HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 5 SEISMIC RETROFIT 11-04-91REPORTS NO. 5
11-4-91
NOVEMBER 41 1991 '
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
`'. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STATUS OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING
SEISMIC RETROFIT
------------
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At the City Council meeting on October 21, 1991, Councilwoman
Leslie Anne Pontious requested a status report of the seismic
retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings in Tustin.
In response to the requirements of State Senate Bill 547, on
February 19, 1991 the City of Tustin adopted Ordinance No. 1059
that created an earthquake hazard mitigation program for existing
unreinforced masonry buildings. A survey revealed that eight
buildings, all in the downtown area, may require remedial
construction to comply with the minimum earthquake -resisting design
standards.
The effected buildings and the property owners are listed in
Exhibit A. Buildings 2, 3 and �8 are identified as Class -I,
potentially very high hazard rating, while the other five buildings
are identified as Class -II, potentially high hazard category.
The administrative provisions of the ordinance require that the
Building Official notify each owner with an order to comply with
the provisions of the codified ordinance. Class -I building owners
were notified on September 15, 1991 by certified letter of their
responsibilities. ,.,.No owner has appealed their building's
classification within the required 30 day period, and have
therefore waived their rights to an administrative hearing and
determination of the matter. After November 15, 1991, the Building
Official must file with.the County Recorder's Office a notice for
each building, stating the building is within the scope of
Ordinance 1059 and is a potentially hazardous unreinforced masonry
building.
STATUS OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING
SEISMIC RETROFIT
Page two
Each Class -I building owner now has 270 days, until June 15, 1992,
to respond with:
a) a structural analysis that demonstrates the building
complies with the design standards, or
b) a structural analysis and construction documents for
structural alteration that will bring the building into
compliance, or
C) plans for vacation or demolition of the building
(demolition must first bre approved by the Director of
Community Development).
A fourth alternative, due within 120 days of the order, is to
temporarily strengthen the building by installing wall anchors.
This alternative requires that the installation of wall anchors
must be followed up by one of the three actions within one year.
To date the status of Class -I buildings is:*~
Building #2 - Tustin Pythians
Plans were originally submitted for plan check on March
28, 1991. The owner has Since changed engineers and new
plans were submitted October 1, 1991.
Building #3 - Perfit
Plans have not been submitted.
Building #8 - Lindquist
Plans were originally submitted July 31, 1991 and are
currently with the owner for correction.
The owners of Class -II buildings need not be notified until
February 19, 1992. They also will have 270 days to respond with
one of the four options listed above.
_ STATUS OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING
SEISMIC RETROFIT
Page three
To date, the status of Class -II buildings is:
Building #1 - Surfas
No action.
Building 14 - Cox
Mr. Cox has completed the rehabilitation of his building.
Building #5 - Tustin Hardware
No action.
Building #6 - Diocese of Orange
No action.
Building #7 - Zamora
Plans were originally submitted September 4 , 1991 and are
currently with the owner for correction.
Through its Commercial Rehabilitation Fund, the Community
Development Department Block Grant program has made limited monies
available to assist these owners with either structural design or
construction of their property. Applications have been received
and approved for three property owners (Zamora, Lindquist and the
Pythians), however funds have not yet been dispersed.
The Council at their meeting of February 19th also authorized staff
to elicit owner interest in the possible creation of an assessment
district or Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act District to f inance
seismic retrofit. A letter was, sent to all owners on September 15,
1991 to determine their interest in forming the assessment
district; only three property owners, responded positively. At this
time, it does not appear economically feasible to proceed with the
assessment district.: Staff will be exploring other possible
financing alterations and will be returning to the City Council in
the near future with a recommendation.
Thomas P. Whisler Christine Shing ton
Building Official Assistant City Manager
TPW:urmstat:jk