SR-416-005
.
.
~-B
JUL 1 4 1991
LUTM:PPD:PB:SF:
URM25.word.ppd
July 14, 1992
t/16'(}{)5
Santa Monica, California
./
TO:
Mayor and City Council
L-j I, u: - .)
J..: ~
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation To Certify The Final Environmental Impact
Report And Adopt a Mandatory Seismic Retrofitting Ordinance
For Unreinforced Masonry Buildings In The city Of Santa
Monica And Approve a Resolution of Intention To Amend The
Zoning Ordinance To Permit Replacement Of A Building That Has
Been stucturally Retrofitted.
SUMMARY
This summary provides a brief overview of this staff report on the
Unreinforced Masonry CURM) Buildings Mandatory Seismic Retrofitting
Ordinance for the city of Santa Monica. The URM Ordinance is based on
the 1991 state Model Ordinance for Seismic Retrofit of Hazardous URMs.
However, staff is recommending a different time frame for upgrading
from the time frame contained in the State Model Ordinance.
state Legislation (AB 204) was enacted in 1991 which requires the
state Model Ordinance be adopted into the building codes for the State
of California (Title 24). After July I, 1993 any mandatory upgrade
program required by a City will have to meet the technical standards
contained in Title 24. Adoption of the proposed ordinance will bring
the City into compliance with the state legislation.
Further, any
voluntary upgrading or change of occupancy of a URM will trigger the
requirement to comply with AB 204.
On July 2, 1986, the state Legislature enacted 5B 547 (Government Code
Section 8875) which required cities to inventory {JRM's and adopt a
- 1 -
fJ:B
JUL 1 4 1992
----
f ".. j.
~...
.
.
seismic mitigation program applicable to all URMs constructed prior to
1934, the first year in which California building codes required
minimum earthquake design criteria.
The proposed Ordinance further
brings the city into conformance with this State law.
The City of Santa Monica, long concerned about seismic safety 1 has
previously enacted many policies centered on seismic safety. The
Council adopted the General Plan's seismic safety Element in 1975. In
1978, the Council authorized a detailed structural inventory by staff
of the pre-1933 masonry and concrete structures in the City and
directed staff to record "NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD AND POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS" on the title records of 252 buildings. In 1981,
council adopted Ordinance 1201 which required anchors to be installed
in some 30 pre-1915 URMs.
On April 11, 1989 the Council passed Ordinance 1989 which required
every URM building owner to obtain a detailed evaluation report
prepared by a structural engineer on the level of seismic design force
that each URM is capable of resisting. The results of the structural
evaluation showed that only one of some 115 URNs analyzed met the
current State minimum safety standard for seismic design.
As of April 15, 1992 there were 124 URMs remaining, over half of which
are concentrated in the Downtown and Main street commercial areas.
There are 269 residential units located in twenty of the URMs.
Approximately 450 businesses are also located in the URMs.
The EIR prepared for the seismic retrofitting ordinance analyzes the
potential impacts, including a cost-benefit analysis, of three levels
. '-. .,r,
. .. I
~j'" ,
..
.
- 2 -
.
.
of seismic upgrade. Level I is a modified anchors and ties program to
prevent exterior walls from collapsing (out-of-plane strengthening).
Level II, the proposed ordinance, requires out-of-plane strengthening
provisions plus additional work on most buildings involving roof and
floor strength upgrading and in-plane strengthening of exterior walls.
URM owners will be required to upgrade their buildings between 4 to 7
years after Ordinance adoption. Level III is an upgrade program to
bring um~s to the design standard level of the 1988 Uniform Building
Code.
The EIR analysis determined that there will be no significant impacts
resulting from the adoption of the proposed ordinance. In addition, a
computer simulation model (including no upgrade) predicted fatalities,
injuries, building damage and business disruptions resulting from
major earthquakes occurring on the Newport- Inglewood fault, the Santa
Monica-Malibu fault, and the San Andreas fault for each level of
upgrade. The proposed Ordinance and EIR analysis is based on an event
occurring on a typical weekday at 1: 00 p.m. Fatalities during a
typical weekday afternoon around 1:00 p.m. ranged from none resulting
from a San Andreas event with any level of upgrade, to 59 deaths
resulting from a Santa Monica-Malibu event with no upgrade. The model
displays a dramatic decline in fatalities, injuries and building
damage if upgrades were required to be at the proposed ordinance Level
II.
The cost analysis in the EIR showed that seismic upgrade costs for
each upgrade level are higher than the actual $7.00 per square foot
experienced by the 100 properties retrofitted to-date. Cost estimates
are $8.66 for Level I upgrade, $10.54 for Level II upgrade, and $13.97
- 3 -
.
.
for Level III upgrade. Due to potential financial hardships, Level I
is estimated to cause one DRM building demolition, Level II - 10
demolitions, and Level III - 42 demolitions.
As the analysis discloses, many of the consequences of adopting the
proposed Ordinance (Level II) will be beneficial. From a cost-benefit
standpoint, this option clearly supplies the greatest benefit.
Reviewing the reduction in fatalities predicted by the Seismic Risk
Model, this level addresses the concern of minimizing the effects of
earthquakes on public safety. This alternative also substantially
reduces building damage in the event of either a moderate or strong
earthquake.
(Since the June 26, 1992 Landers quake, we have learned that this
fault was a lower classification then the Newport Inglewood fault
which is the ndesign faultn used in the analysis of ordinance examined
in the EIR).
BACKGROUND
This report discusses the history and background information on
seismic upgrading in the city and throughout the State. In addition,
this report reviews the components of the proposed URN ordinance, the
findings of the FEIR, and, as requested by the City Council at the
meeting when this was first reviewed, this report presents a
cost-benefit (also known as a financial impact) analysis of the
various URM RetrOfitting Program options for the City of Santa Monica.
The City of Santa Monica has previously enacted many policies related
to seismic safety. The actions the City has taken to date are
summarized below along with applicable state legislation.
- 4 -
.
.
1915 Building Ordinance (General Ordinance Number 244)
In 1915 the City adopted Ordinance Number 244 which required limited,
but specific reinforcement of masonry construction. The 1915
Ordinance required that all steel girders supporting masonry walls be
anchored into the walls and into wood girders within the walls from
the interior of the buildings, with anchors extending (i) not less
than eight inches into the walls, or (ii) not less than four feet into
the connecting wood girder (Section 127 of the 1915 Ordinance).
In addition, the 1915 ordinance required that in masonry buildings of
certain classes, girders should be anchored to the walls and fastened
to each other so as to make a continuous tie from wall to wall. It
also set forth requirements for suitable iron straps, ties, and
stirrups. Although the 1.915 ordinance contained construction
techniques for masonry construction, it did not contain standards to
ensure earthquake resistant construction. Earthquake resistant design
criteria sets the amount of horizontal force (measured in pounds) that
a building must resist. In 1915, no building codes in California were
in effect that required buildings to meet earthquake resistant design
criteria.
1921 Ordinance (Ordinance Number 175 (Commissioner's Series))
On April 13, 1921, the City adopted Ordinance Number 175 which also
contained provisions for masonry construction. The 1921 Ordinance
increased from eight inches to eighteen inches the distance that steel
girders supporting masonry should be anchored into the walls of a
building. It also specifically required that the anchors be riveted
to or hooked over the top flange of the girder.
- 5 -
.
.
The 1933 Riley Act (California Earthquake Protection LaW),
In the spring of 1933, the City of Long Beach suffered a moderate
earthquake of magnitude 6.2 on the Richter Scale, causing substantial
loss of life and damage to 86% of the unreinforced masonry buildings
in that city. In response to that damage, for the first time the
state of California adopted what has subsequently become known as the
Riley Act, requiring statewide design standards for earthquake
resistant buildings.
The Riley Act spelled out the level of the horizontal force that a
building had to be designed to withstand. Horizontal forces on
buildings may be caused either by wind pressure on the outside surface
of the building or by the building t s internal resistance to ground
motion due to its mass or weight. After the 1933 adoption of the
Riley Act, all buildings constructed in California, including those
constructed in the city of santa Monica, were required to be designed
to withstand horizontal forces of at least two percent (2%) of the
total weight of the building and its contents, or twenty (20) pounds
of wind pressure on each square foot of the outside wall of the
building, whichever was greater.
In 1939 the Riley Act was amended to increase the level of horizontal
force from two percent (2%) of the weight of the building and its
contents to three percent (3%). The Riley Act was later superseded by
the Uniform Building Code standards. Those standards, which are still
in effect, raised the level of horizontal force for new buildings to
eighteen and one half percent (18.5%) of the weight of the building,
excluding its contents.
- 6 -
.
.
Ordinance Number 1201 (CCS)
In 1975, the city Council adopted the city's Seismic Safety Element
of the General Plan. The Seismic Safety Element recommended that all
unreinforced masonry and concrete buildings built prior to the
adoption of the Riley Act in 1933 either be immediately upgraded or
demolished in the interest of the public safety.
In 1977, the city council authorized detailed surveys of all pre-1933
masonry and concrete buildings in the city to determine the condition
of such structures and directed that a "Notice of substandard and
Potentially Hazardous Building" be placed on the title records of
those structures failing to meet the minimum earthquake resistant
design standards adopted by the State as the Riley Act in 1933. By
June of 1978, all pre-1933 masonry and concrete buildings had been
surveyed and notices were recorded against 240 URM structures as
failing to meet the minimum seismic design standards set forth in the
Riley Act.
On March 24, 1981, the City Council adopted Ordinance N11'!111,er 1201
which required that owners of existing nonresidential buildings
constructed prior to 1915 and which had been surveyed and recorded by
Building and Safety as substandard and potentially hazardous obtain
written certification by a licensed architect or engineer that the
roof and walls of that building had been anchored and the parapets
had been anchored on or before July 1, 1985. The anchoring of such
roof, walls, and parapets had to meet the standards for such
anchoring as set forth in either the 1915 or 1921 Santa Monica
Building Codes, but not the minimum seismic design standards set
forth in the Riley Act in 1933.
- 7 -
.
.
As a result of Ordinance 1201, 27 pre-1915 masonry buildings
installed "anchors" that met the standards set forth in the 1915 or
1921 Ordinances. Structures built between 1915 and 1933 were
presumed to have adequate earthquakes anchors only because certain
specific anchors were required by the 1915 and 1921 Santa Monica
Building Codes.
The URM Legislation (Government Code Secti?ns 8875 through 8879.5)
On July 2, 1986, Senate Bill 547 (lithe URM Legislationll) was signed
into law. The URM legislation defines a potentially hazardous
building as any building constructed prior to the adoption of local
building codes containing earthquake resistant standards and
constructed of unreinforced masonry wall construction. Since
building codes with earthquake resistant standards were not adopted
in Santa Monica until 1934, the legislation applies to all UID1
buildings constructed prior to 1934 in the City of Santa Monica.
Three specific exemptions are included in the legislation: (1)
warehouses or similar structures not used for human habitation, (2)
buildings having five or fewer living units, and (3) buildings which
qualify as historical properties as determined by an appropriate
governmental agency under Section 37602 of the Health and Safety
Code.
To comply with the 1986 legislation local governments must: (i)
identify all potentially hazardous buildings within their
jurisdiction, (ii) establish a mitigation program for those
buildings, and (iii) file a copy of the mitigation program with the
Seismic Safety Commission.
- 8 -
.
.
The City has already complied with the first of the three requirements
imposed by the legislation in that in 1978 the city identified all
potentially hazardous buildings. The City has not yet complied with
the second and third requirements of the URM law, to establish a
mitigation program for pre-l934 hazardous buildings and to file a copy
of the mitigation program with the Seismic Safety Commission. The
proposed ordinance will be considered the mitigation program for the
City of Santa Monica.
In August of 1991, legislation was enacted (AB 204) which requires the
State Model Ordinance to be adopted into the state of California
building codes (Title 24). Any City enacting a mandatory upgrade
program after July 1, 1993 will be required to adopt the standard
contained in Title 24.
Ordinance Number 1489 (CCS)
In response to the URM legislation, the City Council passed Ordinance
1489 on April 11, 1989. This ordinance mandated, based on the
Building and Safety Commission's recommendations, that every URM
building owner obtain a detailed evaluation report prepared by a
structural engineer on the level of seismic design force that each
URM is capable of resisting. The results of the structural
evaluation showed that only one of the 115 URMs analyzed met the
current state I s minimum safety standards for seismic design (that a
retrofitted building must resist a horizontal force equivalent to ten
to thirteen percent of the weight of the building). Another 35 URM
building owners filed engineering plans for full seismic structural
compliance with the Building and Safety Division.
- 9 -
.
.
URM BUILDINGS IN SANTA MONICA
The 1978 inventory of URM buildings in Santa Monica found 252
potentially hazardous structures. In the last 13 years, almost half
(128) have been removed from the original URM list. Approximately 104
former URMs have undergone seismic upgrading and the other 24 were
demolished. As of April 15, 1992, 124 buildings were subject to the
proposed Ordinance.
The 124 remaining UR}ls are concentrated in the Downtown and Main
street commercial areas (see exhibit B). This figure includes over 40
URMs within the Bayside District and over 20 URMs along Main street.
outside these two areas, the other existing URMs are scattered
throughout the City, mainly along the commercial corridors. These
buildings are located on santa Monica Boulevard, on Wilshire, Pica,
Lincoln, Montana, Broadway, and along Ocean Front Boulevard.
The 124 remaining unreinforced URM buildings are predominantly used
for office and retail businesses. Approximately 450 businesses are
currently located in the URMs. There are 20 URM buildings that
contain 269 residential units. To date, 496 residential units in 11
URMs have been retrofitted and have been removed from the hazardous
building list.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The proposed URM Ordinance is provided in two parts - the technical
specifications and the administrative provisions. The state Seismic
Safety Commission recommends as an effective hazard mitigation program
that local governments in california's seismic Hazard Zone 4
(including Santa Monica) adopt the State Model Ordinance for the
- 10 -
.
.
~
Seismic Retrofit of Hazardous Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall
Buildings. Santa Monica's proposed URM Ordinance includes the Model
Ordinance's technical specifications and a variation of its
administrative provisions.
The February 1991 Model Ordinance supersedes two earlier Draft Model
Ordinances - the first of which was published in 1985 and was based on
the city of Los Angeles' Division 88, and the second of which was
published in February of 1990 shortly after consensus was reached on
major revisions to Divisions 88 by the Structural Engineers
Association of California (SEAOC) and the California Building
Officials (eALBO).
Technical Specifications
The technical specifications consist of Appendix Chapter 1 of the 1991
Edition of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UeBC) that was
published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
and approved by SEAOC. The technical specifications allow for two
upgrade procedures, general and special procedures. A building can be
excluded from using the less expensive special procedures based on
building configuration criteria, including number of stories, distance
from neighboring building, and a low height to width (HIT) ratio. All
residential or mixed-residential buildings will be allowed to use the
special procedures due to the numerous crosswalks within each
building.
The proposed URM Ordinance requires out-of-plane strengthening
provisions plus additional work on most buildings involving roof and
floor strength upgrading and in-plane strengthening of exterior walls.
- 11 -
.
.
.
Out-of-plane strengthening procedures include removal of wall
finishes, drilling, and the installation of bolts and plate washers.
In-plane strengthening, possibly required for multi-story buildings,
walls with window or door openings (including storefronts), will
require any of the following items: removal of finishes and guniting
existing wallsl installation of plywood or masonry shear walls,
installation of rigid or braced steel frames, addition of new concrete
walls, addition of crosswalls, or construction of moment frames.
utilizing this design standard, most interior walls are used to resist
the lateral force loads and frequently the walls in the upper floors
of a mUlti-story building will require no work. Additional
strengthening will require the extension of the top floor wall from
the ceiling to the roof to act as cross or shear walls, creating
in-plane shear load transfer.
The proposed ordinance does not discount any work previously done on
the URM buildings. The technical specifications provide testing
procedures to determine if existing mortar quality, masonry, ties and
anchors meet current requirements and can be applied to fulfilling the
retrofitting guidelines.
Administrative Provisions
The City'S administrative provisions provide a time table for
implementing the URM Ordinance, based on a typology of use, density of
occupancy, and building classification derived from UBC guidelines.
Buildings are divided into four classifications, essential, high risk,
medium risk, and low risk. An essential building (type I) is any
building usable in the event of an emergency. This category includes
- 12 -
.
.
.
hospitals, police and fire stations, or other disaster recovery
centers. At this time no essential buildings are subject to the
proposed ordinance. High risk buildings (type II) are defined as any
building with 100 or more occupants and without masonry or woodframe
crosswalls spaced less than 40 feet apart in each story. As of April
15, 1992 there were 25 high risk bu~ldings identified in Santa Monica.
Medium risk buildings (type III) are divided into two categories,
subclass A and B. Subclass A buildings are defined as any building
with 100 or more occupants and with masonry or woodframe crosswalls
spaced less than 40 feet apart in each story. There are three
subclass A medium risk structures in Santa Monica, Miles Playhouse,
First Christian Church at 605 Arizona, and the Mayfair Theater.
Subclass B buildings are defined as any building with more than 20 but
fewer than 100 occupants. There are 76 medium risk buildings
identified in Santa Monica. Low risk buildings are defined as any
building with fewer than 20 occupants. There are 20 low risk
buildings identified in Santa Monica.
The logic of the time frame for upgrading requires that structures
with the highest potential to result in loss of life associated with
the failure of an unreinforced masonry building shall be upgraded
first and buildings with lesser occupancies are provided more time to
comply with ordinance requirements. The Ordinance requires that all
buildings install wall anchors within one year of the adoption date of
the ordinance. If this is done, a property owner must commence
construction of the structural changes within two years and complete
construction within four years for type I and II buildings, and
commence construction within eight years and complete construction
- 13 -
.
.
.
within ten years for for type III and IV buildings. If a property
owner does not install wall anchors within one year, structural
changes must commence within one year of the adoption date of the
ordinance and be completed within two years for type I and II
structures; for type III buildings, construction must commence within
three years and be complete within four years; and for type IV
buildings construction must commence within four years and be complete
within five years.
The proposed Ordinance's time limits represent an attempt to make
compliance easier for owners without neglecting the importance of life
safety issues. Engineers agree that wall anchors playa crucial role
in increasing life safety during an earthquake. Tying together the
walls and roof of an URM is the least expensive strengthening measure
that accomplishes the greatest reduction of hazards to life safety.
Historic Buildings The latest version of the Model Ordinance
recommends that historical URM buildings comply with the technical
specification, in addition to the State Historical Building Code.
Santa Monica's URM Ordinance has incorporated this provision.
Historic buildings will meet the same upgrading standards as
non-historic buildings, however, the seismic rehabilitation of
historic buildings may comply with the requirements of the state
Historical Building Code, thereby assuring the preservation and
maintenance of the character of ~he historic building.
Appeals Procedure The proposed URM Ordinance provides any URM
building owner the opportunity to appeal any initial classification
within the Ordinance. Appeals are to be made to the Building and
- 14 -
.
.
.
safety Commission within sixty days of Ordinance adoption. A decision
by the Building and Safety Commission, as the Board of Appeals, shall
be made within ninety days after the owner's filing,
Building Permit Fees - As an incentive to retrofit, the ordinance
contains a provision waiving the plan check and building permit fees
for retrofitting construction.
The fee waiver only applies to the
retrofitting work, it does not apply to any remodeling that may occur
in conjunciton with retrofitting.
ACTION TAKEN BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Based on a survey staff conducted of other local jurisdictions, we
have found the following with regard to nearby cities. The following
outlines the requirements and time periods for implementation:
City of Los Angeles: The City adopted an ordinance in 1981 which
requires mandatory retrofitting within three years of the date the
City provides notice to the owner. A one year extension may be
granted if wall anchors are installed shortly after the notice is
received. The Los Angeles ordinance was the model used to develop the
State Model Ordinance.
Culver City: The City adopted a URM ordinance in 1987 that is
consistent with the structural upgrading requirements adopted by the
City of Los Angeles. After notification from the City, the owner has
three years to retrofit the building
West Hollywood The City adopted a mandatory retrofitting ordinance in
1989 which is consistent with the structural upgrading requirements
contained in the City of Los Angeles' ordinance. After notification
from the City, the owner is required to install new wall anchors or
test existing wall anchors within 15 to 18 months. Full retrofitting
must occur wi thin four to seven years depending on the type of
building.
Beverly Hills: Beverly Hills does not have a mandatory retrofitting
ordinance.
Torrance: The City adopted a mandatory retrofitting ordinance in 1987
that is consistent with the City of Los Angeles ordinance. After
notification, property owners have three years to retrofit the
building.
- 15 -
.
.
to
El segundo: The City adopted a mandatory retrofitting ordinance in
1991 that is consistent with the city of Los Angeles ordinance. After
notification, the owner has three years to retrofit the building.
Manhattan Beach: The City adopted a mandatory retrofitting ordinance
in 1990 that is consistent with the structural retrofitting
requirements adopted by the City of Los Angeles. After notification,
the owner must submit plans within 90 days, receive a building permit
within one year, and retrofit the building within two years of the
notice date.
In August of 1991, at the request of the California Seismic Safety
Commission and the Bay Area Regional Earthquake Preparedness project,
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAGA) conducted a survey of
california's 520 cities and counties and found that 36% of the
respondent
jurisdictions
had
enacted
mandatory
retrOfitting
ordinances.
Of the 520 surveys mailed, 173 replies were received
representing a 33% return rate.
URM STRENGTHENING ALTERNATIVES
staff analyzed in detail three URM strengthening programs. The three
strengthening levels examined were:
Level I:
Level II:
Level III:
Out-of-Plane strengthening
1991 state Model Ordinance for URN Retrofitting
Upgrading to Current (1988) Uniform Building Code
Requirements.
A Level I program involves anchoring the walls, securing by bracing or
removing the parapets, and providing out-af-plane strengthening. This
upgrade (sometimes referred to as anchorage and interconnection) would
require a relatively low level of strengthening.
Tension and shear
anchors (commonly referred to as ties) would anchor the unreinforced
masonry walls to floors and roofs and additional work would be done to
prevent walls from collapsing (out-of-plane failure). Typically, this
work would be confined to perimeter walls, although strengthening
- 16 -
.
.
,
would also be required of
buildings and in buildings
thickness ratios.
unreinforced interior
with unsatisfactory
walls
wall
in larger
height to
The Level II program would require Level I strengthening plus
additional work involving roof and floor strengthening and in-plane
strengthening of exterior walls. The in-plane strengthening
requirements represent a significant increase in construction
requirements over Level I standards. Generally, the Level II
construction program would require an extensive removal of finishes,
the installation of plywood shear wall, the restoration of finishes
and possibly the installation of structural steel.
A Level III program would require considerable strengthening beyond
the Level II standard. The design standard for this level of upgrade
would be the 1988 Uniform Building Code requirements. Nearly all
buildings would be required to add additional framing, to replace roof
and floor members and surfaces, and to strengthen exterior masonry
walls through the application of gunnite, shotcrete, or some other
procedure. The Level III standard is well in excess of Level II
standards and represents a significant escalation of construction over
other standards. In many cases, in addition to building strengthening
work, new foundations would also be required.
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Potential Costs
The Ci ty Council
evaluate
several
requested in 1989 that staff prepare an EIR to
seismic mitigation programs and prepare a
- 17 -
.
.
...
cost-benefit analysis of the upgrade options available. An analysis
was conducted as part of the EIR which examined the cost of each
strengthening level noted in the above section.
Using comparable upgrade data from the city of San Francisco and the
City of Ventura, it was determined that the estimated cost of seismic
upgrading (including engineering and architectural fees) would be;
Level I: $8.66 per square foot
Level II: $10.54 per square foot
Level III: $13.97 per square foot.
Over 1.2 million total square feet (51% of the 1978 total) I both
commercial and residential, have been retrofitted thus far. All
upgraded buildings now meet the state's minimum seismic design safety
standards and most have been upgraded to a Level I or greater
equivalent.
The average cost to retrofit, experienced by over 100
properties to-date, was $7 per square foot.
Residential buildings
were upgraded at an average cost of less than $2.00 per square foot.
Residential upgrade casts were not averaged into the $7.00 figure.
The cost estimates within the City are substantially below
projections. This difference can be explained in-part by the use of
non-union labor and the techniques used in upgrading.
The analysis concluded that additional costs for upgrading will arise
if the building tenants remain while the upgrade is occurring.
Tenants have not remained in the buildings upgraded to date,
therefore, it has not presented a problem.
Construction costs can
also increase if remodeling occurs concurrently with the seismic
retrofitting. However, these cost increases are not directly related
to a mandatory seismic upgrade program.
- 18 -
.
.
~
Severe hardship can be defined as the owner's inability to obtain
enough income from the property to cover the outstanding debt created
by the mandatory retrofitting. In many cases, these building owners
may be unable to obtain adequate financing for the upgrade and will
ultimately decide to demolish their URM building. Significant
hardship is defined as a burden on the property owner; yet the owner
may be able to obtain financing, but at the loss of property equity.
Building owners with either level of hardship will likely delay the
retrofitting work for as long as possible. Because of the added cost
of seismic retrofitting, all URM building property owners will
experience some economic burden as a result of this program. It is
estimated that a Level I upgrade will cause "severe" hardship for 1%
(or one building) of the building owners and "significant" hardship
for 12% (or 17 buildings) of the building owners.
Level II upgrades will create a severe hardship for 7% (or ten
buildings) of the building owners and a significant hardship for 26%
(or 36 buildings) of the building owners. Level III upgrades will
create a severe hardship for 30% (or 42 buildings) of the owners and a
significant hardship for 45% (or 63 buildings) of the owners.
Assuming that demolition would be a common remedy for owners
categorized as being in "severe hardship", it is clear that a Level
III program would have very severe and disruptive effects on owners.
The Level II program would likewise create severe hardships for some
building owners. In cities where ordinances have been adopted, such a
loss in the URM building stock has in fact occurred.
Business Disruptions Business disruption can occur for a period
ranging from six to twenty weeks, depending on the tyPe of upgrading
- 19 -
.
.
~
required.
No unique, unusual, or sustained business related effects
are anticipated from adoption of upgrade requirements as long as
either Level I or Level II standards are adopted.
Nearly all Level
III upgrades could require an extended closure or relocation of
business tenants during most of the construction period.
Based on comparative data, the following conclusions about business
disruptions as a result of either a Level I or Level II upgrade
program were reached in the EIR:
1. 50% of the business will have to close for a period of
between three and thirty days;
2. No business will experience more than a one month loss of
revenue. 80% of the businesses may experience an income
reduction of 50% or more during this period with a Level II
upgrade program:
3. 35% of the businesses will have to temporarily relocate
inventory:
4. 30% of the businesses will be able to use only a portion of
their floor space during the construction period;
5. 80% of the businesses will experience other problems during
the retrofit including burglaries through open roofs, rain
damage, increased shoplifting; inconvenience by construction
dust, traffic and noise; and damage to signs, windows, air
conditioning units, and other business equipment.
Although the on-site disruption of retrofitting activities could cause
serious problems for business, especially retail, experiences in other
ci ties have demonstrated that most businesses choose to remain at
their current locations and endure the disruption rather than relocate
to
other
space.
For
some
small,
marginal
operations,
the
construction-related impacts could mean that owners may go out of
business as a result, however, this has not been a problem in Santa
Monica with voluntary retrofitting done to date.
Residential Disruptions - Seismic upgrading in residential buildings
may require the temporary relocation of tenants during some of the
- 20 -
.
.
,.
construction. Relocating for an extended time will mean moving
possessions, locating storage, and providing for additional rent.
Residents living through a retrofitting project would face
construction noise, dust and traffic, and may have to move within the
building or close off some of their living quarters for a period of
time.
Over two-thirds of the original URM residential units have been
voluntarily rehabilitated. As of April 1991, no owner has applied to
the Rent Control Board for a rent increase because of the seismic
work. To-date, no tenant relocation or displacement has been required
to make seismic renovations of residential-only buildings. Only one
of mixed-use building, the criterion Apartments, has required
temporary relocation of the residents. If relocation is required,
tenants are entitled to relocation payments from the landlord for a
period of up to three months.
The upgrades required in previous cases are equivalent to the proposed
Level II program. Because of the small number of residential
buildings (20), staff believes that a Level II upgrade should apply to
residential buildings. This upgrade will significantly reduce the
risk of permanent displacement of URM residential tenants who might
otherwise lose their low cost housing after a moderate earthquake, as
has been the case in Watsonville, Santa Cruz, Hollister I and other
cities in the aftermath of the Loma Prieta earthquake.
Funding Availability
The availability of financing for seismic retrofitting is relatively
limited, particularly if housing units are not involved in the upgrade
- 21 -
.
.
...
effort. Many of the available funding sources are used for a variety
of development programs other than seismic retrofitting. competition
for these funds is intense.
Restrictions on the use of Federal or
State funds, such as paying the prevailing wages, also limits the
amount of upgrade that can be achieved with a fixed grant.
Most
available financing is provided to an agency or a property owner in
the form of federal or state low-cost loans or partial grants that
will not cover the entire retrofitting costs.
Several funding aids are currently available to URM building owners in
the city of Santa Monica. These are as follows:
o Small Business Administration (SBA) loans are available up to
$558,000 maximum for 1.5 to 2.75 percent above prime interest
rates through private lenders, with 90 percent of the loan value
guaranteed by the SBA.
o state funds from propositions 77 and 84 are available for
retrofitting low-income, multi-unit residential unreinforced
buildings.
o Mills Act Agreements. An owner of a historical building (or
one located in a historical district) may agree to preserve and
retrofit the building in exchange for reduced property taxes. As
part of the recent Landmark Ordinance changes, the Landmark I s
commission is currently developing a program to implement this
preservation incentive.
Should the City decide to participate in funding seismic retrofitting,
several options are available. The options are as follows:
o Fund retrofitting through the City.s community Development
Block Grant Programs.
o Create a Special Assessment District (e.g. Main Street and
the Promenade) to allow owners to participate in an assessment
district for finance seismic retrofitting~
The City's Economic Development Division is working with local banks
to develop a funding pool for local businesses under the community
Reinvestment Act. One use of the available funds could be for seismic
- 22 -
.
.
"
retrofi tting. Loans may be packaged at reduced rates. staff is
developing program criteria at this time. In addition to the programs
above, state law precludes the County from re-assigning property value
as a result of seismic upgrading.
Two other financial incentives are being proposed, the first is to
allow the building owner one for one replacement of building square
footage in the event a building that has been retrofitted is destroyed
in an earthquake. This provides the owner with the incentive to
invest in the structural retrofitting by guaranteeing full replacement
in the event of an earthquake. Staff is recommending that the Council
approve a Resolution of Intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
implement this incentive. The second incentive the City is offering
is to waive building permit fees for retrofitting work. This
exemption would only apply to the upgrading work, any other
improvements in conjunction with the upgrading work would be subject
to building permit fees. Estimated fees which would be unrealized
could total between $85,000 - $100,000 over eight years.
Potential Benefits
This section will review the potential benefits of selected upgrade
programs. As part of the EIR, a Seismic Risk Model consisting of a
complex computer simulation model was developed by the engineering
firm of Rutherford and Chekene. This model simulates the results
between seismic events and URM building responses. For each level of
strengthening, including a no upgrade alternative, and earthquake
occurrence, the number of fatalities, hospital injuries, buildings
damaged, buildings demolished due to damage, number of occupant days
lost due to building damage and subsequent repair, and the number of
- 23 -
.
.
.,
occupants (employees and residential tenants) affected by building
demolitions was generated.
There are a number of faults that could cause ground shaking and
related effects in the City of Santa Monica. However, as a result of
testimony before the Building and Safety Commission and City Council
in 1988, three prominent faults - the San Andreas Fault, the Santa
Monica-Malibu Fault, and the Newport-Inglewood Fault - were chosen for
the earthquake impact analysis. A San Andreas earthquake event
(Richter maximum magnitude of 8.3) has a 30% chance of occurrence
within the next thirty years, a high probability seismic event. A
Newport-Inglewood event (Richter maximum magnitude of 7.5) has a
seismic probability of 5% within the next thirty years and a Santa
Monica-Malibu event (Richter maximum magnitude 7.5) has a 1% chance of
occurrence during the next thirty years. Both of these events are low
probabilities.
The seismic events and annual risk condition (based on the probability
of an earthquake in any single year considering all faults in the
region) were analyzed. The scenarios assumed an event occurring during
the typical pedestrian period (1: 00 PM) and an earthquake occurring
during a festival event. The event scenario was evaluated only on the
Newport-Inglewood and San Andreas faults for purposes of illustrating
a worst case scenario in the EIR. The ErR analysis and ordinance are
designed to address the impacts of an event occurring on a typical
weekday afternoon, not the impacts associated with a festival event.
Occurrence of an earthquake during a maj or street festival such as
Festa Italia is a very rare event, but was performed for purposes of
illustrating a worst case scenario. Results of the Seismic Risk Model
- 24 -
.
.
,.
are displayed in Attachment C and are summarized below.
San Andreas Fault Event - A major earthquake event occurring on the
San Bernardino or Moj aYe segment of the San Andreas would cause
moderate casualties and damage in Santa Monica. One death and four
injuries are predicted during normal conditions if no upgrade occurs.
If the event occurs during a major festival event, three deaths and
eleven injuries are predicted with no upgrade. Except for a single
hospital injury, during a festival event with a Level I upgrade, no
other casualty scenarios are predicted by a San Andreas occurrence.
Building damage and economic loss will be limited with a San Andreas
quake. Damage is predicted to be decreased from :3,000 square feet
with no upgrade program to 170 square feet with a Level I upgrade. A
San Andreas event will affect twenty five employees or residents with
no upgrade and almost no individuals with any level of upgrade.
Newport-Inglewood Fault Event - An event on the Newport-Inglewood
Fault, located approximately five miles from the Santa Monica, will
create major casualties and damage. Deaths attributed to this quake
are predicted to number thirty-five for no upgrade, nineteen for a
Level I upgrade, three for the proposed Level II upgrade, and one for
a Level III upgrade, if the event occurs during normal workday
conditions. This quake scenario predicted 236 hospital injuries with
no upgrade, 172 injuries with a Level I upgrade, 38 with a Level II
upgrade, and 8 injuries with a Level III upgrade.
with a movement on the Newport-Inglewood during a festival period, as
many as 150 fatalities and 600 injuries are anticipated without any
strengthening program; truly a worst case proj ection. wi th Level I
- 25 -
.
.
"
upgrades, deaths are reduced to 55 fatalities and 220 injuries. Level
II upgrades will reduce deaths and injuries to nine and thirty six,
respectively. Even with a Level III upgrade, two deaths and nine
injuries are predicted to occur if a major Newport-Inglewood quake
occurs during a festival period.
Building damage and economic loss will likewise be extensive if an
event on the Newport-Inglewood fault occurs. Quake damage can reach
as high as 310,000 square feet if no upgrade program is enacted. It
is projected that such damage would require the demolition of 35
buildings. This would affect over 2600 employees and residents.
Demolitions and affected parties will be decreased to 10 buildings and
700 parties with a Level I upgrade, only one building and 96 parties
with a Level II upgrade, and no demolitions and 4 affected parties
with a Level III upgrade.
Santa Monica-Malibu Fault Event - The quake event that would create
the greatest casualties, building damage and economic loss in Santa
Monica would be a major occurrence on the Santa Monica-Malibu Fault.
Up to 59 deaths and 236 hospital injuries are predicted for a scenario
with no seismic upgrade. A Level I upgrade program would result in 43
deaths and 172 injuries. A Level II upgrade program would reduce the
deaths to ten and the injuries to thirty eight. Even with an
extensive Level III upgrade program, two deaths and eight injuries are
predicted for this quake event.
Building damage and economic loss would likewise be detrimental if a
low probability Santa Monica-Malibu earthquake occurs. Quake damage
can reach as high as 600,000 square feet, causing 66 building
- 26 -
.
.
"
demolitions and affect 4100 employees and residents with no upgrading
of the URMs. Demolitions resulting from this event can be reduced to
twenty-nine buildings with Level I upgrades, five buildings with Level
II upgrades, and only one building with Level III upgrades. Employees
and residents directly impacted by such damage can also be reduced to
about 2100 people with a Level I upgrade, about 360 with a Level II
upgrade, and about 80 with a Level III upgrade.
Annualized Risk - The annualized loss factor is best interpreted as
what levels of loss are likely to be experienced in the future in any
given year. The sum of these probabilities over a 25 year period
represents a significant risk. Expressed in annualized loss terms
compounded over a 25 year interval, if only Level I upgrades are
required, the cumulative probability of annual loss estimates predict
that about six buildings could be demolished, four fatalities would be
experienced, and as many as 125 people could be impacted. An actual
event during this period would have much more serious consequences.
Level II and III upgrades' annualized rates would produce no deaths or
demolitions and impact up to 25 people. Without any upgrading, annual
loss estimates for a 25 year period predict seven deaths, twenty three
demolitions, and impact over 600 people.
CONCLUSIONS
The issue of mandatory seismic upgrade requires the establishment of
realistic standards that can save lives and reduce injuries and that
are affordable. As stated previously by the City Council, the major
objectives of a seismic retrofitting program would be first to reduce
casualties in the event of an earthquake, and second to decrease
- 27 -
.
.
"
property damage that leads to housing disruption, business losses,
lost tax revenues, and job loss.
Having no mandatory retrofitting program would result in, if the model
prediction is correct, three to 59 deaths, eleven to 236 injuries, and
the demolition of up to 66 URM buildings, as a result of a major
seismic event. Based on the historic performance of URM structures,
especially during the Lorna Prieta earthquake, staff believes that the
city should not accept this as a viable option.
Based on the model results, an unacceptably high loss of life would
result from the Level I upgrade option. The Level I upgrade appears
to provide adequate life safety and building damage reduction for an
earthquake only occurring on the San Andreas fault. Similarly, a
Level I upgrade will produce the temporary or long term loss of 700 to
2000 jobs, dislocation of as many as 200 businesses, between 20 to 40
deaths, over 170 major injuries, and demolition of between ten to
thirty buildings, assuming an event on the Newport-Inglewood or Santa
Monica-Malibu faults.
Both the Level II and Level III options substantially reduce
fatalities and injuries. Implementation of a Level III program
however, would result in far greater expense, dislocation, and tenant
disruption than a Level II option without a correspondingly greater
reduction in life loss. From the standpoint of protecting life,
minimizing damage to the building stock and preventing economic
dislocations, the Level II program (the proposed ordinance) is
recommended if protection and recovery from a Santa Monica-Malibu or
Newport-Inglewood type of event is the design objective. with only a
- 28 -
. .
San Andreas design event possibility, Level I upgrade requirements
provide reasonable protection.
The 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) 6.6 Earthquake, the 1987 Whittier
Narrows 5.9 Earthquake, and the 1990 Sierra Madre 5.8 Earthquake all
occurred on faults characterized by low to moderate seismicity. All
caused extensive damage to URMs. The Newport-Inglewood and Santa
Monica-Malibu Faults have similar seismic characteristics to the three
faults cited above. Recent damaging earthquakes such as these have
emphasized that large subsurface fault structures can also generate
maj or earthquakes and therefore cannot be overlooked when selecting
specific design upgrade. Based on the seismic history of these and
other similar local faults, staff recommends that a Newport-Inglewood
fault event be used as the seismic retrofitting design event.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS
The EIR prepared for the Mandatory Seismic Retrofitting Ordinance,
which incorporated a financial analysis, found no significant impacts
associated with the implementation of the proposed Ordinance.
However, the EIR did recommend measures to assure the preservation of
potentially historic URMs, specifically located on Main street. These
recommendations include the development of City Landmarks guidelines
and review of seismic upgrades by the City Landmarks Commission and
Architectural Review Board to minimize the impacts of retrofitting on
the historical integrity of the buildings. The EIR also recommended
the establishment of a Historic District encompassing the Main Street
Corridor. Once the district is established, financial assistance in
the upgrades utilizing Marks Historic Bond Act funds, Mills Acts
- 29 -
.
.
Contracts, or other resources can be obtained.
This is also being
recommended as part of the Main Street Master Plan currently being
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
EIR Alternatives
In addition to the three upgrade levels, the EIR examined nine
additional alternatives. Alternatives reviewed were:
1. No project,
2. A demolition ordinance,
3. Level II standard with zoning incentives,
4. Limited Level I upgrade for specific buildings,
5. A multi-level ordinance, dependent upon the type of
building,
6. The Riley Act standard (3 to 4% design standard),
7. Los Angeles Division 88 standard (10% design standard),
8. Los Angeles Class II standard (13.3% design standard),
9. Los Angeles Class I standard (18.6% design standard).
The No Project Alternative is not a legally viable option; AB 204
requires upgrading to level II standards upon the change of occupancy,
and some form of mitigation is required by state law.
This
alternative, doing nothing more than submitting a list of unreinforced
buildings to the State Seismic Safety Co~~ission, would only partially
comply with State law.
In addition, the adverse impacts on the No
Project alternative could be very severe and result in substantial
life loss and building damage during a sizable earthquake.
This
alternative is neither an environmentally superior nor economically
beneficial option.
The most direct way to solve the problem of URMs is to demolish them
over a certain time period.
The demolition ordinance option would
permanently alter the historic fabric and streetscape of the city,
especially on Main street and in the Downtown.
If the City is not
concerned about a worst case low probability earthquake which could
- 30 -
.
.
""
result in the loss of 40% to 60% of the URM inventory, an immediate
partial strengthening program (Level I) with a mandatory demolition in
20 years or completion of a Level II upgrade to avoid demolition could
be enacted. The City desires to avoid wholesale demolition of these
buildings, therefore this ordinance option is not recommended .
Another option reviewed considered a Level II upgrade program with a
"like-for-likell replacement of URM buildings if upgrade costs are
prohibitive and demolition is the only recourse. "Like-for-like
replacement would allow the development of new structures without
meeting current setbacks, parking, landscaping, and other zoning
requirements. In addition to encouraging demolition, this option
would create potentially significant adverse long term environmental
impacts on parking, traffic circulation, and land use and is therefore
not recommended for serious consideration.
Although a Level I seismic upgrade program does not provide adequate
protection from life loss and building damage throughout the City, the
EIR reviewed an alternative program that would permit a Level I
upgrade for URM buildings meeting specific criteria. These special
criteria require that the following all be met: a low occupancy
building with only minor pedestrian exposure; substantial internal
diaphragms; and if the owner agrees to upgrade to a higher standard if
use or occupancy change occurs; and the building is freestanding with
minimum open storefront. As many as 25% (35 buildings) of the URMs
may meet these criteria. However, this alternative is an interim
solution at best and would require eventual upgrading of these
buildings to the adopted City standard.
- 31 -
.
.
.... ~,
Adoption of a multi-level upgrade standard would primarily be designed
to provide a framework for requiring different upgrade standards in
parts of the city with less economic vigor and in areas with smaller
buildings and lower pedestrian exposures. such a course of action is
typically not recommended except in communities that are economically
less vigorous than Santa Monica (the recession notwithstanding, Santa
Monica has a stronger economic base than other jurisdictions that
justify this alternative). Because of the complexities of its
application and differences in upgrading standards within a city, the
state has not encouraged such programs and staff concurs.
Public Comment
The Draft EIR was released for a 45-day public comment period between
April 29 and June 13, 1991. Seven comments were received. Responses
to those comments are contained in the Final EIR.
After the completion of the Final EIR, staff began meeting with
representatives from the Chamber of Commerce to review the EIR
conclusions and discuss staff recommendations. The Chamber raised
several issues related to the proposed ordinance. The following
outlines the Chamber's concerns.
The Chamber objects to the ordinance containing a mandatory time frame
for retrofitting. Rather, retrofitting should only be required upon
the sale of the building. wi th this approach I the property owner
would not suffer a financial hardship since the proceeds of the
building sale would contribute towards the upgrading. staff does not
concur with this approach since some buildings may not change
- 32 -
.
.
.- ~
ownership for many decades. In order to address this issue, staff is
proposing that the Council modify the retrofitting time frame.
The City of Los Angeles I Building Code Chapter 96 only allows three
years to comply with their upgrade standards. The Seismic Safety
Commission's 1991 Model Ordinance's provisions, prepared by the
California Association of Building Officials (CALBO), recommends
requiring building owners to retrofit their building between three to
seven years after receiving an order to comply with the local seismic
upgrade ordinance. The City Council asked staff to evaluate the
timing implemented by the City of west Hollywood which requires the
installation of wall anchors within 15 to 18 months from service of
the notice, and full compliance within four to seven years depending
on the building type. Chamber representatives objected to the above
timing requirements on the basis that owners of small buildings may
not be able to obtain funding and therefore would have to demolish the
building. To address this issue, staff is recommending that all
buildings install wall anchors within one year of the adoption date of
the ordinance. Should the building owner install wall anchors
according to the proposed schedule, then high risk buildings would be
required to complete structural alterations wi thin four years, and
medium and low risk buildings would be required to complete structural
alterations within ten years. In the event the building owner does
not install wall anchors according to the schedule, structural
al terations would be required to be complete wi thin two years for
essential and high risk buildings, four years for medium risk
buildings, and five years for low risk buildings. The revised timing
- 33 -
.
.
4 .,
should provide sufficient time to arrange for financing and provides
an incentive to install wall anchors.
In addition to the timing issue, the Chamber has requested that
buildings undergoing retrofitting not be subject to the Title 24
accessibility requirements or to other building code requirements that
may be triggered as a result of the upgrading. Staff does not concur
with this request. The state Legislature considered this issue
recently and deferred definitive resolution when it encountered
substantial opposition from the accessibility community in that Title
24 already contains exemptions for improvements under a specific
dollar amount.
The other issues raised by the Chamber including waving permit fees
and permitting a one-for-one replacement are supported by staff.
Public Notice
As part of the preparation of the EIR and public hearing, the
following public notice was provided:
o All property owners I building occupants of URM buildings I
interested persons, were notified of the completion of the
environmental impact report (approximately 1,000 notices).
Notice was also published in the Evening Outlook and sent to
the Neighborhood Support Center and Chamber of Commerce.
Copies of the EIR were available at the public libraries and
at the NSC.
o All the above were also notified of the public hearing.
- 34 -
.
.
.l
o City staff and consultants talked with representatives of the
Chamber to discuss the findings of the ErR and subsequent
staff recommendation.
URM BUILDINGS vs. OTHER POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS
It is widely recognized that URM buildings are one of the most common
building types subj ect to serious failures that have life safety
consequences. However, other types of hazardous structures within the
Cityls building stock include pre-1976 tilt-up concrete and pre-1973
non-ductile concrete buildings.
There are approximately 100 tilt-up
and non-ductile concrete buildings in Santa Monica.
In addition,
other buildings recognized by the state's Seismic Safety Commission
(SSC) with a history of poor structural performance during seismic
events include:
o buildings that have long spans/ irregular shapes, or weak or
"soft" first stories;
o dilapidated buildings that have not been properly maintained
or buildings that have been weakened through modification:
o mobile homes and homes not tied to their foundations;
o buildings located in geologically hazardous areas such as
those subject to earthquake fault displacement, landslides or
soil liquefaction.
staff anticipates future programs to target seismic structural upgrade
of other types of potentially hazardous buildings.
However, the
proposed seismic retrofitting program concentrates on URMs in order to
fulfill the state law's requirements and to reduce the danger from
this building type, considered the foremost current threat to public
safety of all potentially hazardous buildings.
- 35 -
.
.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPAC~
The recommendation in this report will result in loss of building
permi t fees.
It is estimated that between $85,000 to $100,000 in
building permit fees will not be collected over the period of 1992 -
2000.
During the first year 1992-93, forgone fees would not exceed
$20,000, the balance will occur through 2000.
Based on preliminary
estimates, high risk buildings would account for approximately $40,000
in permit fees, medium risk buildings approximately $42,000 and low
risk buildings approximately $3,000.
RECOMHENDATION
Based on the conclusions derived from the Cost-Benefit Analysis and
the Environmental Impact Report, staff recommends that City Council:
1. Adopt the resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report.
2. Introduce for first reading the proposed mandatory seismic
retrofitting ordinance for the City of Santa Monica
3. Adopt the Resolution of Intention to Amend the Zoning Ordinance
to allow for the one to one replacement of a structurally upgraded
building in the event of an earthquake.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director
Suzanne Frick, principal Planner
Bill Rome, Building Officer
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
- 36 -
.
.
Attachments:
A: Mandatory Unreinforced Masonry Building Seismic
Retrofitting Ordinance - Page 00037
B: Unreinforced Masonry Building Locations in Santa Monica
c: Resolution of Intention to Amend the Zoning Ordinance
0: Resolution Certifying the Final EIR
E: Final EIR
- 37 -