HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0108 CC SPC ITEM 08G /03,?(b\
itt
ITEM
s ` JINARK, � c M
\o / 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93Q?ficoonj eF -61864
1 2.
9� ea of_ ��_
ACTION: ..:f!_✓'et II
MEMORANDUM By7'
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: December 19, 1991 (City Council Meeting 1-8-92)
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT; UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS
BACKGROUND
On August 14, 1991 the City Council received a staff report on the
status of the Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Mitigation Program. This
report indicated that one building owner was apparently unable to
comply with the requirements of Ordinance 127. The City Council
directed staff to arrange for the building owner to meet with the
Community Development Committee in order to fully understand the
difficulties faced by the owners of URM buildings.
On September 16, 1991 the building owner's representative met with
the Community Development Committee, Building Official, Community
Development Director and several concerned citizens. Subsequently,
the Building Official has provided the owner with information on
engineering firms and with information on available financial
alternatives for URM owners. At the conclusion of the September
meeting the building owners representative indicated a willingness
to complete the required survey and provide the Building Official
with an official reply.
The building owners have indicated the building has been vacated
for reasons which are unrelated to the URM ordinance. They have no
immediate plans to reoccupy the building.
Ordinance 127 requires that the Building Official order the
building vacated where compliance with the ordinance has not been
achieved within the time limits set forth in the ordinance. After
ordering the building vacated and where compliance is not achieved
within ninety days the Building Official may order the demolition
of the building. This ninety day period may be extended by the
Council acting as the Board of Appeals. No limit is placed on the
length of extensions which may be granted by the Council .
1
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Printed On Recycled Paper
On September 16, 1991 the Building Official made an inspection of
the exterior of the building and observed that the buildings
exterior masonry walls are cracked in a manner that is
characteristic of damage to a URM due to ground motion. This
observation indicated that the building may have been weakened by
previous earthquakes. The building is placed approximately two
feet from one property line and only a few feet from the street.
The parking area at the rear of the building was being used as a
children's play area at the time of the inspection. Although the
building has been vacated, it still represents a potential hazard
to adjacent property and residents who use the spaces around it.
It also represents a potential hazard to the public right-of-way.
For these reasons, extensions of the ninety day limit should be
considered with care and such extensions should not allow the
indefinite delay of the repair or demolition of the building.
DISCUSSION
Ordinance 127 requires that buildings which are in violation of the
ordinance be ordered vacated. The building has been vacated in any
case for unrelated reasons. If the Council takes no action then
the Building Official intends to issue an order to vacate and will
do so during the month of January, 1992. The owners have the right
to appeal within 60 days from receipt of notice to vacate. The
Building Official will report back to Council in any case before
considering any order regarding the demolition of the building.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file this report.
CC\8JAN92
2