SR-8-B (67)LUTM:CPD:SF
w/~rm30
C~UNCIL MEETING: Septamber 22, 1992
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staf~
~r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ J i.
Sahta Manica, California
SUBJECT: Recommendation To Certify The Final Environmental Impact
Report And Adopt A Mandatory Seismic Retrofitting
Ordinance For Unreinforced Masonry Suildings In The City
Of Santa Monica And Approve A Resolution Of Intentian To
Amend The Zoning Ordinance Ta Permit Replacement Of A
Buildi.ng That Has Baen Structurally Retrofitted.
sx~~onvcTiorr
On July 14, 1992 the City Cauncil conduc~ted a public hearing ~o
review the proposed sei.smic retrafi~ting ordinance for the City
of Santa Monica. At that meeting the CounciZ reques~ed that
staf~ provide additional informativn on the fallawing issuss:
o More information on the cost estimates for retrofitting.
o Co~t, timing and benefit comparison information for
Level I and Leval II op~ions.
o Suggested revisions ta Section 5.00 of ~he Histo~ic
Buildings SectiQn.
o Architectural review for improvements made to historical
o~ architecturally significant structures.
a Evaluation of like-~'or-lik~ replacement for any
non-conf~rming structure destroyed in the City.
o In~ormation on tenant displacement probabilities in rent
controlled structures.
o Eva~uatian of requiring r~trofitting on sale o~ the
b~iZding ar~d the turnover rate for buiZding sales.
- 1 - r
~ ~Y ~ r. ' •.i Y t+
o Evaluate options for non-prvfit owners such as churches.
o Provide information on the probability oP earthquakes on
the diffarent faults used in the EIR analysis.
This staff raport provides Council with the informatzan requested
and recammends that the Council certify the Final EIR, introduce
for first read~ng the proposed ordinance and adopt the attached
resolutzan of intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The
propased ordinance has been revised to include a new financial
hardship exemption (Division 9) and revised language pertaining
to architecturally and historically significant buildings
(Division 5).
BACKGROUND
Since the public hearing in July, the City of Beverly Hills has
adopted a mandatory retrofitting ordinance consistent with the
struct~ral standards contained in Santa Manica's proposed
ordinanca. At this time, Santa Monica is the only City an the
westside with a significant stack of unreinforced masonry
buildings which does not have a mandatory retrofitting ardinance.
Tha buildings that have been reinforced t~ Level II standards
account for almost one half of all previously listed unreinforced
buildings. When this process began there were 252 unreinforced
masonry buildings in the City. As of September ~, 1992 there are
116 unreinforced buildings (20,100 sq.ft.) of which four are
currently undergoinq upgrading work. out of the originaZ 252
- 2 -
unr~inforced masanry buildings in the City, 110 have been
upgraded to the level YI s~andard~ and 25 have been demolished
and replaced with new development. Two buildings an the present
~15t~ 2934-36 Main Street and Miles Playhouse, have been upgraded
to Level I standards.
As pr~sented at the public hearing in July, a Level I program
involves anchoring the waZ1s, securing by bracing or ~emoving the
parapets, and providing out-of-plane strengthening. This upgrade
(sam~times referred to as anchorage and interconneetion} would
require a re~atively low level of strengthening. Tensian and
shear anchors (commanly referred to as ties} would anchor the
unreinforcad masonry walls to flaars and roafs and additional
wark would be done to prevent walls from col~ap~ing (out-of-plane
failure). Typically, this work wauZd be confinad ta perimeter
walls, although strengthening would also be required of
unreinforced interior walls in larger buildings and in buildings
with unsatisfac~ary wall height to thickness ratios.
The Level II pragram would req~ire Level I strengthening plus
additional work invalving roof and floor strenqth~ning and
in-plane strengthening of extarior walls. The in-p~ane
strengthening requi~ements represent a significant increase in
cons~ruction requirements over Level I standards. Generally, th~
Level II cons~ruction program would require an extensive removal
of finishes, the installation of plywood shear wal~, the
- 3 -
restoratian af ~inishes and possibly the installation of
structura~ steel.
Cost Estimates For Retrofitting
At the initial public hearing on the ordinance, public tes~imony
concerning the cost of a Le~e1 II upgrade was confusing and
contradict~ry, This confusion is no~ unexpee~ed since a number
oF site and building specific conditians can substantially
influence the total cost of an upgrade. Some of the variables
which can incxease costs and which wer~ idant~fied by members o~
t~e public ara discuss~d tharaughly in the EIR.
Level II upgrade costs can vary widely depend~ng on a building's
attributes including the shape and size af the structure, the
number of crass wal~s pr~ssnt, the size and location of w~ndows
and daors, the amount of roof bracing, the presence or absence of
open building ele~ents (such as retail window dispZays), and
related architectural features. Upgrade costs can also vary as a
result of other consideratians which are unrelated to building
form. These considerations include: extra contractor time and
costs resulting from delays due to occupants remaining in a
building during the upgrade, cost increases related ta historic
preservation cancerns, extent of remodel and interiar wall finish
repZacement, and soil relat~d conditions (such as ~iquefaction
potential). With sa many factors influencing the total cost of
any individual bu~lding upgrade, it is not surprising that an
- 4 -
average figure is a weak predictor of ultimata project costs. An
average is useful as a predictor only in cases where there is
reZa~ive cansistency in the data being summarized. This is not
the case with seismic upgrade costs.
Given this limitation an average cast estimates, other optians
should be evaluated ~o estimate the fiscal impacts af upgrading.
The most useful statistic in this case is the range of costs. As
discussed in the EIR and in the public testimony, the range af
costs for a Le~el II upgrade is from a low o€ $5 per square foot
to a high of $20 per square foot (ar more in exceptional cases).
Therefore, the estimates discussed in the initial public hearing
are consistent with the range of costs documented in tha EIR.
very detailed cost estimates are discussed in both the EIR and
campanion Technical Appendix.
Another issue raised during the previous hearing dealt with the
ability ot property owners to absorb the casts of upgrading. The
extent of voluntary upgrades being performed in a community is an
aff~ctive indirect measure of the ability of local business
conditions to absorb the casts of upgrading without substantial
econamic harm. In Santa Monica, considerable voluntary
rehabilitation and upgrading is occurring which indicates that
(1) those owners most abie to afford the upgrades are praceeding
to pratect their buildings and (2) recovering investment in
seismic strengthening can be accomp~ished given local rental
market conditions. This conclusion daes not mean that no
- 5 -
individual building awner may Experience financial hardship in
complying with the proposed strenqthening requirements.
Therefore, staff is proposing ~odifications to the ordinance
which would provide flexibility in compliance in cases where
upgrading would result in documented severe financial hardship.
(5ee discussion below}.
Cast~ Timing and Benefit Compar~son Information for Lev~l I and
Level II Optians.
As noted above, the cost range for Level 2I retrofitting is
between $5.00 to $20.00 a square foat. The range for Level I
upgrading is between $3.00 to $13.bo a sq~are foot. In general,
Level I upgrading is appraximateiy 80-85~ of the aost associated
with Level FI upgrading. Therefore, the cost betwe~n a Level I
and Level II upgrade is not a significant economic factor.
Based on data generated for bu~ldings in San Francisco, the
estimated construction duration for Level I retrofitting with
occupancy is between five and eight weeks. Actual disp~acement
of any singZe occupant within a speci~ic building cou~d be
batween five and ten days in the immediate vicinity of the anchor
installation. Far prajects without occupancy, pro3ect duration
is generally propartional ta praject cost. Projects which cost
less than $25,000 wauld take about four weeks, projects between
$25,000-$50,000 wauld take four to seven weeks, and projects
be~ween $50,000-$100,000 would take seven to ten weeks.
- 6 -
Depending on the size and shape of a structure, the construction
duration for Level II retrofitting ranges betw~en six tQ twenty
weeks if the building remains occupied. Without occupancy, the
duratian could be as brief as three weeks and as long as twenty
weeks. With accupancy maintained, the work period is generaZly
twice as long as ~t would be without occupancy.
During the initial public hearing on the proposed ordinance,
members of the p~blic referred to the LeveZ I upgrade as a life
safety upgrade and the Level II as a building damage raduction
standard. This attribution is nat carrect. The Level II upgrade
is the minimum life saPaty upgrade for the City of Santa Monica
and only the Level III option, determined to b~ financially
infeasible in the Fina1 EIR, will assure some sv.bstantial
building damage reduction. Although a Leval II upgrade would
somewhat lessen the ex~ent of building damage, this is nat the
design ob~ective of a Level II strenqthening program.
In Santa Mona.ca, a Level I upgrade only has effective life safety
benefits for an event typical of earthq~akes on more distant
faults (such as the San Andreas Fault). For the design faults in
the Santa Monica region (the Newport - Inglewaad and adjacent
~auZts), a Level 1 upgrade does not provide satisfactory minimum
life safety protec'tion. Within the City and surrounding area,
only a Level II retrafit achieves the abjective of community life
safety. This finding is documented in the seismic risk modeling
presented in the Fina]. E~R.
- 7 -
Members of the public ex~racted statements fram the EIR text
which suggested that a Level I standard had the highest cost ta
benefit ratio of any upgrade standard. While mast engineers
would generally agree with this statement, it is impartant to
stress that a Level I upgrade in Santa Monica represents only a
very partial solution of the hazard reduction objectives that
need to be addressed. Furthermare, a Level I upgrade only
addresses the most frequent sources af fatality (parapet
collapsey but not the most catastraphic types af failure. In a
City without a substantial fault system in the immediate
environment, a Le~el I upgrad~ could be sufficient to assure
reasonable life safety pratectian. However, given the patential
intensity of Zocal fault movements in or near Santa Monica, a
Leae1 I program is insufficient far a minimum life safety
standard. It shou~d also be noted that Leve~ I costs usually
account for approximately 85~ of Level II upgrade costs.
While it may be true that the cost to benefit ratio far a Level 2
standard is high compared to more intensive upgrade options, it
is alsa true that a Level I standard provides incomplete life
safety benefits far Santa Monica. Far this reason, the Level I
standard was not recommended despite the cost to benefit value af
this option because this standard is not the applicable design
criteria far Santa Monica. Moreover, it is important to
subardinate the cost to benefit ratio question to the primary
~ S -
objec~ive of the ardinance which is reduction of injury and
fatality to the extent feasible.
Revisions to the Proposed Ordinance Regarding Historic Buildings
At the July 14, 1992 hearing, objections were raised to the
language in the ordinance concerning historic buildings (Division
5). In response, City staff has redrafted and simplified the
provisions of this section. In effect, the revised language
reqtxires that designated local, national, or state historic or
architectural landmarks comply with the Level II standard. In
cases where this level af s~reng~hening has the potentia~ to
modify the historic or architectural integrity af a structure,
the revised ardinance permits the City Building Official to
modi~y upgrade requirements through the use of special
construction pracedures permitted under the State H~staric
Building code. It is important to understand that the State
Historic Build~ng Code does not include farmal design or
strengthening standards like the State Model Ordinance; rather,
the Historic Code permits modifications or relaxation of
standards to achieve either building preservation ar restoration.
The legisZative intent of the State Historic Building Code was to
encourage preservation of the historic building stock while the
intent of the State URM Ordinance was to establish a S~ate-wide
program with defined building standards that would encouraqe
strengthaning. Histor~c preservation and seismic strengthening
requ~rements, with the inclusian of State Historic Building Code
_ g _
allawances, are not incompatible abjectives. Furthermore, the
adoption o€ the Level II standard will assist in the preservation
of the City's historic building stock.
This change in the proposed Drdinance would nat modify the
applzcability of Mills Act's Contracts to the City's historic
properties. These types of contracts substantially reduce tha
property tax levied on a contracted praperty. Beca~se Mills Act
benefits are linked ~o property tax valuation, this type of
program is mast beneficial for recently purchased properties.
Architectural Review For Improvements Made T~ Historical Or
ArchitecturaZly Significant Struct~res
Staff cancurs that some farm of architectural review is nec~ssary
for historical or architecturally significant buildings. Of the
~1& remain~ng bui~dings, 65 are identifzed on the Historic
Resources Survey as suitable for individual landmark designation
or as a contributing structure ta a historic district. Prior to
issuance of a building permit for retrofi~ting that may aiter the
exteriar appearance of one of these buildings, the Building and
Safety Division wi1Z require Architectural Revisw Board approval
of the exterior modifications.
- 10 -
Evaluation Of The Like ~or Like Replacemant For Any Non
Conforming Structure Destrayed In The City
CurrEntly the Zoning ardinanc~ precludes the replacement of a
non-canforming buiiding in the event it is damaged or destrayed
to an extent of one-half or more af its replacement cast
immediately prior to such damage. A building falling into this
category may not be restored to its non-conform~ng condition but
must be made to conform to the present Zoning Ordinance
standards.
As an incentive for owners to retrofit their bui~dings, staff is
recommending that the Zoning Ord~nance be modified to allow full
replacement of a non-conforming building provided it is
retrofitted to the Level II s~andards should it be destroyed as a
result af an earthquake or earthquake related fire. Members of
the public requested that the exemptian apply to retrofitted
buildings regard~.ess of haw they may be destroyed. It is a
policy decision ta expand the exemption as proposed by the public
and staff has no objections to expanding this exemptian. The
Zoning Ordinance amendment was proposed as an incentive for
praperty owners to retrofit given the expense involved and the
public benefit received as a result of the improve~ent.
- 11 -
Tenant Displacement Prababilities In Rent Controlled Structures
Of the ~15 buildings remaining on the list of unreinfarced
masonry structures, ten are res~dential buildings, hotels or
mixed use residential buildings. There are a total of 221 units
in all of these buildings. Because af the numerous crass walls
in residential buiZdings, the residential buildings retrafit~ed
to date in Santa Monica have been below the typical retrofitting
costs (less than $1.00 to $5.00 per square foot). Permanent
displacemant of tenants has never b~en required by the
retrofitting of the residential structures in Santa Monica,
Additianally, no reques~s for passing through rehabilitatian
costs have been made ta the Rent Control Baard.
Since over two-thirds o~ the original unreinforced masonry
residential units have already besn voluntarily retrofitted, it
is not anticipated that the cost impact on any residential
building or on resid~ntial tenants wiil be significant if the
Level 2I standard is adopted. In contrast, retrofitting will
reduce th~ risk of permanent displacement of residential tenants
who ~ight otherwise be displaced from their affordable housing
after a mQd~rate earthquake as was the case in Watsonvil~e, Santa
Cruz, Hollister after the Loma Prieta earthquake.
- 12 -
Retrofitting On Sale Of The Building And The Turnover Rate For
Building Sales
Staff has researched the remaining 116 unrainfarced buildings to
determine the ~ast date of sale. The following provides
informatian on tha rate of sales according to each building
category. The table shows the number of buildings that have so~d
over the last 20 years.
Last Sale Last Sal~
1-5 yrs 6-~p yrs
High Risk 8 bldgs 2 bldgs
Number
Last Sale Last Sale of
11-20 yrs over 20 yrs Bldgs
7 bldgs 5 bldgs 22
Medium Risk 19 bZdgs 14 b~dgs 22 bldqs
Low Risk
TOTAL
10 bldgs 1 bldg 4 bldgs
37 bldgs 17 bldgs 33 bldgs
20 bldgs 75
4 bZdgs 19
29 bldgs 116
The ~igures show that 54 of the buil.dings have soZd in the last
ten years and G2 buildings have not been sald for over 11 years.
Given the random nature of the sales activity, staff daes not
recammend making any changes to the proposed time limits. The
propased ordinance requi~es that al]. buildings install wa].1
anchors within one year ot the adoption date af the ordinance
(Level I upgrade). If tha.s is done, a property owner must
co~nence construction of the structural changes within two years
- 13 --
and complete constructian within four years for type r and ~~
buildings, and commence construction within eight years and
complete constructian within ten years for far type III and IV
buildings. If a property owner does not install wall anchors
within one year, s~ructural changes must commence within one year
oP the adoptian date of the ordinance and be completed within two
years for type T and II strnctures, for type II~ buildings,
construction must commenca within faur years and ba complete
within five years, and far type IV buzldings, construction must
commence w~thin five years and be complete within six years.
The proposed ~rdinance's time limits represent an attempt to make
compliance easier for owners without neglectinq the importance of
life safety issues. Engine~rs agree that wall anchors play a
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 substantial
reduction of hazards to i~fe safety. Again, a~though Le~~l I
provides some reduction of life safety hazard, it daes not meet
recommended minimum life safety s~andards ~or areas such as Santa
Monica which is close to such active faults as the
Newpart-Ing~ewood fault.
Hardship ~ptzons
Council directed staff to address a means of relieving non-pzofi~
(Houses of Worship) owners from casts associated with
- 14 -
retra~itting URM building$. Outlined below is a hardship
procadure which wau~d apply to other non-prafits as well as
athers who may experience a financial hardship.
A new Division (Divisian 9) has been added to tha proposed
Ordinance to address the issue of potential financial hardships
that may be cr~ated by adoption of a Level II standard. The EIR
concluded that a sma11 proportion of the City's building awners
would potentially experience significant financial impacts if a
mandatory Level II standard is adopted. Division 9 has been
created ta enable the City to exercise discretion over the timing
af compliance with the standard if a bui~ding owner can
demonstrate that cQmpliance wouid result in signi~icant hardship.
The evidence of hardship would need ta be compelling and would
need ta be documanted ta the City's satisfaction.
Probabilities Of Earthquakes On The Fau~ts Studied In The EIR
It is very difficu~t to predict the probability of an earthquake
on any given fault. Hawever, for purposes af the risk model
developed in the EIR, several assumptions were made. Cansid~ring
the presence of a large number of active faults in the Santa
Monica area, a selectian was made of possible seis~ic events that
cauld effect the City. The most I~kely evant (a 30~ chance of
occurring in ~he next 30 years) would accur on the San Andreas
fault. Given the location of thE fau~t, sign~ficant damage is
not expected ta accur in the City.
- 15 -
The Santa Monica-Malibu fault is potentially activ~ and is
located within Santa Manica. This fau~t system is capable of
generating an event of Richter Magnitude 7.5 and therefore,
represants a wazst case condition for the City. However, the
probability af a movemant along this system is less than 1~
chance af occurrence over the next 3d years. Therefore, this was
nat the study fault used in the EIR analysis. Rather an event on
the Newpart-Inglewood fault was the design fault used in the ~IR.
This fault is capable of praducing a 7.S magnitude quake and the
probability of accurrence is about 5~ in the next 30 years.
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this report do nat have a budget
or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recammended that the City Council:
1. Adopt the resolutian certifying the Fina1 EIR.
2. Introduce for first reading the praposed mandatory seismic
retrafitting ardinance for the City of Santa Monica.
3. Adopt th~ Reso~u~ion of ~ntention to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to al.law for the one to one replacement of a
structura~.ly upgraded building in the event of an earthquake.
- 1.6 -
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Bi~l Rome, Building Officer
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Program and Policy Development Division
Attachments: A: Mandatory Unreinfarced Masonry Building
~rdinance
B: Updated List of Unreinforced Masonxy Buildings
In Santa Monica
C: Resalution of Inten~ion To Amend The Zoning
Ordinance
D: Resalution Certifying the Final EIR
E: Final EIR (Provided at July 14, 1992 Meeting)
- i~ -
AT~ACI~ME~VT' A
~~~~~
CA:RMM:1mcd001/hpc/pc
City Council Meeting Santa MOn1Cdr California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council Series)
AN ORDYNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING A MANDATORY SEISMIC
RETROFITTING ORDINANCE AND THE SANTA MONICA
AMENDMENTS THERETO
WHEREAS, the City Cauncil has heard pubiic testimony on and
has discussed and considered certain serious general community
safety problems caused by the number, size, location, and present
use of some 125 pre-i934 unreinforced masonry potentially
hazardous buildings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the probability of
potentially damaging seismic acti~ity affecting the community;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the community's
exposure to the damaging effects of such local seismic activity
with potential demands on emergency services needs to be
significantly reduced; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 1981, the City Council adopted, as
part of the Santa Monica Municipal Code ("Cade"), Ordinance
Number 12~1 (CCS) relating to Supplemental Seismic Safety
Rehabilitation Requirements; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1989, the Ci~y Council adopted
Ordinance Number 1489 (CCS) ~o require "Seismic Evaluation
- 1 -
Reports" for pre-1934 unrEinforced masonry structures and has
considered a summary of the results af such reparts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered Appendix Chapter 1
af th~ 1991 Edition of the Uniform Code for Building Conser~ation
("UCBC") published by the ~nternatianal Conference af Building
Officia~s {"TCBO"j and recammended by the State Seismic Safety
Commission as the technical specifications ("Technical
Specifications") Qf the madel ordinancE ("Model Ordinance'~} to
local governments in Seismic Hazard Zone 4 of California as an
effective earthquake hazard mitigation program for buildings with
unreinforced masanry bearing wall construction; and
WHEREAS, Santa M~nica is located in Seismic Hazard Zone 4;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the
TEChnical Specifications will reduce the risk af damage, death,
and injury, and reduce the demand on City ~mergency services
that may result from the effects of earthquakes an existing
unreinforced masonry buildings, but that campliance wi~l nat
necessarily prevent loss of Iife or injury, nor prevent
ear~hquake damage; and
WHEREAS, the City Coltncil has considered certaxn additions,
amendments, and modifications to the Model ordinance for purposes
~f administratiQn and enforcement ~n the City of Santa Monica;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Model
Ordinance with certain additions, amendments and modifications
wi~l assist in maintaining the community's total building
- 2 -
inventory within the present capabilities of th~ City's emergency
services; and
WHEREAS, the adaption of the proposed Model Ordinance with
certain additions, amendmen~s and modifications will establish a
mitigatian program for potentially hazardous buildings as
required by Government Code 5ection 8875 {previously known as
Senate Bill 5~7); and
WHEREAS, the City Cauncil finds that it is in the interest
of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Santa
M~nica to adopt a mandatory seismic retrofitting ordinanc~,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTT~N 1. Section 81~2 is added to the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to read as follows:
SECTION 8~12. Seismic Retrofitting Code. That
certain document entitled "Appendix Chapter 1 of the
Unifarm Code of Building Conservation, 1991 Edition"
published by the Interna~ional Conference of Building
Officials is hereby adopted as amended, deleted, ar
modified herein as the 5eismic Re~.rofitting Code af
the City of Santa Monica, and shall be referred to,
together with such amendments~ deletions, or
modificatians thereto as the "Seismic Retrofitting
Code."
SECTION 2. Section 8109.4 of the Santa Monica MunicipaZ
Code is am~nded to read as follows:
-- 3 -
SECTION 8109.4. Section 205(c) af the Uniform
Administrative Code, 1991 edition, relating to
Supplemental S~ismic Safety Rehabilitation
Requirements is amended to ~ead as follaws:
Division 1.00. Scope. The provisions of this
Section shall apply to all pre-1934 unreinforced
masonry structures which currently have or may in the
future have recorded against them an the record of
title in the County Recorder's Off~ce a City "Notice
of Substandard and Potentially Hazardous Building."
Division 2.00. Compliance Requirements. The
owner of each building within the scope of this
Section shall, within the time limits set forth in
this Section, cause the building to be structurally
alte~ed to conform to the earthquake standards
specified in the Seismic Retrofitting Cade.
Divis~on 3.00. Occupant Load and Buildinq
Type. The occupant load of each building subject ta
the Seismic Retrofitting Code sha~l be determined by
the Building Official in accordance with Section 3302
of the Uniform Building Cade. For purposes of
camplying with ~he time limits set forth in Division
4.00, the rating classification ("Type") af the
building shall be defined as follaws:
- 4 -
Rating Building occupant
Classification Type Load
Essential I Any
High risk TI 10~ or more
Medium risk III-A 100 or mare
III-B More than 20,
but fewer than
l~D
Low risk IV Fewer than 20
An "essential" building shall be any building
that must be usab~e ~n the event of an emerg~ncy, and
shall include hospitals, police and fire stations and
disaster recovery centers. A"high risk" building
shall be any building with loD ar more occupants and
without ~asonry or woodframe crosswalls spaced less
than 40 feet apart in each story. A"medium risk
subclass A" building shall be any building with 100
or more occupants and with masonry or woodframe
crosswalls spac~d less than 40 feet apart in each
story. A"medium risk subclass B" building shall be
any building with more than 20 but fewer than 100
occupants. A"low risk" building shall be any
building with fewer than 20 occupants.
Divisian 4.00. Timetable for Compliance. The
time limits set forth below shall begin to run from
the date the Seismic Retrafitting Cade is adopted.
- 5 -
The owner af a building wi~hin ~he scope of this
Section shail comply with the requirements set forth
herein and in the Seismic Retrofitting Code by filing
for a permit, submitting plans to the Building
Official, commencing construction and completing
construction within the time limits specified below:
Required
Action
By Owner
File far
Permit and
Submit
Plans to
Building
Building Officia~
Type within
C4mxnBrice
Construction
Within
CQmplete
Construction
Within
A. Install
Wall
Anchors:
Type I,
II, III,
IV 18o Days 270 Days
B. If Wall
Anchors
Installed,
Then Make
5tructural
Alterations:
Type I 635 Days
(1 yr
9 mos}
Type YI 635 Days
(~ yr
9 mo s )
Type IIT 2825 Days
(7 yrs
9 mos)
Type IV 2825 Days
(7 yrs
9 mos)
2 Years
2 Years
8 Years
8 Years
1 Year
4 Years
4 Years
10 Years
10 Years
- 6 -
File for
Permit and
Submit
Plans to
Required Building
Action Building Official
By Owner Type Within
Commence
Canstruction
Within
Complete
Constxuction
Within
C. If Wall
Anchors
Ar2 Not
Installed,
Then Make
Structural
Alterations:
Type z 270 Days
Type II 270 Days
Type III 1000 Days
(2 yrs
9 mas)
Type IV 1365 Days
(3 yrs
9 mos)
1 Year
1 Year
3 Years
4 Yea7rs
2 Years
2 Years
4 Years
5 Yea~s
Such plans shall be prepared by a State licensed
architact or engineer. After plans are filed and
approved by the Building Official, the owner shall
obtain a Building Permit and then commence and
complete the required construc~.ion within ~he time
limits set forth above. That portian af the plan
check and building permit fees that are allocable to
structural alteration of ~.he lauilding that is
necessary for compliance with the Seismic
Retrafitting Code shall be waived by the Building
Official.
An awner electing to insta~l wall anchars
pursuant to the Seismic Re~rofi~ting Code is also
- 7 -
required to structurally alter the building to make
it fully comply with the Seismic Retrofitting Code
within the time limits set forth herein.
Division 5.00. Historxcal Buildings.
Buildings designated as histarical~y or
architecturally significant landmarks on nat~onal,
state or loca~ historical registers shall comply with
the Seismic Retrofitting Code. At the Building
Official's discretion, mod~ficatians to the
retrofitting standards set forth in the Seismic
Retrofitting Cade may be made so long as such
modifications are consistenti with the provisions af
the State Historic Building Code.
Division 5.00. Demolition. An owner desiring
to demalish a building must nevertheless comply with
the pravisions of this Code unless such owner
receives permission to demolish the building prior to
the time limits set forth in Di~isian 4.00 herein for
the filing of a permit and the submitting of plans ta
the Building Official. Such an owner shall submit a
Demolition Permit Application to the Building
Official and shall meet all of the requirements for
demolition imposed by this Cade including but not
Iimited to those requireme~ts set forth in Sectian
9048.1 of this Code before such a demolition shall be
permitted. Nothing in this Sectian or in the Seismic
Retrofitting Code shall be deemed ta relieve a
building owner of ineeting the requiremants for
- 8 -
demoliti~n of a building impased by any other
applicab~e law or regulation.
Division 7.00. Appeal of Initial
Determination. Th~ own~r of any building ~ay appeal
the Building Official's initial determination that
the building is within the scope of this Code to the
Building and Safety Cammission as the Board of
Appeals established by Section 204 of the Uniform
Administrative COd~r as am~nd~d and adopted at
Section 8101 of this Code. Such appeal shall be
filed with the Board w~thin sixty (60) days from the
date the Seismic Retrafitting Code becomes effective.
Any such appeal shall be decided by the Board no
later than ninety (90) days after filing and the
grounds thereof shall be stated clearly and
concisely. Appeals or requests for madifications
from any other determinations, orders, or actions by
the Building 4fficial pursuant to this Section may be
made in accardance with the procedures established in
Sectians 105 and 106 of the Uniform Building Cade and
Section 204 of the Uniform Administrative Code, as
adopted by the City.
Division 8.00. Enfarcement. If the awner in
charge or cantral of the subject building fails to
comply with this Code within any of the time limits
set forth herein, the Building Official may order
that the entire building be vacated and that the
building remain vacated until this Code has been
- 9 -
complied with. If compliance has not bean initiated
within ninety (9D) days after the date the building
has been ordered vacated or such additional time as
may have been granted by the Board of Appeals, the
Building Official may (i} commence the building's
demolition in accordance with the provisions of
Section 203 of the Unifarm Bui~ding Coda and in
accordance with the Uniform Code for the Abatement af
Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the City; or, (~i}
undertake and complete such structural altera~ion of
the building as may be necessary in the sale judgment
of the Building Official to cause the building to
conform to the earthquake standards specified in the
Seismic Retrafitting Code, and to cause a lien far
the costs of such structural alteration to be placed
against the property. No demolition may occur
pursuant to this Division 8.00 without compliance
with all City laws and regulations gov~rning
demolitions.
Division 9.00. Appeal Based on Severe
Financial H~rdship. The owner af any buildzng may
appeal an the basis of severe financial hardship fram
compliance with this Code. Such appeal shall be
filed with the City's Chief ~inancial Officer no
later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the
deadline set farth in Division 4.00 of this Code for
the filing for a permit with the City Building
Official. Any such appeal shall be decided by the
- 10 -
Chief ~inancial Officer no later than ninety (90)
days after filing and the grounds thereaf shal~ be
stated clearly and concisely,
The burden shal~ be an the owner to demonstrate
conclusively that compliance with this Code shall
result in severe financial hardship. Documentary
evidence shall be submitted by the owner at the time
the appeal is filed and shal~ clearly demonstrate
that compliance with this Cade shall result in severe
financial hardship. Such documentary evidence may
include, but shall not be ~imited to~ the owner's tax
returns~ general ledgers, rental and lease
agreements, personal and corporate income and expense
records, and any such other financial documents or
information as the owner desires to submit for
consideration or as the City's Chief Financial
4fficer deems necessary or desirable in evaluating
the owner's claim of hardship. The failure of the
owner to pro~ide any financial document or
information requested by the Chief Financial Officer
shall result in denial of the appeal.
In any case where a building ~s exempted from
compliance with the Code on the basis of financial
hardship, such exemption shall be null and void and
of no further force or effect at the time the
building is sold or experiences a major change of
occupancy as defined in the Building Code.
- l~ -
SECTION 3. Section 8~09.9 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as fallows:
SECTION 8109.9. Application.
(a) Any vialation of the Uniform Codes
(contained in Sections 8101 thraugh 8108 and in
Sect~on 8112 of this Code) or lacal amendments
thereto (contained in Section 8109.1 through 8109.8
of this Code) shall be a misdemeanor as provided for
in Section 1200 of this Code.
(b) The amendments to the Unifarm Cades and
local amendments ~hereto shall not in any manner
affect the prosecution for vialations thereof, which
violations were committed prior to the effective date
of the ordinance adopting the Section and shall not
affect any prosecution or action which may be pending
in any court for the vialation of any of the
provisions thereof. As to any such violation or as
to any such prosecution or pend~ng prosecution or
action, the uniform Codes and local amendments
thereto in effect prior to the adaption of the
ordinance adopting this Sectian shall be deemed to
cantinue and be in full force and effect.
(c) The provisions of the amendments to the
Uniform Codes and local amendments thereta, insofar
as they are substantially the same as the provisions
in effect prior to the adoption of the ardinanca
adopting this Section shall be construed as
- 12 -
restatements and continuations and not as new
enactments.
(d) The provisions of Sections 8149.1 thraugh
8109.7 are adopted pursuant to Article XI, Section 7
of the California Constitution in addition to the
authority contained in the Health and Safetp Code and
are adopted to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare af the City.
(e) The preamble to the ordinance adopting
this Section should b~ cansulted for further
findings, background, and leg~slative history.
SECTION 4. Any provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisians af
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any s~cti~n, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason he~d to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision af any caurt df any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
dec~ares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
eve~y section, subsection, s~ntence, clause, ar phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional withaut regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
- 13 -
SECTION 6. The Mayar shall sign and the City C~erk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same ta be published once in the affica.al newspaper
within 15 days after its adoptian. This Ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoptian.
APPROVED AS TQ FORM:
~~
J'~05 H ]~AWR~NC~ ~
;Ac ng City Attorn~y
- 14 -
A~'ACI~MEN~' B
~~~~~~?
C2TY OF SANTA M4N~CA: LUTM - BU~LDING & SAFETY DIVISTON
~ '~ April 15, 1992
LIST OF CITY'S URM BUILDINGS per State "~ccupancy R~sk Ca~egories"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) - Mixed, (R) - Resi.dential, (PA) - ~ublic Assembly
STRUCTURAL "Key": (C) - Excessive Hazard, (B) - High Nazard, (A) -- In~ermedlat~ Hazarci
Street Address Floor Area Height Age Use Haz Remarks City
(*denotes c~rner buildinc~) (Sq.Ft.) (Story) 19T Code Code ~~
SUMMARY 4/15/92
N~ Ar~~
I "High Risk" (over 100 Occupan~s) 25 581,20U (5G~) ( 4P- 73,900sf)*
~I "Special Risk" (Assembly [1se) 3 19,000 ( 2~) ( 1P- 3,Oa0sf)*
II "Medium Risk" (20 to 100 Occupants) 76 420,2D0 (40~} (20P-1a7,600sf)*
IIZ "LOW R1Sk" (lESS 20 occupants) 20 22L900 ( 2~} ( 2P-- 2~9005f)*
Total 124 1,093~300 Sq.ft. (2?P--187,40asf)
"Remarks" LEGEND:
P= Permit Issued/Filed for full Rehab work
FC*PG = Full Gompliance Plan Check ~i~ed
FC*NW = Full Compliance-Permit Issued-No Work done
0~ = Rated as no seismic resistance building by structural engine~r in Ord 1489 Report
X~ = n n}~ o C~~'dVlt.~7 (CJ} Se1SftIlC ~t n n ~+ u ~~ ~ ~r n
(x~} = Rated by staff -- owners filed plans/permit for compliance in r~.sponse Ord 1489
NOTE5 l: Gravity Compar~sons for California seismic desi n standards are as follows:
a) 3-4~ g= Minimum 1933 Califoria "Ril.ey Act" statewide standard.
b) 6-9~ g= Revised 1940 statewide minimum standard.
c) 13+~ g= 196D Uniform Code standard adapted by state/cities.
d) 1$+$ g= 1976 Unifo~m Code standard adopted by state/cities.
2: URM "re~ro£it" rehab design standards generally =(2/3) current code level ~ about 10%g
~~ for any [IRM rehabs dane prior 1976 USC adoptians [circa 1980} and 13~g af~er 76 adoption.
~ However this 3~ differential is minimal & insic~nificant for the URM public safety issue
~~-x compared to the initial 0--10~ ~nitial analyis and correctian. Any type of buildings buil~
`-~ as r~ 1980 URM rehabs. Howev~r to da~e EQ
~; prior (1960) are about the same status (~g) p
damage results/ex~e~ience have not g~nerated any significant public safety effort/demanci
~.o correc~ this minor (14-13$) URM cade discrepanGy or o~her pre 1960 buildings.
WR:lwk:urm
. C~TY OF SANTA MQNICA: ~UTM - B~ILU~NG & SAFETY DIVISION V
~ April 15, 1992
LIST OF CITY'S URM BU~I~bINGS per State "Occupancy Risk Ca~egaries"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) - Mixed, (R) - Res~dential, (PA) - Public Assembly
STRUCTURAL "Key": (C) - Excessive Hazard, (B) - High Fiazard, (A) - In~ermediate Hazard
Street Address Floor Area Heiqht Age Use Haz Remarks City
(*denotes corner building} (Sq.Ft.) (Story) 19_ Code Code ID
BUMMARY (4/15/92}
A} Na Area--- ~total Permits
I "High Risk" (over 100 accupan~.s) 25 581,200 (56~) ( 4P- 73,900sf)*
II "Special Risk" (Assembly Use) 3 19,(}OQ ( 2~) ( 1P- 3,OOOsf)*
II "Medium Risk" (20 ta ~00 Occupants) 75 42a,200 (40~} (20P-107,600sf)*
ITI "Low Risk" (less 2Q Occupants) 20 22,900 { 2~) ( 2P~ 2,900sf~*
Total -------~-~~'~^------ 123 1,0~43,300 sq.ft. (27P-187,40D sq ft)
B~ ~
I "High Risk" ------------Y----------------25 total = 21 C O~g; 4@ 1-3~g; D( 4-7~g
II "Special Risk"-----------------------------3 " = 1@ 0%g; Z@ 1--3~g- Q C 4-7~g
II "Medzum Rlsk"----------------~-_~.____-------7b " = 52 @ O~g- 20 @ 1-3~g; 4~ 4-7~g
TII "Low Risk"--------------------------------20 " _~4 @ 0%g; 4@ 1-3~g; Z@ 4-7~g
Tota].------------------------ 124 " = 88 @ 0~; 3~ @ 1-3~; 6 C 4-7~
C)
I ~~High Risk"_-_---~-----------25 = 505,500sf @ O~g; 75,6oosf @ i-3~g; asf @ 4-7~g
II "Special Risk"- --~-----------3 = 3,OOOsf @ 0%g; 16,OOOsf @ 1.-3~g; Osf C 4-7~g
II "Medium Risk"----------~------76 = 278,900sf ~ O~g; 121,500sf @ 1-3~g; 19,800sf @ 4--7gg
III "LoW RiSk"-----------^--------20 = 17,700sf @ O~g; 4,OOOs~ ~ 1-3~g; 1,200sf @ 4-7~g
Totsl (a.24) & 1,Q43,300 scj ~~ = 805i20~sf @ 0~~~ 217~100Sf ~ 1-3°6gi 21~OOOsf ~ 4-7%g
(~ af total URM's) (77~) (21~) ( 2~)
-7
7
r
f
~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA: LUTM - BUILDII3G & 5AFETY DIViSION
Aprxl 15, 1992
LIST OF CITY'S URM BUILDINGS per State "Occupancy Risk Categories"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) - Mixed, (R) - Residential, (PA) - Public Ass~mbly
STRUCTURAL "Key": (C) - Excessive Hazard, (B) - High Hazard, (A) - In~ermedia~e Hazard
Street Address Flaor Area He~ght Age Use Haz Remarks
(*denotes corner building} (Sq.F't.) (5tory) 19_ Code Code
I - "HIGH RISK~~ CATEGORY
City
ID
OVER 100 OCCUPANTS
420-24 Broadway----------------*p* 10,900 1 24 C C FC*PC-(0~} 12
2002-12 Main*150 Bay 11,700 1 23 C B Baulang 0~ partial 32
1351-Ocean Frant-----------~---*P* 14,400 3 24 C B FC*NW 1/92-(l~) 86
1941-07 Ocean Fr.*1910 Ocean 75,000 5 25 R A Pri~iken Ctr 0~ 90
1915-31 Olympic Blvd 12,000 1 27 C B Lin Appl 0~ 94
101-17 SM I31vd*1355 Ocean 27,100 2 25 M C 0~ Bellvue Rest 105
220-24 SM BIVd*1404 2nd St. 14,000 2 26 C C 0~ 111
402-04 SM Blvd*1407 4~h St. 28,600 4 24 C C Henshey's 0°~ 115
446-16 SM Blvd 12,000 2 21 C B " 0~ 11G
403-15 SM B~vd*1355 4th St. 25,8D0 2 29 C
~ C 0~ 117
5b2-16 SM Blvd*1401 5~h St. 27,OOd 3 24 C C 0~ 119
720-34 SM Blvd*140b Lincoln 11,000 2 24 C C FC*PC (0~) 127
1127 SM Bl.vd 23,300 1 25 C C CS Dodge 0~ 131
1221-29 SM Blvd*1350 Euclid 20,700 I 24 C C Lin-Mer 0~ 132
150i-15 SM Blvd*1347 15tti St. 19,600 1 28 C C 0~ 137
205 Washington*955 2nd st 54,000 5 28 R A 5overeign Hotel*0~ 171
402-~4 Wilshire B3.vd 3.2,000 2 26 C B *2.5~ added 8fi 248
1217 Wilshire Blvd------------*P* 10,500 1 29 C C FC*PC-(p~) 159
~347-41 3X'd S~. 22~500 3 25 C B 0% 194
1343-49 3xd St. 11,400 1+ 26 C B 0~ 1~~
c~
C.;:)
G~
~,.
~.:
~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA: LUTM - BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
~ April 15~ 1992
LIST OF CITY'S URM BUILDINGS per State "Occupancy Risk Categories"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) -~ Mixed, (R) ~ Residential, (PA) - Public Assembly
STRUCTURAL "Key": (C) - Excessive Hazard, (B) - High Hazard, (A) - In~exmedia~e Hazard
Street Address Floor Area Height Age Use Haz Remarks City
(*denotes corner bui.ldinq~ (Sq.Ft.) (Story) 19~ Code Code ID
827 4th St. 30,600 4 29 R A E1 Cartez Apts 0~ 219
1341-49 4th St. 21,100 2 23 M C 0~ 225
1410-34 4th St 36,80d 2 29 C S Central Tower ~g 226
1447-57 4th St.-L~do Apts-----*P* 38,100 4 31 M A FC/NW 1/92-(2~) 231
15d5 4th*4oo-a~ Broadway 11,100 3 27 C C *1~ 232
subtotai 2-~~High Risk~~ (25) 5si,zoa sq ft -~-- -( sq ~t)
SUMMARY-HIGH RISK URM's (4/15/92)
19 rated Og seismic resistance by owners structural eng~neer
2 rated 1-3~ " " ; 0 rated 4-7$ " "
4 current permit/work s~atus--rated by SE/staff as follows:
{2 @ 0~; 2 @ 2~ ].
Thus: total is 21 @ 0~; 4~ 1-3~; 0@ 4--7~ '
,
II SPECIAL ~~MEDIUM RISR~" CATEGQRY for PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
(Buildinqs used less than 2o hours per waek)
605 Arizona 10,000+ 1+ 24 PA S lst Church *2.2~ 2
1130 Lincoln --city owned 6,000 1+ 28 PA B Miles Playhouse *1% 24
214 SM Blvd-----------~------*P* 3,000 1+ 17 PA B Mayfair The *0~ 110
Subt otal II-Special ~~Mediu~n~~ (3) 19,A~0 sq ft --(1P- 3,000 sq ft)
SUMMARY-SPECTAL RISK URM's (4/15/92)
1 @ 0~
~ 2 @ 1-3~
~--- _------------------------------
------ -----._._.__ _
----------- _--_--------
----
------- -----
-----
_~._....____
---------- '
-----------------------------------------
~.:~--- -------------------__....___
c_ ,
C.~
t
CZTY OF SANTA MONICA: LUTM - EUILDING & SAFETY DIVYSION ~
~
' ~ April 15, 1992
LTST OF CITY'S URM BUILDINGS per State "Occupancy Risk Catego~ies"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) - M1.xed, (R) - Residential, (PA) ~ Public Assembly
STRUCTURP.L "Key": (C} - Excessive Hazard, (B} - High Hazard, (A) ~ Int~rmediate Hazard
Street Address Floor Area Height Age Use Ha~ Remarks City
(*denates corner building) (Sq.Ft.} (Story) 19_ Gode C~de ID
II-~~MEDIUM RISR~~ CATEGORY
(20 ta 10~ occupants~
202-Ob BiCknell 9800 3 24 M B 0% 3
208-10 Bicknel~ 1600 1 23 R A 0~ 4
101-17 Broadway*1415 Ocean---*P* 9900 2 NR M B *1.3~ W&S Rest 5
408-16 Broadway-~w~-----------*P* 7600 1 24 C C FC*PC (1~) 11
724-28 Colorado 5100 2 25 M C f3~ vaaant 20
1525 Euclid 9200 1 28 C A LA Co owned *(2~) 21
1448-50 Lincoln--------------*P* 7100 1 23 C B FC/NW 1/92 (7.~) 25
1452-54 Lincaln 7200 1 23 C e 0~ 27
1900-16 Lincvln*710 Pico 3200 1 27 C A 0~--~ifiigation 30
2001-11 Main*202 Bay 5800 1 22 C ~ B 0~ 33
2411-13 Main 4300 1 23 C C 0~ 38
2518 Main -------------------*P* 2400 2 30 R A FC/NW 1/92 (2~) 40
~ 2701-07 Main*202 Hi].~. 3700 1 22 C B 0~ 45
2712-14 M~].lt 180fl 1 24 C C 0~ 51
2716 Main 3600 1 27 C C 0~ 53
2724-~30 Main 2500 1 25 C C 0% 54
2804-08 Main 7900 3 33 M A 0~ 58
2900-10 Main 4000 1-2 29 C C 0~ 62
2934-3b Main******************P* 5600 1+ 28 C B 0~ (R Barnard Bldg) 68*
2941 Main 4000 2 11 C B *3~ 69
724-32 Montana*802 Linc~ln 8700 1-2 22 M B 0~ 74
1313 Montana-----------------*P* 3900 1 34 C B FC/NW 1/92 (1~) 77
~ 23a5 Ocean Park 2500 1 3~ C B *5~ 91
~
~~7
302-08 Pico*1907 Main
C,4Dd
1
25
C
C
0$
96
~w; 400-10 PiCO*1800 4th 60~0 2 NR C B 0~ added E38 251
~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA: LUTM - BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (~
April 15, Z992 '
LIST O~ CITY'S URM BUILDINGS per State "Occupancy Risk Categories"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) - Mixed, (R) - Residential, (PA) - Public Assembly
STRUCTURAL "Key": (C) - Excessive Hazard, {B) - High Hazard, (A) - Intermed~ate Hazard
Street Address
(*denotes corner building) ~loor Area
(Sq.Ft.) Height
(Story) Age
19~ Use
Code Haz Remarks
Cade C~ty
ID
9~1-03 Pico--------~-~------*P* 3000 1 29 C B FC/NW 1/92 (1~) 100
1011 Pico___________________*p* 2400 1 23 C B FC/NW 1/92 (1$) 101
2828 Pico Blvd--------------*P* 5300 2 21 C B FC*PC (1~} 245
3225 Pica Blvd 30~0 1 23 C B 0~ 246
206-10 SM Blvd 870~ 1 10 C B 0~ 109
312-1& SM Blvd 320D 1 24 C S 0~ 113
420-30 SM Blvd*1402 5th-----*P* 7000 1 22 C B 0~ 118
524-32 SM Blvd 9600 1+ 25 C C *2.7~ Pep Boys 121
717-2~ SM Blvd--~-----~--_-_*p* g600 2 24 C B FC*PC (1~) 126
1300-04 SM Bivd 4300 1f 32 C C D~ 133
1312 SM Blvd 41~0 1 24 C C D~ 134
1623-31 SM Slvd 6000 1 24 C C *3.9~ Kramer 138
2300-06 SM Blvd 720D 1 24 C ~ C 0~ l~l
2630-34 SM Blvd*1402 Princeton 2300 2 26 M C 0~ 143
2901-03 SM B~vd*1355 Yale 3600 1 26 C C 0~ 144
~ 2917-19 SM Blvd 4500 2 23 C B 0~ 145
2530 San Vicent~ Blvd 5700 1 27 C S 0~ 147
815-27 Wilshire 6400 3 2& M B 0~-Frame upper 153
822-26 Wilshire--------------*P* 2800 1 32 C C FC/NW 1/92 (0~) 154
900-12 Wilshire*~205 9th 7000 ~ 28 C C 0~ 155
~
~ ~
c:~?
u;,;.x
C.
G'. ~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA: LUTM - SUILDING & SAF~TY DIVISIQN
• April 15, 1992
L~ST OF CTTY'S URM BUILDINGS per State "Occupancy Risk Categories"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) - Mixed, (R) - Residen~ial, (PA) - Public Assembly
STRUCTURAL "Key": (C} R Excessive Hazard, (B) - High Hazard, (A} - Intermediate Hazard ~
Street Address Floar Area Height Age Use Haz R emarks City
(*denotes corner building) (Sq.F~.) (Story) 19~_ Code Code ID
1505 Wilshi~e*1155 15th 6700 1W2 32 C A 0~ 163
1529 Wilshire 4340 1 30 C B *6.5% 164
I4I8-20 2nd St. 4000 2 22 C C 0~ 177
1446-50 2nd St.--------------*p* 6800 1 21 C B FG*PC (1~) 180
1524 2nd St. ------~----------*P* 4640 1 ~9 C B FC/NW 1/92 (1~) 185
1325-29 3rd St. Mall---------*P* 3400 1 24 C B FC/NW 1./92 (1~} 1.92
1331-35 3rd St. Mall---------*P* 7500 2 24 C A FC/NW 1/92 (2~) 193
1340-42 3rd St. Mall 8600 1+ 32 C A 0~ 195
1348-50 3rd St. Ma11 2400 1~ 12 C B 0~-par tial 78 197
1354-56 3rd St. Mall 3300 1 29 C B 0~ 199
1409 3rd St. Mall 6200 2 28 C ~ C Q~ 201
1411-13 3rd St. Mall 700Q 1 22 C B a~ 203
14~b 3rd 5t. Mall------------*P* 760Q 2 23 C B FC/NW 1/92 {1~) 2d4
1418 3rd St. Mall------------*P* 4900 1~ 26 C B FC/NW 1/92 (1~) 206
~ 1424 3rd St. -~---------------*P* 3800 1 NR C B FC/NW ~/92 (l~) 208
1432-34 3rd St. Mall 30DQ 1 23 C~ B 0~ 213
1436-40 3rd St. Mall 7200 1 23 C B 0~ 214
1437-39 3rd St. Mall 7500 ~ 22 C B 0~ 215
1444 3rd St. Ma1I--~---------*P* 3400 1+ 08 C B 0~ 216
1452-54 3rd St. Mall 8000 2 25 M B Og 217
908 4th St. 6200 2 23 R A 0~-res t ho me 220
1335-39 4th St. 6500 2 23 R A 0~ 222
1344 4th St 7500 1+ 27 C B 0~ 224
~:~ 1433-35 4th St. 50Q0 1 25 C C 0~ 228
~~~ 1437-39 ~thSt. 7204 1 27 C B 0$ 22g
<;;,~
~
~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA: LUTM - BUILDING & SAFETY DIVZSZON /
' ' April 15, 19 92
LIST OF CITY'S URM BUILDINGS per State "Occupancy Ri sk Categ ories"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) - Mixed, (R} - Res identia~, (PA) - Publio Assembly
STRUCTURAL "Key": (G) - ExceSSive Hazard, {B} - fiigh Hazard, (A) - In~ermedla~e Hazard
Street Address Floor Area Height Age Use Haz Remar3ss City
(*d~notes cvrner building) {Sq.Ft.) (Stozy) 19~_ Cade Code ID
1511-15 4th 9900 2 27 C A *1•°s 233
1541 4th St. 50~0 1 25 C C 0~ 234
1326-30 5th 60(30 2 22 M B 0~ 238
1332-35 5th 8700 2 27 C B 0% 239
1453 14th (rear-buildings) 2500 ~. 25 C B 0~ 294
1443 15th 7000 2 30 C B added 89 *4~ 249
Subtotal iT ~~Medium Risk~~ (76) ~20,20o sq ft -----(P-- sq ft)
SUMMARY -- MEDIUM RISK URM's (4/15/92)
48 rated O~S seismic resistarice by owners structural engineer
4 rated 1-~ 3~ ~~ ° ~~ ~~ r~ +r
4 rated 4-7~ ~~ ~~ '~ ° ~~ ,+r
20 current pexmit/work status--ra~.ed by SE / s~aff as fflllows:
[4 @ ~~; lb @ 1-3~; ~@ 4-7~~
thus total is 52 @ 0~; 20 ~ 1-3~; 4@ 4-7~.
~
f.~5
l~~ )
~~
C..~+
CITY OF SAPITA MONICA: LUTM - BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION
April 15, 1992
LIST OF CITY'S UFtM BUILDINGS per State "Occupancy Risk Categories"
USE "Key": (C) - Commercial, (M) - Mixed~ (R) - Residential, (PA) - Public Assembly
STRUCTURAL "Key": (C) - Excessive Hazard, (B) - High Hazard, (A) -- Intermediate Hazard
Street Address Floor Area Heiqht Age Use Haz Remarks City
(*d~notes carner building) (~q.Ft.) {Story} 19~ Code Code ID
III-~~LOW RISR'~ CATEGORY (less than 20 occupants per buildinc~)
1409 Broadway*1453 1~th St. 900 1 25 C B U~ 14
1827 Broadway 800 1 30 C B 0~ 15
210 Hill St. 800 1 NR C C 0~ 23
1822--24 Linco~n 2n00 1 25 C B 0~ 29
2323 Lincoln 800 1 NR C B added 89 (l~) 252
2403 Main 13D0 1 21 C C 0~ 36
2708 Main 1300 1 27 C B 0~ 47
2710 Main 1400 1 29 C C 0~ 49
280~ Main 600 1 26 C C 0~ 56
28D3 Main -------------------*P* 1000 1 31 C C 0$-demo filed 57
28Q7 Main 500 1 NR C ~ B *7~ - Wildflour 59
2905 Main 160D 1 NR C C 0~ 63
2914 Main 1'10D 1 NR C C 0$ 65
1341 Ocean Ave 400 1 25 C C *2$ 84
~ 1611 Ocean Frant ------~--------* P* 1900 1 17 C B FC*PC ( l~ ) g$
2121 Pico------aity awned 900 1 NR C B City Owned (1~} 253
1002 SM Blvd 2400 2 22 C B 0~ 129
120-22 Wilshire 300 1 31 C C 0~ 149
2406-08 Wilshir~ 1600 1 33 C B 0~ 169
~127 2nd St. 700 ~ 23 C B *4~ 172
Subtotal "LoW Risk~~ (20) 22,900 sq f~ ----- -( 2P- 2,900 sq ft )
SUMMARY---IAW RISK (4/15/92)
; I4 rated d$ seismic resistance by owners SE
C:7 1 e 1-3$i 2~ 4-7~ ~~ r~ ~~
~-3 3 work status/etc-rated 1~ by staff. Tota1 is 14 @ p~; 4@1-3$; 2@ 4--7g.
~ ~ _ . .~
-----------~....________~._ _.....~______.~
-------=____----- -------------------------
C~------------- ----------
~ ~
(~ ,
i
A ~'A CHME~T~' C
,~ ~ ~,
1~Yr~w
=~ .~ ~,,.~ ~ ±'r ~ ~
RESOLUTION NO.
(City Cauncil Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCYL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND
THE C~TY OF SANTA MONICA
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND ZONING ORDINANCE
AND DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSZON TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT
THE CITSE COUI~CIL OF 2`HE CITY ~F SANTA MdNZCA DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Sec'tion 1. Pursuant ta the Santa Monica MunicipaJ. Code
Section 9120.2, the City CounciZ does hereby annaunce its
intention to initiate an amendment to the City of Santa Monica
Comprahensive Land Use and Zaning Ordinance to permit the
replacament af a building that has been stucturally upgraded in
compliance with the Seismic Retrofitting Code and that is
subsequently damaged or destroyed by an earthquake so long as the
building as rQbuilt wi11 meet certain specified criteria and
directs the Planning Commission to consider such an amendment to
the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Section ~. The City Clerk shaZl c~rtify ta the adoption
of this Resolutian, and thenceforth and thereaftar the same shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~~ ~,,,~ ~ - ~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
~j~l~ ^-~
v J ~' ~)
~ ~
~ .~ ~
+.a (' r l4rt~ ' ' e~ / ~ -
ATTACHMENT A
Section 9080.2 (f) is recommended to read:
(f) Rebuilding. A nonconforming building which is
damaged or destroyed to an extent af ane half or more of its
rep~acEment cost immediately prior to such damage may not be
restored to its nonconforming condition but ~ust be made to
conform to the provisions of this Chapter. A d~signated landmark
structure or historically significant building identified in the
H.istoric Resources Survey or Mal~ Design Guidelines which is
damaged or destroyed may }ae rebuilt if the building is rebuilt to
its or3ginal state. An unreinforced masonry buil.ding that has
been structurally upgrad~d in campliance with and as a
conseq~zence of the ilnreinforced Masonry Ordinance, and that is
damaged or destr~yed as a result of an earthquake may be rebuilt
if the building is ~ebuilt to the square footage, site
orientation, and height and setbacks that existed prior to the
damage or destruction. As part of the Planning Commission revieca
process, a time limit on the right to rebui~d shall be deveiaped.
This time ~imit shall be linked ta the cost of the structural
upgrade amortized over a period of time.
w/resluzo
~ „
~..~ `~ ~
A~'TAC~MEI~~' D
G`~r~ )
4
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTENT OF ALL FOR CITY CLERK'S A~TION
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOLUT~ON # ~ ~ ~ ~ ORDrNANCE #
,
Counc~l M~eting Date g~~q?/9.~ Intrpduced:
Agenda Item # ~6-~ ~ ~~
Was it amended? (I 7~ ~
VOTE: Affirmative: ~~~,~~ ~c„s~.~
Negative:
Abstain:
Adopted:
ALWAYS PUBLISH ADpPTED ORD~NANCE
Crass out A~~orney's appraval
~-c'~.-~-~.~, ~~~~~ ~ ~~~.,,~~ , ~
Absent : ~x.~
PRQOF VOTES WITH ANOTHER PERSON BE~'ORE ANYTHING
DISTRIBUTION: ORYGINAL ta be signed, sealed and filed in Vault.
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: )
Depar~ment originating S~aff report( )
Ordinance only for Attorney (ClaudYa Th~mpson) 1
City Manage~ Lynne Barrette QRDINANCES ONLY 1
Agency mentioned in document or staff report ~
(certified?)
Sub~ect file (agenda packet) ~
Count~r file 1
Others: (Review for departments who need ta know)
A~rpart Parking Auth.
Auditorium Persannel
Building Dept. Planning 1
C/ED Police
Finance Purchasing
General Serv. CARS
Engineering City Yards
Library Transportation
Manager Treasu~er
FiXe Water
SEND FOUR CQP~ES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
Debra Myrick
Santa Monica Municipal Court ~
1725 Main Street, Raom 118
Santa Manica, CA 90401
SEND ONE COPY OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
Donna Christensen
Book Publishing Co.
2~1 Westlake Avenue NoXth ~
5ea~tle, WA 96109-5293 Total Copies
~
RESOLUTI~N NO. 8479(CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTIdN OF THE CITY COUNCIL
aF THE CITY OF SANTA M~NICA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE PROP~SED UNREINFORCED MAS~NRY ORDINANCE
6~THEREAS, a Notice of Preparatian of an Envzronmental Impact
Report was issued in April, 1990; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Campletian of a Draft Enviranmental
Impact Report as published in April 199~, i.n campliance with the
California Environmental Qc~alit~ AcL and the City of Santa Monica
CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, in June 1991, the Final Environmental Impact Report
was published; and
WHEREAS, on July J.4, ].992, the City CounciZ, as ~he lead
agency, reviewed the Fi.nal ~nvironmental Impact Report,
NOW~ IHEREF~RE, THE CITY COLINCIL OF THE CTTY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HERESY RESdLVE AS FOI~LOWS:
sECTZOx 1. `I'he City Caunci}. has reviewed and considered the
Final Enviranmental Impact Report on the Proposed Unreinforced
Masonry Ordinance.
SECTION 2. The City Cauncil certifies that the environmental
reviaw far the projact was conducted in fu~l compliance with
State and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was adequate public
review of the Draft Environmenta]. Impact Report, that it has
- 1 -
„- ~ „
f,~ t~ ~1 ~ ~~
r'
considered ai~ comments on the Draft Enviranmental Impact Report
and responses to comm~nts, that the Final Environmental Impact
Report adequately discuss a11 significant environmentaZ issues,
and that the City Council ha~ considered the cont~nts of the
Final Env~ronmental Impact Repart and Addendum in its
decision-making process.
SECTIaN 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption af
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~,
ROBERT M. MYERS
Ci~y Attorney
w/resurm
- 2 -
~ ~..,,~
~
Adopted and approved this 22nd day of Saptember, 1992.
P~ o
~/ ~ Mayor
I hereby certify that the ~oregaing Reso~ution No. 8479(CCS)
was duly adapted by the City Counca.l of the City af Santa Monica
at a meeting there~f held on Septemhar 22, 1992 by the foZla~+ring
Cauncil vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Counci~members: Abdo, Genser, Holbrook, Olsen,
Vazquez, Zane
Councilmembers: None
Abstain; Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmemb~rs: Kat~
ATTEST:
~.~/~l.rl~. ~i[yG~
`- - - ~ City Clerk ~
. ,,,,,~,~, -
RESOLUTI~N N4. 8480(CCS]
(City Council Series}
A RESOLUTIDN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DECLP.RZNG ~TS INTENT~ON TO AMEND
THE C~TY OF SANTA M4NICA
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND Z4NING ORDINANCE
.AND D~RECTING THE PLANNING C~MMISSION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT
THE CITY ~OUNC~L ~F THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Sect~.on 1. Pursuant to the Santa Manica Municipal Code
Section 9.04.20.16.020, the City Council does hereby announce its
intentian to initiate an amendment to the City of Santa Moni~a
Comprehensive Land Use and Zaning Ord~nance ta permit the one for
ane replaoement of a building destrayed by a catastrophic event
as 3ong as th~ b~ilding is in compliance with the retrofitting
ordinance ~or unreinfarced masonry buildings. The City Council
directs the P~anning Commission to consider such an amendment to
the City~s Zaning Ordinance.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adaption
of this Resalution, and thenceforth and theraafter the same shall
be a.n full farce and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
a ph Lawrence
City Attorney