HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-2013 c2 urm update report
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Joseph Lease, 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, 112 have completed
seismic strengthening or were otherwise brought into compliance with the ordinance and eight are
currently under construction. This is the same number of completed URM buildings; however,
eight buildings have begun construction since last year’s report. Mitigation for the remaining six
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 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
Meeting Date
Item Number October 1, 2013
C2 - 1
Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program Update Page 2
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 rate 1. 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
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
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.
C2 - 2
Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program Update Page 3
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.
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 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.
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.
• 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.
C2 - 3
Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program Update Page 4
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. 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.
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. 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 to abate the
nuisance 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 14 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 95 buildings have been fully strengthened and nine (9) 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 four (4) additional
buildings were found to be exempt based on the URM Law. As of September 2013, only 14
buildings remain incomplete, three of which have been partially retrofitted. Of these 14, eight 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 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 as tenants move back into the strengthened buildings with
sprinkler deadlines matching seismic deadlines for all buildings granted more time. Although
C2 - 4
Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program Update Page 5
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 faced by
building owners. 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 have been completely strengthened. The building listed as 1009
Monterey has been worked on extensively since before its 2008 deadline. This retrofit has been one
of the most challenging from a structural standpoint. However, the retrofit project was suspended in
2009 and put on hold pending a planning review of a proposed IMAX Theatre, which did not come
to fruition. Staff will be working with the property owner and will pursue enforcement action to
gain compliance if needed.
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. Construction
has also been started on 796 Higuera where completion of strengthening is being done in
conjunction with the properties at 1029 and 1035 Chorro, which are subject to the July 2015
deadlines.
5. July 1, 2015 Deadline Group
C2 - 5
Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program Update Page 6
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.
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 is planned to be
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 Bello building will be removed when
construction begins on the Monterey frontage part of the project in the next couple of years.
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), are preparing to start the
retrofitting work in the near future. The remaining buildings that are still part of the Garden Street
Terrace Project are 1119 and 1123 Garden, and 748 Marsh. The Architectural Review Commission
is expected to review the reconfigured project in November 2013. 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 buildings that are part of this project is pending the approval of the project and is 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 years 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 submitted for review and approval 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 currently underway.
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
C2 - 6
Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program Update Page 7
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. Infractions
are administered through the courts, and the courts impose additional fees upon violators of
approximately $200 on top of the infraction fine amounts.
2. Administrative Citations
Administrative Citations may be issued, which involve the levying of fines of $100, and increasing
$200 or $500 per day for each day of violation.
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 in
regards to the projects currently under construction and monitoring and oversight of progress on
few remaining buildings not yet started but subject to agreements with the City and the July 1, 2015
deadline.
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 City staff in this regard.
C2 - 7
Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program Update Page 8
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 $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.
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. It has resulted in 112 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 eight of the remaining 14 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Attachment 1 - Ordinance 1453 (2004 URM Ordinance).pdf
2. Attachment 2_URM Hazard Mitigation Summary Sept 2013.docx
T:\Council Agenda Reports/2013/10_01_2013/URM Update 10_13
C2 - 8
C2 - 9
C2 - 10
C2 - 11
C2 - 12
C2 - 13
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY - September 2013
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. 742 Marsh
61. 777 Marsh
62. 778 Marsh
63. 951 Marsh
64. 1160 Marsh
65. 696 Monterey
66. 747 Monterey
67. 837 Monterey
68. 849 Monterey
69. 857 Monterey
70. 861 Monterey
71. 868 Monterey
72. 888 Monterey
73. 962 Monterey
74. 968 Monterey
75. 978 Monterey
76. 998 Monterey
77. 879 Morro
78. 955 Morro
79. 1021 Morro
80. 1116 Morro
81. 1124 Nipomo
82. 1051 Nipomo
83. 976 Osos
84. 1050 Osos
85. 1609 Osos
86. 1804 Osos
87. 1185 Pacific
88. 682 Palm
89. 751 Palm
90. 798 Palm
91. 800 Palm
92. 150 Pismo
93. 298 Pismo
94. 1880 Santa Barbara
95. 667 Upham
DEMOLISHED
1. 344 Higuera
2. 1540 Marsh
3. 969 Monterey
4. 1039 Monterey
5. 1057 Monterey
6. 2223 Monterey
7. 991 Nipomo
8. 861 Palm
9. 783 Santa Rosa
EXEMPT
1. 2180 Johnson (Sunny Acres)
2. 2180 Johnson (Old Adobe)
3. 1144 Monterey
4. 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 95
Total Demolished 9
Total Exempt 4
Total Reassessed 4
Total in Compliance 112
C2 - 14
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
URM HAZARD MITIGATION SUMMARY
September 2013
REMAINING BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO DEADLINES
ADDRESS DEADLINE STATUS COMMENTS
1 1009 Monterey July 1, 2008
Construction partially
completed
Pending IMAX Theater
Project
2 2747 Broad
July 1, 2011 *
Under construction to
Convert to residential
Exempt status
3 736 Higuera
July 1, 2012
Under construction
Level A Strengthening
Complete – Future SLO
Brew
4 796 Higuera
July 1, 2012
Under construction
Level A Strengthening
Complete
5 1029 Chorro
July 1, 2015 *
Under construction
6 1035 Chorro
July 1, 2015 *
Under construction
7 1119 Garden
July 1, 2015 *
Pending Garden Street
Terrace Project
8 1123 Garden
July 1, 2015 *
Pending Garden Street
Terrace Project
9 722 Marsh
July 1, 2015 *
URM and façade plans unde
development
10 728 Marsh
July 1, 2015 *
URM and façade plans unde
development
11 748 Marsh
July 1, 2015 *
Pending Garden Street
Terrace Project
12 840 Monterey
July 1, 2015 *
Under construction
13 848 Monterey July 1, 2015 *
Under construction
14 886 Monterey
July 1, 2015 *
*Agreements in place for suspension of enforcement of deadlines.
____PROGRESS ANALYSIS_____
Total URM Buildings 126
Total in Compliance (112)
Total Remaining 14
Subject to July 1, 2008 Deadline 1
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 11
C2 - 15
Page intentionally left
blank.
C2 - 16