HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/1997, 2 - UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING PROGRAM r
Council
j agenda uepoin
it CITY O F SAN LUIS O B 1 S P 0
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Prepared By: Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce an ordinance to print amending the administrative provisions of the Uniform Code for
Building Conservation(UCBC)as previously adopted to establish criteria as to when unreinforced
masonry(URN)buildings must be strengthened,using degrees of strengthening defined as Level A
and Level B.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing several incentives designed to encourage owners of URM buildings
to voluntarily strengthen their buildings and to provide economic assistance for URM strengthening
projects.
3. Appropriate $250,000 from the General Fund unreserved fund balance to support the grant
component of the incentive program.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
A brief historical summary of the seismic retrofit issue, including an outline of the recommendations in
this report,is provided in Attachment 1.
DISCUSSION
Background
The California State Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 547 in 1986 to address the hazards
presented by unreinforced masonry (URN) buildings located throughout the State. The
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act law requires that local jurisdictions in Seismic Zone 4, which
includes San Luis Obispo, identify all "potentially hazardous" (URN) buildings, and then develop
a mitigation program to significantly reduce the hazard.
The inventory of URM buildings located in the City of San Luis Obispo was completed in 1989,
and a fist of 148 "potentially hazardous" buildings was submitted to the State of California
Seismic Safety Commission by the January 1, 1990 deadline. As a result of strengthening
completed or submission of documentation establishing reinforcement, the current inventory of
unstrengthened buildings subject to a City mitigation plan totals 113 (five County-owned buildings
used for County government purposes will be subject to the mitigation program adopted by the Board
of Supervisors). Of this number, 35 buildings are on the Master List of Historic Resources, and 84
are located in the downtown area.
In late 1990, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce created the Seismic Task Force to work
with City staff in developing a mitigation program to address the URM hazard. The Technical
Committee of the Task Force, composed of architects and engineers from the community, studied
oL"/
Council Agenda Report-Unreinforced Masonry Building Program
Page 2
the structural engineering components of a proposed ordinance. The Administrative Committee,
which consisted of URM building owners and tenants, bankers, contractors, architects, and
realtors, focused on the proposed implementation procedures and compliance timetables. After
10 months of work, the Seismic Task Force and City staff reached consensus on the first phase of
a URM hazard mitigation program. However, while there was agreement on the technical
standards, an implementation schedule for strengthening work was not agreed on. Staff
supported a mandatory strengthening ordinance that would insure strengthening of all URM
buildings by the year 2000 because:
• it was responsive to the City's obligation to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
people;
• it was consistent with guidelines established by the Seismic Safety Commission;
• it was consistent with programs implemented by other jurisdictions in the State; and
• it satisfied the goal of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1986 (Government Code
Sections 8870, 8872(b)), which is to "significantly reduce" the hazards due to URM buildings
by the year 2000.
While Task Force members agreed with the underlying goals, they strongly opposed the year
2000 deadline and the mandatory nature of the City's proposal. Consequently, the City Council
chose to defer the imposition of a mandatory deadline for URM strengthening and adopted an interim
program in 1992.
In terms of the nature of the interim program, technical standards (Appendix 1 of the UCBC and
later to become the statewide standard under AB204)were adopted for strengthening design, and
administrative provisions were established, requiring owners to have their URM buildings
structurally analyzed within 18 months. In an attempt to achieve at least some actual
strengthening, the 1992 ordinance requires that URM buildings be strengthened when alterations
exceed 50% of the replacement cost of the building or when the occupancy classification changes.
These components of the plan were intended to provide valuable information about the buildings and
to create some basic mandatory requirements, thereby demonstrating progress in addressing the
hazards.
What is the progress to date?
As a result of the 1992 program 8 URM buildings have been strengthened to City standards. Another
6 URM buildings have received some degree of partial strengthening. Demolition eliminated 4 URM
buildings to make way for the Downtown Center, as well as one City-owned building (Mathews
property). Consequently, the current list of buildings subject to additional requirements under a
mitigation program contains 113 buildings.
Building strengthening accomplished since the effective date of the ordinance has been voluntary and
for the most part not driven by the mandatory ordinance provisions triggered by occupancy change or
major remodel in excess of 501/6 of building replacement value. It is apparent that reliance solely on
these provisions to achieve progress in reducing URM hazards will not be effective.
As mentioned above, the current City mitigation program requires that all owners of URM buildings
submit a structural analysis of their building to the Building& Safety Division. As a component of the
initial URM ordinance passed in 1992, this requirement was conceived as a tool to acquire greater
detail as to the scope of the URM hazard and to provide each property owner with specific information
for planning the building's future. As of March 15, 1997, 96% of the URM property owners have
Council Agenda Report-Unreinforced Masonry Building Program
Page 3
complied with the law and submitted an acceptable analysis. Final action by the Building & Safety
Division and the City Attorney's Office involving the remaining few that have not complied has been
initiated.
Results of the structural analyses indicate that the construction cost to complete URM strengthening
work will range from $1.58 to $140.29 per square foot, with an average cost of$16.25 per square
foot. The total cost estimate to strengthen the remaining 113 buildings on the list is$10,569,706.
Finally, there have been no further regulatory developments at the State level that affect the City's
URM mitigation program. The City's.technical standards for strengthening buildings (Appendix 1,
Uniform Code for Building Conservation, UCBC) are identical to the statewide standards established
by the State of California Building Standards Commission under AB204.
Council Direction and the Most Recent Effort
For the 1995-97 financial period, the City Council established a goal of creating an effective seismic
strengthening program for unreinforced masonry buildings that is "not unduly burdensome." In the
spring of 1996, Council endorsed a revised schedule developed by the Chamber Task Force and City
staff that allowed adequate time for subcommittees of the Task Force to complete their work in the
developing an acceptable program that will achieve the Council goal.
Within the overall framework of avoiding an "unduly burdensome" program, staff sought to achieve
the following core goals:
- To protect life and property through adoption of a URM strengthening ordinance;
- To preserve long-term economic well-being of the downtown by minimizing earthquake damage
and speeding recovery,
- To preserve the historical and architectural integrity of the downtown area by strengthening
existing URM buildings;
- To adopt a strengthening program that, while not unduly burdensome(i.e., mandatory), will result
in real substantial risk reduction and thus real protection of life and property, will allow for
progress to be accurately measured, and, if not "substantial", will provide opportunities for
modification in the future.
The Task Force and City staff negotiated, collaborated, and struggled through dozens of
extremely difficult and complicated issues. Finally, in February 1997, agreement was reached on a
proposed program that achieves the long sought "right balance", which includes the following key
elements:
• Defers a mandatory deadline for full strengthening from the year 2000 proposed earlier to
2017, and in the interim leaves the ultimate decision for building improvement timing up to
the property owner.
• Allows seismic strengthening to occur in two progressive phases -partial (Level A) and full
(Level B). Level A improvement (roof to wall anchorage, roof diaphragm, and parapet
bracing) is considered an interim step prior to all URM buildings being in compliance with
full seismic strengthening as defined in UCBC Appendix 1. Studies gathered by the Task
Force and City staff support an increase in safety and a reduction in building damage
when Level A improvements are installed prior to a moderate earthquake event. Level A is
considered the simplest and most convenient seismic upgrade to a URM building. In fact,
,2 3
Council Agenda Report-Unminforced Masonry Building Program
Page 4
marry experts feel that spending 50%of the total strengthening cost for a huilding(Level •
A) will achieve 80%of the overall strengthening.
• Establishes strong incentives to complete strengthening sooner rather than later, including:
- Credit towards application and permit fees of up to the cost of providing the structural
analysis.
- Waiver of fees related to a URM seismic strengthening project that does not result in
any increase in floor area, including parking-in-lieu, transportation impact, and sewer
and water impact fees.
- Waiver of construction permit and planning fees for URM replacement buildings.
- Free inspections for off-hours work.
- Waiver of sewer and water use charges during the construction period, limited to a
maximum of 6 months and not to exceed the total of the previous 6 months of
occupied use.
- Free contractor parking available on the street near the construction site, limited to 3
free spaces directly adjacent to the building undergoing URM strengthening. If less
than 3 spaces are available directly adjacent, the contractor may obtain written
permission from adjoining business for use of other spaces. Free spaces shall not
exceed a 6-month duration.
- Option to convert a URM building to a low risk occupancy (warehouse or residential
use up to 5 dwelling units)to become exempt as allowed by State law.
- Simplified process for demolition of non-historic URM buildings.
- Deferral of fire-sprinkler installation for URM buildings in the downtown zone until
2017 unless triggers cause Level B strengthening at an earlier date.
- Technical assistance in forming an assessment district to finance URM strengthening
and fire sprinkler installation if there is sufficient property owner interest.
- Availability of $250,000 grant fund, on a first-come, first-served basis, to partially
offset URM strengthening cost. Level A strengthening will be eligible for 25% of cost
up to $5,000;Level B strengthening for 25% of cost up to $25,000.
• Promotes an evenly paced progression toward full code-complying strengthening through
various actions"triggered"by property owners themselves.
- Level A strengthening is required when roof covering is installed on a URM building.
- Level B strengthening is required:
when roof covering is installed on a URM building after January 1, 2007; or
o�
Council Agenda Report-Unreinforced Masonry Building Program
Page 5
when a change of occupancy classification occurs in a URM building; or
when cost of remodelinglalterations exceeds 50% of replacement cost of the URM
building; or
by January 1, 2017.
• Provides ongoing shared monitoring to assure that the program is working. The Seismic
Task Force and City staff will continue to meet regularly to review progress under the
program and recommend changes if necessary. The following series of 5-year goals will be
established under the proposed plan:
- By the year 2002, approximately 501/6 of all URM buildings will have achieved either
Level A or Level B strengthening.
- By the year 2007, approximately 95% of all URM buildings will have been
strengthened to at least Level A.
- By the year 2012, approximately 60% of all URM buildings will have been
strengthened to Level B.
- By the year 2017, all identified URM buildings subject to the program will have been
strengthened to Level B or demolished.
Summary
There are potentially 13,800 building occupants in San Luis Obispo (based on the maximum occupant
load calculated per the Building Code)that could be subjected to the hazards of unreinforced masonry
building failure during an earthquake. In-addition, an unknown number of occupants in adjacent
buildings and pedestrians passing by may be at risk due to falling debris from URM failures resulting
from an earthquake. Strengthened buildings will save lives and reduce injury, and the building may
survive a seismic event with We or no damage. Strengthened buildings will reduce the economic loss
in the downtown area, speed up the resumption of normal economic activity, and help preserve the
architechual integrity of the downtown m the event of a major earthquake.
While neither the Seismic Task Force nor City staff achieved all of their respective goals,
collectively the compromise program is designed to achieve the most important goals of both:
meeting the City's obligation to protect people and the downtown, and meeting the Task Force's
desire for a plan that is reasonable and feasible for those required to make the improvements.
Thus, adoption of the proposed ordinance and resolution will establish a seismic retrofit program for
URM buildings that is not`unduly burdensome."
CONCURRENCES
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, the Downtown Business
Improvement Association, the San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association, and the Cultural
Heritage Commission all voted unanimously to support the proposed program. Letters of support or
action by these groups are presented in attachments 2 through 5. After distributing approximately
2200 bulletins summarizing the proposed program to property owners and tenants, a "town hall"
meeting was held on March 17, 1997 to present and discuss the key components of the proposal.
S
Council Agenda Report-Unreinforced Masonry Building Program
Page 6
Attendees included approximately 30 URM building owners, and the consensus of the group appeared
to be supportive ofthe program,with particular emphasis on the grant component.
In addition to the Chief Building Official, the staff team which has worked to negotiate the proposed
program included, at various points in the process, the CAO, ACRO, City Attorney, Finance Director,
Fire Chiei Community Development Director, and Assistant to the CAO.
FISCAL IMPACT
City. Continuing an existing program which offsets permit fees equal to cost of the structural analysis,
as well as other proposed waivers of permit, planning, and impact fees, sewer/water use charges, and
parking meter charges, will have some financial impact on City revenues, but a major impact is not
expected. Free inspections for off-hours work may incur overtime cost for City staff. These costs are
difficult to estimate,given the lengthy term of the program and the fact that property owners instead of
the City determine the timing of events dictating these costs. The restructured grant program will
require a general fund appropriation of$250,000. Approximately $225,000 of this amount has been
made available to the General Fund through recent adjustments to the Community Development Block
Grant program. Thus,the net impact on the General Fund balance is$25,000, which will not alter the
City's ability to achieve its policy goal of a maintaining an unreserved fund balance that is at least 20%
of operating expenditures at the end of this fiscal year.
Property Owners. As mentioned earlier, one major advantage of the recommended program is that it
leaves the ultimate decision relative to when improvements will be made up to the URM building
owner. Thus, property owners can select the most financially advantageous time to complete the -
strengthening. In terms of financing the improvements, property owners may choose to work with
private institutions. In addition,the recommended program includes City assistance in the formation of
an assessment district, should enough property owners be interested in this financing mechanism
(Attachment 6).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do Nothing. The Council could decide to leave the program as is, relying on the existing change of
occupancy and 50% cost of remodeling triggers to achieve URM strengthening. However, only 8
URM buildings have been fiilly strengthened since 1990, including the City-owned building located at
955 Monro Street; at this rate of retrofitting, it will take over 86 years to complete mitigation of the
URM hazard. This alternative will not satisfy City and State goals, and therefore is not recommended.
2. Return the issue back to staff and the Seismic Task Force for further study. City staff and the
Seismic Task Force have been working nearly 7 years to reach a workable program for San Luis
Obispo.. The proposed program represents the best strategy that can be cooperatively negotiated. A
more gorous program will bring significant resistance and difficult Council deliberation; a less
rigorous program will result in increased safety risks to our community and the downtown. This
alternative is not recommended.
Attachments
1. Program Summary 6. City Role in Assessment District
2. Letter from Chamber of Commerce 7. Legislative Draft of Proposed Ordinance
3. Letter from BIA 8. Proposed Ordinance _
4. Letter from Property Owners Association 9. Proposed Resolution
5. Action by Cultural Heritage Committee
Attachment 1
Unreinforced Masonry Building Mitigation Program
Over 10 years ago,the California Legislature adopted dozens of extremely difficult and complicated issues.
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act. This law Finally, in February 1997, agreement was reached on
requires that cities identify all un-reinforced masonry a program that achieves the long sought"right
(URM) buildings and then establish programs to balance". The program includes the following key
reduce the hazards to the community posed by them. elements:
Since the adoption of this law, California has • Defers a mandatory deadline for full
experienced several violent earthquakes, changing
the face of some communities forever. For example, strengthening from the proposed year 2000 to
because of its high concentration of URM buildings, and in the interim leaves the ultimate
decision
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake nearly destroyed decision for building improvement timing up to
downtown Santa Cruz. the property owner;
San Luis Obispo is much like Santa Cruz,with over • Allows seismic strengthening to occur in two
80 URM buildings in the downtown alone. On any progressive phases- partial (Level A) and full
given day, these buildings are occupied by thousands (Level B);
of people. The City has taken several steps required
under the State law, such as identifying the buildings • Establishes strong incentives to complete
and adopting improvement standards. However, strengthening sooner rather than later, including
unlike many cities, it has never implemented a the availability of grant funds on a first-come,
program to actually strengthen the buildings. first-served basis;
The major obstacle to establishing a program has • Promotes an evenly paced progression toward
been the difficulty in finding the right balance between full building code strengthening through various
the need to strengthen the buildings and the cost of
doing so. For several years,the City and the actions"triggered" by property owners
business community struggled to find this balance. themselves;
City staff strongly advocated for a mandatory • Provides ongoing shared monitoring to assure
program with a year 2000 deadline; many business that the program is working.
persons and property owners resisted any program at
all. The effort eventually reached an impasse-which While neither the Task Force nor City staff achieved
offered no added safety to the public and no all of their respective goals, collectively the
predictability for property owners. compromise program is designed to achieve the
In 1994, a breakthrough was achieved when the City most important goals of both: meeting the City's
Council directed staff to work with the Chamber of obligation to protect people and the downtown, and
Commerce Seismic Task Force to develop a program meeting the Task Force's desire for a plan that is
to make buildings more earthquake safe, but through reasonable and feasible for those required to make
methods less burdensome than earlier proposals. the improvements.
Over the next three years, the Task Force and City The proposed program is outlined on the reverse.
staff negotiated, collaborated, and struggled through
TOWH HALL MEETIHOFor questions contact:
WHEN March 17, 1997 at 7 • Honrard Carton.Chaimwn,
Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force,
WHERE
641-0176.
_ City-County • -ry- Community '••
995 Tom Baaseh,Chief Building ORcial,
City of San Luis Obispo,
— 78t-7169.
Von suenvikein. , Pry' : S .,
Thero osedprogram is based on two levels of strengthening, Levels A and B. Level A (roof to wall
P P
anchorage, roof diaphragm, and parapet bracing improvements) is considered an interim step prior to all URM
buildings being in compliance with full seismic strengthening (Level B), as defined in the Uniform Code for
Building Conservation. The program will work as follows:
Level A strengthening required
• when roof covering is installed on a URM building.
Level B strengthening required
• when roof covering is installed on a URM building after January 1, 2007.
• when a change of occupancy classification occurs in a URM building.
• when cost of remodeling/alterations exceeds 50% of replacement cost of building.
• by January 1, 2017.
IRCIONVOS to assist property owners in complying with the program will include:
• Credit towards application and permit fees of up to the cost of providing the structural analysis.
• Waiver of fees related to a URM seismic strengthening project that does not result in any
increase in floor area, including parking-in-lieu, traffic impact, and sewer and water impact fees.
• Waiver of construction permit and planning fees for URM replacement buildings.
• Free inspections for off-hours work.
• Waiver of sewer and water use charges during the construction period, limited to a maximum
of 6 months and not to exceed the previous 6 months of occupied use.
• Free contractor parking available on the street near the construction site, limited to 3 free
spaces directly adjacent to the building undergoing URM strengthening. If less than 3 spaces
are available directly adjacent, contractor may obtain written permission from adjoining
business for use of other spaces. Free spaces shall not exceed a 6-month duration.
• Conversion of a building to a low risk occupancy (warehouse or residential use up to 5 dwelling
units) as identified in State law.
• Simplified process for demolition of non-historic URM buildings.
• Deferral of fire-sprinkler installation for URM buildings in the downtown zone until 2017 unless
triggers cause Level B strengthening at an earlier date.
• Technical assistance in forming a voluntary assessment district to complete URM strengthening
and fire sprinkler installation if there is sufficient property owner interest.
• Availability of $250,000 grant fund on a first-come, first-served basis to partially offset URM
strengthening cost. Level A strengthening -25% of cost up to $5,000. Level B strengthening -
25% up to $25,000.
�—O
Attachment 2
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
e-mail: slo-chamber@slonet.org
April 3, 1997 David E. Garth, President/CEO
Tom Baasch
Chief Building Official
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street Q
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �0 O
7�
Re: Un-reinforced Masonry Building Program
Dear Tom:
On February 20, 1997, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
unanimously voted to endorse the Proposed URM Building Mitigation Program.
Subsequently, the Chamber's Seismic Task Force Committee has had the opportunity to
review and discuss the Legislative Draft of the proposed amendments to the Uniform
Code for Building Conservation for the City on this matter. Aside from a few minor
revisions,we continue to support the Proposed URM Building Mitigation Program as
drafted.
The URM Building Mitigation Program is clearly tailored to our community and has
achieved a balance of the many perspectives which we have all struggled with,
collaborated on, and negotiated for during the five plus years we have worked on this
project. We look forward to tying up a few loose ends and moving forward to our
presentation of the URM Building Mitigation Program to the City Council on April 15.
Sincerely,
19 d
Robert L. Griffin Hoand Carroll
Chairman of the Board Chairman of the Seismic Task Force TEN YEARS
ACCREDITED
CY�YpCQ CV(dYY[LC[
a�Blo]• ]Ouula;l
�-9
,u
Attachment 3
i
Memorandum
i
27 March 1997
To: Tom Baasch,Building Dept.
From: OWeborah Holley, BIA r
I
Re: Seismic Task Force Recommendation
The BIA Board of Directors unanimously approved the Proposed Earthquake Safety Program for li
reinforcing URM Buildings (now commonly referred to as UMBs by other California Main Street
communities). The Board reviewed the program summary submitted by the Task Force Committee, of
which the BIA was a member, and agreed to the Level A, Level B strengthening requirements and
incentives. Minutes of this action are attached.
L
i
Ii
I
i
i.
I!
i
I
P.O.Bos 1402•San Luis Obispo•CA•93406.805/541-0286•Fax 8051781-2647•e-mail:biaOslonet.org
A0. 1 (9,11 1
Downtown Business Improvement Association I'
Board of Directors Meeting
11 March 1997 7:30 AM
City County Library COMMUNITY ROOM (venue change)
Agenda r
i
1. Call to order Gilreath
2. Public Comment
At this time,members of the public may address the board about those items not on the agenda.
Please come forward and state your name,address and business name if applicable. Comments
are limited to three minutes. Any item requiring action will be referred to staff and may appear on
a future agenda.
3. Approval of minutes of 11 February 1997
i
4. Welcome newly elected board members/thank departing members Gilreath
5. Parking on Sundays Gilreath
6. Parking Survey Progress Report Spangler, DiLucia
7. Prado Update/Special Project Hedges/Holley
I
li 8. Casino Night Cotta
9. Old Business Gilreath
A. Board Retreat
B. Seismic Update
i C
10. New Business Gilreath
A. PCC Grant
B. Survey Results
C. Advisory Body Reception
11. Administrator's Report Holley
12. TNA/Promotions Coordinator's Report Eberle
13. Committee Reports
A. Beautification Patrick
_ B. Promotions Reeves
C. Thursday Night Activities Tucker
I
P.O.Bar 1402•San.L is Obispo•CA•93406.8051541-0286•Far 8051781-2647•e-mail:bia@slanetorg �/
Parking '
Spangler said 21st Feb is date for bimonthly parking committee/city staff meeting. 24th Feb is date for
steering committee/parking study. Survey results should be available at that time. Regarding enforcement
on Sunday; parking committee has not yet met this month--waiting for input from parking dept. to see if
economically feasible to chalk/meter on Sundays. Also waiting for results from survey. Mike reviewed
letter from frustrated shopper/parker. He indicated the T-T had given coverage to the mural on Palm SL
structure; said he was writing an editorial to let parkers know how their money was being spent--mural,
parking study, artifact cataloging, property. He said parkers, who fund the enterprise fund, are given no
credit for their contribution to these projects.
Seismic Task Force Update
Carroll gave a brief history of seismic (retrofit) program; as of 6/30/95 the seismic safety commission
reported 85% in compliance statewide;however not the city of SLO, behind rest of state. Of the 126
URMs, 50% are in the Downtown. The Chamber established a Task Force to help establish an ordinance
to meet compliance requirements. A lot of work has been done by the Task Force and at a General
Meeting on March 17, the language for the proposed ordinance will be discussed at the community level.
Carroll said the Task Force is looking for BIA suppoNapproval and will be going to the Chamber board
in March. Rademaker made a motion to endorse the proposed ordinance; 2nd by Terhune, PAIF.
Meeting adjourned 9:10 AM.
Prepared by D. Holley
2-18-97
l�
Attachment 4
San Luis Obispo fe`l'1 jq�
Property Owners Association 3
. P.O.Box 12924
San Luis Obispo,CA 93406
March 12, 1997
Mr. Howard Carroll, Chairman
Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force
1009 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Unreinforced Masonry Building Mitigation Program
Dear Mr d4*eD.I,
The Board of Directors ofthe San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association(SLOPOA)has
reviewed the proposed"Unreinfimed Masonry Budding Mitigation Program"for the City of San
Luis Obispo. We voted unanimously to support the mitigation program that both the Chamber of
Commerce and the City Staff have worked out. While all of the board members agreed that the
proposed program was a good compromise on a complicated issue, we do have some concerns on
a couple of issues.
We are very concerned about the individual building owners ability to finance the retrof t
program especially for those with very high loan-to-value ratios. What about the owners who
cannot raise the money if the City's source of finding through the proposed assessment district
does not work?Will the City guarantee private funds that the owners can tap into? �Lk
We also feel that the"change of occupancy'trigger for the level B retrofit is too arbitrary. What
if the clamificafion is to a less restrictive occupancy? What if there is no construction and no
building permit required to make the change of occupancy?
Thank you for all your work on this difficult issue. Please let me know if our board can do
anything else to help with the approval of the ordinance.
Sincerely,
`:--,� �� auSC�
Dick Cleeves, President ct v
San Luis Obispo Properly Owners Association
��3
Attachment 5
�IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MEMORANDUM '
j CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO: Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Dev�re,�lppment Director 0
BY: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner ?
DATE: March 26, 1997
SUBJECT: Cultural Heritage Committee endorsement of the proposed Seismic Retrofit
Program.
At its March 24, 1997 meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) voted 7-0 (moved by
Comm. Giberti, seconded by Comm. Edmisten) to endorse the Unreinforced Masonry Retrofit
Program concept, as described in the attached flyer and as presented to the CHC at its
February 24' meeting. CHC members supported the program's flexibility and viewed it as a
balanced, well-designed approach which would further the City's historic preservation goals.
The Committee's endorsement was solicited by Howard Carroll, Chair of the Chamber of
Commerce Seismic Task Force. CHC members Garth Kornreich and Dan Krieger have served
on the Task Force to help provide input on architectural and historic preservation issues.
Attachment
cc: Ken Hampian, Tom Baasch, Alice Loh
j1/L:cq=mo7.wp
e1��
Attachment 6
gum
wl al,
The City will provide technical assistance in the formation of a voluntary
assessment district for seismic strengthening, should property owner
interest be sufficient to warrant forming such a district (this probably
means a minimum of$3 to $5 Million in improvements). The district can
also include financing for fire sprinkler retrofit, if desired by the property
owner. While such a district may make financing available at lower
interest rates and over a longer term (e.g. 20 years) than conventional
financing, the main value is in making funding available to properties that
might not otherwise qualify for conventional financing due to credit or net
equity concerns.
Soon after ordinance adoption, City staff will assist in determining if such
interest is present, and if so, will provide the following technical services:
• Packaging the loans
• Coordinating bond counsel, financial advisor, and underwriter
services
• Issuing the bonds
• Administering debt service payments
Following this initial effort (and whether or not a district is initially
formed), the City will continue to offer assistance in forming an
assessment district, but only if sufficient property owners come forward,
at their initiative, to request such assistance. At no time are subsidies
for the cost of issuance, interest rate., or principal intended.
Note 0
As information,a number of cities in California have used assessment district
financing for seismic safety improvements. In them cities,the seismic strengthening
programs have been mandatory,which meant that there was vAdBWmd participation,
relatively high value improvements and with a limited time duration for participation.
The City continues to caution that assessment district financing might not be feasible
under our quite different circumstances
Attachment 7
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Proposed Amendments to the
Uniform Code for Building Conservation
for the City of San Luis Obispo
Unreinforced Masonry Building Strengthening Program
Municipal Code Section 15.04.050 D is renumbered 15.04.050 F and Section 15.04.050 E is
renumbered 15.04.050 G. New sections 15.04.050 D and 15.04.050 E are created as follows:
D. Amend Section A103 to add the following definitions:
Imld
L .....HOM
MAW firs,
� Wffdax...
'Wlfe!....0 'd 1 xx.
........................
....... ...
... . .. ....
X.. . .......
. ... .... ....... Us
`Bu tti
oog
<::. : ...... ....i............
E. Amend Section A105 to add Section A105.4 to read as follows:
A
Municipal Code Section 15.04.050 G(renumbered) is amended as follows:
G. Add new Appendix Section Al 15 entitled "Administrative Provisions" to read as
follows:
SECTION A115- ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
A115.1 Compliance Requirements.
1. The owner of each building within the scope of this chapter shall, upon service
of an order, cause a structural analysis to be made of the building by an engineer or
architect licensed by the state to practice as such. Said analysis shall include the
preparation of a report detailing the investigation, evaluation, test data,
conclusions, and recommendations to establish compliance with this chapter. If
the building does not comply with seismic standards established in this chapter, the
report shall specify the work and cost necessary to structurally alter the building to
J4
conform to such standards. The Building Official shall establish a basic outline for
the format of the report.
2. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall comply with the
requirements set forth above by submitting the analysis report to the Building
Official for review and acceptance within 18 months of the service of an order.
ffi
:X.X.
vf�*' WE ::61 il i.. a
r.0 :1.
.......................
....... mar IN.;- dd
U0
. ....I .. i VIP 40. :i�
A W th 1 14 t: 6.H.4"': b t.
areA
9X
co
.... ..... ... MR. 9:0
a 4. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall structurally
alter the building to conform to the seiswiie stander-ds ef this eh"!
...........
.........................
S.: engtj...e;,":r_ eause the building te be deme when eithe of
.
..M
..........
the following occurs:
3 4 .1 The value of additions, alterations, and/or
::>;:<::::><:>::>;_::<::>:>;::;<: cumulative lative fom
March 41992, exceeds 50Kpi, ,
percent of the replacement cost of the building established by the Building
Official'per Section 304.2 of the Uniform Administrative
R ZMH.
M J
�P
i
.. h...
. .. n
staa: XHX. e.H.xx
A
X.C.En. X41
Jaw "A... fjfl�....0...
�q Poll, i.pWiWeVii�1i........bi:
............... .........
V6.406ffil" -.2m.
'.P
...........
am th,
..99z..
..................110111-1,11.1- OR,
3 ,4 .2 The use of the building changes to a different division of the same
occupancy group or to a different occupancy group.
EXCEPTION: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3405
of the Building Code, buildings containing more than one
occupancy classification need not eemply with dis eshaptelse
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, K S and U from
an equivalent category as defined in the previous editions of this
code.
2
�:" ;:,�::i,:::::i ::.::...:::..::.:�:}: ::i:rL:�::3: n.,:::;,�:<:'%�Y2�::::::':::'t: :::_:::�::"`::::':::#::i:::y;.,,..::';:5::'.. .........::. ::.:
:: Att occupancy class�catt�� �l�nge #� a Group.R,.Dcv�s�t�� 1,;
+q� pa� .t�crt rru�ro tea.due dvvel u�tits.
oupscy �classo phange t a CrrQup S CkcupaII
ost*vtlxtt huzuaat:habstat;on
used a c+r a as a>quax....O. .S.6:.....:::::::. .......:......
>; toal c ert <xs:r. amX.,rovert�dxtter�snt�;..
::::::........,.::.:.::.:..:.:.:,.:g.,:.:::::+1 :.,.:.:. ...:....,,.... . . .y.
�v n.
IEu"aItlgs; t rflpl�atti vsntlY.Iew A Sti�engthenulg::;
.:..:.:...
:.......:..
Notwithstanding the above provisions of Section A115.1.4, the owner of a
building within the scope of this chapter shall structurally alter the building to
conform to Level B Strengthening or cause the building to be demolished by
January 1, 2017.
4. Pis ehapteF dees net eq
ineehanieal, or-fire safety systems.
A115.2 Service of Notice and Order
A115.2.1 General. A notice or order issued pursuant to this section shall be in
writing and shall be served either personally or by certified or registered mail upon
the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and upon the person, if
any, in apparent charge or control of the building. The failure of any such person
to receive such notice or order shall not affect the validity of any proceedings
taken under this chapter or relieve any such person from any duty or obligation
imposed on him by the provisions of this chapter.
A115.2.2 Notice. The Building Official shall, within 30 days of the effective date
of thisdetrtnzttatt t)
s ct ...bmldisg::is- 1., nreurox . mases:
n t c c issue a notice as provided in this section to the owner of ewh
building within the scope of this chapter.
A115.2.3 Order. The Building Official shall issue an order as provided in this
section to the owner of each building within the scope of this Chapter.
A115.3 Content of Notice and Order
A115.3.1 General. The notice or order shall be accompanied by a copy of
Section A115.1, which sets forth the owner's responsibilities.
A115.3.2 Notice. The notice shall specify that the building has been determined
by the Building Official to be within the scope of this chapter and, therefore, is
subject to the minimum seismic standards of this chapter.
3 p
,4'f0
A115.3.3 Order. The order shall direct the owner to obtain and submit„to the
gagiw=
fficial the structural analysis requiredby this chapter;�::::::::::i':;:.;:.:i:::.;::;;:.;:<.: .::.::�:::..:..::..:::.:n"::;:y:::.y.;;::.:.;;:.;:.::.::::;%::;:::::y,,:;,:�:::::i:.i:.!I:.:I...:::.�.�:,?,:jy%'.:::!Yiiii' >be uctural y t r+eti spa ca vy :the prc�vtsl� A WIu ter:prEdng tv"�e emc��Sl�`
A115.4 Appeal. The owner of the building may appeal the Building Official's
initial determination that the building is within the scope of this chapter to the
Board of Appeals established by Section 204 of the Uniform Administrative Code.
Such appeal shall be filed with the Board within 60 days from the service date of
the order described in Section A115.3. Appeals or requests for modifications from
any other determinations, orders or actions by the Building Official pursuant to the
chapter shall be made in accordance with the procedures established in Sections
1052 106 and 204 of the Uniform Administrative Code. Any appeal shall be
decided by the Board no later than 90 days after filing and the grounds thereof
shall be stated clearly and concisely.
A115.5 Recordation. At the time that the Building Official serves the
aforementioned notice, the Building Official shall also file and record with the
office of the county recorder a certificate stating that the subject building is within
the scope of this chapter and is a potentially earthquake hazardous building. The
certificate shall also state that the owner thereof will be ordered to structurally
analyze the building to determine compliance with this chapter.
If the building is either demolished, found not to be within the scope of this
chapter, or is structurally capable of resisting minimum seismic forces required by
this chapter as a result of structural alterations or an analysis, the Building Official
shall file and record with the office of the county recorder a form terminating the
status of the subject building as being classified within the scope of this chapter.
tlY reques[ "an twn of a lutldut subp tq the prt�rrisr®n .of flus+ pt�r;
the butler o sha1. ::be .ttlte:;strg. tie bevelurxtxIiae..vrri .>
wra t ,rec_.Jo rr ttt�.ca>:re a
A115.6 Enforcement. If the owner in charge or control of the subject building
fails to comply with any order issued by the Building Official pursuant to this
chapter within the time limit set forth in Section A115.1, the Building Official shall
verify that the record owner of this building has been,properly served. If the order
has been served on the record owner, then�ile, clyng:"slatt :;apply
CTT he Building Official may order that the entire building be vacated
and that the building remain vacated until such order has been complied
with. If compliance with such order has not been accomplished within 90
days after the date the building has been ordered vacated or such additional
time as may have been granted by the Board of Appeals, the Building
4
ON9
Official may order its demolition in accordance with the provisions of '
Section 203 of the Uniform Administrative Code.
vso es: vssrtkn:<nfi:Ih s::N......::.
.......::.::.::.::.:::::.,::::. :::..::::.:,...::::....:::::
tsderneai as sub� ct to the;�li'astix�rrrd 2d fflf xp Chapter I l
us>::i. - l............. :.:: uapa:.< ; i; :it ,.; :as :' sue aterntae.
<: pn.:i:<::;: .....Si ..::..:.:::.:... .>:':. ... ........:.:.::.:.i:. <.i:.:
c rimes as ;" , .1�t4 afthcp
A115.7Pty"ra ' ntrn' ;;;dud Annual Report. During January of each
>;....a..::.:.....::...:..:........ g
year, the Building Official shall submit a report to the City Council outlining the
progress to date concerning reduction of the hazards presented by the unreinforced
masonry building inventory for the City. The report shall include:
1. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings strengthened,
demolished, or otherwise eliminated from the inventory;
2. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings remaining on the
inventory, including the status of orders issued pursuant to this Chapter
that are not resolved.
vi:>:y:.:i:::::>::isii:•}>:'...:..i..:.:>•}%Cf!!.)>)`::i':is)`:!!.: ...::::::.:...::::�.:: .::::.:.v:n'.a..::i':.
!!,.�:J::1iii...........i' ':i:...
:..i.:..:..:.:::.:is:.. i:.:::.::.::::..::..::..:i:i:::.:i:i:::i:j::::':i::i"i::i::::�.i��:' ..: .i'.iii::A::::ni:iiY¢i'!!•:.:":i:::.::: ::!i!::.:
as::;vv. 11;:;as>;recazrd�a�rns;�or;:
rri'eci'Eoi"ttnx`eap�t�r c
Bathe yearf , arbrtsate[ £l�i ref btuding1
...............................................................
yii.N;;:.:i0:`}:.:�.ismp;v;.ia::nv.:pY..wx.xn:imy:x�.v.i.i:.n:ni:Yi::%�iY:n:!:.i:,:i:%C:iiJ�•;:yii':!:.;:.!;:.yx;;�:nF{nw Vii:
3;. ate year t3 2 .ap rrs� ate 6E1'i' f a p rl"ttsgs It.ccirt�pi
lI-No.
tengtheru�g<;
MOM
kite: e :� <a :cdeet > R1Vt;;bdurgsuI.
ilrId: :::;>::::::::1 ::::::.
a.
or.cieteung;calydcce wttlt the abv ,gaas, demohltan fl ;a: M�auduig
t cflr, tiered i sates�s.i eves B Sti t erti�t s p ta, e t 5SH
�allb�:� fluxhe:tn� �i�teut�r,�.�� �iiit �`;� dut�s�s�>��aaaxy.Ix:
9Zz buildags or as dafie atddi#tnr ;.
5
7O
Attachment 8
ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING
THE UNIFORM CODE FOR BUILDING CONSERVATION
AS ADOPTED IN TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR STRENGTHENING
UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo contains 113 buildings of unreinforced masonry
construction determined to be "potentially hazardous" during a seismic event; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is situated near three major earthquake faults
each capable of generating earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.5, and is therefore particularly
vulnerable to devastation should such an earthquake occur; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is located in Seismic Zone 4 and is subject to the
provisions of Chapter 12.2, Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, and specifically
Section 8875 et seq. 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 City 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 cost effective manner.
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. Section 15.04.050 D is renumbered 15.04.050 F, Section 15.04.050 E is
renumbered 15.04.050 G and new sections 15.04.050 D and 15.040 E are created
as follows:
D. Amend Section A103 to add the following definitions:
LEVEL A STRENGTHENING of an unreinforced masonry building is
compliance with the provisions of this chapter, limited to the removal of or
bracing of parapets, installation of anchors between walls and root and
installation of anchors between walls and floors.
LEVEL B STRENGTHENING of an unreinforced masonry building is
compliance with 9 provisions of this chapter.
Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
Page 2 '
ROOF COVERING is any roof-covering assembly allowed by the
Building Code.
E. Amend Section A105 to add Section A105.4 to read as follows:
A105.4 Permit Requirement. Notwithstanding any interpretation of
work exempt from a permit as provided in the Uniform Administrative
Code, a building permit shall be required for the installation of a new roof
covering and required strengthening improvements.
B. Section 15.04.050 G (renumbered) is amended as follows:
G. Add new Appendix Section Al 15 entitled "Administrative Provisions" to
read as follows:
SECTION A115-ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
A115.1 Compliance Requirements.
1. The owner of each building within the scope of this chapter shall, upon
service of an order, cause a structural analysis to be made of the building
by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such. Said
analysis shall include the preparation of a report detailing the investigation,
evaluation, test data, conclusions, and recommendations to establish
compliance with this chapter. If the building does not comply with seismic
standards established in this chapter, the report shall specify the work and
cost necessary to structurally alter the building to conform to such
standards. The Building Official shall establish a basic outline for the
format of the report.
2. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall comply
with the requirements set forth above by submitting the analysis report to
the Building Official for review and acceptance within 18 months of the
service of an order.
3. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall
structurally alter the building to conform to Level A Strengthening when
roof covering is replaced or overlaid. For buildings with multiple roof
levels, strengthening may be limited to the building area directly below the
roof area to be covered with new roof covering.
4. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall
structurally alter the building to conform to Level B Strengthening when at
a2�
Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
. Page 3
least one of the following occurs:
4.1. 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.
4.2. The use of the building changes to a different division of the
same occupancy group or to a different occupancy group.
EXCEPTION: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 3405 of the Building Code, buildings containing
more than one occupancy classification need not be
strengthened if the total floor area for changes in use,
cumulative from March 4, 1992, does not exceed 50 percent
of the floor area of the building.
2. Occupancy classification changes to Groups F, M, S and
U from an equivalent category as defined in the previous
editions of this code.
3. An occupancy classification change to a Group R,
Division 1 Occupancy with not more than five dwelling
units.
4. An occupancy classification change to a Group S
Occupancy used exclusively as a warehouse with no human
habitation.
4.3. Roof covering is replaced or overlaid after January 1, 2007.
EXCEPTION: Buildings in compliance with Level A
Strengthening prior to January 1, 2007.
,2�3
Ordinance No. (1997 Series) '
Page 4
Notwithstanding the above provisions of Section Al 15.1.4, the owner of a
building within the scope of this chapter shall structurally alter the building
to conform to Level B Strengthening by January 1, 2017.
A115.2 Service of Notice and Order
A115.2.1 General. A notice or order issued pursuant to this section shall
be in writing and shall be served either personally or by certified or
registered mail upon the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment
roll, and upon the person, if any, in apparent chargeor or control of the
building. The failure of any such person to receive such notice or order
shall not affect the validity of any proceedings taken under this chapter or
relieve any such person from any duty or obligation imposed on tum by the
provisions of this chapter.
A115.2.2 Notice. The Building Official shall, within 30 days of the
effective date of this chapter or determination that a building is of
unreinforced masonry construction issue a notice as provided in this section
to the owner of a building within the scope of this chapter.
Al 15.2.3 Order. The Building Official shall issue an order as provided in
this section to the owner of each building within the scope of this Chapter.
A115.3 Content of Notice and Order
A115.3.1 General. The notice or order shall be accompanied by a copy of
Section A115.1, which sets forth the owner's responsibilities.
A115.3.2 Notice. The notice shall specify that the building has been
determined by the Building Official to be within the scope of this chapter
and, therefore, is subject to the minimum seismic standards of this chapter.
A115.3.3 Order. The order shall direct the owner to obtain and submit to
the Building Official the structural analysis required by this chapter and/or
cause the building to be structurally altered to conform to the provisions of
this chapter, or cause the building to be demolished.
A115.4 Appeal. The owner of the building may appeal the Building
Official's initial determination that the building is within the scope of this
chapter to the Board of Appeals established by Section 204 of the Uniform
Administrative Code. Such appeal shall be filed with the Board within 60
days from the service date of the order described in Section Al 15.3.
Appeals or requests for modifications from any other determinations, —
. Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
Page 5
orders or actions by the Building Official pursuant to the chapter shall be
made in accordance with the procedures established in Sections 105, 106
and 204 of the Uniform Administrative Code. Any appeal shall be decided
by the Board no later than 90 days after filing and the grounds thereof shall
be stated clearly and concisely.
A115.5 Recordation. At the time that the Building Official serves the
aforementioned notice, the Building Official shall also file and record with
the office of the county recorder a certificate stating that the subject
building is within the scope of this chapter and is a potentially earthquake
hazardous building. The certificate shall also state that the owner thereof
will be ordered to structurally analyze the building to determine compliance
with this chapter.
If the building is either demolished, found not to be within the scope of this
chapter, or is structurally capable of resisting minimum seismic forces
required by this chapter as a result of structural alterations or an analysis,
the Building Official shall file and record with the office of the county
recorder a form terminating the status of the subject building as being
classified within the scope of this chapter.
At the request of an owner of a building subject to the provisions of this
chapter, the building official shall file a certificate stating the level
compliance with the various requirements of Section Al I5.
A115.6 Enforcement. If the owner in charge or control of the subject
building fails to comply with any order issued by the Building Official
pursuant to this chapter within the time limit set forth in Section Al 15.1,
the Building Official shall verify that the record owner of this building has
been properly served. If the order has been served on the record owner,
then the following provisions apply:
1. The Building Official may order that the entire building be
vacated and that the building remain vacated until such order has
been complied with. If compliance with such order has not been
accomplished within 90 days after the date the building has been
ordered vacated or such additional time as may have been granted
by the Board of Appeals, the Building Official may order its
demolition in accordance with the provisions of Section 203 of the
Uniform Administrative Code.
2. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a
misdemeanor, and is subject to the penalty as provided for in Chapter
.�o2'S
Ordinance No. (1997 Series) '
Page 6
1.12 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The City may also
pursue alterative civil remedies as set forth in Section 1.12.090 of the
Municipal Code.
A115.7 Program Monitoring and Annual Report. During January of
each year, the Building Official shall submit a report to the City Council
outlining the progress to date concerning reduction of the hazards
presented by the unreinforced masonry building inventory for the City. The
report shall include:
1. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings strengthened,
demolished, or otherwise eliminated from the inventory;
2. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings remaining on the
inventory, including the status of orders issued pursuant to this
Chapter that are not resolved. .
The annual report at five-year intervals, beginning in the year 2002, shall
include the degree of accomplishment of the following goals, as well as
recommendations for modification of this chapter if necessary:
1. By the year 2002, approximately 50% of all URM buildings will
comply with Level A or Level B Strengthening.
2. By the year 2007, approximately 95% of all URM buildings will
comply with Level A or Level B Strengthening.
3. By the year 2012, approximately 60% of all URM buildings will
comply with Level B Strengthening.
4. By the year 2017, all identified URM buildings subject to this
chapter will comply with Level B Strengthening.
For determining compliance with the above goals, demolition of a URM
building shall be considered the same as Level B Strengthening. The
percentage calculation shall be based on the total inventory of confirmed URM
buildings as of January 1, 1990 (126 buildings) or as modified at a later due to
additional findings.
SECTION 2. 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.
Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
Page 6
ordinance.
SECTION 3. A synopsis of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the
names of Council Member voting for and against, shall be published at least 5 days prior to its final
passage in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said City. This ordinance
shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at
a meeting held on the day of , 1997, on motion of
seconded by ,and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
Bonnie Crawl; CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
City Attorn
T
Attachment 9 '
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM
TO ASSIST IN THE STRENGTHENING
OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo contains 113 buildings of unreinforced masonry
(URM) construction determined to be "potentially hazardous" during a seismic event; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is subject to the provisions of Section 8875 et
seq. of Chapter 12.2,Division 1, Title 2 of the Government Code, requiring that the City establish
a mitigation program to substantially reduce the hazards associated with URM buildings; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to
provide citizens with the greatest degree of life safety involving buildings of URM construction in the
most cost effective manner,and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo seeks to encourage seismic
strengthening of URM buildings in a timely fashion by assisting owners of URM buildings;and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and serves an important municipal purpose to provide
incentives for the strengthening of URM buildings;and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a noticed public hearing
conceming incentives and other forms of assistance on April 15, 1997.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby establishes
the following:
SECTION 1. FEES.
A. Resolution No. 8089 (1992 Series), establishing a credit to be applied to the fees
for an architectural review application, plan review, and/or building permit for a
URM strengthening related projects, shall be continued. The amount of the fee
credit shall be limited to the total documented cost to provide the structural
analysis for the URM building required by Uniform Code for Building
Conservation Appendix 1, as adopted and amended.
B. Fees related to a URM seismic strengthening project that does not result in any
increase in floor area shall be waived, including parking-in-lieu, transportation
impact, and sewer and water impact fees.
C. Construction permit and planning fees for URM replacement buildings shall be
waived.
Resolution No. (1997 Series)
. Page 2
D. Fees for required inspections of URM strengthening work during off-hours shall be
waived.
E. Sewer and water use charges during the construction period for a URM
strengthening project, limited to a maximum of 6 months and not to exceed the
previous 6 months of occupied use, shall be waived.
F. Fees for contractor parking on the street near the construction site, limited to 3
spaces directly adjacent to the building undergoing URM strengthening, shall be
waived. If less than 3 spaces are available directly adjacent, contractor may obtain
written permission from adjoining business for use of other spaces. Free spaces
shall not exceed a 6-month duration.
SECTION 2. CONVERSION.
A URM building may be totally converted to a warehouse or residential use up to 5
dwelling units and be exempt from compliance with Appendix l of the Uniform Code for
Building Conservation as adopted by the City.
SECTION 3. DEMOLITION.
As allowed by demolition regulations in Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Building
Code, as adopted by the City, a demolition permit for a URM building that is not listed on
the Inventory of Historical Resources is subject only to photographic documentation and
the 90-day advertising of availability for moving or salvage.
SECTION 4. FIRE SPRINKLERS.
The fire-sprinkler installation deadline for URM buildings in the downtown zone shall
remain tied to the final URM Level B Strengthening deadline (2017) as allowed by
previous ordinance, unless triggers cause Level B Strengthening at an earlier date.
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.
The City shall provide technical assistance in forming a voluntary assessment district to
assist in financing URM strengthening projects and fire sprinkler installation if there is
sufficient property owner interest.
SECTION 6. GRANTS.
The City will provide a$250,000 grant fund, available on a first-come, first-served basis to
partially offset URM strengthening cost. For Level A Strengthening, the maximum grant
shall be 25% of strengthening cost up to $5,000; and for Level B Strengthening, the
maximum grant shall be 25% of strengthening cost up to $25,000.
�;z9
Resolution No. (1997 Series)
Page:3
Upon motion of seconded by---
and on.the following roll call vote: -- — - - --
AYES
NOES.
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution wasadopted this.. . day of _ ___ _ - 1997.
Mayor Allen K $6.gle -
ATTEST:
Bornue Gawf City Clerk-----
APPROVED AS T ORM:
orif - - -- _-
:ZCAO 0 FA[J;P. N",E ET I NG AGENDA
:;f ACAO 0FIRE CHIEF D h�T E I T E N1 #
ATTORNEY 0 PWDin Neop Y
r
_YtILERKOTC. 0 POLICE CHI-
MG1JrrT=_.;.1.:. 1_' REG DIR Sporting Goods
1-
C REAr Fi-,- U7;i.-';r' 886 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
(805) 543-2197
URM Proposal
By Thomas Bello
The proposed program is based on two levels of strengthening, Levels A and B. Level A(roof to wall
anchorage, roof diaphragm if needed, and parapet bracing improvements)is considered an interim step
prior to all URM buildings being in compliance with full seismic strengthening(Level B), as defined in
the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. The program could work as follows:
Level A strengthening required
a When roof covering is installed on a URM building with no time deadline.
Level B strengthening required
• When a change of occupancy classification occurs in a URM building.
• When cost of remodeling/alterations exceeds 50%of replacement cost of building.
Incentives to assist property owners in complying with the program will include:
0 Credit towards application and permit fees of up to the cost of providing the structural
analysis.
0 Waiver of fees related to a URM seismic strengthening project that does not result in any
increase in floor area,including parking-in-lieu,traffic impact, and sewer and water
impact fees.
0 Waiver of any payments to school district for construction permit for URM replacement
buildings.
0 Waiver of construction permit and planning fees for URM replacement buildings.
0 Guaranteed retention of grandfather features for URM retrofits.
0 Free inspection for off-hours work.
0 Waiver of sewer and water use changes during the construction period, limited to a
maximum of 6 months and not to exceed the previous 6 months of occupied use.
0 Free contractor parking available on the street near the construction site, limited to 3 free
spaces directly adjacent to the building undergoing URM strengthening. If less than 3
spaces are available directly adjacent, contractor may obtain written permission from
adjoining business for use of other spaces. Free spaces shall not exceed a 6-month
duration.
• Conversion of a budding to a low risk occupancy(warehouse or residential use up to 5
dwelling units)as identified in State law.
• Simplified process for demolition of non-historic URM buildings.
• Voluntary fire-sprinkler installation for URM buildings in the downtown zone.
• Availability of$250,000 grant fund on a first-come, first-served basis to partially offset
URM strengthening cost or budding replacement. Level A strengthening cost—25%of
cost up to$5,000. Level B strengthening— 25%up to$25,000.
RECEIVED
APR 1 '"/
CITY COUNCIL
r
MEETING AGENDA
MEMORANDUM DATE ITEM #
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO: Mayor and City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director e
BY: Jeff Hook, Associate Plannpp
DATE: March 26, 1997 ll//��
SUBJECT: Cultural Heritage Committee endorsement of the proposed Seismic Retrofit
Program.
At its March 24, 1997 meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) voted 7-0 (moved by
Comm. Giberti, seconded by Comm. Edmisten) to endorse the Unreinforced Masonry Retrofit
Program concept, as described in the attached flyer and as presented to the CHC at its
February 24te meeting. CHC members supported the program's flexibility and viewed it as a
balanced, well-designed approach which would further the City's historic preservation goals.
The Committee's endorsement was solicited by Howard Carroll, Chair of the Chamber of
Commerce Seismic Task Force. CHC members Garth Kornreich and Dan Krieger have served
on the Task Force to help provide input on architectural and historic preservation issues.
Attachment ECOUNCIL r MoD UIR
j AO ❑ FIN DIR
cc: Ken Hampian, Tom Baasch, Alice Loh ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
j%/L:cfrymemo7 aP WCLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C 9E.AD Fur: ❑ u nL DIR
` ��� 0 ?I=RS Diq
Nt
unreinforced Masonry Building !Mitigation Program
Over 10 years ago,the California Legislature adopted dozens of extremely difficult and complicated issues.
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act. This law Finally, in February.1997, agreement was reached on
requires that cities identify ail un-reinforced masonry a program that achieves the long sought`right
(URM) buildings and then establish programs to balance'. The program includes the following key
reduce the hazards to the community posed by them. elements:
Since the adoption of this law, California has • Defers a mandatory deadline for full
experienced several violent earthquakes, changing strengthening from the proposed year 2000 to
the face of some communities forever. For example, 2017, and in the interim leaves the ultimate
because of its high concentration of URM buildings, decision for building improvement timing up to
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake nearly destroyed the property owner;
downtown Santa Cruz.
San Luis Obispo is much like Santa Cruz,with over • Allows seismic strengthening to occur in two
80 URM buildings in the downtown alone. On any progressive phases-partial (Level A) and full
given day,these buildings are occupied by thousands (Level 13);
of people. The City has taken several steps required Establishes strong incentives to complete
under the State law, such as identifying the buildings
and adopting improvement standards. However, strengthening sooner rather than later, including
unlike many cities, it has never implemented a the availability of grant funds on a first-come,
program to actually strengthen the buildings. first-served basis;
The major obstacle to establishing a program has • Promotes an evenly paced progression toward
been the difficulty in finding the right balance between full building code strengthening through various
the need to strengthen the buildings and the cost of actions"triggered'by property owners
doing so. For several years, the City and the themselves;
business community struggled to find this balance.
City staff strongly advocated for a mandatory • Provides ongoing shared monitoring to assure
program with a year 2000 deadline; many business that the program is working.
persons and property owners resisted any program at
all. The effort eventually reached an impasse-which While neither the Task Force nor City staff achieved
offered no added safety to the public and no all of their respective goals, collectively the
predictability for property owners. compromise program is designed to achieve the
In 1994, a breakthrough was achieved when the City most important goals of both: meeting the City's
Council directed staff to work with the Chamber of obligation to protect people and the downtown,and
Commerce Seismic Task Force to develop a program meeting the Task Force's desire for a plan that is
to make buildings more earthquake safe, but through reasonable and feasible for those required to make
methods less burdensome than earfrer proposals. the improvements.
Over the next three years, the Task Force and City The proposed program is outlined on the reverse.
staff negotiated, collaborated, and struggled through
For questions contact:
Howard Carroll.Chairman,
WHE14 March 17, 1997 at 7 pm Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force.
541-0178.
City-CountyWHERE
• CommunityRoom Tom Baasch,Chief Building Official.
995 Palm Street , SLO City of San Luis Obispo.
781-7159.
URN sire
Moth-ev- Prov
The proposed program is based on two levels of strengthening, Levels A and B. Level A (roof to waif
anchorage,roof diaphragm,and parapet bracing improvements),is considered an interim step priorto all URM
buildings being in compliance with full seismic strengthening (Level 8), as defined in the Uniform Code for
Building Conservation. The program will work as follows:
Level A strengthening renuired
• when roof covering is installed an a URM building,
Level B strengthening reouired
• when roof covering is installed on a URM building after January 1, 2007.
0 when a change of occupancy classification occurs in a URM building.
• when cost of remodelinglalterations exceeds 50% of replacement cost of building.
• by January 1,2017.
IRCenrIVIRS to assist property owners in complying with the program will include:
• Credit towards application and permit fees of up to the cost of providing the structural analysis.
• Waiver of fees related to a URM seismic strengthening project that does not result in any
increase in floor area, including parking-in-lieu,traffic impact, and sewer and water impact fees.
• Waiver of construction permit and planning fees for URM replacement buildings.
• Free inspections for off-hours work.
• Waiver of sewer and water use charges during the construction period, limited to a maximum
of 6 months and not to exceed the previous 6 months of occupied use.
• Free contractor parking available on the street near the construction site, limited to 3 free
spaces directly adjacent to the building undergoing URM strengthening. If less than 3 spaces
are available directly adjacent. contractor may obtain written permission from adjoining
business for use of other spaces. Free spaces shall not exceed a 6-month duration.
• Conversion of a building to a low risk occupancy(warehouse or residential use up to 5 dwelling
units) as identified in State law.
• Simplified process for demolition of non-historic URM buildings.
• Deferral of fire-sprinkler installation for URM buildings in the downtown zone until 2017 unless
triggers cause Level B strengthening at an earlier date.
• Technical assistance in forming a voluntary assessment district to complete URM strengthening
and fire sprinkler installation if there is sufficient property owner interest.
• Availability of$250,000 grant fund on a first-come, first-served basis to partially offset URM
strengthening cost. Level A strengthening -25% of cost up to $5,000. Level B strengthening-
25% up to $25,000.
I^LBING AGENDA
DATE1/�S-p7ITEM #
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo. California 93401-3278
(805) 781.2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
e-mail. slo-chamber@slonet.org (g' OUNCIL CGJ LIR
David E. Garth. President/CEO AO 21FIN DIR
April 10, 1997 [�/�CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
9, TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ U11L DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Mayor Allen Settle
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RECEIVED .
Re: Unreinforced Masonry Building Program APR i f W,
CITY COUNCIL
Dear Mayor Settle: 0!�a
In 1986 the California State Legislature enacted SB 547 requiring cities such as San Luis
Obispo to develop mitigation programs which significantly reduce the hazards
presented by unreinforced masonry (URM)buildings. In response to this daunting
mandate, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force was formed
to assist City staff in developing a mitigation program for our City.
After more than six years of discussions of the extremely difficult and complex issues
surrounding the proposals for the mitigation program, a consensus was reached. The
URM Building Program that will be before you on April 15th is tailored to the needs of
our community and is not only reasonable but achievable as well.
The majority of the 113 URM buildings located in San Luis Obispo are in our historic
downtown district. In addition to being an award winning "main street" our
downtown district is also the biggest attraction for one of our top industries, tourism.
Therefore,it must be preserved in the event of an earthquake. The URM Building
Program establishes the technical requirements necessary to
strengthen and preserve our URM buildings and creates a number of
incentives designed to encourage the owners of URM buildings to
strengthen them sooner rather than later. Without the adoption of the
URM Building Program as proposed, our downtown will remain in
physical and economic jeopardy and will continue to pose a threat to the TEN YEARS
safety of our residents and our visitors
ACCREDITED
cnna or comuev
-ems
c••..aer w cvu.•e sce
O.•tee Y .FO
We would like to commend City staff, and in particular Tom Baasch, for their
professionalism and tremendous efforts put forth in developing the URM Building
Program. Although we did not always agree with each other, the end result is a
program that is reasonable and agreeable to all concerned parties. Your approval of the
URM Building Program as recommended by City staff will improve the public and
economic safety of San Luis Obispo's historic downtown district.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Griffin Howard Carroll
Chairman of the Board Chairman of the Seismic Task Force
r