Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2002, C2 - STATUS REPORT ON THE UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM M..iK Det. council 5.21-02 j ac Enna REpoat 2"�` C I TY OF S AN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director Prepared By: Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: Status Report on the Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program CAO RECOMMENDATION Accept and file report. DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to review the creation of the City's mitigation program for the hazards presented by buildings of unreinforced masonry construction, summarize current requirements, and present results achieved to date. Background In presenting the Mid-Year Budget Report to Council, the CAO recommended including seismic mitigation grant funds on the list of potential reductions. This recommendation triggered considerable discussion and communication between the City and members of Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force, which opposed the potential reduction. The Council ultimately agreed to remove the grant funds from the list, but concurred with the CAO recommendation to annually review the status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program. The hazards presented by buildings of unreinforced masonry (URM) construction were first addressed by the State of California with passage of SB 547 in the late 1980's. Recognizing that URM buildings have been the most likely to collapse or sustain damage significant enough to prevent emergency exiting by the occupants, the law directed local jurisdictions to determine the number of URM buildings within their jurisdictional limits and then develop a plan to mitigate the "potential hazards" associated with these buildings. Subsequently, staff conducted a building-by- building survey of the City,researched suspected buildings, and ultimately established an inventory of 126 URM buildings. All affected property owners were notified of these determinations. The Chamber of Commerce created the Seismic Task Force to assist staff in developing a program to reduce or eliminate these potential hazards. The Task Force studied the many sides to creation of a mitigation program over a 2-year period. While the goal of SB547 was to "substantially reduce the hazards presented by URM by the year 2000", the Task Force found this goal difficult to achieve while balancing economic impacts, community will, and the spirit of the law. Ultimately, a"first- step" recommendation resulted in City Council adoption of an ordinance requiring all owners of URM buildings to obtain a structural analysis of their building within two years, which allowed opportunity to gather more information on the extent of the URM problem and the probable cost to strengthen the buildings. C2-1 Council Agenda Report–Status Report on the URM Building Hazard Mitigation Program Page 2 After reviewing the findings of the structural analysis results,the Task Force developed a mitigation plan that would place much of the decision-making about when to strengthen in the hands of the property owner. Adopted by the City Council in 1997, the goals of the plan are to achieve some degree of seismic strengthening or risk elimination for all buildings on the inventory by 2007, with all URM buildings fully strengthened or eliminated by 2017. To accomplish the 2007 goal, the code requires that(1)all components of the strengthening design at the roof(Level.A strengthening) be implemented as a condition of reroofing the building, (2) a change of occupancy classification triggers full strengthening (Level B strengthening), and(3) spending more than 50%of a building's replacement cost to remodel triggers full strengthening. After 2007, a reroofing project will require full strengthening. Ultimately, all URM buildings are to be fully strengthened by January 1,2017. Progress The following table summarizes the status of URM building mitigation program: URM Hazard Mitiation Progress URM Buildings Number % of Total Confirmed Total 126 100 -Strengthened—Level B 15 11.9 -Partially Strengthened—Level A 8 6.3 -partially Strengthened—Other than Level A 3 2.3 Demolished 1 9 7.1 During development of the current code requirements, the Seismic Task Force concluded that a reasonable amount of mitigation progress would be achieved if all URM buildings received some degree of strengthening or demolition by 2007. After five years under the current mandatory strengthening program, 28% of the URM buildings on the original confirmed list have been mitigated to some degree. With five years remaining, the Seismic Task Force remains confident that the original projection of reasonable mitigation progress will be achieved by 2007. Members have heard from many property owners about future tenant changes, the need for a new roof, ownership changes, etc., resulting in an optimistic outlook on mitigation that will be achieved in the near future. The Seismic Task Force feels that the incentives offered by the City to encourage URM strengthening projects are key in realizing the goals of the mitigation program. The grant fund program has distributed $106,074 to assist nine property owners cover the cost of Level A or B strengthening. Approximately $143,000 remains appropriated for this purpose, and the Task Force is confident that financial assistance in the form of a grant to offset strengthening costs will encourage URM building owners to "pencil out' economic feasibility and proceed with their project. All other incentives established by City Council Resolution No. 8663 (1997 Series), such as offset or waiver of permit fees, after-hours inspection services, waiver of water and sewer use charges during construction, deferral of fire sprinkler requirements for URM buildings in the downtown zone, and waiver of fees for contractor parking near a URM project site C2-2 Council Agenda Report—Status Report on the URM Building Hazard Mitigation Program Page 3 continue to add to the economic feasibility of a strengthening project. Conclusion Although staff and the Seismic Task Force had hoped that mitigation progress would have resulted in 50% of the URM buildings being strengthened to at least Level A standards or demolished at the 5-year point, the 28% mark is considered acceptable progress. Continued economic vitality and the proposed Copeland's Court Street project should encourage URM building owners in the downtown area to invest in their buildings. The ability to attract national tenants is often predicated on providing a seismically safe building. No changes to the URM building mitigation program, including strengthening standards, triggers requiring Level A or B strengthening, and incentives, are recommended at this time. Staff will report back to City Council with an annual update in May, 2003. CONCURRENCES The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force concurs with the progress analysis and recommendation. Council Agenda Report-URM Mitigation Status. C2-3