HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2004, PH1 - UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM councit M.fimDm 8-17-04
acEnaa REpoat
C I TY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Tom Baasch, Chief Building Offici
.
SUBJECT: UNREINFORCED MASONRY HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce an ordinance establishing a revised deadline for the mandatory strengthening or
demolition of buildings of unreinforced masonry (URM) construction.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing specific fees for planning application, plan review, and permit
fees for projects involving the strengthening or demolition of a URM building.
3. Authorize a part-time URM Seismic Coordinator through June 2006 funded by the remaining
balance in the existing URM Grant Program of$35,000.
4. Approve spending $12,000 for URM building placards.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Prompted by the recent earthquake and the inventory of unreinforced masonry buildings in San
Luis Obispo susceptible to earthquake damage, staff and the Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task
Force recommend accelerating the existing timeline for mandatory strengthening of these
buildings. The recommended changes will continue the Levels A and B strengthening concept in
the current ordinance. Completion of Level A by July 1, 2007 will allow the building owner to
delay construction of the remaining components of full strengthening (Level B) to July 1, 2012.
For buildings that have received partial strengthening in past years, a building owner may be
allowed to follow an alternate plan that provides: 1) a greater than 50% reduction in the
unreinforced masonry hazard for the building by July 1, 2007; 2) a written agreement that includes
an acceptable written work plan and timeline; and 3) completion of all strengthening by July 1,
2012. If Level A work is not completed by July 1, 2007, then total strengthening (Level B) must
be completed by July 1, 2010. For buildings that have not completed Level A work by July 1,
2007, the Council will establish a priority, on the basis of relative hazard, and set a date for the
completion of the seismic strengthening improvements for each building in this category to assure
orderly progress. The recommendation will continue to correlate the deadline for installation of
fire sprinklers under the Downtown Sprinkler Retrofit program with final deadlines for the URM
building hazard mitigation program. However, buildings that have already been strengthened will
be allowed to defer completion until the original deadline of January 1, 2017.
To insure that approvals are in place when opportunities develop to mitigate a URM hazard, the
proposed ordinance will require that all URM building owners obtain necessary planning
approvals and construction permits by January 1, 2006. The ordinance will also require URM
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 2
building owners to post a sign at building entrances warning potential occupants of unsafe
conditions in the event of an earthquake. The City will provide the signs to the building owner
and supervise placement at an estimated cost of$12,000.
To help facilitate strengthening progress, the proposed resolution will establish minimal
application and permit fees for strengthening projects, and the recommendation will authorize
hiring a part-time URM Seismic Coordinator for two years at an estimated cost of$35,000. This
temporary position will work with businesses and property owners to advise on financing
mechanisms, the timing of projects, construction resources, relocation of tenants, tax credits, and
tenant leases.
DISCUSSION
The Problem
The San Simeon earthquake of December 22, 2003 provided a somber reminder of the potential
devastation that could strike the City of San Luis Obispo when another seismic event occurs in the
Central Coast area. The concern is when, not if, an event will occur. Seismologists have
concluded that the San Simeon earthquake may actually have increased stresses on the ends of the
local faults, as well as adding stress to the San Andreas Fault. San Luis Obispo is located near the
ends of the local faults that originate in northern San Luis Obispo County, and the San Andreas
Fault is only 45 miles from the City. Because of the built-up stresses, it is likely that an
earthquake of greater magnitude than that which struck Paso Robles could disastrously affect the
URM buildings in San Luis Obispo, and particularly the Downtown area. As for URM buildings
in northern San Luis Obispo County, the San Simeon earthquake caused millions of dollars of
building damage, the loss of historic resources, disruption of economic vitality, individual tragedy
for building owners, business owners, and occupants, and, most unfortunately, the death of two
people.
For the City of San Luis Obispo, the URM building hazard consists of 100 buildings that have not
been strengthened. Of these, 76 are located in the downtown area. The existing URM building
mitigation program was established in 1997 and requires that all buildings ultimately be fully
strengthened or demolished by January 1, 2017. While the full strengthening or demolition of 27
buildings (including 7 government buildings) and the partial strengthening of eight buildings
represents progress toward achieving complete results by the 2017 deadline, the extensive damage
in North county caused many to question if the City's program is aggressive enough to prepare the
City for the next earthquake that occurs in our area and reduce the risks to building occupants and
pedestrians passing by.
The Process
Shortly after the San Simeon earthquake, the Council asked the Chamber of Commerce to
reconvene the Seismic Task Force and appointed a subcommittee of Mayor Romero,
Councilmember Ewan and City staff to meet with the Seismic Task Force to develop changes to
the program that would accelerate the progress towards mitigation of the City's URM building
hazard.
1
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 3
Over a four month period, the Seismic Task Force received technical briefings, surveyed URM
building owners, considered the impacts of the URM hazard, and evaluated alternate strategies to
achieve required strengthening. During this period, staff also became aware of provisions in State
law that trigger prevailing wage requirements when fees are waived or grant funds are provided to
building owners to assist with the cost of strengthening.
After much discussion, the City subcommittee and the Task Force reached consensus on the
components of a revised strengthening program that should mitigate the URM hazard by a much
earlier deadline and help enable building owners to achieve compliance. The consensus was
drafted in the form of changes to the City's URM ordinance and program.
All building owners were notified of the proposed changes by mail and invited to an informational
meeting that was held on July 7, 2004 in the Council Hearing Room. City staff and the co-chair of
the Seismic Task Force were available to answer questions. Approximately 20 building owners,
tenants, and others interested in the URM issue attended. Discussion highlighted the need to
revisit an initial recommendation to also accelerate the deadline for installing fire sprinklers in the
downtown area. For many owners who were able to fund strengthening improvements under the
current program, delay of the cost of fire sprinkler installation was key to overall program
feasibility.
The Revised Program
Recommended changes to the program by ordinance are as follows:
1. Strengthening Deadlines. The recommended changes to the program will preserve the
flexibility in the existing program by providing a choice in the level of strengthening due by a
certain date. It is recommended that the program continue the Levels A and B strengthening
concept.. Level A, which is the work required to remove or brace parapets, install anchors
between walls and roof, and install anchors between walls and floors, achieves the greatest
degree of earthquake strengthening for the dollar spent. Early completion of Level A, by July
1, 2007, will allow the building owner to delay construction of the remaining components of
full strengthening (Level B). Under this scenario, full strengthening need not be completed
until July 1, 2012. Actual timing of construction may be determined by the property owner
within those deadlines. For buildings that have received some strengthening in past years, but
not in strict conformance with Level A criteria, the Chief Building Official may approve an
alternate strengthening plan. Alternate strengthening plans will be considered on a case-by-
case basis and will be deemed equivalent to Level A, if: 1) a greater than 50% reduction in the
unreinforced masonry hazard for the building is accomplished by July 1, 2007; 2) a written
agreement includes an acceptable written work plan and timeline; and 3) the plan completes all
strengthening by July 1, 2012.
However, if Level A work is not completed by July 1, 2007, then total strengthening (Level B,
which includes Level A work and steel frames to stabilize walls and storefronts) must be
completed by July 1, 2010. For buildings that have not completed Level A work by this date,
the Council will establish a priority, on the basis of relative hazard, and set a date for the
1 - 3
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 4
completion of the seismic strengthening improvements for each building in this category to
assure orderly progress.
The regulations for the Downtown Sprinkler Retrofit program contained in the Fire Code were
initially set to correlate with the final deadline for the URM building hazard mitigation
program. There was concern that requiring building owners to strengthen and fire sprinkler a
URM building at the same time would be extremely burdensome. Consequently, the deadline
for installation of fire sprinklers for downtown URM buildings was set at January 1, 2017, and
the installation could be delayed to this date even if strengthening were completed earlier. The
proposed code change will accelerate the final deadline for fire sprinkler installation from
January 1, 2017 to July 1, 2010 for buildings with no prior seismic strengthening, and to July
1, 2012, for URM buildings that are strengthened to Level A by July 1, 2007. The proposed
change will preserve the agreement set in the current code that allows building owners that
have already completed Level A or B strengthening of their building to defer completion of fire
sprinkler installation until January 1, 2011, unless fire sprinklers are triggered sooner by either
a change of occupancy or remodeling cost in excess of replacement value, as currently required
by the Building Code.
2. Permits. The Task Force felt that the opportunities to strengthen a building that occur
between tenant changes, when contractors are available, or when financing is favorable should
not be lost because of a failure to obtain a building permit when needed. To insure that
permits can be issued in time to align with these opportunities, the proposed ordinance will
require that a complete planning application necessary for a seismic strengthening project or a
complete application for a building permit for seismic strengthening shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for each URM building by July 1, 2005. In either case,
a building permit for Level B strengthening shall be obtained by January 1, 2006. It is being
recommended that the appropriate code section be modified to clarify that a building permit for
strengthening work will remain active until completion of work through the scheduled date of
retrofitting for each building, but not beyond July 1, 2012. Sites being redeveloped that
include a proposal to demolish a URM building shall also obtain approval of the demolition
permit by January 1, 2006
3. Installation of Placards. The ordinance will parallel State law by requiring building owners
to place a placard on the front of the building warding potential occupants that the building is
of unreinforced masonry construction and may be unsafe in the event of a major earthquake.
The City will design a standard placard to be posted for all URM buildings and provide one for
each building to property owners. The Chief Building Official will develop placement criteria
to achieve uniform installation. If State law is amended (a bill is currently under consideration
by the Legislature), the ordinance will allow removal of the placard after required
strengthening work is completed and approved.
Recommended changes to the program by resolution are as follows:
1. Reduced Permit Application Costs. To assist building owners with the cost of strengthening
projects, approval of the attached resolution will set Planning Application and Building Permit
fees for projects that involve seismic strengthening of URM buildings at a low cost, and will
( - 4 4
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 5
remain at that level until July 1, 2012. Specifically, a fee of$40 will be set for each Planning
Application for Architectural Review, each plan review of a Building Permit application, and
each Building Permit.
Resolution No. 8663, adopted in 1997, established incentives to encourage URM building
owners to proceed with strengthening projects, including waiver of construction permit and
planning fees for strengthening projects. Staff recently became aware of the provision in
Section 1720 of the State Labor Code that triggers prevailing wage requirements when a
project is paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. While a fee waiver would constitute
a contribution of public funds towards the project, a fee schedule that sets forth specific fees
for URM strengthening projects is not expected to trigger the prevailing wage requirements.
The proposed resolution provides for such a fee schedule, with amounts comparable to fees
charged for other types of projects. The proposed low fee will prevent the fee from being a
disincentive to accomplishing the strengthening objectives.
2. Low Parking Fees. Existing incentives also provide for contractor parking on the street near
the construction site. The recommendation will establish a fee of$1,00 per day per space used
in conjunction with a URM strengthening project, limited to three spaces for a maximum
duration of six months. If less than three spaces are available directly adjacent, the contractor
may obtain written permission from adjoining businesses for use of other spaces.
Resolution No. 8663 also waived fees for parking spaces near a construction site for a URM
strengthening project. As a contribution of public funds, free parking spaces trigger prevailing
wage requirements for the associated URM strengthening project. The proposed resolution
sets a specific fee for use of parking spaces supporting a URM strengthening project, and also
is not expected to trigger prevailing wage requirements.
The recommendation also provides the following to assist with compliance:
1. URM Seismic Coordinator. The City will provide a part-time advocate for the program who
will explain the new requirements to property owners and tenants and help them through the
strengthening process, including providing advice on tenant leases, financing alternatives, tax
credits, construction resources, and any other matters that will help achieve mitigation goals.
This new temporary position is expected to be needed for the next two to three years. After
distributing the funds for grants that are currently committed, the seismic grant fund will have
approximately $35,000 remaining. Use of these funds requires that the building owner pay
prevailing wages to workers on the project. This has the potential to increase the cost of
achieving strengthening and discourage building owners from participating in the program.
Because of this, it is being recommended that the funds be used to assist building owners meet
the new deadlines in a way that does not increase their costs of doing so.
The recommended action will authorize the remaining funds to pay for the cost of a URM
Seismic Coordinator. The position will cost approximately $17,000 per year at 1000 hours of
service. The position will work closely with the Economic Development Manager and will be
under her supervision. The remaining grant funds will cover this position through June 30,
2006. Continuation of the position beyond this date will be considered in future budget
I -S
�f I
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 6
submittals. Although the Downtown Association advocates a full-time URM Seismic
Coordinator, staff believes that initially adequate service can be provided on a part-time basis.
The Coordinator will be limited to 1000 hours per year, but some weeks may require 40 hours
of effort, while other weeks may not require even part-time availability. Demand for service
from the URM Seismic Coordinator from all owners of URM buildings is not likely to occur at
the same time. The start-up effort during the first year (2004-05) is likely to be significant.
However, by the time the URM Seismic Coordinator position is filled, approximately only
75% of the fiscal period will remain for distribution of the 1000 hours. If need for the
Coordinator increases, staff will return to Council for consideration of additional funding for
the 2005-06 period.
2. Placards. As noted above under ordinance provisions, the local requirement to install a
placard warning potential occupants of the unreinforced masonry building hazard will be
supported by a City-provided placard. The placards will be distributed by the City to each
building owner, and then installed by the owner at a location acceptable to the Chief Building
Official. The cost of a durable, professional-looking sign is estimated to cost approximately
$100. The cost of placards for all buildings on the URM inventory list will be $12,000, unless
a change in State law will allow the existing strengthened buildings to be exempt from this
requirement. If so, then only$10,000 will be needed.
3. Temporary Tenant Space. The City will consider utilizing its property at 955 Morro Street,
when vacated by City staff, as an alternative,temporary location for displaced businesses for as
long as the City remains the owner of the property.
4. Assessment District. If a sufficient number of URM building owners come forth and request
formation of a voluntary assessment district, the City will assist them in doing so.
5. Enforcement Tools. When the changes to the URM Building Hazard Mitigation Program go
into effect, they will be enforced using tools and procedures currently used to enforce other
ordinances. The potential for the City to enforce the ordinance should also encourage building
owners to promptly comply with the revised strengthening timelines. Existing enforcement
tools that can be used if an owner fails to comply include vacating the building, fine,
imprisonment and court probation, as well as an injunction to cause abatement of the
hazardous conditions or demolition of the building.
Staff will also stress compliance with existing rules regarding construction work in the
downtown relating to time of day and day of week.
6. Reasonableness. Staff will continue to exercise flexibility within existing regulations to meet
property owners' needs. For example, procedures currently exist to allow the Community
Development Director to approve construction activities outside of the hours limited by
Municipal Code for unusual situations. Also, the ordinance will allow the Chief Building
Official to evaluate partially strengthened buildings and grant additional time for compliance if
specified criteria are satisfied.
' � l(J
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Plan page 7
Economic Impact.
Staff acknowledges that the process of seismic retrofitting could have a negative economic impact
to individual property owners and retailers. It is estimated that the cost of strengthening an
unreinforced building averages about $20 per square foot. In addition, while it is possible to
strengthen an occupied building, there could be potential disruption that some businesses might
find unacceptable. As a result they may choose to temporarily relocate or close, causing a loss of
rental and sales income. Finally, depending on the number of strengthening projects occurring at a
given time, shoppers may be discouraged from visiting downtown, also causing an economic loss
to businesses. One of the important responsibilities of the proposed Seismic Coordinator will be
to work with businesses and property owners to mitigate impacts such as these by assisting with
financing mechanisms, the timing of projects, construction resources and the potential relocation
of tenants.
On the other hand, it is clear that if an earthquake should occur before all URM buildings are
strengthened, the economic consequences to downtown would be even more devastating. As
retailers and property owners in Paso Robles have discovered, the cost of replacing or repairing a
damaged building can be significant, and federal emergency funding does not cover a major
portion of that cost. Additionally, undamaged buildings located next to damaged ones may also be
closed due to the potential collapse of a neighboring building, causing economic loss to property
owners and businesses in strengthened buildings. URM buildings in San Luis Obispo are
distributed throughout the downtown, so a seismic event could close much of the area, not just a
few blocks. And any significant damage would certainly deter tourists and others from visiting the
area, reducing both income to businesses and revenue to the City. Finally, the potential of injury
or death from a damaged URM is a loss to family and friends transcending any economic one, and
could also lead to the property owner or business being named in an expensive lawsuit. More
fundamentally, the City has a moral obligation to reduce this possibility as soon as possible.
CONCURRENCES
The Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task Force and the Downtown Association concur with the
recommended action. The Fire Chief concurs with retaining the existing 2017 compliance date for
the downtown fire sprinkler program in buildings already strengthened.
FISCAL IMPACT
In addition to a significant commitment of staff resources in the Administration and Community
Development departments, the following summarizes the direct cost of the recommended actions:
1. URM Coordinator. The cost of the URM Seismic Coordinator will be a total of$35,000 for
the remainder of the 2004-05 fiscal year and the 2005-06 fiscal year. This amount is available
in the existing URM grant program.
2. Placards. The placards will cost $12,000. Based on initial expenditure results for 2003-04,
adequate funding should be available from year-end carryover balances.
I - I
Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Plan Page 8
ALTERNATIVES
1. Make No Changes to the Current Program. We could hope that strengthening projects will
occur regularly as time marches toward 2017. However, experience to date indicates that
many building owners may be waiting until the very end of this time frame before taking
action. Since experts cannot predict exactly when the next earthquake will occur, the more
time that passes by without buildings strengthened only places more of the City's citizens and
visitors at risk due to poor performance of unstrengthened URM buildings when the next
earthquake does strike. The City's role in this issue is to promote public safety by requiring
building owners to mitigate this hazard sooner rather than later, and certainly while there are
buildings to save. An earthquake equal to the intensity of the San Simeon event near the City
of San Luis Obispo would likely leave unstrengthened buildings unsalvageable, and seriously
disrupt, or even destroy, the economic vitality of the downtown.
2. Accelerate Compliance. Staff and the Seismic Task Force believe that the recommended
schedule is the most aggressive one possible that will successfully mate available construction
resources with short term disruption to the business community.
3. Make Other Modifications. Council may want to make modifications to some or all of the
various features recommended for change. However, the recommendations reflect the results
of extensive work by the Seismic Task Force and the City's sub-committee.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance
2. Resolution
3. Legislative Draft
L:\URM Program Development\URM 2004\Council Agenda Report-2004.DOC
l
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. (2004 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING TITLE 15,CHAPTERS 15.04 AND 15.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR STRENGTHENING
UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo contains 100 buildings of unreinforced masonry
construction, determined to be "potentially hazardous" during a seismic event; that have not been
adequately strengthened, and
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 Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to
provide citizens with the greatest degree of life.safety involving buildings of unreinforced masonry
construction in the most effective manner.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 15.04.050 of Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby modified as follows.
A. Amend Section A105 to delete previously added Section A105.4 and retain
Section A105.4 as written in the Uniform Code for Building Conservation.
B. Amend Section A115.1 to read as follows:
A115.1 Compliance Requirements.
Al 15.1.1 Strengthening Deadlines. The owner of a building within the scope of
this chapter shall structurally alter the building to conform to Level B
Strengthening by July 1, 2010 or when one of the following occurs:
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
( - 9
Ordinance No. (2004 Series) ATTACHMN 9
Page 2 of 5
alterations and maintenance repairs need not include reroofing, Level A
Strengthening, and installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system.
EXCEPTION: Buildings containing more than one tenant space
if the floor area of altered tenant spaces, cumulative from March 4,
1992, does not exceed 50 percent of the total floor area of the
building.
2. The use of the building changes to a different division of the same
occupancy group or to a different occupancy group.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
3405 of the Building Code; buildings containing more than one
occupancy classification need not be strengthened if the total floor
area for changes in use, cumulative from March 4, 1992, does not
exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the building.
2. Occupancy classification changes to Groups F, M, S and U
from an equivalent category as defined in the previous editions of
this code.
3. An occupancy classification change to a Group F, 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.
3. If Level A strengthening work is completed by July 1, 2007,
completion of the remaining work to satisfy Level B strengthening
requirements may be delayed until July 1, 2012. If Level A work is not
completed by July 1, 2007, the City Council will set a Level B completion
deadline for each building on the basis of relative hazard,but not later than
July 1, 2010.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official, on a case-by-case basis,
may approve an alternate strengthening plan deemed equivalent to
Level A strengthening if:
1. A greater than 50 percent reduction in the unreinforced
masonry hazard for the building is accomplished by July 1,
2007; and,
2. A written agreement includes an acceptable work plan and
timeline; and,
3. The plan completes Level B strengthening by July 1, 2012.
1 - i0
ATTACHME 9
Ordinance No. (2004 Senes)
Page 3 of 5
A115.1.2 Permits. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall
submit a complete application for a building permit to the Building Official to
strengthen the building to Level B requirements by July 1, 2005. The building
permit shall be obtained by January 1, 2006, and shall remain valid until required
Level B strengthening work is completed per Section Al 15.1.1.
EXCEPTION: For seismic strengthening or demolition projects that
require approval of a planning application by a City process, the planning
application shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department by July 1, 2005. The application for building or demolition
permit shall be submitted following approval of the planning application,
and a building or demolition permit shall be obtained by January 1, 2006.
A115.1.3 Posting of Sign. The owner of a building within the scope of this
chapter shall post, at a conspicuous place near the primary entrances to the
building, a sign provided by the building official stating "This is an unreinforced
masonry building. Unreinforced masonry buildings may be unsafe in the event of
a major earthquake". The sign shall be posted within 60 days of receipt by the
building owner per installation standards established by the building official.
C. Amend Section Al 15.3.3 to read as follows:
A1153.3 Order. The order shall direct the owner to obtain a building or
demolition permit.as required by this chapter and cause the building to be
structurally altered to conform to the provisions of this chapter, or cause the
building to be demolished.
D. Amend Section Al 15.7 to read as follows:
A115.7 Program Monitoring and Annual Report. During January of each
year, the Building Official shall submit a report to the City Council outlining the
progress to date concerning reduction of the hazards presented by the
unreinforced masonry building inventory for the City. The report shall include:
1. The number of unreinforced masonry buildings strengthened, demolished, or
otherwise eliminated from the inventory;
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.
SECTION 2. Section 15.08.020 of Chapter 15.08 of Title 15 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby modified as follows:
A. Amend Section of 1003.2.2.1 to read as follows:
1003.2.2.1 Existing Buildings in Commercial Fire Zone. Existing buildings
located in the commercial fire zone shown in Figure 10-A that are provided with
ATTACHMENT 9
Ordinance No. (2004 Senes)
Page 4 of 5
an underground fire sprinkler lateral, shall have an automatic fire sprinkler system
installed and operational within 24 months of the approval and acceptance of the
lateral by the City.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. An automatic fire sprinkler system required by
Section 1003.2.2.1 in a building of unreinforced masonry construction
may be delayed until the date established in Section A115.1.1 of the
Uniform Code for Building Conservation, as amended, for completion of
Level B strengthening.
2. An automatic fire sprinkler system required by Section 1003.2.2.1 in a
building of unreinforced masonry construction strengthened to Level A
standards, as defined in Section A103 of the Uniform Code for Building
Conservation, as amended, prior to October 1, 2004, shall be completed
and operational by January 1, 2017.
�FIGURE 10-A—COMMERCIAL FIRE ZONE
Commercial Fire Zone
SECTION 3. If any provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would have
passed each and every remaining provision irrespective of such holding in order to accomplish the
intent of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. A synopsis of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the names of Council Member voting for and against, shall be published at least 5 days prior to its
t - I-=�'
Ordinance No. (2004 Senes)
MARK 1
Page 5 of 5
final passage in the The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance
shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 17th day of August, 2004 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 20041
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
David F. Romero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diane Reynolds, C.M.C.
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon . Lowell, City Attorney
LAURM Progam Development\URM 2004\URM Ord-2004.DOC
� - 13
1
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BY
ESTABLISHING PERMIT FEES TO STRENGTHEN
UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review service charges on
an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with this policy the Council adopted Resolution No. 9130 on
November 21, 2000 updating the City's master fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code authorizes the establishment
of various fees for delivery of municipal services; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has determined that the adoption
of the proposed development fee is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines as the
purpose of theses charges is to meet operating expenses.
WHEREAS, the Council considered amendments to the master fee schedule at a public
hearing on August 17, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that the City's master fee schedule is hereby amended to include application and permit
fees for unreinforced masonry building strengthening as shown in Exhibit A, effective October
18, 2004, and that Resolution No. 8089 (1992 Series) and Resolution No. 8663 (1997 Series) are
hereby repealed and superceded by this resolution.
Upon motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted on August 17, 2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Diane Reynolds, CMC, Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jona Lowell, City Attorney
1 - 14
ARACHMEW 2
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
Amend the BUILDING & SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE to add the following paragraph under
Plan Review Fees:
The plan review fee for a permit application that includes seismic strengthening of a
building of unreinforced masonry construction shall be $40.00.
Amend the BUILDING & SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE to add the following paragraph under
Permit Fees—General application:
The all inclusive combination permit fee for a construction permit that includes seismic
strengthening of a building of unreinforced masonry construction shall be $40.00.
Amend the PLANNING SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE to add the following category under
OTHER PLANNING SERVICES for Architectural Review:
Project with Seismic Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Building $40.00
Establish a Fee for Use of Parking Spaces as follows:
For construction projects with a valid building permit to strengthen an unreinforced
masonry building, the fee for use of each Metered Parking Space, up to three for a
maximum of six months, shall be $1.00.
LAURM Program Development\URM 2004\URM Fee Resolution-2004.DOC
1 r
l IS
Attachment 3
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Proposed Amendments to the
Uniform Code for Building Conservation and California Fire Code
Unreinforced Masonry Building Hazard Mitigation Program
Amend Section Al 15 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation to read as follows:
A115.1 Compliance Requirements.
,
%ith this ehapten If the building does net Gemply with seismie standards es4ablished in
the repeA.
with multiple reef levels, stFenoer�ng may be limited to the building area dir-eetly below the
4. A115.1.1 Strengthening_Deadlines. The owner of a building within the scope of this
chapter shall structurally alter the building to conform to Level B Strengthening by !July 1, 2010
or when one of the following occurs:
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 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.
8/6/2004Legislative Draft-2004 uRM Ordinance Changes RTTACHMEW 3
Page 2 of 4
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3405 of the
Building Code, buildings containing more than one occupancy classification need
not be strengthened if the total floor area for changes in use, cumulative from
March 4, 1992, does not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the building.
2. Occupancy classification changes to Groups F, M, S and U from an equivalent
category as defined in the previous editions of this code..
3. An occupancy classification change to a Group R, Division 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.
4.9 Reef eeye.-inn is r-eplaseA e erL,;A after janua,-y 1, 2002
Jafmafy 2007-.
i
3. If Level A strengthening work is completed by July 1, 2007, completion of the
remaining work to satisfy Level B strengthening requirements may be delayed until July
1.1, 2012. If Level A work is not completed by July 1, 2007, the City Council will set a
Level B completion deadline for each building on the basis of relative hazard, but not
later-tthan.July 1, 2010.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official, on a case-by-case basis, may_,approve an
I strengthening plan deemed equivalent to Level A if:`
I. A greater than 50 percent reduction in the unremforced masonry hazard for the
building is accomplished by July 1, 2007; and;
2._A written agreement includesan acceptable workplan End;timeline;,and;
39 plan completes Leyel B strengthening by July 1; 2012:
seepe of this ehapteF shall stfuetundly a4ter-the building to eeafeFm te Level B StFengthening e
eause the building to be demelished by jaffuaiFy 1, 291:7.
A115.1.2 Permits. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall submit a
complete application for a building permit to the Building Official to strengthen the building to
Level B requirements by July 1,2005. The building permit shall be obtained by January 1, 20061
and shall remain valid until required Leyel B_strengtheni>g work is completed per Section
A115.1.1.I _ _ e
f - 1 rl
8/6/2004Legislative Draft---2004 uRM Ordinance Changes ATTACHMEW 3
Page 3 of 4
EXCEPTION: For seismic strengthening or demolition projects that require approval of
A planning application by a City process, the planning application shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department by July 1, 2005, The building or demolition
permit application shall be submitted following approval of the planning application, and
a building or demolition permit shall be obtained by Januaryj, 2006
0115.1.3 Posting of Sign. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall postj
at a conspicuous place near the primary entrances to the building, a sign provided by the building
official stating "This is an unreinforced masonry building. Unreinforced masonry buildings may,
be unsafe in the event of a major earthquake". The sign shall be posted within 60 days of receipt
by the building owner per installation standards established by the building official.''
-------
Al 15.3.3 Order. The order shall direct the owner to obtain and submit to the building effi
a building or demolition permit as required by this chapter ander cause the
building to be structurally altered to conform to the provisions of this chapter, or cause the
building to be demolished.
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.
e*ter-if neeessai-jq
1. By the year-2002, appizexiffia4ely 0
3; ef all URN4 buildings will eeffirly with Level A2. By ffie year-2007, appr-eximately 0
3. -By the year-2012, appr-eximately 0
7; ef all URN!buildings will eemply with Le,
&Feagth
4. 133,-the-year 2017 all identified URN4 ,...,dins Sabjeet to �thiTva «v_�iarovirly
( ' 1�
8/6/2004Legislarive Draft-2004"uR.M Ordinance Changes
ATTACHMEW 3
Page 4 of 4
tetal ifivefiteFy A--f rA;;AqFMed I 4R—A.4 buildings as ef Januar-y 1, 1990 (126 buildings) er-as fnedified
a4 a later-due to additional findkn.&.
Amend Section of 1003.2.2.1 of the Fire Code to read as follows:
1003.2.2.1 Existing Buildings in Commercial Fire Zone. Existing buildings located in the
commercial fire zone shown in Figure 10-A that are provided with an underground fire sprinkler
lateral, shall have an automatic fire sprinkler system installed and operational within 24 months
of the approval and acceptance of the lateral by the City.
EXCEPTIONS: Buildings ef uFffeinferved maser&y eenstmetien shall11 _
. 1. An automatic
fire sprinkler system required by Section 1003.2.2.1 in a building of unreinforced
masonry construction may be delayed until .the date established in Section A115.1.1 of
the Uniform Code for Building Conservation,-as_amended, for completion of Level B
strengthening—
n automatic fire sprinkler system required by Section 1003 2.2.1 in a building of
u 2.Anreinforced masonry construction strengthened to Level A standards, as defined M' '
Section A103 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, as amended, prior to
October 1,2004, shall be completed and operational by, January 1, 2017 F-
FIGURE 10-A—COMMERCIAL FIRE ZONE
Commercial Fire Zone
LAURM Program Development\URM 2004\URM Ord-2004 Legislative Draft.DOC
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil-accelerating seimic retrofit time frames
From: "Fordens Sales" <sales@fordens.com> oft uncilttff18fK1
to"Council111111111111610rIDU
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
r
Date: 8/5/200410:14 AM -�
Subject: accelerating seimic retrofit time frames
CC: <khampian@slocity.org>
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Let us begin by saying that we understand you have a difficult job and appreciate your willingness to serve the people of San Luis
Obispo.
We are writing to state our vigorous opposition to accelerating the date of retrofitting. The effort to move the date up is unjustified and
will have a tremendous negative financial impact on downtown employees,property owners,tenants and consumers.
In December 1999 we purchased a piece of downtown real estate at 857 Monterey Street known as Forden's. We did so after
consulting with City Staff and learning we had until 2017 to complete the required retrofit. The only exception to the 2017 date would be
i.e.a remodel or new roof,which would trigger an earlier date.
Our business plan and pure economics indicated that those time frames would allow us to plan,prepare,save and pay down our
existing loan. Thus we would be ready for full retrofit near the end of the allocated time.
The question is what has changed other than the political climate? Earthquakes have always been around. The original goal was to
not overly impact business and to spread the retrofit activity over time. It appears that this was working with 1/3 completed in 1/3 the
time established.
Your governing body set the dates and individuals should be able to trust in those dates and the information provided.
Sincerely,
C. Dean Moore
Gary E. Smee
Kevin Moore
Andrew R.Cone n
Owners/Corporate Officers
Forden's and Petra Enterprises l.li
T PA.S6J
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW 100001.HTM 8/6/2004
,U1/UZ/U4 PKI 1Z:Z1 K" SUb S44 4Z4! UUKLISS CAMPBELL t¢f001
k«
BY RIRD SCHMIDT
Remember this next time you go to downtown SLOtown.
The folks who want you to come leave your money behind seem
unconcerned you might also leave your life behind. In fact, they'vo done much
to assure you'll continue to play Russian roulette with your life evert time you go
downtown.
I'm talking about earthquake safety, the fact that most of downtawrn's
buildings are of unreinforced masonry construction known to be hazardous in a
quake. I'm talking about the combined efforts of the downtown and city hall
establishments to avoid doing much to make those buildings safe".
Last year, after the city's building.official made an effort,to comply with state
law that requires cities to adopt ordinances ano timetables for retrofitting unsafe
buildings, the business community rose up in opposition, and the city council —
which is charged bylaw with protecting public safety — obligingly postponed
doing anything to make downtown safer.
These.same'parties have been lobbying in Sacramento, where their support
for a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Robert Frazee (R, Carlsbad) has helped
its passage. The bill legitimates the city's inaction in making downtown's
dangerous buildings safer.
Last spring, an annual Chamber of Commerce expedition to Sc-cramento met
with officials to explore the city's obtaining relief from state seismil; law. Mayor
�. Ron Dunin and council members Penny Rappa and Jerry Reiss were part of the
Chamber contingent.
The.Downtown Business Improvement Association; a tax-suppi)rted
subsidiary of the city, lobbied.for.the Frazee bill by sending a letter urging its
support by Assembly Member Andrea Seastrand.
When contacted for this article, spokespersons for both organizations
downplayed the notion they-had lobbied against seismic safety, bat their actions
were viewed that way in Sacramento.
Those in the know in Sacramento regard this campaign self-de'eating, not to
mention short-sighted. One person unafraid to say so is Fred Turner, staff
structural engineer for the California-Seismic Safety Commission, with whom
the Chamber contingent met.
"I thought-it rather ftnic,"-says Turner, "that here's a business improvement
association supporting a bill of this sort, because basically it lowers the safety of
the occupants, purportedly reduces costs to them, but at some expense to the
public in terms-ot safety."
The city has sought two types-of loopholes for the financial ben:tit of
downtown building owners. One is a lower safety standard for retiofitting. The
other is to change.the seismic.risk zone national experts-have applied to San
Luis Obispo, which the city believes would also reduce the amount of retrofitting
required_.(See sidebar)
The problem with a lower safety standard for retrofitting, explains Turner, is
there's-no recognized standard lower-than the one the city has re..;isted
implementing. This,standard, embodied in the Uniform Code for 11uilding
Conservation (UCBC), is much weaker-than standards for new construction.
Turner says the UCBC is the "bare bones bottom" of the range of safety
standards.-The UCBC standard for seismic-retrofits "might significantly reduce
hazards, but would not necessarily assure the building would be repairable
U1/UZ/U4 PKI 12:22 NAA 5U0 b44 4Z41 UUKLIJJ UAAWHELL IAL UUZ
[after a quake], and life safety is not assured. Su [under the UCBCJ life loss
would still be tolerable even in a strengthened unreinforced masonry building."
The city's lobbying,has been for a standard even weaker than this - for a
standard callously indifferent to loss of life and to total loss of historic buildings.
Turner says this sort of political outcome, which is not unique to San Luis
Obispo, results from the public's interest in seismic safety being unrepresented
in proceedings before the city council. "The occupants of the building or the
passers by — the pedestrians and so forth — that are primarily coni ranted with
the risk" aren't heard from. .(Risks besides those to building occupants include
brick walls and parapets falling.on pedestrians and vehicles.)
Building owners, who must pay the costs of making their commercial
properties safe, usually dominate the discussion, as they did in San Luis
Obispo. "In a nutshell," says Turner, "the owners have an upper hand. They're
well organized,,they have a definite economic future at stake, and therefore
they're the ones who are going to pursue this, rot the occupants c*f those
buildings.
"A lot of people don't know that that's how things get done," acics Turner. The
Seismic Safety Commission is "often the lone wolf out there cryinil in vain on
behalf of the building occupants and others because there is no organized
lobbying effort by just regular people who use buildings."
The actions to thwart seismic safety in downtown San Luis Obi;;po are a
shame, says Turner_"We've got hundreds of examples of cities in California that
have had damaging earthquakes," he says. "Still, there're many others like San
Luis Obispo that haven't had one yet. It's just,a matter of time.
"I'd just hate to see it go" he adds. "We love these old cities. Wo'd like to see
them preserved. Frankly; earthquakes can be a manageable disaa:;`er if we don'
let it happen before we do something about it.
"What struck me the last time I was down in S.L.O. was your reallfy nice ice
cream parlor," he said, referring to SLO Maid Ice Cream Factory c n Higuera.
'There's a two-story unreinforced masonry building right next to it. That's the
kind of building that the top wall will peel off,.go right through the roof, right into
[the ice cream shop], so you just-- next time you're in there,`just think about
that." He said that's what happened to numerous stores in Santa Oruz during
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. "Not necessarily the building ylau're in, the
building next door you got to worry about."
1 took a quick look around downtown, and found SLO Maid is far from alone.
Numerous stores and popular hangouts are in single story buildir:gs threatened
by unreinforced taller buildings' brick walls falling through their roof in a quake,
including Grahams Art Store, Chocolate Soup, Bello`s Sporting Goods,
Decades 11, Penelope's, Bookland, the Network Mall, Mission Malin Gold
Concept, San Luis Feed, Big Music, Riley's housewares departm(:nt, the
Chocolate Factory, and Lfnnaea's Cafe.
So long as people who frequent these buildings don' protest the danger and
business operators pull up with landlords' maintaining unsafe premises, present
seismic.life-safety.dangers will persist in downtown San..L�s Obi:;po. So long
as we have the current leadership at city hall, building owners, as Turner put it,
will have the upper hand,-and human safety-will-take secxo-Id seat to the city's
promoting profitable commercial property ownership.
(.don't-thinkthat's right. Do.you? .
.U1/UZ/U4 MKI 1Z:Z3 PAd 6UO ,44 4241 GUKLIJJ LA,NrriCLL WJ UU3
[schmi sidebar seismic story]
One of the more brazen things the City of San Luis Obispo has done to avoid .
seismic.retrofits downtown.is to lobbyfor reducing the city's designated,
earthquake risk zone.
The-zones are contained in•the Uniform Building Code.(UPC), it master code
used throughout much of the United States and also in other cour;tries. San
Luis Obispo..is in.Seismic.Zone 4,the highest risk a{ea. For the seismic
retrofitting of old brick buildings, the city is lobbying to be placed in Zone 3, a
designation of slightly-less risk.
This tactic was put forth at the Dec. 3, 1991, city council meetincl by mayoral
candidate Penny:Rappa, who suggested the.-city updertake a lobbying
campaign in Sacramento towards that end.
Exactly how the zone change would be-accamplished�is unclear, even to
those in Sacramento who are being lobbied. Since the UBC seisriic zones are
based on.science,-not politico-there seams little likelihood the nal i anal•
organization which publishes the UBC would take the city's request: seriously.
Ve_think the.mainstream anginsering,and code.cnmmlrnity doesn't agree
with them on the validity of lowering the seismic zone for existing ouildings,"
says_Fred.Tumer.of the California Seismic.Safety-Comgiission. "There's too
much uncertainty"
Tumersays the city.bases its.lobbying.on-studies purpar ing to :;how the city
in an island of lower seismicity than surrounding areas, but these studies also
show probable earthquake forces that.mandate-placement.in Zoo.., 4.
If the city were successful, Turner adds, the results would make no sense. Old
buildings being-retrofit.would conform.to Zane a standard, but new buildings
would still be in Zone 4. That would discriminate against new buildings.
The city says acnnsuttant's reportbacks-up their.request for a;:ene change.
But Turner questions both the validity of the report's conclusions 2.nd the use to
whicn.the city-is putting those conclusions. "For comparing and contrasting," he
says, "I know the same consultant prepared a similar report for Santa Barbara,
and-the.building official [there] read through-iL pooh-poohed-it, and said seismic
hazards are one and the same [whether you're in a new building or an old one].
The ground is going-to shake-just the same." In-Santa Barbara, TL.rner sFys,
"they did not accept that."
It's ironic Rappa should be the one to advance a form of seismic revisionism
reminiscent of the way Pacific Gas & Electric Co. reacted,after the discovery in
the early 197Us of the offshore Hosgri Fault several-years into construction of its
Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. Instead of halting construction long enough to
make sure the plant was-designed to-withstand th8-estimated maximum quake
from,the..fauft,-PG&E continued_construction at-full-speed-and spent more than a
year lobbying the U.S. Geological Survey to reduce its estimete o?'the maximum
quake's intensity. The USGS refused. Instead of enabling adequE.te seismic
measures to be designed into the plant, the delay in dealing with ;aismic issues
caused-PG&E to have to undertake-a-multibillion-dollar-retrofit. The irony is that
Rappa's husband is a PG&E Diablo honcho..
101/02/04 FRI 12:23 FAX 805 544 4247 CORLISS CAMPBELL 19004
�4"tW CAS
[billy creates some additional loopholes in the seismic standards of the state ... Lz�e 5
I thought it was rather ironic that here's a business improvement association
supporting a bill of this sort, because basically it lowers the safety Df the
occupants, purportedly reduces costs to them, but at some expense to the
public in terms of public safety.
[BIA listed among support groups for the new law.]
[bill allows city to lower retrofit standards for historic buildings and low income
housing below those already identified by the state as the minimum acceptable
retrofit standards.] [already lower than for new buildings.]
[can eliminate having to comply with certain parts of the state model code. left
up to local government to decide which parts.]
[slo attempting to reduce the seismic risk zone designation; woulc discriminate
— against new buildings since they would still be designed to meet the higher
seismic risk.]
We think that the mainstream engineering.and code community d:)esn't agree
with them on the validity of lowering the seismic zone for existing buidings.
There's too much uncertainty. They very well may be in an island :)f lower
seismicity and in fact some maps show them to be in an island, btt not low
enough for most maps to warrant lowering the zone. There ale actually some of
the studies that they've even based their decision upon show that the
accelleration level is is about one hundredth of one per cent over the
threshold... between zone 3 and zone 4.
[object is to reduce costs to buidling owners]
What traditionally happens in these kinds of discussions is an absence of voice
of the occupants of the building of the passers by that —the pedestrians and so
forth —that are primarily confronted with the risk.. They're often t" silent majority
out there.
[bill supported by] a handful of other jurisdictions.
The issue really is that probably a lot of people don't know that that's how things
get done. And actually we're often the lone wolf out there crying in vain on
behalf of many of the building occupants and others basically becaise there is
no organized lobbying effort by just regular people who use buildings. There is,
however, for building owners in many respects.
[UBC seismic zones— state follows] That's a minimum standard, and there's no
way they can justify going tower than that. This has been one of o.ir concerns
we've expressed to the building official. The unfortunate part, as vm understand
it, the building official hired somebody that made a recommendatian to lower
the zone. The building official agreed and recommended it to the i�.:ty council. A
U1/UZ/U4 PKI 1.2:24 MAA 5U0 044 4241 UUKLISJ U.AMr1%1.L l¢J UUO
And we found out about.it-and said it was reall;f not a very prudent: measure,
and 1 think there's some reluctance to go back and revisit'the whore matter
before the city.council. r
For comparing and constasting, I know the sarne consultant prepe:red a similar
report for Santa Barbara, as I understand it, and the building official read
through it, poopoohed it, and said... seismic hazards are one and 1lhe same ... it
doesn't depend on what kind of building you're.in,the.ground is g3ing to shake:
And they did not accept that.
[critical of consultants who].give building owners the information they want to
hear rather than what they probably should be hearing, and that is, the fact of
the matteris unreinforced masonry buildings don't perform all that well in
earthquakes, and considerable abounts need to be done, in terms of cost, .... to
significantly reduce those hazards to an-acceptable level.
John is the type of buy who will come in.and say well,.thafs far too;, high ($20
per square foot) as an estimate, we can do it for$5 a square foot. And we'll do
less.His philosophy is-the best seismic.retrofit.is one.that doesn't :.ost anything
at all. OX Many owners would like to hear that, but the fact of the matter is we
know that these buildings can kill people in strong-groundshakinp, and cities
have the responsibility to insure some semblance of public safety.
[law will allow SLO to do] substantially less than a recognized standard [for
protecting.public safety].What-it basically says is that the state no longer feels
it's necessary to be the policeman in this area and set a minimum, but it
recognizes that local governments can vary and accept their own level of risk.
That's fine. I would agree that in an ideal society that would work cheat. But
we're not in an ideal society.What we're in is one that certain seclors of society
have more influence on the political process than others. I would :gree that
would be fine if we-had an-equal voice,-and-paricipation and activeness of
citizens that use buildings and live in the buildings and work in thlase buidlings,
but unfortunately we don't. They often aren't the ones out at the ci':y council
meetings_complaining about.these.things_or supporting more safe-:y. It's rare
that I've been to a city council meeting where you've actually had ,anybody
stand up and.say,.well,yeah. leis fix these old buildings it's quite a breath of
fresh air when you hear that.. The fact of the matter is it costs an av;r;ul lot, and
many building owners are looking for ways to delay it if not.avoid-it altogether, if
not-reduce the level of strengthening to somehow reduce the impact on their
business.
[Fred Schott expressed his concern about city's actions on ordinance]
"our concern about fiddling with the seismic zone"
There areother ways to be more up,front about.it. One of the ways is to say well
let's just lower the performance objective, let's assume that we hatfe the same
earthquake risk that we design new buildings for in San Luis Obi;:po. What ,
u1iuciu4 rmi ic:c4 rr oma a44 4c4r UUn�,aa k"nmrunLE tLhjuuo
performance objectives do we want to establish for strengthened i.inreinforced
- masonry buildings.
[levels of protection] There is a series of performance objectives that really
constitute a range.The bare bones bottom of it is the Uniform Coosa for Building
Conservation. Below that there's basically no performance, and passible loss of
life, the building would be.irreparable. [ucbc] We call it aperformance objective
that could be summed up as one that might significantlythe hazards; but would
not necessarily assure that-the-building would be.repairab e`f andlls-safeljLss
not assurred. So life loss would still be tolerable even in a strengti,enedSSGGt
3' unreinforced masonry building.
v
[cosmetic changes to historic buildings without doing structural upgrades]
They're creating attractive nuisances. They're used more, and as;a result
they've become more of a hazard because they're more popular, which is fine
for short-term economics, but in the long run its not a very wise investment.
There are ways of managing-the risk where overtime, perhaps in -rhe next
decade,that we begin to face and manage the risk that we're pre:anted with.
Ws the city's decision. But we do think some decisions are made with not as
much public scrutiny asthere-possibly-could be, so we're always looking for
ways to inform the public...
In a nutshell, the owners have an upper.hand. They're.well organized,they
have a definite economic future at stake, and therefore they're the ones who are
going to pursue this, not.the.occupards,of those buildings..
What struck me the_tasttime l_was..down in SLO wasyourreally ni-.e ice cream
parlor.... There's a two-story URM right next to it. That's the kind of building that
the top-wall will peel off, go-right through the rocf; right into ft, so you just — next
time you're in there,just think about that. That place is pretty popular. That's
exactly the kind of place we saw in Santa Cruz: Not necessarily 0a building
you're in, the building next door you got to worry about.
(gum alley) You wonder if that's a retrofit technique... What are they trying to do
Il here, hold the wall up... You have to wonder what's behind that bubble gum.
I'd just hate to see it-go. We love these old-cities. We'd like to see,,:hem .
preserved. Frankly, earthquakes can be a manageable.disaster if we don't let it
happen before we do something about.ft.
You can deny it, which is a common thing to da. but it's going toaitch up with us
eventually.
I'm just trying to tell people what happens. We've got hundreds of examples of
cities in-California-that have had damaging earthquakes. You'd bi! surprised
how many cities have had damaging earthquakes. ft's a long list.. Still, there're
many others like San Luis Obispo-that haven't had it yet... Its just a, matter of
time.
U1/UZ/04 NKL 1Z:ZS NAIL KUB 344 4Z41 UUKLL55 UAMr1ihLL Q UU!
And I'd hate to see it that.way. I think there are ways ince can save-these
buildings, because they-form much of th&character of dewotown,.particularly in
San Luis Obispo.
- Page 1 of 1
i
SLO Citycouncil - Retrofit RFL�FII F
MET NG AGENDA
From: "Kathym6@pacbell.net" <kathym6 @ pacbell.net> DATE; ITEM #f,�
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 8/15/2004 10:51 AM
Subject: Retrofit
Dear City Council Members:
I am a business owner in the city. As such the retrofit issue on your Aug 17 agenda greatly affects my business as
well as all the others in downtown. We have never had any contact from the city as to how these proposals would
effect us. In fact I was assured that such contact would take place. It has not. I feel that it is critically important
that the city have direct contact with the business owners to hear their concerns, answer their questions and
consider their input prior to voting on an issue of this magintude.
I hereby request that you table the retrofit vote until such time as the business owners con be involved.
As for my two cents worth, I am fearful that this expidited program will be used as a tool to void leases, and aid
developers in demolishing buildings rather than retrofiting so they can increase rentable square-footage. In the
process current tennants will be lost and the face of the town (the unique small businesses) will lost.
Thank you
Michael Helper
P.S. I also ask that Mr. John Ewan consider recusing himself from the vote since his direct business competitor
Forden's would suffer a significant adverse financial impact if you vote in favor of the new program.
COUNCIL CDD DIR
" CAO FIN DIR
ACRO FIRE CHIEF
iI ATT 0RNEY PW DIR
CLERK�ORIG POLICE CHF
D °T JE-ADS REC DIR
ICY UTILDIR
HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser�L,ocal%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 8/16/2004
- . Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil -Proposed changes to Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Program, PH1,
8-17-04 RED FILE
MEETING G A
From: 'Rudolph Silva" <rudolphsilva@sbcglobal.net> DITEM #
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 8/14/2004 4:59 PM
Subject: Proposed changes to Unreinforced Masonry Hazard Mitigation Program, PHI, 8-17-04
CC: "Mark Silva" <markarens@msn.com>
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed changes to the Unreinforced Masonry Hazard
Mitigation Program (Item No. PHI, 8-17-04). While we understand the challenge facing the City with
respect to this problem, the acceleration of the program as recommended by the CBO and the Chamber
of Commerce Seismic Task Force will substantially increase the burden on us and other building owners
in the downtown area. In fact, we believe that this action will have the effect of forcing "fire sales" of
properties, which we do not believe is the intent of the Council.
We particularly take exception to the estimate of economic impact as stated in the report prepared by
Tom Baasch. The average value of$20 per square foot does not reflect the reality of unforeseen
conditions, difficult working conditions and the potential for extensive hidden damage in buildings of
this vintage. Furthermore, while it may be possible to effect a Level A retrofit with tenants in the
building, this is very unlikely in the case of Level B work, and therefore the economic loss to the
building owner is likely to include substantial lost income. Does the City truly envision that the property
owners in the downtown will be able to sustain this loss without substantial assistance?
Finally, we are unconvinced that the San Simeon earthquake has changed the seismic risk for the City in
any meaningful way, and we do not believe that advancing the retrofit deadlines by five years will
appreciably reduce the risk level when considered against the historically long time periods associated
with earthquakes. It will, however, have a dramatic impact on our financial health and, we believe, that
of the many other building owners in the downtown.
We have been in this town for a long time. We have watched it grow from a sleepy way station for
travelers to a major metropolitan center. Along the way, we have been impressed by the efforts that the
City has made to maintain the unique character of the downtown area, and we feel that this has
contributed to the continuing financial health of this region. We feel that the manner in which the retrofit
program is being implemented, with shifting deadlines and threats of property removal and even jail
time (!) is inconsistent with the long term goal of ensuring the economic survival of the downtown.
We therefore respectfully request that the retrofit ordinance remain unchanged.
Sincerely,
Rudolph A. Silva COUNCIL CDD DIR,
Emma E. Silva - CAO FIN DIR
ACRO FIRE CHIEF
Owners/720 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ATTORNEY RW DIR
CLERK/ORIG OUCE CHF
REC DIR
UTIL DIR
� I-In r�IF�
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettingslslouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW IOOOO1.HTM 8/16/2004