Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-2015 Item 5 - Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Program Status Report Meeting Date: 9/1/2015 FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Prepared By: Anne Schneider, 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 provides an update on the status of unreinforced masonry buildings subject to the City’s seismic strengthening ordinance. It provides an overview of the progress of the City’s URM Mitigation Program, overall success, specific progress within each deadline group and provides a review of the penalties for non-compliance. Although 100% compliance has yet to be obtained, 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. Of the 126 URM buildings in the City, 118 have completed seismic strengthening or were otherwise brought into compliance with the ordinance and six are currently under construction. This includes six additional completed URM buildings since the 2013 Council update. Mitigation for the remaining eight buildings are expected as part of pending development projects such as the future Garden Street Terrace and Chinatown Projects, or are proceeding independently as required under the City’s ordinance. DISCUSSION Background The inherent dangers associated with unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings first became apparent as a result of widespread failures during the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake. The Uniform Building Code was subsequently amended to prohibit the use of unreinforced masonry in seismically active areas. However, over the ensuing decades existing URM buildings continued to experience catastrophic failures resulting in deaths or injuries in subsequent earthquakes. Recognizing the potential risks to public safety posed by the approximately 25,000 URM buildings in the State, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 547 (Govt. Code 8875) in 1986. SB 547, commonly known as the URM Law, required cities to 1) inventory URM buildings by January 1, 1990, 2) develop mitigation programs to reduce risks, and 3) report 5 Packet Pg. 25 progress to the Seismic Safety Commission. Mitigation Programs were required to include notification to building owners, and were allowed to have other features such as the adoption of a Hazardous Building Ordinance, requirements for mandatory strengthening, measures to reduce occupancy levels, measures to demolish buildings, rehabilitation assistance, and the adoption of structural standards for strengthening URM buildings. In 1993, the State added Govt. Code §8875.8 which required that building owners post warning placards on URM buildings. More recently, the State adopted AB 2533, which became effective on January 1, 2005. Known as the “Jennifer Lynn Myrick Memorial Bill’ in honor of a young woman who died in a URM building in Paso Robles during the San Simeon Earthquake of December, 2003, the law strengthens the posting requirements of Govt. Code §8875.8. In addition to requiring larger warning placards, it also authorizes local building departments to impose fines for noncompliance. Another provision of this law allows any concerned citizen to take legal action against an owner who fails to comply with the posting requirements. The City of San Luis Obispo has taken a number of steps over the years to address the problems associated with URM buildings. In 1997, the City 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 (Attachment 1) 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, accelerating the deadline 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. The first stage, referred to as Level A strengthening, consisted of a partial retrofit wherein specific structural connections and parapet bracing are accomplished. The second stage or Level B strengthening involves the completion of full strengthening based on an engineered design conforming to the California Existing Building Code, Appendix Chapter 1A. 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 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 rate1. By requiring owners to obtain a construction permit early in the process, the Council sought to eliminate procedural obstacles 1 It is estimated that the average permit costs would be $10,000 per retrofit, whereas qualifying URM strengthening projects pay only $80. Notably, the large development projects in the Downtown do not qualify for the reduced fees. 5 Packet Pg. 26 that could slow down an owner's ability to proceed with the strengthening. As a result, all building owners currently possess valid permits to complete seismic strengthening. 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 w as 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. 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 large development projects have come forward for permitting in the Downtown since adoption of the earlier strengthening deadlines in 2004. These three projects, 1) Chinatown, 2) Garden Street Terraces and the 3) Naman Project include a number of 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 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 ind emnifying 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. Additionally, the Springfield Baptist Church, located at 2747 Broad Street was granted an extension until July 1, 2015. The Church also entered into an agreement with the City which requires:  Hazard mitigation by July 1, 2015.  Education of occupants of the building about what to do in the event of an earthquake.  Continued effort to either sell the building or raise money to strengthen it. 5 Packet Pg. 27  Indemnification of the City in the event of earthquake damage. Progress on these projects is discussed below in the section regarding the July 1, 2015 Deadline Group. 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, façade 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. 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 owners who 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. Council has agreed to honor progress which includes an application for planning review and approval. So, a permit will not be subject to expiration unless progress ceases, which is determined by the Community Development Director. 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 eight retrofit projects remaining, staff continues to closely work with individual building owners to meeting deadlines. However, the 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 URM buildings. Since that time 118 buildings have been fully stren gthened and ten (10) have been demolished. As a result of later structural reassessments, four (4) buildings were removed from the list because they were found to not be constructed of unreinforced masonry and five (5) additional buildings were found to be exempt based on the URM Law. As of August 2015, only 8 buildings remain incomplete, two of which have been partially retrofitted. Of these eight, six are currently under construction, which when complete will bring them into compliance. Attachment 2 provides a listing of the URM buildings and a summary of the progress to date. On July 1, 2012, the ultimate Level B deadline set by the 2004 URM Ordinance arrived. Although 100% compliance was not achieved nor expected by the July 1, 2012 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 5 Packet Pg. 28 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 completed as tenants move back into the strengthened buildings 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, many thanks go 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 economic challenges f aced by building owners. The following describes progress by each deadline group. 1. July 1, 2008 Deadline Group- All 13 complete Thirteen buildings were originally assigned a completion deadline of July 1, 2008. At this time, all of these buildings have been completely strengthened. 2. July 1, 2009 Deadline Group – All 24 complete All buildings have been completely strengthened. 3. July 1, 2010 Extension Group – All 17 complete This group made very good progress initially with only two buildings that lingered. All strengthening work in now complete for the buildings in this deadline group with spectacular results at the Granada Hotel and 1130 Garden street. 4. July 1, 2012 Deadline All buildings in this deadline group have been completely retrofitted with the exception of 736 and 796 Higuera Street, which only have Level A strengthening completed. The Carissa Building at 736 Higuera is the future home of the SLO Brewing Company and is under construction with completion of the strengthening anticipated within six months. Construction has also been started on 796 Higuera where completion of strengthening is being done in conjunction with the 5 Packet Pg. 29 properties at 1029 and 1035 Chorro (Barrel House and Wing Stop), which are subject to the July 2015 deadlines. This work is ongoing and is anticipated to be complete within six months in conjunction with tenant improvements also underway at this time. 5. July 1, 2015 Deadline Group This deadline group consists entirely of the URM buildings that are part of the three large downtown development projects. Progress continues on all projects. The Chinatown Project includes four URM buildings with strengthening work underway at 840 Monterey, the Blackstone Building and 848 Monterey, the Historic Sauer Bakery Building both of which are being preserved as part of the Chinatown project. The Muzio’s Building at 868 Monterey has completed strengthening work. The Bello Building at 886 Monterey was demolished as part of the project. The Yung Building at 861 Palm Street was demolished in conjunction with a phased improvement plan which modifies the parking lot in preparation for further improvements on the Monterey Street frontage. The Garden Street Terraces Project originally included five URM buildings, but the project has been reconfigured and currently includes only three URM buildings. The owners of two of the URM buildings that are no longer part of the project (722 and 728 Marsh), have completed their retrofitting work. The remaining buildings that are still part of the Garden Street Terrace Project are 1119 and 1123 Garden, and 748 Marsh. The retrofit work for 748 Marsh is now complete. Evidence of some seismic strengthening was discovered during a tenant improvement of 1119 Garden Street, the existing location of the SLO Brewing Company, and other structural enhancements were accomplished in conjunction with that tenant improvement. The remaining retrofit work on this building and the other URM building that is a part of this project is pending the approval of the project and was due by July 1, 2015. The Naman Project was required to meet additional interim compliance deadlines to assure that hazard mitigation was not delayed due to the permitting process. The owner of the project was allowed to bond for retrofit plans in 2006, rather than submit plans at that time, due to a then- pending Planning Application for a development project wrapping the northwest corner of Higuera at Chorro. That plan did not come to fruition. Instead, during the intervening ye ars several of the buildings in the original development plan were strengthened and given attractive facelifts, and a new development plan was proposed at the time of Council consideration in early 2010. As currently configured, the Naman Project includes three URM buildings; 796 Higuera and 1029 and 1035-41 Chorro. Plans for seismic strengthening have been approved and permits have been obtained. Concurrently the planning division has reviewed and approved plans for tenant and façade renovations for 1029 - 1041 Chorro which are intended to restore the historic appearance. These building permits were issued on May 31, 2013 and construction has commenced. Owners of the Springfield Baptist Church located at 2747 Broad Street obtained a permit in June of this year to convert the church to a residence, which will then make it exempt from the URM Law. Construction to convert it to a residence is complete. 5 Packet Pg. 30 Failure to Comply – Penalties As with all imposed deadlines, penalties may be necessary to motivate a ction. 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. Next Steps The on-going work with owners of URM buildings includes oversight by the Building Division in regards to the projects currently under construction and monitoring and oversight of progress on two remaining buildings not yet started but subject to agreements with the City and the July 1, 2015 deadline. All of the incomplete buildings except 1123 Garden St. are under construction at this time or are vacant, with construction pending approval of their tenant improvement plans. Although they are not complete by the deadline, they are making substantial progress. It is recommended that they be allowed to continue their improvements without any penalty for missing the deadline since they have reduced the hazard by vacating the building in preparation of major overhaul or are substantially complete with the improvements. For the building at 1123 Garden St, the improvements are a part of the Garden Street Terrace project and the plans for that work are nearing approval for the construction that will address the URM repairs. If for some reason any owner allows their permit to lapse and does not continue to pursue completion of the URM upgrade, enforcement action would be appropriate at that time. 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. It h as resulted in 118 of the 126 identified buildings being brought into compliance, and significantly improving seismic safety in the community, and consequently the survivability of the City’s historic downtown core. With strengthening work for six of the remaining eight URM buildings currently underway, and plans for the others progressing, the goal of 100 percent compliance within the next few years appears to be readily achievable. The goal, therefore, is to continue to build on the actions that have reaped success in the past while taking into account the challenges facing the City’s development partners. To accomplish the goal, difficult decisions will continue to be needed along with flexibility and the ability to achieve success for everyone. CONCURRENCES The Fire Department endorses flexibility in the deadline for those owners making progress toward completion of their strengthening projects. The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force remains engaged in the process with periodic outreach from Cit y staff. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Not Applicable FISCAL IMPACT 5 Packet Pg. 31 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 $60,000 over the next two 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 the economic benefits derived from their investments are 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 would experience if a severe earthquake strikes and our buildings are not sufficiently strengthened. The issue is ultimately about life safety and protecting the citizens of the community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Begin enforcement action against properties that are not complete. This alternate is not recommended as it is unlikely to result in safer buildings or faster compliance. Attachments: a - Ordinance 1453 (2004 URM Ordinance) b - URM Hazard Mitigation Summary 2015 Update 5 Packet Pg. 32 5.a Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : a - O r d i n a n c e 1 4 5 3 ( 2 0 0 4 U R M O r d i n a n c e ) ( 1 0 8 2 : U n r e i n f o r c e d M a s o n r y H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P r o g r a m R e p o r t ) 5.a Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : a - O r d i n a n c e 1 4 5 3 ( 2 0 0 4 U R M O r d i n a n c e ) ( 1 0 8 2 : U n r e i n f o r c e d M a s o n r y H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P r o g r a m R e p o r t ) 5.a Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : a - O r d i n a n c e 1 4 5 3 ( 2 0 0 4 U R M O r d i n a n c e ) ( 1 0 8 2 : U n r e i n f o r c e d M a s o n r y H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P r o g r a m R e p o r t ) 5.a Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : a - O r d i n a n c e 1 4 5 3 ( 2 0 0 4 U R M O r d i n a n c e ) ( 1 0 8 2 : U n r e i n f o r c e d M a s o n r y H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P r o g r a m R e p o r t ) 5.a Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : a - O r d i n a n c e 1 4 5 3 ( 2 0 0 4 U R M O r d i n a n c e ) ( 1 0 8 2 : U n r e i n f o r c e d M a s o n r y H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P r o g r a m R e p o r t ) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY - August 2015 URM BUILDINGS IN COMPLIANCE FULLY STRENGTHENED—Level A & B 1. 1901 Broad 2. 1121 Broad 3. 1131 Broad 4. 1127 Broad 5. 941 Chorro 6. 964 Chorro 7. 970 Chorro 8. 1117 Chorro 9. 1119 Chorro 10. 1127 Chorro 11. 1135 Chorro 12. 1141 Chorro 13. 1110 Garden 14. 1130 Garden 15. 220 High 16. 295 Higuera 17. 309 Higuera 18. 311 Higuera 19. 341 Higuera 20. 385 Higuera 21. 565 Higuera 22. 647 Higuera 23. 659 Higuera 24. 669 Higuera 25. 699 Higuera 26. 673 Higuera 27. 686 Higuera 28. 698 Higuera 29. 705 Higuera 30. 710 Higuera 31. 715 Higuera 32. 717 Higuera 33. 718 Higuera 34. 719 Higuera 35. 726 Higuera 36. 728 Higuera 37. 733 Higuera 38. 740 Higuera 39. 741 Higuera 40. 745 Higuera 41. 760 Higuera 42. 777 Higuera 43. 778 Higuera 44. 779 Higuera 45. 782 Higuera 46. 790 Higuera 47. 793 Higuera 48. 839 Higuera 49. 842 Higuera 50. 853 Higuera 51. 856 Higuera 52. 858 Higuera 53. 868 Higuera 54. 876 Higuera 55. 970 Higuera 56. 1001 Higuera 57. 1011 Higuera 58. 664 Marsh 59. 717 Marsh 60. 722 Marsh 61. 728 Marsh 62. 742 Marsh 63. 748 Marsh 64. 777 Marsh 65. 778 Marsh 66. 951 Marsh 67. 1160 Marsh 68. 696 Monterey 69. 747 Monterey 70. 837 Monterey 71. 849 Monterey 72. 857 Monterey 73. 861 Monterey 74. 868 Monterey 75. 888 Monterey 76. 962 Monterey 77. 968 Monterey 78. 978 Monterey 79. 998 Monterey 80. 1009 Monterey 81. 879 Morro 82. 955 Morro 83. 1021 Morro 84. 1116 Morro 85. 1124 Nipomo 86. 1051 Nipomo 87. 976 Osos 88. 1050 Osos 89. 1609 Osos 90. 1804 Osos 91. 1185 Pacific 92. 682 Palm 93. 751 Palm 94. 798 Palm 95. 800 Palm 96. 150 Pismo 97. 298 Pismo 98. 1880 Santa Barbara 99. 667 Upham DEMOLISHED 1. 344 Higuera 2. 1540 Marsh 3. 886 Monterey 4. 969 Monterey 5. 1039 Monterey 6. 1057 Monterey 7. 2223 Monterey 8. 991 Nipomo 9. 861 Palm 10. 783 Santa Rosa EXEMPT 1. 2747 Broad 2. 2180 Johnson (Sunny Acres) 3. 2180 Johnson (Old Adobe) 4. 1144 Monterey 5. 280 Pismo REASSESSED – FOUND TO BE REINFORCED 1. 1708 Beach 2. 1318 Chorro 3. 1500 Marsh 4. 1034 Mill SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE Total Level A & B 99 Total Demolished 10 Total Exempt 5 Total Reassessed 4 Total in Compliance 118 5.b Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : b - U R M H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n S u m m a r y 2 0 1 5 U p d a t e ( 1 0 8 2 : U n r e i n f o r c e d M a s o n r y H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P r o g r a m R e p o r t ) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY September 2013 Update 1-5-2015 REMAINING BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO DEADLINES ADDRESS DEADLINE STATUS COMMENTS 1 736 Higuera July 1, 2012 Under construction Level A Strengthening Complete – Future SLO Brew 2 796 Higuera July 1, 2012 * Under construction Level A Strengthening Complete 3 1029 Chorro July 1, 2015 * Under construction 4 1035 Chorro July 1, 2015 * Under construction 5 1119 Garden July 1, 2015 * Pending Garden Street Terrace Project 6 1123 Garden July 1, 2015 * Pending Garden Street Terrace Project 7 840 Monterey July 1, 2015 * Under construction Final reports due 8 848 Monterey July 1, 2015 * Under construction Final reports due *Agreements in place for suspension of enforcement of deadlines. ____PROGRESS ANALYSIS_____ Total URM Buildings 126 Total in Compliance (118) Total Remaining 8 Subject to July 1, 2008 Deadline 0 Subject to July 1, 2009 Deadline 0 Subject to July 1, 2010 Deadline 0 Subject to July 1, 2011 Deadline 0 Subject to July 1, 2012 Deadline 2 Subject to July 1, 2015 Deadline 6 5.b Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : b - U R M H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n S u m m a r y 2 0 1 5 U p d a t e ( 1 0 8 2 : U n r e i n f o r c e d M a s o n r y H a z a r d M i t i g a t i o n P r o g r a m R e p o r t )