Engineers inspect Hotel Marysville after the building burned June 15. Photo courtesy of the City of Marysville

MARYSVILLE, CA (MPG) - Only the top floor of the five-story Hotel Marysville presents a significant fall hazard and traffic could safely be restored to the two southbound lanes of Highway 70 if a 10-foot-high debris catch-barrier is erected, according to an engineering report received Tuesday by the City of Marysville.

After the Emeryville engineering firm WJE report was delivered three days earlier than expected, City Manager Jim Schaad emailed acting District 3 Caltrans Director Sergio Aceves recommending Caltrans install the barrier and convert the southbound lanes to two-way traffic “as a cost-effective, near-term solution.”

“The city wishes to allow its surface streets affected by Caltrans…detours to resume normal traffic flows to the businesses within the community as well as provide better access for the businesses on E Street,” Schaad said in an email Wednesday morning.

As the city awaits Caltrans’ consideration of the recommendation, it now has a clearer picture of the stability of the hulking structure that was in poor shape even before the fire, according to the engineering report. “The conditions observed at the Hotel Marysville are a mix of damage due to the fire and firefighting activities and pre-existing deterioration of the building due to decades of vacancy and lack of maintenance, the report states. “The amount of heat experienced throughout the building varied significantly based on the condition of the finishes, which are completely burned in some areas and mostly intact in other areas.

The report concludes, “The Hotel Marysville building was in poor condition prior to a fire on June 15, 2024. The fire destroyed the roof diaphragm and removed the lateral bracing for the top-story exterior walls, which are constructed of unreinforced brick masonry. These top-story walls are very slender and are now susceptible to falling out of-plane and onto the sidewalks and streets below. Apart from the lack of bracing at the top story, the structure does not appear to have been substantially destabilized by the fire damage.”

The report states that the top-story masonry walls must be stabilized prior to anyone entering the building to abate existing hazardous materials. It makes several recommendations regarding abatement work which the city will share with interested demolition contractors.

As for long-term stabilization of the Hotel Marysville, constructed in 1926, the engineering firm provided this assessment: The building is in generally poor condition due to its age and a lack of maintenance in the decades it has been vacant. Now, due to the fire, the roof is destroyed, further exposing the floor framing to the elements. Even if the top-story walls are stabilized, the building will continue to deteriorate and may become unstable over time due to this deterioration. If the building is to remain, weather protection over the open roof and windows is necessary to slow the deterioration of the concrete structure.

In the longer term, the roof diaphragm should be replaced, and the concrete spalling throughout the building should be repaired in order to restore protection to the steel reinforcement and restore the structural integrity of the floor framing.

Feather River Plaza, LLC, is the recorded owner of the Hotel Marysville property. The city has demanded the company abate the public safety issues identified since the fire and has filed suit in Yuba County Superior Court seeking a court order that gives the City authority to abate the public safety issues if the owner does not.  The city continues to encourage Feather River Plaza, LLC. to address the structural and hazardous materials issues that exist on their property.

Feather River Plaza had previously offered the city the property as well as two properties across the street in their current condition, however based on the city’s research the market value of the properties collectively are less than the cost to abate the hotel structure.  The city has proposed a counter to the owner’s counsel that would allow the city to fully recover costs to remove the building, but the owner has rejected that offer.