Strengthening Deadlines. The owner of a building within the scope of
this chapter shall structurally alter the building to conform to Level B
Strengthening by July 1,2010 or when one of the following occurs:
0.1453
B1-9
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 I
Occupancy with not.more than five dwelling units.
4. An occupancy classification change to a Group S Occupancy
used exclusively as a warehouse with no human habitation.
3. If Level A strengthening work is completed by July 1, 2007,
completion of the remaining work to satisfy Level B strengthening
requirements may be delayed until July 1, 2012. If Level A work is not
completed by July 1,2007,the City Council will set a Level B completion
deadline for each building on the basis of relative hazard,but not later than
July 1,2010.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official, on a case-by-case basis,
may approve an alternate strengthening plan deemed equivalent to
Level A strengthening if-.
1. A greater than 50 percent reduction in the unreinforced
masonry hazard for the building is accomplished by July 1,
2007; and,
B1=10
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1453(2004 Series)
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 new,the primary entrances to the
building, a sign provided by the building official stating "This is an unreinforced
masonry building. Unreinforced masonry buildings may be unsafe in the event of
a major earthquake". The sign shall be posted within 60 days of receipt by the
building owner Per installation standards established by the building official.
C. Amend Section Al 1.5.3.3 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 Al 15.7 to read as follows:
A115.7 Program Monitoring and Annual Report. During January of each
year, the Building Official shall submit a report to the City Council outlining the
progress to date concerning reduction of the hazards presented by the
unreinforced masonry building inventory for the City. The report shall include:
1. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings strengthened, demolished, or
otherwise eliminated from the inventory;
i
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
B1-14
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series)
Page 4
SECTION 2. Section 15.08.020 of Chapter 15.08 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby modified as follows:
A. Amend Section of 1003.2.2.1 to read as follows:
1003.2.2.1 Ddsting 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
F
Commercial Fire Zone
B1-12
ATTACHMENT I
Ordinance No. 1453 (2004 Series)
Page 5
SECTION 3. If any provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would have
passed each and every remaining provision irrespective of such holding in order to accomplish the
intent of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. A synopsis of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the names of Council Members voting for and against, shall be published at least 5 days prior to its
final passage in the The Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance
shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage:
INTRODUCED on the 17th day of August,2004 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 7th day of September 2004,on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ewan,Mulholland and Settle,Vice Mayor Schwartz
and Mayor Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor David F.Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hoo
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo than .Lowell
Ci tomey
i
B143 j
ATTACHMENT 3
lvtvzoto Seismic'Retrofit Completion.Dates
Established,by SLO City Couneil
i`
F-
:D,JULY,I�'2008 DEADLINE
'
.s �Location Owner Status 1-1-2011 'SeismicSprinider
1 930 Chews Lev" 2012
.2 668 SABComplete, Lev" ease
3 333 AYcnael96mala COW0810 6eve4B done
4 j4;WM.M1h
Lev" 2012
5 Warden Lev" done
6 IBeway" 7H2O08 2010
7 iF»6ek-6razziane-Aaew 6evel8 done
8 6eve4B dee
9 6evet B we
10 ey Laird Bullding CortaMrcvon7112008 done
11 1 3724 MSDeneld Camelot Lev" 2012
12 3086 Gees ISNFFV ROUF I X 6eve48 2010
13 4890 3!32008 Wa
JULY 1;2009MEADLINE
t Location lOwner Status 1.1.2011 Seismic Sprinkler
1 3727 RM, COWOM 66ve413 dens
2 3727 BmaEempleto Laval 13 done
3 3807 &sad Level 8 We
4 1419 ChewO I.BVB4B done
5 220 7evo419 We
6 286 Loyola We
7 243 Level 13 Wa
9 668 -V" done
9 7-18 Kevin-R KAM,1WA Gamplew Laval done
10 829 HkWm Emes49-NGsemmAA TRr 6ovo48 Jeno
17 842 wimin AKAardF:Jensilw-Reser Complete yevo4B dee
12 862 t Mwe Bmset GWnemall TRG Complete Level done
13 868 6evet8 d,ne
14 377 Marsh Charles-FFKesv44Fl6 CgmPlQ4G 68v" doge
15 773 Marsh Love48 Gene
18 4600 Mesh Lave48 Wa
17 7424 MiY GavidSu" &Memo Lev" we
18 83; MGMGFOYStream-As6eeiet967neComplate Lev" dere
19 863 6e0e4B dens
20 1 3063 New= Fesis.L-dose/ 1.90o4B done
21_1 3608 Geed 60 ale we
22 389 Rahn 6eve48 Wa
23 360 Akme 6evel13 Wa
24 .663 uph Reeser Complete 6ave/8, Wa
' ' JULY 1 2010 DEADLINE :5
a Loeslbn 'Owner Status 1.1-2011 Seismic S rinklar
1 3737 Islasd 7!32948 dens
2 3378 IChema NBwetdFCAWIXRE Emmet 7012970 We
3 eu Ichone CalneNo chi ffih S49 7072070 dose
4 1130 Ca/0(a1 John A Henson. Construction 7/12010 w/reHo
5 am wtlitara JahnB.Jew7ksBven 742970 we
6 343 Jehw&Joesho-Eveu Gemplete, WI2070 era
7 6689avidevel al Hne 3!42070 2010
8 333 7/32919 done
9 780 Howe Complain 711 Q040 dope
10 383 3!32070 dee
11 328 3920391 done
12 664 Mamh Complaw 7{32049 I dont,
13 849 Monearmy Amre Slnahalmar TRE Conatruovon 1 7/120101 wham?
14 1116 Morro American Perspective Bank Permmin0 1 7/12010 1 whew
75 1 3804 Gras I 70129791 Wa
16 1 682 Palm Cathalls Chuffih prep ye
17 389 Riswe 103939 rya
^.JULYS '2011 DEAD'N '<-,
i ILOCRUM Owns Status 1-1-2011 Seismicn wl
1 2747 Broad BaWbt Church SLO EAonsien 7/12011 1 n1a
I I
r JULY 1-2012'DEADLINE
a T!
s Location Owner Status/-1.2011 1 Seismic.Sprinkler
1 699 HI cera Thomas A McLau hlin Level A 7112012 done
2 710 Hi uora Jony.Martin Level A 7112012 done
3 736 Hi uera Wastpac Really/Anne Appel Level A 7112012 :2017
4 338wilawn 70102972. den,
5 796 HI ore Naman Level A 7/12012 2017
6 778 Marsh Mark&Tracy Anderson Level A. 7112012 2012
7 742 Marsh Shl a Leval A. 7/12012 2017
8 868 Mortaroy CopuLand Pro ert1w Laval A 7112012. 2017
'.j'JULY.T'2018'DEADUNE.
• Location Owner Statw.1-1.2011 Seismic S rinkler
1 1035 Chore DomthJ Naman TRE Extension 7112015 2015
2 1029 Charm J Names TRE Extension 7112015 2015
3 1123 Garden Wes Extension 7112015 2015
4 1119 Garden Was ac Extension 7112015 dam,
5 748 Marsh. W ac E Minn 7112015 2015
6 718 March Marsh Street Associates Extemim 7/12015 done
7 722 Marsh Marsh Street Associates Extension 7112015 dome
8 888 MdVe Properties Easnsion 7/12015 2015
0 848 onto P nice Extension. 7/12015 2015
10 840 Morse tl P elves Extension 7/12015 2015'
11 881 Pakn SLO Coup Sam LLC E:dension.. 7/12015 2015
B1-14
ATTACHMENT 3
12/15/2010
URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
December 2010
BUILDINGS IN COMPLIANCE.
FULLY STRENGTHENED-Level B
1. 1901 Broad 43. 790 Eguera 85. 298 Pismo
2. 1121 Broad 44. 793 Higuera 86. 1880 Santa Barbara
3. 1131 Broad 45. 839 Higuera 87. 667 Upham
4. 1127 Broad 46. 842 Higuera
5. 941 Chorro 47. 853 Higuera DEMOLISHED
6. 964 Chorro 48. 856 Higuera 1. 344 Mguera
7. 970 Chorro 49. 858 Higuera 2. 1540 Marsh
8. 1117 Chorro 50. 868 Eguera 3. 969 Monterey
9. 1119 Chorro 51. 876 Higuera 4. 1039 Monterey
10. 1127 Chorro 52. 970 Higuera 5. 1057 Monterey
11. 1135 Chorro 53. 1001 Higuera 6. 2223 Monterey
12. 1141 Chorro 54. 1011 Higuera 7. 991 Nipomo
13. 1110 Garden 55. 664 Marsh 8. 783 Santa Rosa
14. 220 High 56. 717 Marsh
15. 295 Higuera 57. 777 Marsh EXEMPT
16. 309 Higuera 58. 951 Marsh 1. 2180 Johnson (Sunny
17. 311 Higuera 59. 1160 Marsh Acres)
18. 341 Higuera 60. 696 Monterey 2. 2180 Johnson (Old
19. 385 Higuera 61. 747 Monterey Adobe)
20. 565 Higuera 62. 837 Monterey 3. 1500 Marsh
21. 647 Higuera 63. 857 Monterey 4. 1144 Monterey
22. 659 Higuera 64. 861 Monterey 5. 280 Pismo
23. 669 Higuera 65. 888 Monterey
24. 673 Higuera 66. 962 Monterey REASSESSED-
25. 686 Higuera 67. 968 Monterey FOUND TO BE
26. 698 Higuera 68. 978 Monterey REINFORCED
27. 705 Higuera 69. 998 Monterey 1. 1708 Beach
28. 715 Higuera 70. 879 Morro 2. 1318 Chorro
29. 717 Mguera 71. 955 Morro 3. 1034 Mill
30. 718 Higuera 72. 1021 Morro
31. 719 Higuera 73. 1124 Nipomo
32. 726 Higuera 74. 1051 Nipomo SUMMARY OF
33. 728 Mguera 75. 976 Osos COMPLIANCE
34. 733 Higuera 76. 1050 Osos
35. 740 Higuera 77. 1609 Osos Total Level B 87
36. 741 Mguera 78. 1804 Osos Total Demolished 8
37. 745 Higuera 79. 1185 Pacific Total Exempt 5
38. 760 Higuera 80. 682 Palm Total Reassessed 3
39. 777 Higuera 81. 751 Palm Total in Compliance 103
40. 778 Rguera 82. 798 Palm
41. 779 Higuera 83. 800 Palm
42. 782 Higuera 84. 150 Pismo
I
B1-15
ATTACHMENT 3
12/15/2010
BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO DEADLINES
JULY 1,2008 PROGRESS ANALYSIS
1. 1009 Monterey* Total URM Buildings 126
Total in Compliance (103)
JULY 1,2010 Total Remaining 23
1. 1136 Garden* Subject to July 1,2008 Deadline 1
2. 849 Monterey* Subject to July 1,2009 Deadline 0
3. 1116 Morro Subject to July 1,2010 Deadline 3
Subject to July 1,2011 Deadline 1
JULY 1,2011 ** Subject to July 1,2012 Deadline 7
1. 2747 Broad Subject to July 1,2015 Deadline 11
JULY 1,2012-
LEVEL A STRENGTHENED *Italics = in Construction
1. 699 Higuera **Agreements in place for suspension of
2. 710 Higuera enforcement of deadlines.
3. 736 Higuera
4. 7961 iguera
5. 742 Marsh
6. 778 Marsh
7. 868 Monterey
JULY 1,2015**
1. 1029 Chorro
2. 1035 Chorro
3. 1119 Garden
4. 1123 Garden
5. 722 Marsh
6. 728 Marsh
7. 748 Marsh
8. 840 Monterey
9. 848 Monterey
10. 886 Monterey
11. 861 Palm
I
I
I
i
I
B1-16