Downtown business owners will face hefty fines if they don’t fix
their structures soon
Gilroy – A week after a 3.5-magnitude temblor shook Gilroy, city leaders will consider slapping $10,000 fines on property owners who refuse to repair buildings prone to crumble in an earthquake.
The Seismic Safety Ordinance, which goes before city council Jan. 22, would give building owners three years to upgrade or replace their buildings. Owners who stall beyond that time face $10,000 monthly fines until they comply with the regulation.
“We’ve given owners plenty of time and we’ve given them plenty of incentives,” City Councilman Peter Arellano said. “Now we’re saying our citizens need a safe place to go shop and have fun without having to worry about a building falling on them.”
The city has 35 downtown buildings on its list of unreinforced masonry structures. Nearly half of the owners on the so-called URM list have sought city assistance to redevelop their properties, but a number of them are unable to move forward because they share a roof or wall with an uncooperative neighbor.
In a nod to the willing, the regulation would not fine owners after three years if they’ve received city approval on upgrades within that time.
“We asked why should the willing building owner be penalized?” said Wendie Rooney, Gilroy’s community development director. “What we’ve done is create provisions to allow the willing owner who shows a good faith effort – and that means having planning approval of conception plans or conceptual engineering designs.”
Such building owners also will remain eligible for a program that frees them from tens of thousands of dollars in development fees.
Steve Ashford plans to capitalize on the “unwilling neighbor” program for his own building, an antique store at 7547 Monterey St. But he believes the city should get tougher with building owners who drag their feet on renovations. In addition to the $10,000 a month fine, Ashford said all building owners should be required to submit upgrade plans within a year. Otherwise, they should lose out on the incentives and face the monthly penalty.
“On my block, there would have been four buildings under construction right now had they adopted something (a year ago) that made the neighbors step up to the plate as well,” Ashford said.
The tougher stance does not sit well with all downtown building owners.
“You’ve got to give them a reasonable amount of time to get things taken care of,” said Michael Brownfield, who recently rebuilt his Vacuum Store at 7463 Monterey St. “Heck, it takes a year and a half just to draw up the plans, and then another year and a half to build it. It doesn’t happen overnight.”
Officials will debate the fine print of the policy next week. Council will also have to grapple with concerns about the clarity of language on how to handle future businesses and residents of URM buildings. The ordinance forbids new businesses or residents from moving in when a building becomes vacant, but it remains unclear how to handle buildings with multiple tenants, according to Ashford.
If one of three tenants departs, for instance, can that space be filled? Must all tenants leave before a building is declared vacant?
For Nick Loquao, barista at Sue’s Coffee Roasting Company at the corner of Fifth and Monterey streets, the most important question involves the pace of upgrades. Loquao said unwilling property owners should face a tighter time limit such as a year.
“If you’re really thinking in terms of safety, it’s a must. Period,” he said. “You can’t have a chance of having a customer die or get injured.”
