SR-416-005 (4)
.
\NfO
/j'/6~t)oS
(Z@t ffi --1-
JAN 1 2 1988
~
CED:B&S:BR:jt
council Meeting
1/12/88
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City city Council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT:
Information Report on Seismic Safety Preparedness
INTRODUCTION
This report provides the City Council with the following:
(A) Brief survey of current status of state and local
government programs for reducing or mitigating seismic
risks in urban areas;
(B) Review and results of previous Santa Monica seismic
safety policies and programs:
(C) Discussion of some considerations and alternatives for
this policy area in Santa Monica.
Background
state Seismic Safety Requirements
Virtually all expert opinion agrees that the major component of
any urban area's risk is the continued use of many older
buildings, particularly unreinforced masonry. This category of
structures was the first priority of the state Seismic Safety
Commission (SSC) in their statewide hazard reduction program
which was enacted as 8B547 in 1986. This law requires all local
lNFO 12E
eS-l
~~~ 1 2 1988
- 1 -
./
.
.
governments to complete an inventory, notice and mitigation
program for these buildings by January I, 1990.
Survey of Current California "Seismic Safety" Programs
Staff conducted a brief telephone survey of a number of older
cities in the Southern california area which yielded the
following information.
City
status & Comments
Los Angeles -
Adopted
comprehensive mitigation program
ordinance in 1980 .
This ordinance is well
known and served as basis for the Model State
Ordinance
(Attachment
1) .
Briefly,
it
requires rehabilitation of all unreinforced
masonry structures to minimum 1970 seismic
code standards within 6-15 years depending on
occupant load of building. The ordinance
grants 1-2 years "additional time" for
installed anchors which reduce the potential
for total collapse.
Following the Mexico
City earthquake
in
1985,
the original
ordinance time constraints were moved up
approximately one year. The Los Angeles
ordinance was challenged in court and found
to be a constitutional exercise of city
police powers by an appellate court in 1984
(Attachment 2). Los Angeles has an estimated
- 2 -
Long Beach -
Culver city -
Torrance -
Beverly Hills -
.
.
6,000 buildings subject to the ordinance; the
program is now proceeding on schedule.
Adopted the f irst comprehensive seismic
mitigation
older
for
masonry
program
structures in the nation in 1971.
After
several reconsiderations and some minor
modifications the Long Beach program is
proceeding on schedule.
Long Beach has an
estimated 500 structures remaining of an
original total of over 800; many of the
structures were removed through downtown
redevelopment.
Recently adopted an ordinance similar to Los
Angeles city and Model state Ordinances for
some 60 masonry structures, which include its
city Hall.
Recently adopted an ordinance similar to L.A.
City and the state for some 50 buildings.
Torrance's program is unique in that they are
exploring setting up a "l91l Assessment
District" fund city-wide to assist owners
with financing rehabilitation costs. The
legality of such a program approach is under
review.
Recently adopted its seismic safety element
and completed its detailed inventory of some
- 3 -
.
.
40 masonry buildings.
Currently, communi ty
meetings are in progress on the issue and a
consultant was retained to draft a mitigation
ordinance.
Inglewood -
City is in the process of a detailed review
of its inventory on about 50 masonry
structures
and
is
organizing
community
meetings on the issue.
Burbank -
Completed its detailed inventory of some 80
masonry buildings several years ago, but has
not yet formally considered a mitigation
program.
Glendale -
Completed its detailed inventory of some 600
masonry buildings and recently adopted a
comprehensive
seismic
safety
ordinance
similar to Los Angeles and the state
Ordinances.
Pasadena -
Has completed initial surveys of some 800
masonry structures but has no detailed
inventory or ordinance being processed at
this time.
state -
Seismic Safety Commission (SSC) sponsored
earthquake hazard reduction legislation in
both 1985 and 1986. SSC published the Model
Rehabilitation Ordinance in 1986; it is
- 4 -
.
.
involved in developing and implementing many
programs on seismic preparedness statewide.
The
SSC
received
multi-year
program
authorization and appropriations in 1986; and
can be expected to be more active on all
aspects of seismic safety issues for the
foreseeable future.
Financial Assistance
Pursuant to a request of the Chamber of Commerce, staff inquired
but could not locate any program of financial assistance to
owners for costs of required seismic rehabilitation except for
aforementioned proposed use of 1911 Assessment Act by Torrance.
Several
contacts
referenced the Los Angeles
court
case
(Attachment 2) as precluding this approach for private buildings.
Review and Update on past Santa Monica Seismic Safety Programs
The City Council has enacted specific policies on the seismic
safety issue on four separate occasions since 1974. These four
past City Council actions were:
1974-75 The Council authorized and funded the preparation of the
City's seismic Safety Element (SSE) and adopted it into the
General Plan.
SSE cited the continued use of the City's 230,
pre-1933, masonry buildings and their concentration in the
downtown area as a major seismic hazard within the city.
1977-78 The Council authorized and funded a detailed structural
inventory by staff of all pre-1933 masonry and concrete buildings
- 5 -
.
.
in the city and directed staff to record "NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD
AND POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS BUILDING" on title records of those
properties not in compliance with 1933 state seismic standards.
1980-81 The Council held public hearings on the proposed seismic
safety mitigation program and adopted Ordinance No. 1201 which
required wall anchors be installed on approximately 30 pre-1915
buildings by July 1985.
This program is now complete and all
pre-1915 masonry structures have the required minimum floor and
roof anchors.
1982-1983
city
Council
approved
funding
for
seismic
rehabili tation and renovation of the Ocean Park Library. The
Miles Playhouse was found to be structurally deficient with
respect to its ability to withstand earthquake shocks in 1978 and
any use of the facility was curtailed in 1983.
continues to be closed.
The Playhouse
1984-85 Council sought and was granted exemption by SSC from
provisions of 8B1797; however, this bill was ultimately vetoed
by the governor.
An identical bill, 8B547, was introduced in
1985 and passed in 1986 without listing any exempt cities
(Attachment 3).
This law requires all local governments to
complete an inventory, notice and mitigation program for all
unreinforced masonry buildings by January 1, 1990.
The January 1st, 1987 status of the City's seismic rehabilitation
program is shown on the following page. Review of the remaining
buildings in the program shows that virtually all have installed
minimum seismic anchors. Also, all owners of the 195 remaining
- 6 -
.
.
buildings were notified by letter dated November 30, 1987,
pursuant to 1986 state law SB 547, of their condition,
(Attachment 4). Over one-third have responded directly to staff
and pUblic attitude towards the mandatory seismic rehabilitation
ordinances has been favorable.
- 7 -
.
.
Santa Monica's "Hazardous Buildingsll Program Status 1/1/87
Total Buildings Noticed
corrected, Removed through
structures Remaining in Use
6/9/78
1/1/87
1/1/87
230
35
195
1,900,000
500,000
1,400,000
SF area
SF II
SF II
In terms of the Los Angeles City and Model State Ordinance
categories, the 195 structures remaining in use would be
classified as follows:
CL I "Essential" (Gov't. & Hasp) 0 0 SF area
CL II "High Risk" (over 100 occ) 60 800,000 SF area
CL III "Medium Risk" (over 20 occ) 105 550,000 SF area
CL IV "Low Risk" (less 20 occ) 30 50,000 SF area
Total 195 1,400,000 SF area
Distribution by use of the remaining 195 structures is as
follows:
Public Assembly Type Uses
Commercial Uses
Residential Uses
8
157
30
60,000 SF
840,000 SF
500,000 SF
areal
area2
area3
Total
195
1,400,000 SF
area
1) Eight specific "Public Assemblyll buildings see Attachment 5.
2) Over 50% of commercial area is concentrated in the "downtown
area" with another 15% along Main street.
3) About 1/2 of the residential use is in mixed use structures
with open type lower commercial floors. There are some 544
"controlled rental units" in the remaining inventory.
- 8 -
.
.
Discussion
The city Council should consider the following issues should they
wish to take action to strengthen the City's current seismic
safety requirements.
1) The present City policy, with respect to these masonry
buildings, is aimed at voluntary rehabilitation of
structures although notification provisions have certainly
accelerated these efforts. In addition to the obvious
public safety issue of allowing pre-1933 buildings to remain
unreinforced, one shortcoming of this policy is that it is
confusing and difficult for staff and real estate
professionals to advise parties on the future legal status
of these properties or to encourage investment. Most major
lending institutions will not currently re-loan on these
buildings without the applicant including some seismic
rehabilitation work.
2) Experienced engineering opinion is that residential masonry
structures have significantly more resistance to total
collapse. This is due to their conventional layouts without
extensive exterior wall openings and the close grids of
interior partitions. For this reason, residential
unreinforced masonry buildings often can be prudently
exempted from full rehabilitation requirements consistent
with pUblic safety goals, providing an engineering analysis
indicates that each structure's continuity is not
compromised by open lower stories. This is especially
- 9 -
.
.
significant for Santa Monica rent control concerns. Staff
discussed this aspect with the Rent Control Administrator
and his opinion was that any program that may be adopted by
the City Council could be handled on a case by case basis by
the Rent Control Board based on the small number of
residential buildings (30) involved, and the minimal costs
($2-5/square feet) that would be directly associated with
required residential modifications.
3) The costs of seismic rehabilitation are structure-specific
and have a range from $I/square foot to $ID/square foot
depending on the type and use of the structure and the
quality of the original construction. The initial detailed
engineering analysis and tests required to determine the
extent of abatement required will generally run less than
$l/square foot.
4) The Third street Mall area has a special safety
consideration in that over two-thirds of the buildings
presently fronting on the Mall from Arizona to Broadway have
had IIsubstandard and potentially hazardous" notices filed on
the property. Current City objectives to invite increased
pedestrian uses in this area should minimally include some
program to enhance the Mall area's seismic safety.
staff position Regarding Future Action
staff believes action should be taken to strengthen the City's
seismic safety requirements and will be exploring several options
prior to making recommendations to the City Council. Should the
- 10 -
.
.
Council wish, staff can also make recommendations regarding the
advisibility of requiring:
a) Full rehabilitation of any building upon sale or change
of ownership.
b) Notification by owner of status of building and
ordinance requirements to any subsequent lessee of
building.
c) Each owner to secure an engineering analysis and report
of the building's condition and rehabilitation options
by 1/1/1990 which would be filed with the Building and
Safety Division.
d) All Third street Mall Project area properties to
minimally rehabilitate street frontage construction for
structural adequacy by 1/1/1990.
Prepared by: W.D. Rome, Building Officer
Peggy Curran, Director
Department of Community and Economic Development
Attachments:
1. Model state Ordinance
2. Los Angeles Court Case
3. SB 547
4. Notice of Potentially Hazardous Building
5. Public Assembly Buildings
(selSffilC)
- 11 -