HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Item 14 02/18/1992 • FEB 181992 14 "
AGENDA ITEM #
`./
KEY WORD: Unreinforced
Masonry Building Ordinance
• DATE February 18, 1992
1 DEPARTMENT:
•
2.
3 City Manager
4
5
6 REQUEST COUNCIL ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
7
8 A. Present Certificates of Merit to Unreinforced Masonry Building Advisory Committee
9 members and participating staff.
10
11 B. Introduce ordinance adopting seismic strengthening'requirements for unreinforced masonry
12 buildings.
13
14 C. Resolution re: implementation timing for specific unreinforced masonry buildings.
15
16 D. Resolution directing staff and encouraging Petaluma MainStreet, Inc. to seek legislative
17 clarification that:the building-standards in Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for
18 Building Conservation of the ICBO as published in the California Building Standards Code
19 r •" "sha',>no± apnlvj.to a city that has adopted a mandatory local program for seismic
strengthen ng_of a ii arced masonry bearing wall buildings on or before June 30, 1993.
_.,„,--1:4-:12(): 21 -
22 E. Resolution requesting PCDQconsideration re: budgetingresources for an unreinforced
23 masonry building seismic strengthening program including:
24
25 1. Direct per'square foot-allowance of$2.00 for design and implementation of seismic
26 strengthening.
27
28 2. Waiver of plan check and permit fees for seismic strengthening with commitment
29 by the PCDC to reimburse City.
30
31 3. Application.of low and moderate income housing set-aside funds to provide'for
32 upgrading of existing units and/or encourage development of new very low, low
33 and moderate income dwelling units in unreinforced masonry buildings.
34
35 BACKGROUND:
36
37 A. Committee merit awards: The Committee has worked for approximately 2 years and has
38 achieved its mission by bringing to the City Council a recommended ordinance for
39 strengthening unreinforced'masonry buildings. The Committee members should be
40 recognized for their diligent work by the presentation of merit awards. Additionally, Joe
41 Kagan, Chief Building Official, and Robert LaRose, Building Inspector, have provided
42 staff support throughout the entire process and likewise deserve special recognition. Of
43 particular note is the contribution to the Committee's work by Herold Mahoney and Victor
44 DeCarli;who.are not committee members but who attended diligently and who contributed
45 to the positive outcome of the committee. Staff is likewise recommending Certificates of
46 Merit for their contributions.
47
48 B. Ordinance adopting standards for upgrading unreinforced masonry buildings: The
49 ordinance being presented this evening is by and large identical to the ordinance which was
50 discussed at City Council in October, 1991. The major difference is that, as presented, the
51 ordinance now allows a five-year "window of opportunity" for owners of unreinforced
52 masonry buildings to voluntarily comply with the standards in the ordinance and thus
53 remove their buildings from the City's and State's listing of unreinforced masonry
1
•
1` ' buildings. This five year window of opportunity essentially lengthens the time frame for
/2 Implementation of the entire program from the previously recommended 20 years'to 25
3 years. This option was discussed at length with the Unreinforced.Masonry Committee at
4 its'last meeting. Although only 8 members, 1 shy.ofaquorum, were in attendance, there
,5 was general interest in pursuing this modification to the ordinance. This lengthened
'6 program ti'me.seemed.to provide a higher level of comfort to the building owner whose
'7 building was in the first implementation phase by providing several additional years to
8 arrange for financing and implementation of the improvements. One other change is being
'9 presented in the ordinance. It is minor but noteworthy in that compliance with standards in
10 the ordinance would be grounds for a written statement of removal from the City's
11 unreinforced masonry building list and, therefore, from the State's listing of unreinforced
12 masonry buildings.
13
14 Of note with respect to the last committee meeting is that of the 8 members present, 5
15 committee members in attendance and 2 guests were all either building owners or speaking
16 on behalf of an association which owns an unreinforced masonry building. It was the
17 consensus of the those in attendance that, coupled with a legislative effort by the City as
18 will be described in point "D" below, and a modest_subsidy program through the
19 redevelopment agency, the ordinance as presented tonight should be introduced.
20
21 C. Resolution establishing•implementation and time frame for upgrading specific unreinforced
22 masonry buildings: This resolution remains unchanged from the one presented in October,
23 1991 save for reflection of the five additional years which is being added as the "window
24 of opportunity".
25
26 D. Legislative effort: Here the staff is asking City Council to concur with a legislative effort
27 which has already been set in motion through initial contacts with Scott Keene's office in
28 Sacramento. Mr. Keene is the legislative counsel for the City of Petaluma. To date we
29 have organized a meeting of communities that are involved in the Main Street program to
30 explore common-interests in a legislative clarification of the effective date of the State's
31 unreinforced masonry building rules with.regard to cities which have adopted mandatory
32 local programs. If successful, this effort would eliminate the possible overlap of State
33 enforcement of additional strengthening requirement.
34
35 E. Recommendation,to PCDC regarding subsidy program: The attached resolution
36 recommends that the PCDC consider establishing a unreinforced masonry building subsidy
37 program which will provide up to $2.00 per square foot for design and implementation of
38 seismic safety strengthening measures for all unreinforced masonry buildings. The support
39 would come from each of the two redevelopment agencies on a proportional basis based on
40 the size and location of the buildings. This measure would, over the course of the
41 program, require approximately $1,400,000,. $360,000 of which is already earmarked for
42 the program. Secondly, the resolution recommends that the cost for building permits and
43 plan check fees for the strengthening process be waived by the City but be assumed by the
44 redevelopment agency's two districts on a proportional basis and that these costs be
45 reimbursed to the City's General Fund by the redevelopment agency. It is estimated that in
46 1991 dollars, this portion of the subsidy program represents along-term commitment of
47 approximately $75,000. In an effort to achieve the goal of strengthening unreinforced
48 masonry buildings and providing additional low and moderate income residential dwelling
49 units within the city, it is recommended that the City Council recommend that the PCDC
50 commence a long-term investment program of low and moderate income housing funds on
51 a proportional basis from each of the two redevelopment districts to provide up to $10,000
52 per dwelling unit subsidy for rehabilitiation or creation of new very low, low and moderate
53 income dwelling units when seismic strengthening is undertaken.
54
55 ALTERNATIVES:
56
57 Innumerable alternatives to the recommendations are available involving changing the time period
58 for implementation of seismic strengthening, changing the formula for determining the order of
59 participation on an individual basis, alternatives for subsidy financing, etc. and certainly, the City
2
could:choose not to move forward on a lobbying effort with respect to implementation of State
2 codes.
` 3
4
5 CONSEQUENCES'OF NOT ACTING:
6 •
I7 It is not mandatory that the,City move ahead with this program. We hope, however, that`by doing
8 so the collective wisdom of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Committee will result in a smooth
9 implementation of the seismic strengthening as best fits Petaluiha's'needs.
10
11
12 ACTION FOLLOWING AUTHORIZATION:
13
14 If the ordinance is introduced, it will be resubmitted on March 2, 1992 for adoption. If the
15 resolution directing staff to pursue legislative action is passed, City staff will continue its efforts in
16. Sacramento. If the resolution making recommendations to PCDC is passed, staff will include
17 them as part of a 1992-93 budget package which should come to the PCDC within the next 90
18 days.
•
•
3
1
• 2 ORD. 1873 NCS
3 ADDING SECTION 17.33 TO THE PETALUMA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
4 SEISMIC STRENGTHENING OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
s Jim Schultz, Chairman of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Committee, spoke on
6 behalf of the committee. The Unreinforced Masonry Building Law was signed by
7 Governor Deukmejian in June of 1986. The intent of the law is to reduce the hazards
8 posed by California's estimated 50,000 existing unreinforced masonry buildings in
9 seismically active regions by way of locally adopted hazard mitigation programs. The
to law required local governments to inventory unreinforced masonry buildings and establish
11 earthquake hazard mitigation programs for those buildings by January 1, 1990. The
12 buildings included in these inventories defined by the unreinforced masonry law as
13 potentially hazardous are those constructed prior to the adoption of local building codes
14 (legislature has passed a minimum statewide standard which will become part of the
is building code in January 1993 and become effective July 1, 1993). Of the 98
16 unreinforced masonry buildings in Petaluma they affect the future of more than 400
17 businesses, more than 1,000 employees, taxable sales in excess of 81 million dollars
•
18 representing more than 20% of the total retail economy, the home of numerous events
19 which attract more than 100,000 people annually, more than 60 properties on or
20 qualifying for the national register of Historic Places and the focus of advertising and
21 media coverage appearing in publications throughout the United States.
22
23
24 Because of these reasons and others the committee recognizes that historic unreinforced
25 masonry in Petaluma contribute both calculable and incalculable economic and social
26 benefits to the community as a whole.
•
1 There are seven structural characteristics typical to unreinforced masonry which can
2 contribute to seismic related.failures. Those characteristics°are:
3 ,
4 1. Parapets Stability
5 2. Wall anchorage
6 3. Shear resistance
7 4. Wall buckling
8 5. Open walls
9 6. Shear walls
to 7. Diaphragm stiffness
11
12 Not all unreinforced masonry buildings are structurally inadequate in all of the
13 characteristic categories.
14
15 The committee confirmed that a mandatory retrofit of all 7 characteristics would be
16 prohibitively expensive for Petaluma. The committee concluded that it is the ability of
17 the community (the public and private sectors) within the limits of the,local economy to
is finance any improvements that must be considered as a key element in the recommended
19 mitigation program and in its implementation.
20
21 After months of research the committee in the interest of reducing,life safety risks and
22 reducing real property and economic loss in the event of an earthquake, agreed that some
23 level of improvement must be made to a number of inadequate structures. The committee
24 is recommending that only three of the seven structural characteristics identified as typical
25 to unreinforced masonry be improved based on costs and benefits in terms of life, safety
26 and property protection." Those characteristics are:
27
28 1. Parapets stability
29 2. Tension anchors
30 3. Repointing.
31
32 The committee classified the buildings into four risk groups.
33 1. Occupancy factors
34 2. Current use
35 3. Proximity of the buildings to concentrations of pedestrians
36 4. Physical height
37
38 The Ordinance specifies that all of the required retrofit work for the buildings,in Group
39 One be completed within five years. The parapets, item one in the list of the three
40 standards must be retrofitted, if necessary within seven years. the remainder of work for
41 Groups Two, Three, and Four, to be completed within 10„15., and 20 years. Because of
42 their occupancy size and location, the .buildings in Group One are considered by the
43 committee to pose the greatest threat of damage in the event of a structural failure.
•
. 1
1 The staff has received contractor opinions based on locally completed projects for the
2 retrofitted work alone ranging from $5 to $10 a square foot. As a, group-the property
3 owners do not agree about the necessity for this program nor can the property owners
4 afford the cost repairs for these requirements.
5
6 It is the committee's recommendation that the Council persue the adoption of a local
7 program as the best protection against the expense of more comprehensive state
8 requirements.
9
to Olive Ramirez owner of the Opera House states that she has all of her savings invested in
11 the purchase of this property. A structural engineer went through the property during the
12 process of purchasing it and he estimated it would cost $400,000 to meet the seismic
13 standards.
14
15 Her tenants have leases and therefore, cannot afford to displace them in order to do the
16 work on the building. An electrical engineer and contractor told her if nothing goes
17 wrong it would take approximately eight (8) weeks to complete the work and that is too
is long a period of time for her.
19 •
20 Tom Baker, 64 Century Lane. Co-owner of 125 Petaluma Boulevard North, 145
21 Petaluma Boulevard North, 155 Petaluma Boulevard North and the son and nephew and
22 manager of the owners of 134 Petaluma Boulevard North. Recipient of two awards from
23 Heritage Homes for remodelling old buildings.
24 Mr. Baker has been the owner/developer/builder of over a dozen single family residences
25 and half a dozen commercial buildings. He has served on various city committee's
26 including the last General Plan Committee at which time preserving Petaluma's heritage
27 and major characteristic, were of the utmost importance. He also is a member of the
28 Unreinforced Masonry Committee, but does not totally concur with the committee's
29 findings.
30
31 Throughout the many meetings with the committee no evidence was ever presented that
32 the brick/masonry buildings located on Petaluma soil are a life threatening issue. History
33 has proven the brick building to perform well. In the eleven major quakes to hit
34 California since 1857, less than 200 deaths are attributable to the failure of brick or
35 unreinforced masonry buildings. Petaluma has ninety-eight fully occupied buildings that
36 the proposed Ordinance demands to be fixed when they are not broken. The spiral
37 economic affect could be a greater disaster than the biggest earthquake. Who is going to
38 absorb the cost? Can the tenants absorb this? Will the banks finance this? Will it be
39 economically feasible to fix, or demolish and start over. The committee worked long and
ao hard to come up with the proposed Ordinance, but it is to serve the State Seismic Safety
41 Commission not the citizens of Petaluma.
•
•
•
1 If there has to be an Ordinance let it be voluntary not mandatory.
s This would allow the property owners to dhoose which way to ,go. When a. building
3 'becomes vacant and starts to loose its' economic value, that is the time to come in and
4 remodel and bring it up to the safety standards.
•
5
6 Jim Schultz advised that as it stands now the state standards do not apply unless you
7 actually do work to a building in 1993. The trigger the state keeps trying to use is if
8 there is a sale or transfer of property that is when the building has to be brought up to
9 state standards.
10
11 Michael Davis would like a letter to go to the League of California City's regarding the
12 114C sales tax that is now being used in conjunction with the 1989 Loma Prieta
13 earthquake and to possibly have that extended and appropriated for these kind of repairs.
14
•
15 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky advised Council to implement the best mitigation program
16 you can based on all factors. The three big issues being timing, funding and what
17 standards Petaluma will use.
18
19 Councilman Sobel believes Petaluma is facing a potential for utter destruction of the
20 downtown on the basis that we cannot afford to fix it. I feel the state needs to be a
21 partner in this. If state laws are going to be passed that are so onerous then the state
22 should try to help pay for it. There are no resources to help. The financing elements
23 will become the most critical in our debate.
24
25 Steve Lynn - Property owner, spoke with Randy Shaw head of the Tenderloin
26 Association in San Francisco advised that this issue is very controversial between San
27 Francisco and the State of California. He also spoke with Richard Conrad, Executive
28 Director of the Building Committee and was advised that it was his impression the State
29 Ordinance would not preempt the local ordinance, but that it was not totally resolved.
30
31 Jeff Harriman - McNear Building, the main significant knowledge he gained was that the ,
32 parapets perhaps are a weak part of the building and most city's have elected.. to have
33 them braced. I think this is a fair request to ask any property owner to perform for the
'34 safety of pedestrians. I believe there should be some community involvement when it
35 comes to paying for the implementation of any more standards. The McNear building is
36 approximately 50,000 square feet and at a cost of $20 a square foot Would bring the
37 repairs up to a million dollars when complying with the three standards. Mr. Harriman
38 would like the Council to think hard about the course it takes. The committee might want
39 to reconvene and concentrate on the issue of funding.
' 1
2 Pam Torliatt, 1017 G Street, the Council should ask the committee to research other
3 communities facing the same problem and back each other so we will be heard louder at
4 the state level.
5
6 It was Council consensus that the committee come back to the Council with answers to
7 the following:
8
9 1. Legal aspects of a voluntary vs. mandatory Ordinance
10 2. Explore the idea of legislation that would give us our own destiny
11 3. Financing
12 4. Look at some of those things like fixing the parapets that. may take us •
13 further down the road and solve some other problems
14 5. Look at what San Francisco is doing and find out if we should get behind
15 them to make their case stronger
16 6. Dates of public hearings so representatives from the community at large,
17 local officials and other city's may voice their concerns and points of view.
18
•