SR-416-005 (3)
.
t(I (p" tJt/~
.
B>-A
-
1
C/ED:PC:JLA:lwk
Council Meeting 7/11/89
TO: Mayor and City Council
Santa Monica, California
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Introduce for First Reading Ordinance
Requiring Owners of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings to
Submit to the City an Engineer's or Architect's
Evaluation of those Buildings to the city Concerning
their Current Seismic Resistance capability and
Associated Recommendations.
INTRODUCTION
This report transmits staff I s recommendation that the
Council introduce for first reading an ordinance requiring owners
of unreinforced masonry CORM) buildings to provide an evaluation,
prepared by an engineer or architect licensed in the state of
California, to the city of their building's current seismic
resistance capability. This report also transmits a preliminary
discussion on the proposed recommendations for implementation of
a Seismic Retrofitting Program for Unreinforced Masonry
Buildings, and requests that the City Attorney be directed to
prepare an ordinance for subsequent consideration by the Building
and Safety Commission and the City Council. In addition, staff
recommends an Environmental Impact Report be developed in
conjunction with the proposed retrofitting program. This Program
is mandated by the State of California's Seismic Safety
Commission (approved Senate Bill No. 547) which requires local
building departments, by January 1, 1990, to identify potentially
hazardous buildings in their jurisdictions and establish a
mitigation program under which hazards of URM structures will be
- 1 -
e-A
.
.
4
reduced, in interest of public safety.
The objective of the ordinance (see Attachment A)
requiring an engineer's or architect's evaluation of URMs is to
receive reports for sUbmission to the Building and Safety
Commission for comprehensive review so that they can make
competent recommendations to the Council with respect to a future
URM retrofitting program. The engineer's or architect's
evaluation shall be submitted to the City within a three month
time period from adoption of the ordinance. A notice informing
the owners of requirements to have their buildings analyzed and
evaluated will be mailed upon adoption.
On November 14, 1988, the Building and Safety
Commission took public and expert testimony on the technical
aspects of Staff's proposed retrofitting program, and met again
on December 8, 1988 to discuss the issues. After extensive
discussion, the Commission voted to require each unreinforced
masonry building owner to obtain an evaluation report from a
licensed engineer or architect within nine months of the date of
notice [Staff is recommending a three month turnaround time to
expedite the evaluation of submittals and to permit the council
to take action on this issue prior to the January 1, 1990
deadline imposed by Senate Bill 547 (5.a. 547)J. The report was
to include a conclusion by the engineer or architect as to the
level of seismic design force the building could withstand.
Subsequently however, the City Attorney informed staff that the
Commiss ion lacks the authori ty to require such reports.
- 2 -
.
.
'"
Therefore an ordinance of the City council is necessary to enact
this requirement.
BACKGROUND
In 1986 the state passed Senate Bill 547 (Attachment
B), the Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Law, requiring cities and
counties to undertake the following steps: 1) inventory certain
older potentially hazardous buildings, 2) develop and implement a
mitigation program to reduce the hazard, and 3) submit
information on potentially hazardous buildings and the hazard
mi tigation program adopted by the city to the Seismic Safety
Commission by January I, 1990.
Building and Safety Departments are the responsible
agencies for implementation of the URM law. Santa Monica's
Building and Safety Division has already begun to meet some of
the law's requirements. It should be noted that the URM law
exempts from its provisions (i) any building having five living
units or less and (ii) any building whiCh qualifies as a
IIhistorical property" under state law.
In 1977-78, as directed by City Council, Building and
Safety staff performed a complete inventory (Attachment C), of
some 250 pre-1933 masonry and concrete buildings in the city.
This inventory meets the first step requirement of Senate Bill
547. In June 1978, a "NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD AND POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS BUILDING" was recorded on the title records of those
properties found not in compliance with minimum 1933 State
Seismic Design Standards.
- 3 -
"
.
.
The new law defines a "potentially hazardous building"
as any building with URM walls built prior to the adoption of a
local building code requiring earthquake-resistant design. The
City Attorney has advised City staff that, by state law, the
Santa Monica Building Code began requiring earthquake-resistant
design in 1934. Although the Santa Monica Building Code of 1915
and 1921 mentioned reinforcement requirements, such requirements
referred to fire and wind factors and not to ground motion.
Seismic analysis was not performed prior to 1933 and thus was not
incorporated into Santa Monica Building Codes until after the
state enacted the Riley Act after the Long Beach earthquake of
1933.
The Riley Act was subsequently amended in 1939 to
increase seismic design requirements by 50% and was later
superseded by the mandatory provisions of seismic design in the
Uniform Building Code which went into effect in 1961. The Riley
Act set forth the first state-wide set of seismic design
standards. It required that all buildings built after its
passage be able to withstand horizontal design forces from any
direction of not less than 2% of the building's weight, including
the weight of its occupants and contents (or, as stated in the
Riley Act, "2' of the total vertical design load" of the
building). It must be noted that this total vertical design load
percentage should not be confused with peak acceleration readings
from accelerographs, which measure energy transmitted from an
actual earthquake event to the site of the accelerograph.
- 4 -
.
.
I.
The second step in the URM law requires that the City
adopt and monitor a mitigation program for those buildings found
to be seismically deficient. The URM law mandated that the state
Seismic Safety commission prepare an advisory report for local
governments to use as a guide which contains criteria and
procedures for meeting the URM law. (See "Guidebooklt as
Attachment D.) Several requirements and options are described in
the state's Guidebook that may be part of a mitigation program to
obtain the goal of safer structures, including:
A. Adopting an ordinance to implement the requirements of the
URM law.
B. Requiring that owners provide a detailed structural
evaluation by a licensed engineer for filing with the city.
c. Requiring strengthening of structures according to a
compliance schedule.
D. Requiring strengthening at the time of major remodeling.
E. Requiring strengthening at the time of change in use.
F. Requiring that notices describing the hazard be posted on
buildings.
G. Requiring that tenants and lessees be notified of the
seismically hazardous condition of the building.
H. Requiring owners to reduce occupancy and any hazard to the
public.
I. Requiring owners to demolish where appropriate.
J. Requiring that notices be recorded against the title to the
buildings informing future buyers that the building 1s
considered potentially hazardous.
- 5 -
t.
.
.
K. Providing incentives to encourage owners to comply with the
program in a timely manner and providing for enforcement of
the mitigation program against owners who do not comply in a
timely manner.
staff anticipates recommending a mitigation program to
be adopted by the City which will include the following program
obj ecti ves: to reduce the inventory of seismically deficient
structures, to reduce the danger to human life, to reduce the
danger of loss of housing and increased homelessness as a result
of damage to URM structures, to reduce potential property damage,
to prevent the loss of the historic and architectural character
of the community, to reduce the costs to the City and property
owners in the event of a maj or earthquake, and to reduce the
demand on city emergency services providers in the event of a
major earthquake.
To achieve these objectives, staff anticipates
proposing that the City adopt an ordinance based upon the "Model
state Ordinance" (Attachment E), as the City's required
mitigation program. The model ordinance is patterned on the Los
Angeles ci ty ordinance, adopted in 1980, and requires
retrofitting of only unreinforced masonry bearinq wall buildings,
the type of URM building identified by the state as being the
most dangerous type of URM building. (In a URH bearinq wall
building, the walls support or "bear" the weight of the roof and
floors). However, the state Seismic Safety Commission has also
identified two other types of URM potentially hazardous
buildings, and has stated that it will eventually require cities
- 6 -
.
.
to retrofit these types of URM buildings as well. The two other
types of URM buildings are:
(i) steel frame buildings with walls or partitions of
unreinforced masonry (the steel frame supports the
weight of the roof and the floors);
(ii) non-ductile concrete frame buildings with walls or
partitions of unrein forced masonry (the concrete frame
supports the weight of roof and floors).
The ordinance, as it will be proposed by staff,
requires retrofitting of URM bearing wall buildings since the URM
law only requires a mitigation program for that type of URM
building at this time. Adoption of the ordinance will enable
Santa Monica to require owners to bring their seismically
deficient URM bearing wall structures into conformance with
minimum earthquake safety standards. The safety standards will
be set forth as a part of the ordinance. Staff is recommending
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be written on the
proposed mitigation program to discover if there will be any
significant impacts to the environment. Potential impacts
analyzed will include program a1 ternatives such as not
implementing a retrofitting program; implementing modified
programs and other alternatives appropriate to the issues.
- 7 -
.
.
DISCUSSION
November 14, 1988 Building and Safety Commission Review
prior to presenting this report and the anticipated
mitigation program report to Council, the City Building and
Safety Commission was asked to review the technical aspects of
the draft mitigation program staff report and to take testimony
at a public hearing from seismic experts, the public and owners
of unreinforced structures, and to prepare recommendations for
staff and council considerations. The first hearing held by the
Commission took place November 14, 1988 and lasted four hours.
The testimony from the seismic experts, representatives of
organizations and the public are briefly described below, a more
detailed report of the testimony can be reviewed as Attachment F
(this hearing was video-taped should the Council wish to review
the proceedings).
List of Speakers in order of appearance:
James E. Slasson, Ph.D., State Registered Geologist, Engineering
Geologist and Geophysicist, former state Geologist, former member
of state Seismic Safety Commission, and past member of Los
Angeles Hazardous Buildings Commission.
Thomas Heaton, Chief Seismologist, u.S. Geological Survey
Robert Kovach, state Registered Geophysicist, Consultant to the
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce.
Fredrick Turner, State Registered Structural Engineer, State
seismic Safety Commission.
- 8 -
..
.
.
Robert Nason, Ph.D. in Earth Sciences, Consultant to the Santa
Monica Chamber of Commerce.
Karl Deppe, Senior Structural Engineer, Assistant Chief,
Earthquake Division, Los Angeles Building and Safety Department,
State Registered structural and civil engineer, Member, hazardous
Buildings Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of
Southern California.
william Reqensberqer, Ph.D., Southern California Earthquake
Preparedness Project, Governor's Office of Emergency Services.
Ed Villaneuva, Chamber of Commerce.
Karl Shober, commercial Investment Property Association
wilbank Rush, Seismic Association
Members of the Public
The experts' most compelling message was the likelihood and
magni tude of an earthquake this area can expect. Both James
Slosson and Tom Heaton noted that the Newport-Inglewood fault is
more likely to effect Santa Monica than the San Andreas Fault,
and is likely to produce a 6 . 5 to 7.5 magni tude earthquake.
They noted the Malibu-Santa Monica fault is capable of producing
significant damage to Santa Monica much like the Whittier Narrows
fault produced in Whittier.
Both scientists discussed ground acceleration and the fact that
such measurements of energy released are not an accurate
parameter upon which to base a prediction as to a building's
ability to withstand ground motion. Slosson noted that ground
accelerations experienced at the epicenter of an earthquake
remain fairly constant for a distance of 10 kilometers then drop
- 9 -
...
.
.
off sharply as they get farther from the epicenter (see the
Ground Acceleration Chart as Attachment G). Slosson pointed out
that Santa Monica will experience ground accelerations of 40% of
gravity when the northern sector of the Newport-Inglewood fault
ruptures. Heaton thought the range would be in excess of 33% of
gravity and probably it will be closer to 66% of gravity.
Robert Kovach discussed his belief that Santa Monica is not at
risk from the San Andreas or the Malibu-Santa Monica faults but
is from the Newport-Inglewood. He also noted that he disagrees
with the State of California Division of Mines and Geology that
the Newport-Inglewood is capable of a 7 magnitude earthquake but
believes it could produce only a 6 "plus" magnitude. He stated
Santa Monica has experienced ground accelerations of 5-13% of
gravity and that because Santa Monica buildings have withstood
those ground accelerations they are likely to withstand any
ground accelerations in the future. He concluded that there is
no need for a retrofitting program.
Fredrick Turner, explained the state Seismic Safety Commission's
goals and objectives as they relate to the URM law and reminded
those at the hearing that there is a 60% chance of a maj or
earthquake in Southern California within 30 years.
Robert Nasson wanted the Commission to move their focus from URM
structures which he believes are safe in an earthquake to
concrete construction because he bel ieves they have not been
sufficiently evaluated.
- 10 -
.
.
Karl Deppe spoke to the Commission on the experience of the City
of Los Angeles with respect to their seismic retrofitting program
and noted a significant difference in retrofitted buildings'
behavior during the Whittier quake and those not yet retrofitted,
as the retrofitted structures withstood the quake significantly
better. Deppe said that "government anchors" alone [Staff notes
that government anchors are a type of reinforcement used to
anchor walls of a structure to its roof, so the walls do not fall
away from the roof as a result of wind pressure on a structure or
as a result of fire] were not found to be effective in the
Coalinga earthquake in 1983.
William Regensberger, told the co~~ission that the State's job to
design a disaster plan has uncovered the threat that URMs are
"potential deathtraps," and that earthquake injury studies reveal
most injuries are caused by falling building elements. The
falling and fallen rubble from URMs adds significantly to slow
rescue and medical, police, and fire service delivery.
Public Testimony
Ed Villaneuva represented the Chamber of Commerce opinion and
claimed that there is no new evidence that URMs are unsafe since
Council adopted Ordinance 1201 in 1981. The Chamber is concerned
that retrofitting would put a financial burden on business and
displace the elderly.
Karl Shober, Commercial Investment representative, requested that
no tests or evaluations on URMs be conducted based upon their
having withstood previous earthquakes.
- 11 -
.
.
Wilbank Rush noted that Santa Monica buildings should be
evaluated on its past survival experience and thus no further
action is necessary with respect to retrofitting as no building
has been damaged in past quakes.
Twelve members of the public testified and expressed their
concern on a number of issues from the expense of retrofitting,
zoning requirements, rent control issues [for a sl1mTllary of Rent
Control's position see page 15, last paragraph], and concern for
the cultural and historical value of buildings.
Adjournment of November 14 Public Hearing
After testimony was taken at the Building and Safety
Commission hearing (November 14, 1988) the commission closed the
public hearing and adjourned until December 8, 1988 when they
would discuss the issues.
December 8, 1988 Public Hearing
At the December meeting the Commissioners discussed a
nl~!Ilher of issues and felt strongly that they could not make a
competent recommendation to the Council without more detailed
survey information of the URMs.
The Commission felt that a detailed structural analysis
and evaluation of each URM performed by an architect or civil
engineer would provide them with the level of information
necessary for them to proceed. After two hours of deliberation,
the Commission voted to require each URM owner to obtain an
evaluation report from a licensed engineer or architect within
- 12 -
.
.
nine months of date of notice which would include a conclusion as
to the level of seismic design force that the building can
withstand in its present condition. Subsequently the City
Attorney informed staff that the Commission lacks the authority
to require such reports and that an ordinance of the City Council
is necessary to enact this requirement.
staff Discussion
Staff is concerned that the nine months the Building
commission required for evaluation may unduly delay the
development of a mitigation program and may not make it possible
for the Council to meet the January 1, 1990 deadline imposed by
the URM law. Although substantial testimony was given by
business owners and their representatives in opposition to the
seismic retrofitting of buildings, with particUlar concern
expressed for potential business disruption, staff believes that
it is essential to provide this measure of safety to the
community. Since the Building Commission hearings, staff has
been made aware of heightened public concern regarding seismic
safety as a result of recent earthquakes, such as those in the
eastern United states, Soviet Armenia and soviet TadZhikistan,
and most recently the series of earthquakes experienced in Santa
Monica Bay along the Mal ibu-Santa Monica Fault. Other cities,
including Los Angeles and Palo Al to, have adopted programs to
retrofit their seismically unsafe structures.
In addition, since the adoption of Ordinance 1201, the
California Division of Mines and Geology has recently
reclassified the Malibu-Santa Monica fault status from "inactive"
- 13 -
.
.
to "active". Furthermore, the Whittier Narrows fault is now
thought to possibly extend through Los Angeles and closer to the
Santa Monica bay area. Also, a segment of the Newport-Inglewood
fault (known as the Wilmington spur) has now been found to
possibly extend beneath Santa Monica. In addition, a fault known
as the Elysian Fault, (source of the June 12, 1989 earthquake)
has also been found to possibly extend into the Santa Monica bay
area. (See map listed as Attachment H). Santa Monica's
proximity to several significant fault zones should be most
directly evident from its location in "Los Angeles Basin" at the
base of the "Transverse Mountains": two distinct geomorphic
provinces. In light of these developments, staff believes that
the public health and safety require at a minimum the adoption of
the model ordinance, so that a seismic mitigation program may be
commenced as soon as possible. In order to move toward
developing a mitigation program it is imperative that the URMs
are analyzed by an engineer or architect so that the Building and
Safety Commission can evaluate the kind of retrofitting program
this city may need.
Finally, the Building and Safety Commission and the
public requested further information from City staff on the
following issues. Concern was expressed about what retrofitting
may do with respect to zoning issues. In answer to that concern,
the Planning Director has advised staff that provided there is no
increase in square footage or change in use as a consequence of a
structure's retrofitting there should be no zoning problems.
- 14 -
.
e
The Building Officer was asked at the December 8
meeting if other cities had codes similar to Santa Monica's 1915
and 1921 codes. He later responded that many cities such as Los
Angeles and Long Beach had reinforcement language in their
earlier building codes but, like Santa Monica's earlier codes,
such requirements pertained to fire and wind stability and not to
seismic design.
The Rent Control Administrator has advised staff that
the URM law neither supersedes nor is in conflict with the Rent
Control Ordinance, and the City Attorney concurs in that opinion.
According to Building Department records, a total of 15 URM
buildings (350 controlled rental units) are now subject to rent
control, for a total of 265,000 square feet. Of these 15
buildings: (i) 4 are residential-use-only buildings (215 CRUS)
and, (ii) 11 mixed-used buildings (165 CRUS).
Actual cost records on file in the Building
Department, based on retrofitted City structures, show the cost
to renovate residential-use-only buildings has been less than
$1.00 per square foot. The cost to renovate mixed-use
(commercial and residential) buildings has been from less than
$1. 00 per square foot to $3.00 per square foot. In addition,
actual experience with rehabilitation of mixed-use structures has
indicated that the majority of the cost of retrofitting such
structures is attributable to the commercial space.
To date, no tenant relocations or displacements have
been required to make seismic renovations of residential-use-only
- 15 -
.
.
buildings. Only one of the mixed-use buildings renovated so far
has required the temporary vacation of the rental units to make
the renovations. That building was the Criterion Apartments and
the owner put the tenants up at a local hotel for the few days
required to make the renovations. So far, no owner of any of the
renovated building has requested a rent increase.
The Rent Control Administrator has advised that because
of the small number of buildings (15) subject to rent control
that will be affected by the ordinance and because of the minimal
costs involved, any requests by owners for rent increases would
be handled by the Rent Control Board on a case by case basis.
OWners could petition for rent increases based on the actual
costs incurred in the retrofitting. Despite claims to the
contrary, actual experience indicates that retrOfitting costs for
residential and mixed-use structures are not substantial and do
not result in displacement of tenants.
The Police Chief has advised staff of his concern that
the occurrence of a major earthquake along any of the faults in
Southern California would be likely to remove the police from
their normal crime fighting role and involve them heavily in
emergency response activities. In addition, the Police Chief is
concerned that the occurrence of such a natural disaster could
create an increased demand for crime fighting services as a
result of the confusion and the increased opportunity for looting
of businesses and homes.
- 16 -
.
.
The Police Chief reminded staff that the Police
Department has at least six primary responsibilities in the event
of a major disaster: (i) evacuation, (ii) security of the
community as a whole, and particularly of damaged and evacuated
areas, (iii) handling of the deceased, (iv) traffic control, (v)
animal control, and (vi) law enforcement. However, the Police
Chief stated that the Police Department, depending on the time of
day, may have as few as six or as many as 13 uniformed officers
on duty, not counting division commanders, supervisors,
detectives and plain-clothes officers. Therefore, any steps the
community can take to reduce the demand on the police during such
a natural disaster will be extremely helpful.
Of course, off-duty police officers as well as
off-duty firefighters will be recalled to service, but will
probably experience difficulties in returning to the City. By
requiring the reinforcement of potentially hazardous structures,
the demand on police response will be lessened. Police officers
will then be able to turn their attention to other areas of the
City needing assistance and protection.
The Fire Chief has advised staff of his opinion that the
occurrence of a magnitude 6 earthquake or greater along any of
the major faults in Southern California will be likely to cause
the partial or total collapse of unreinforced masonry structures
in Santa Monica. He further believes that if such collapsed
structures are in a commercial area, then fire and rescue
personnel will have great difficulty in moving emergency
- 17 -
.
.
apparatus from certain parts of the city to other parts of the
City.
The Fire Chief reminded staff that the Fire Department
has three responsibilities in the event of a major disaster: (i)
fire extinguishing, (ii) light rescue and heavy rescue services
(heavy rescue to be performed in conjunction with General
Services personnel operating heavy equipment) , and (iii)
coordination of emergency medical response. However, the Fire
Chief stated that it is important for the community to be aware
that the Fire Department only has approximately thirty personnel
on duty at any time. In the event of a City-wide natural
disaster, thirty people can accomplish only so much. Assistance
from other communities through the California state Master Mutual
Aid system is not likely to be available because a magnitude 6
earthquake will keep them busy in their own jurisdictions.
Therefore, any steps the community can take to reduce the demand
on fire department resources during such a natural disaster will
be extremely helpful.
Of course, off-duty firefighters will be recalled to
service, but in the event of a major disaster those firefighters
will have difficulty or may even find it impossible to reach the
city. In the event that the Fire Department is confronted with
more demands on its services than it can perform, the Department
must respond to them in the following priority:
1. First, to save lives where they can;
- 18 -
.
.
2. Second, to save the community as a whole from a major
conflagration fire;
3. Third, to save private property.
By requiring the reinforcement of potentially hazardous
structures, firefighters will not have to focus their efforts on
freeing people trapped in collapsed structures. Instead, more
firefighters will be available to fight a major conflagration
fire, if one develops. If such a fire does not develop, then
more firefighters will be available to save private and
commercial structures. As a result, more firefighters will be
available to assist the community as a whole, rather than
focusing their efforts on saving people who may be trapped in
collapsed URM buildings.
Objectives of the Proposed Mitigation Ordinance
It is anticipated that the ordinance will assist the
Building and Safety Division and the public in performing the
seismic rehabilitation requirements of the state URM law.
Currently, the local Municipal Code requires rehabilitation at
the time a structurels occupancy classification changes pursuant
section 502 of the Building Code. Another mechanism that has
brought structures into compliance is that when a building is to
be sold, the buyer discovers the IINotice of Substandard and
potentially Hazardous Conditions" filed with the site records.
Both these methods of requiring compliance to seismic safety
standards are passive and are not likely to make the City a safer
community in the near future. The adoption of an ordinance that
- 19 -
.
.
~
includes the minimum seismic standards and a mitigation program
would provide the City with an active approach to making
buildings safer and will bring the city into full compliance with
the URM law.
The mitigation ordinance would allow the City to direct owners of
URM bearing wall buildings, one of the three types of buildings
found to be potentially hazardous by the state Seismic Safety
Commission, to demonstrate that their buildings meet minimum
seismic design standards and direct those owners whose structures
fail to meet such minimum seismic design standards to bring their
buildings into conformance with the Building Code. There is
currently no mechanism in this City that gives the Building and
Safety Division the authority to require that unreinforced
masonry buildings be made safe.
Although the proposed mitigation program may constitute a
financial burden and responsibility on building owners, staff and
the City Attorney continue to hold that a retrofitting program
based upon the model ordinance is warranted to protect the
health, safety and welfare of all the residents of Santa Monica.
By basing the ordinance to have URMs evaluated and the
proposed mitigation program and its ordinance on the state URM
law and on the model state ordinance, the City of santa Monica
can move ahead to reduce the risk of loss of life, loss of
housing and increased homelessness, loss of the historic and
architectural character of the city and of severe property damage
- 20 -
~
.
.
and will reduce the demand for emergency response staff resources
in the event of a major earthquake.
Conclusion
The evaluation of unreinforced masonry structures will
significantly enhance the Building and Safety Commission's
ability to make determinations and recommendations with respect
to mitigation programs whose primary goal would be the
retrofitting of URM's. The evaluations will also complete one of
the requirements of the URN law and in turn assist the City in
meeting the state reporting deadline of the City's URM inventory
and mitigation program set for January 1990.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
As proposed this ordinance will not have any budgetary
or financial impact on the City. There will be financial impact
on URM building owners for the analysis by an engineer or an
architect. Estimated cost to building owners for evaluation
reports is between $1,500 and $4,000 per building, or about $.28
per square foot.
RECOMMENDATION
In order to implement a comprehensive program to bring
seismically deficient structures into current Building Code
conformance and into compliance with state law, city staff and
the city Attorney respectfully recommend the City Council:
1. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance
requiring property owners of each URM to submit to the
- 21 -
.
.
Building Officer an evaluation report by a California
licensed engineer or architect to include a professional
conclusion on the level of seismic design force each URM
building can meet in its present condition.
2. Direct the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance
for a seismic safety mitigation program along the lines
proposed in this report.
3. Direct the Building and Safety Commission to review the
building reports once received by the city and to
review the draft seismic safety mitigation ordinance and
prepare a recommendation to the City Council regarding
the advisability of its adoption.
4. Direct the City Manager to enter into a contract with a
consultant for the development of an EIR on the proposed
seismic safety mitigation program.
Prepared by:
Peggy Curran, Director, Community and
Economic Development
Joan Akins, Assistant to the Director,
Community and Economic Development
Bill Rome, Building Officer
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Desi Alvarez, City Engineer
Thomas Tolman, Fire Chief
James F. Keane, Chief of Police
Maryann Yurkonis, Rent Control Administrator
Linda A. Mills-Coyne, Deputy City Attorney
- 22 -
:
.
.
Attachments:
A: Ordinance Requiring URMS to be Evaluated
B: state URM Law (SB547)
c: List of URM Buildings surveyed to Date
D: Seismic Safety commission Guidebook and Appendix
E: Model state Ordinance
F: Expert testimony
G: Ground Acceleration Chart
H. Map of California Showing Approximate Location of
Faults
(seismic3)
- 23 -