Loading...
SR-9-A/CC/RC-1 4-A CC'lC - ( MA - t 1991t SF:ppd/share/ccreport/recov Santa Monlca Californla Council Meeting: March 1, 1994 TO: city Council Rent Control Board FROM: Clty Staff Rent Control Board Staff SUBJECT: Policy Considerations For Repair and Reconstructlon of Commercial and Residential Structures Damaged From The January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake and Aftershocks INTRODUCTION This report presents options for Clty Cauncll and Rent Control Board conslderation for the repalr and reconstruction of commerclal and residential buildlngs damaged or destroyed as a result of the Narthridge earthquake. Contained in this report lS a damage summary withln the City of Santa Monica, staff recommended options and polices for dlscussion and direction, and a summary of standards adopted by other jurisdictions, lncluding the State of Californla Model Ordlnances for repair and reconstructlon for post dlsaster recovery. Staff is recommendlng the Councll and Rent Control Board conduct a public hearlng and provIde staff wIth dlrectlon for the preparatlon of a city ordlnance and Rent Control Board regulatlons after conclusion of the public comments. 1 MAR - 1 199't CI-A c.t./ tc. - I BACKGROUND Presently there are 113 buildings that are "red-tagged" and 279 buildings that are lIyellow-tagged". This represents approximately 1,900 apartment units, 41 single family homes, 113 TORCA units, and 200 condominium units. Of the 392 total red and yellovl tagged buildings, 46 are "red-taggedll commercial buildings and 97 are "yellow-tagged" commercial buildings. The majority of the commercial properties are at or below the permitted floor area ratIOS (FAR) and range from one to two stories in heIght. However I two properties, SIgnIficantly over the permitted heIght and FAR 420-430 Santa Monica Boulevard (Hensheys), and 710 Wilshire (Copy spot) , have sustaIned substantial damage. It is not known at thIS tIme if the buildIngs will require demolition or if they will be repaired. An analysis has been conducted to determine how many of the residential propertIes are above the permItted denSIty contained in the existing Zoning OrdInance. The follOWIng summarizes the density statistics: 2 Red Taqqed BUlldinqs Units Over No. Of Bldgs. Range of Damage Density 1-5 units 11 $80,000-750,000 6-10 Units 7 $20,000-1,500,000 11-20 Units 6 $10,000-4,000,000 Over 20 Units 3 $30,000-10,000,000 15 Buildings are Under Density 6 Buildings Are At The Allowed Density 12 Buildlngs Are Single Family Homes Yellow Taqqed BUlldlngs Units Over No. Of Bldgs Range Of Damage Density 1-5 Units 45 $10,000-4,000,000 6-10 Unlts 10 $30,000-500,000 11-20 Units 6 $10,000-2,000,000 Over 20 Unlts 1 $10,000 57 Buildings are Under Denslty 12 BUlldings Are At The Allowed Density 29 Buildings Are single Family Homes Staff has examined the standards adopted by numerous jurisdictions for recovery and reconstruction after a natural disaster. Generally, all the jurisdlctlons permitted in-klnd replace~ent of damaged structures wlth varYlng types of plannlng reVlew. No 3 jurisdict10n allowed modlf1cat1ons to the or1g1nal structure w1th the exception of the City of Oakland, which allowed up to a 10% var1ation to the original building. staff supports the concept of allowing up to a 10% modification to non-conform1ng structures. However, staff does not support permitting any expansion beyond 10% glven that the structure 1S non-conform1ng, and under the provisions of the exist1ng Zon1ng Ordinance, no modifications would be permitted unless the modification conformed to the present standards. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The city has contracted with the firm Kot1n Regan Mouchly (KRM) Associates to conduct a f1nanClal analysis of the recommended standards. This analys1s 1S currently in preparat10n and wlll be presented at the March 1, 1994 meeting. In addition, staff and KRM representatives are contacting lenders to d1SCUSS the feasibility of funding repalr and reconstruction projects. OPTIONS FOR SANTA MONICA The standards proposed by staff are designed to achleve the goals of facilitating a rapid recovery, maintaining affordable housing, and preserving the resldential and commercial character in Santa Monica. Staff recommends that only one crlteria be establ1shed for repa1r and reconstruction of damaged buildings. Although the Zoning 4 -- - --- Ordinance contains standards for repair and reconstructlon of non- conforming uses and buildings, staff does not support uSlng these as the standards given the number and scope of damaged buildings. In addition, staff does not support giving a property owner the option of either following the Zoning Ordlnance non-conforming standards or followlng the standards adopted by Counci 1 . Staff supports the establishment of only one standard that overrldes the existing Zoning Ordinance requirements. A multiple choice option would create substantlal confusion to the public and staff and would hlnder the ability of staff to expedlously process repalr permits. staff recommends the Council and Rent Control Board consIder the following options for replacement and repair of resldentlal and commercial structures damaged as a result of the Northridge earthquake and its aftershocks. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. The fOllowing proJects would be subject to a plan check review process unless the structure is a landmark structure or eligible for city, state or National landmark status. 1. Structures where the repair costs are less than 50% of the estimated replacement value of the structure and are reconstructed to the helght, setbacks, denslty, number of and type of unlts (apartments, condomin1urns), configurat10n, design and parking requirements that eX2sted pr20r to the earthquake. 2. structures where the repalr costs are greater than 50% of the estimated replacement value of the structure, and where no more than 50% of the exterlor walls will be demolished, and the buildIng 1S reconstructed to the helght, setbacks, dens1ty, number and type of unlts (apartments, condomlnlums) , 5 ---- configuration, design, and parklng requirements that existed prior to the earthquake. B. The following projects would be sUbJect to an expedited Architectural Review Board process, or Landmark/ARB review process if applicable, and then subject to a plan check review process. 1. structures where the repair costs are greater than 50% of the estimated replacement value of the structure, and where no more than 50% of the exterior walls wlll be demollshed, the building design is significantly different than the design prior to the earthquake, and the structure lS reconstructed to the height, setbacks, density, number of and type of unlts (apartment, condominium), and parking requirements that existed prlor to the earthquake. 2. Any landmark or potential landmark structure, would be required to undergo Architectural Review Board (ARB) reVlew. Two Landmark Commission members would be requlred to review and vote on the project as part of the ARB reVlew process. 3. structures where the repalr costs are greater than 50% of the estimated replacement value of the structure, and over 50% but less than 70% of the exterior walls will be demollshed, and the structure is reconstructed to the height, setbacks, number and type of units (apartments, condomlnlums) density, and parking reqUIrements that eXlsted prlor to the earthquake. c. If the proJect lS conslstent wlth the above thresholds, yet the proJect modlfles the floor area, height, or footprlnt by no more that 10%, the project will be subJect to an expedited administrative review process. After completlon of that process, the project will be subject to appllcable process outllned above. D. The following projects vlould be subJect to an expedited Plannlng CommlSSlon reVlew process and then subJect to a plan check review process. The structure may be constructed in a dlfferent architectural style and may modlfy the height, floor area and footprlnt up to 10%. 1. structures where the repair costs are greater than 50% of the estimated replacement value of the structure, and where more than 70% of the exterlor walls will be demolished, or the building has been ordered to be demolished by the city of Santa Monica, and the structure is reconstructed to the helght, setbacks, denslty, number and type of units (apartments, condomlnlums) and parking requirements that existed prlor to the earthquake. 6 The following standards would apply to all projects. 1- The same use that existed prior to the earthquake, or a use with the same parking requlrement must be re-established. If residential uses existed, the same type of res1dent1al units must be constructed (e.g. apartments or condominiums). 2. Additional parking beyond what existed prior to the earthquake may be provided, however, the building height and FAR may not be increased and setbacks may not be reduced except as allowed in the above conditions. The structure may comply with present height and setback standards and st111 be subJect to the applicable review process. 3. Any structure modlfled greater than 10% that changes use or type of housing units, or that does not comply w1th the prlor height, setbacks, dens1ty, configuratlon, deslgn or parking, shall comply with the present Zoning Ordlnance standards. 4. Building modificatlons would be permitted ln order to comply with technical construction codes even though this may result in modificatlons to the height and setbacks. 5. Verification for the above requirements would be satisfied by supplying at least two sources of documentat1on demonstratlng the prlor development conditions. 6. For purposes of determining the cost of reconstruction, the property owner wlll be required to submit a valid contract with a licensed contractor for the repair work, two estimates from properly licensed contractors for the repalr work, and a signed repair estimate from an lnsurance entlty for the repair work. The estimates wlll be required to conta1n sufficient detail to ascertaln the scope of the proposed work and lnclude profit, overhead and insurance cost. The C1ty wlll determine the replacement cost by using the quarterly adJusted, nationally recognlzed, constructlon cost indlcators for buildlngs of similar use, construction and amenltles. 7. Development revlew and CEQA thresholds would be walved for all repa1r and reconstruct1on projects. 8. For residential uses, the number of bedrooms could be increased, however, the number of unlts must remaln the same. 9. The North of w1lshire construction rate program would be waived for all repair and reconstruction projects. 7 - Residential Uses The development standards and plannlng process for resldential structures would be ldentlcal to the process outllned for commercial structures. However, prlor to submitting an application for any planning or building permit involving a resldential use, the project would require one of the following approvals by the Rent Control Board: 1 Rent adjustment and approved pass through for repair costs. 2 . A Category C Removal PermIt. 3 . A Category D Removal Permlt. In order to maintaln the affordable houslng stock damaged or destroyed, the followlng development standards would apply. 1. For projects WhlCh have been granted a Category C removal permit, the proJect would be permitted to be reconstructed according to the standards outlined above, provlded the proJect provides at least 30% on-slte deed restrlcted affordable units. 2. For projects which have been granted a Category D removal permit, the proJect would be permitted to be reconstructed according to the standards outlined above, provided the project provides at least 15% on-site deed restrlcted affordable units. DEMOLITION Demolition would be permitted as part of a replacement project. However, demolition without a replacement project would be processed accordlng to the existing City procedures unless the demolitlon was ordered by the Clty'S NUlsance Abate~ent Board. RENT CONTROL ISSUES The Rent Control Board currently has four types of removal permlts available to owners who wish to remove propert1es from rent control. This section of the report deals with the two types of 8 - - - -- removal permits, Category C and Category D permits, which are relevant to the issue of residential units damaged as a result of the January 17, 1994 earthquake. Cateqory D Removal Perm1ts Pursuant to the section 1803(t) (2) (ii) of the Rent Control Charter Amendment, the Rent Control Board may approve a removal permit: "If the perm1t 1S be1ng sought so that the property may be developed with multifam~ly dwelling units and the permit applicant agrees as a condition of approval, that the un1ts will not be exempt from the provisions of th1S Art1cle pursuant to sect10n 1801(c) and that at least fifteen (15) percent of the controlled rental un1ts to be built on the site will be at rents affordable by persons of low 1ncome. " The current Category D regulations requ1re that the existing tenants have the right of f1rst refusal for the new rental un1ts, that the construct1on begln w1thin one hundred e1ghty (180) days of the granting of the perm1t, and that the grant1ng of the permit will not result in a net decrease in the number of un1ts that are affordable to persons of low and moderate ~ncome. As set forth previously in this report, staff 1S recommending that the Rent Control Board adopt regulations to work 1n conJunction with the renovation ordinances adopted by the Clty Council, to provide for a streamlined Category D process where the earthquake damage exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the replacement cost of the structure. 9 - ---- - The replacement of the structure to its original configuration (or more, if density bonuses are permitted) will 1nclude at least 15% of the un1ts as deed restr1cted to persons of low income. The rest of the units would be controlled (not exempt as new construction) . with respect to those unlts that would not be deed restricted, staff recommends that a new base rent be established as the f1rst rent charged for units after renovation. The new regulat10n should provide for standards to establ1sh that the first rent charged 1S a leg1tlmate market rent, arr1ved at in a good fa1th, arms-length transaction. Staff also recommends that the t1me period to commence the construction be extended to a tlme frame consistent with Regulation 4113 (the earthquake repair pass-through) , rather than the 180 days as requ1red 1n the current regulatlon. The rationale for that tlme table lS that the FEMAjSBA or pr1vate lender process appears to be lengthy, contractors are in short supply, and time constra1nts would do noth1ng to encourage owners to rebUlld any faster than is in their economic lnterest to do so. The regulations should retain the r1ght of f1rst refusal for those tenants who res1ded at the propety as of January 17, 1994. Category C Removal Perm1ts currently, a Category C removal permit involves a two-step determination: 1) that the un1t or units are uninhabitable; and, 2) that the unit or units cannot be made habitable in an 10 -- -- ----- economically feasible manner, i.e., that the costs of repairs would be more than the rents the repaired units could command in the open market. That process usually involves an 1ndlvldual analysis of the habitability of the unlts, estimates for the cost of repairs and determination of the maX1mum collectable rents for the property. If the maX1mum collectable rent would not support the cost of repairs, a category C removal permit would be granted. Staff recommends two areas where streamlining could take place. The f1rst 1S to develop m1n1mum standards for a determ1nat1on of uninhabltablllty. The second 1S to f1nd a replacement for the individual maximum collectable rent study. For red-and yellow-tagged bUlldlngs where the cost of repalr legitimately exceeds the cost of replacement, no further economlC analys1s need be made, and a Category C removal permit would be granted. Regulat10ns should be adopted that would requ1re proof of legitimate cost of repairs that exceed replacement, l.e. , two or three estimates from licensed contractors, reports from licensed structural engineers, assessments from insurance carriers, 1f any, and damage est1mates from FEMAjSBA or private lenders. Staff recommends that a process be developed that w1lI exped1te the economic feasibllity determinat10n for red-or yellow-tagged bUlldlngs whose damage lS less than 100% of the replacement cost. Staff is currently working with consultants to the Board and the 11 City to develop a set of maximum collectable rent standards that should replace the individual appraisal analysls used ln the past for Category C removals. staff anticipates that this process would be applicable to a maJorlty of removal permlt appllcations. In some instances, additional analysls may be necessary, and those cases could be handled on a case-by-case basis, uSlng the more traditional Category C process. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Policy Considerations For Commercial and Resldentlal Uses 0 Should a density bonus be permltted for residential proJects that provide more than the requlred 15% or 30% on-site affordable units. 0 Should non-conforming uses be permitted to be restored. 0 Should the reconstructlon opportunltles apply to an owner who purchased the property after the earthquake. 0 Should a speclflc tIme frame be established for repalrs to be made in order to quallfy for the zonlng ordlnance exemptlons and expedited permlt process. 0 Should additional parking be required for structures that will remove more than 70% of the exterior walls. 0 Should commercial buildlngs that exceed the permltted denslty by more than 150% and are over four storles in height be permitted to be restored to the original condltlon If demolitlon occurs. 0 Should a bUlldlng permlt for the replacement proJect be approved prior to the demolltlon of the damaged structure. 0 Should the constructlon hours be modified for earthquake related repalrs In order to expedite constructlon. 12 0 Should a tenant reslding in a residential unit at the time of the earthquake be gi ven right of first refusal once the building has been repaired or reconstructed. 0 Should the deed-restricted units be affordable to households earning 60%, 80%, 100%, or 120% of median lncome. 0 Should relocation assistance be required for displaced tenants. BUILDING CODE STANDARDS Staff recommends the following building standards govern the repair and reconstructJ.on of damaged structures. These standards are identical to those contaJ.ned J.n the State Model OrdInances. 0 When the estimated value of repair does not exceed 10% of the replacement value of the structure, the damaged portJ.ons must be restored to theJ.r pre-disaster condition. This applies except when the damaged elements include suspended celllng systems, the ceiling systems must be repaired and all braclng required by the current building code must be installed. 0 When the estimated value of the repair is greater than 10% but less than 50% of the replacement value of the structure, the damaged elements, as well as the critJ.cal tJ.es, supported elements and supportJ.ng elements associated WJ.th the damaged elements, shall be repaired and/or brought lnto conformance with the structural requlrements of the current code. 0 When the estimated value of repair is 50% or more of the replacement value of the structure, the entlre structure shall be brought into conformance wlth the structural requlrements of the current code. 0 Historic buildings lDcluded on a national, state or local register of historic places, or WhlCh are qualifying structures within a recognized hlstorlC dlstrict, which have been damaged as a result of a disaster, should have an englneerlng evaluation performed. The minimum repair crIterIa should comply with the above standards with due consJ.deratlon given to the hlstorical rating and nature of the structure. Additional standards and criterla, as Doted lD Part 8, Tltle 24, Callfornia Code of RegulatJ.ons, the State of CalJ.fornla Hlstoric Building Code, should apply. Where conflicts exist 13 - - ---- between the above standards and the state of California Historic Building Code, the Historic BUlldlng Code should apply. STANDARDS FROM OTHER CITIES CITY OF SANTA CRUZ The city of Santa Cruz established separate standards for repalr and reconstruction of residential and commercial uses damaged as a result of the October 17, 1989 Lorna Prieta earthquake. The following outlines the adopted standards. Standards for Repair o A non-conforming building or structure damaged by less than 50% of ltS value was permitted to be repalred subJect to the issuance of a bUlldlng permlt. o A non-conforming bUl1dlng or structure damaged by more than 50% of its value could be repaired subject to the approval of a reconstruction permit. The reconstruction permit consisted of a public hearlng and could be approved provlded the following conditions and findings could be met: Conditions 1. The inter lor space could not be greater than the amount that existed prlor to the earthquake. 2. The number of dwelllng units could not be greater than those existing prior to the earthquake or the number allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The setback could not be less than the prlor existing setback. 4. The building height could not exceed the Zoning Ordinance requlrements unless it was necessary to do so in order to reconstruct an origlnal archltectural feature. 5. Parking could not be less than the parklng existing prior to the earthquake. Findings 1. The project lS conslstent wlth the General Plan 2. The exterlor design and appearance of the structure maintalns a Slml1ar relatlonship to the surroundlng areas and is conslstent WIth the pre-existing fabrlC of the area where it was located. 3. Prevlously non-conforming aspects of the bUllding have been dlrninished to the extent posslble. 14 o Reconstruction permits were required to be filed with the Plannlng Department wi thin one year of the earthquake and reconstruction was required to start wlthln two years of the earthquake and diligently completed. o A residential demolition/conversion permlt was requ~red ~n order to demolish any residential unlt or single room occupancy permit living un~t. For s~ngle famlly and duplexes, the permit was granted by the Zoning Administrator and could not be issued unless several condltlons were met includ~ng issuance of a bUllding permit for the replacement structure, and payment of relocation assistance for elig~ble tenants. For demolition of all other residential units an approval by the Planning CommlSSlon was required and could not be issued unless: 1. An approval had been granted for the replacement project and a building permlt had been issued. 2. The demolition wlll not have a substantial adverse impact on hous~ng opportun~ ties for low and moderate income households. 3. If the proposed demolitlon will have a substantial adverse impact on low an moderate ~ncome opportunities, then adequate mitigation was requlred such as replacement housing, or in-lleu fees or a combination thereof. o Replacement houslng was required for demolition of three or more dwelling units occupied by low or moderate income households. The replacement houslng could be satlsfled ln different ways depending on the locat~on of the project. In all but two zoning districts, 50% of all the low or moderate income bedrooms demolished were requlred to be replaced elther on slte or elsewhere in the Clty or a combinatlon of both. In the commerclal distrlcts and in one residential transltlonal district, 100% of all the low or moderate income bedrooms being demolished were requlred to be replaced. ThlS was in addition to any other inclusionary requlrement that may apply to the project unless the project was a 100% deed restricted affordable housing proJect. o In lieu fees could be paid for up to 50% of the total number of bedrooms that were requlred to be replaced ln all zones except for the residential transitional, and for that zone, fees up to 25% of the total number of bedrooms that needed to be replaced could be pald. The remaining number of unlts were required to be constructed. o Repair, reconstruct~on and alteratlons of structures bUlldlng before 1970 were required to be ln conformance wIth the 1970 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Any buildlng bUllt after 1970 that was damaged was requlred to comply with the bu~ldlng code in effect at the tlme of original constructlon. 15 WATSONVILLE The city of Watsonville adopted an ordinance creatlng a POlICY for streamlining projects and permit processing for the repair, restoration, reconstruction and demolltlon of bUlldings damaged as a result of the Lorna Prieta earthquake on October 17, 1989. General Policy provisions 0 All repairs and or reconstruction were to be ln conformance with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code (UCBC, 1985 edi tion) and/or FEMA regulatlons. 0 Repair and reconstruction of nonconfroming uses would be permitted without lssuance of a Speclal Use Permlt provided all the policy standards were met. 0 Appllcatlons were requlred to be submitted by October 17, 1991. 0 Upon submlttal of the bUllding permit application, mobilehome unlts were permltted during repair or reconstructlon of structures. 0 Plot plan was required for all permits includlng demolltion. 0 Fees were not required for repalr or reconstruction of residential units in cases where no expanslon of use was proposed and where no transfer of real propoerty occurred after December 16, 1989 (Note: two months post earthquake). 0 In some cases of proven hardship, the Clty could walve some fees required for processlng of commercial/industrial projects. Minor Repair Provlslons ($25,000 or less) 0 Examples: chimney/fireplace; walls, roof, porch; electrical and plumbing; and foundation work. 0 Buildlng permlts requlred, no plan check or design review required; expansion of use or slgnlflcant alteratlon to eXlstlng floor plan of the structure was not permlttedi no fee. 16 Major Repair provisions (over $25,000) o utilizing the same floor plan and bU1lding footpr1nt, bU1ld1ng permit and limited plan check required; no design review was required; expansion of use or significant alterations to existing floor plan of the structure was not permitted. o If different from original build1ng, Commerc1al, lndustrlal, and multi-fam1ly units were required to be consistent with current zoning ordinance and all appl1cable standards; Use Permits were required. Demol1tion PrOV1S1ons o Permits required; plot plans requ1red; no fees requIred. Total Reconstruction provisions o If demolit1on occurred, cr1ter1a appl1ed: 1. Single family dwellings: a. In the R-l zon1ng district where lot Slze was consistent w1th the zoning ordinance, structures were requlred to be constructed In conformance wlth zoning district standards; a min1mum of one park1ng space was required for the reconstructed unit. b. Single family dwellings constructed on non- conform1ng lots of record 1n any residential zonlng dlstrlct were subJect to issuance of a variance by the Zonlng Admlnlstrator; 2. MUlti-family dwellings can be reconstructed: a. In the low dens1ty district, legal non- conform1ng unlts could be reconstructed to previous denSl ty or consistent with the zonlng district densIty formula. b. In the medium density dlstrlct, legal non- conforming units could be reconstructed to prevlous density or conslstent Wl th the zoning district formula, wh1chever is less. c . On-site park1ng as previously provided was required; however, in no case could there be less than one park1ng space per un1t. 3. Commercialjindustr1al reconstruct1on 1S permitted: a. Non-conform1ng bUlldings could not be enlarged. 17 b. Expansion of use or a structure \"ras permltted subject to conformance with the Zonlng Ordlnance and all applicable standards and Design ReVlew guidellnes. CITY OF LOS GATOS Los Gatos adopted an urgency ordlnance creatlng new standards and a process for the repair, restoration! reconstruction and demolition of buildings damaged as a result of the Lama Prieta earthquake on October 17, 1989. Los Gatos had identical standards for both residentlal and commerclal. A Restoratlon committee was established to advise and submlt wrltten recommendatlon to the Plannlng Director and BUlldlng and Safety Officer on thelr declslons to lssue, deny, revoke! or suspend any permit related to demolltlon or constructlon. The Commlttee was comprlsed of the Plannlng Director, BUlldlng and Safety Offlcer, Town Englneer, Fire Chief, Police Chlef! Dlrector of Parks! and a historlc resources consultant. standards for Repair 0 All reasonable efforts were to be made to restore the ~ of damaged structures or to replicate the facade as i t eXlsted prior to the earthquake. The facades of non- descript bUlldlngs could be modified provided they were compatlble wlth other nearby structures and clearly contributed to the character of the streetscape. 0 The Planning Director and Building and Safety Offlcer had the authority to waive all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Town Code. 0 Repair, reconstruction, and restoratlon of reinforced masonry, woodframe! and other structures were to be made ln accordance with 75% of the Uniform BUllding Code (UBe) value for lateral forces to the satlsfactlon of the Planning Director and Building and Safety OffIcer. 18 o For unreinforced masonry (URM) structures all repalrs and reconstruction were to be made ln conformance with the Uniform Code for Building Conservatlon (UCBe) 1985 edition. Owners of undamaged URM structures were required to submit a structural analysis of the bUllding before May 1, 1990 otherwlse the Building Official could revoke the occupancy of the structure. o Demolition of structures was only permitted where 1t had been determined by the BU1ld1ng Officlal that the structure could not be feasibly repaired. Permlts had to be approved by the Town Manager, Plannlng Director and BU1ldlng and Safety Official. o Any decision of the Planning Director or the BUlldlng Official was appealable to the Town Council. CITY OF WHITTER The City of Whitter maintained the non-conforming provisions 1n the Zoning Ordinance however, the criteria for replacement was different for residential uses in order to maintain the Clty'S housing stock. Standards For Repalr o A buildlng that was damaged could be restored to the orlg1nal condition existing prior to the d1saster prov1ded that the aggregate total reconstruction cost dld not exceed a sum equal to twice the then-assessed value of the bU1ldlng or structurej and provided that all such constructlon and/or repair was completed with1n one year from the date of the casualty. o For resldentlal buildings, lf a residential bUlld1ng was damaged and lf the cost to reconstruct the building exceeded 50% of the cost to reconstruct the building in the same configurat1on at the time permits are filed, the bU1lding could be reconstructed provlded that the total floor area of the structure is not increased and the total number of bedrooms 1S not increased. o For resident1al buildings, the right to reconstruct the building was not transferrable to a person who purchased the property after the damage occurred. o For commerclal buildings, if a commerclal bUIlding was damaged and the cost to reconstruct the bUlldlng exceeded 50% of the cost to reconstruct the building in the same configuration at 19 the time permits were filed, then the building had to be reconstructed in compliance with the present Zoning ordinance. o For purposes of determlning the cost of reconstruction, the city required that the property owner submit a valld contract with a 11censed contractor for the repair work, two estlmates from properly 11censed contractors for the repalr work, and a signed repair estimate from an insurance entity for the repair work. The estimates were requlred to contain sufficient detail to ascertain the scope of the proposed work and lnclude profit, overhead and insurance cost. The city determined the replacement cost by using the quarterly adjusted, nationally recognized, construction cost indicators for buildings of similar use, construction and amenities. o Building codes required that all new work (repair or reconstructlon) conforn to current standards; lf damage occurred below the parapet, bUl1dlng codes requlred that unreinforced masonry (URM) structures be repalred (or rebuilt) in accordance wlth the URM Ordinance of the Clty of Los Angeles (thlS action was imposed by the Clty of Whlttier prior to the adoption by thelr city Councl1 of an ordlnance that mirrored that of Los Angeles) . o Following the earthquake, the City of Whlttler established a redevelopment area and proposed a Speciflc plan in their heavily damaged downtown area; all commercial reconstructlon was subJected to a Conditional Use Permlt process until the Speciflc Plan was adopted which establlshed permanent development standards for the area; commercial buildings were required to be in conformance with the zonlng standards in effect prlor to the earthquake. o The Clty of Whittier allowed motor homes to be placed on resldentlal property during reconstructlon so long as a valid permit existed for the work and the work was being done in a timely manner. CITY OF OAKLAND The standards examined for Oakland were ln response to the October 20, 1991 firestorm and were for both resldentlal and commercial uses. The Cl ty established a separate and expedited perml t processing center known as the Community Restoration Development Center. This center was separate from the regular planning and building functions for the Clty and was staffed by Federal 20 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) consultants. Standards for Repair o If the proJect was wlthln 10% of the orlglnal bUlldlng footprint, floor area and helght, and was substantially the same in bulkl massing (includlng roof form) Sl ting I and location as the original building, the proJect was approved as an over the counter plan check. This was required to be documented by two sources of verlflcation that could verlfy at least two of the three criteria. The process took approximately 30 days from submission of the plans to lssuance of a bUllding permit. o If the project was within 10% of the original building footprint, floor area, and height, but changed the archltectural characteristics (massing and roof forms), then an expedited deslgn review permit was required. The process took approximately 40 days from submission of the plans to issuance of a building permit. o If all cases, lf the project was within 10% of the orlglnal bUlldlng footprint, and was a legal non-conforming lise, or had been issued a variance or other permlt, the use and bUlldlng conflguration was allowed to be replaced. o Detached garages and accessory structures were treated separately when determining the 10% crlterla. o If a project exceeded 10% of the prlor footprlnt, floor area or helght, the new structure was requlred to conform to the current zonlng regulations and a publlC hearing was required. Non-conformlng uses and buildings were not grandparented I however, an expedited public hearlng process was established for these type of proJects. The process took approxlmately 60 days from submission of the plans to lssuance of a bUlldlng permit. o The extent of damage and type of repairs would determine the appropriate building code compliance. Three categories were created, one for cosmetlc repalrs, one for rnlnor repalrs, and one for maJ or repalrs. Cosmetlc repairs, def lned as non- structural elements not adversely affecting any structural or llfe-safety elements of the bUllding (i.e. guardrall, stalrways, windows, etc.), could be replaced or repalred to the same condition as existed pr lor to the fire. Mlnor repairs, defined as the replacement, repair or constructlon of structural or non-structural elements In a building where the value of the work does not exceed 50% of the value of the original buildlng, could be replaced or repalred to the same condltlon that existed prior to the flre, however, structural and life-safety elements were required to conform to the 1991 21 - - - -- UBC. MaJor repairs, defined as replacement,repalr,or construction of all, or a portion of the building where the value exceeded 50% of the value of the orlglnal building, was required to conform to the 1991 UBC. Repairs to non-structural elements could be replaced to the same standard prior to the flre. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO As a result of the Landers and Big Bear earthquake, the County of San Bernardlno established the following standards. Standards For Repair 0 Three project categories were created. One was repair, meanlng the fIxIng In-klnd of a damaged structure with no alteration or expanslon. In klnd was defined as the same height, Slze, shape, number of units, general locatlon and same general use as that WhlCh existed prlor to the earthquake. The second category was reconstructlon, meaning the demolitlon and replacement of a damaged structure with a new structure constructed in-kind and with no alteration or expanslon. The fInal category was new constructlon, meaning the demolitlon and replacement of a damaged structure which was not in-kind. 0 Conforming resldentlal and commercial buildlngs \vere perml tted ! to be rebuilt in-klnd upon lssuance of a building permlt. Conformlng and structures that sUbJect to the r uses were approval of a conditional use permit, or other dlscretlonary , permit, were permltted to be reconstructed In-klnd provided a plot plan could be provided. If a plot plan was not provided, the project was subject to an admlnlstratlve compliance review. 0 Non-conformlng single family dwelllngs, duplexes and tr iplexes were permitted to be reconstructed in-kind upon lssuance of a building permit. Other non-conforming resldentlal and commerclal buildings were permltted to be reconstructed upon approval of an admlnistrative compliance reVlew and building permit. 0 New constructlon was required to meet all the present zonlng and building code requirements. 0 The extent and type of damage would determlne compliance with the applicable bUlldlng codes. \Vhen the estlrnated repalr value of the structure dld not exceed 10% of the replacement value, the repairs could be restored to condltlon prlor to the 22 ----- earthquake. When the estimated value of the repair was greater than 10%, but less than 50%, of the structure's replacement value, the damaged elements, as well as all critical ties associated wlth the elements were requlred to be repaired in conformance with the structural requirements of the current building code. When the estimated value of the repair exceeded 50% of the replacement value of the structure, the entire structure was requIred to comply with the current building code. ' STATE MODEL ORDINANCES The CalIfornia Department of Emergency Services has prepared model ordinances for post disaster recovery and reconstruction. These ordinances are prepared WIth the aSSIstance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order to faclli tate cost assistance for repair work. The intent of the model ordInance is to allow the reconstructlon of non-conformlng structures and uses provided the degree on non-conformity is not increased over what existed prior to the disaster. The bUIldlngs could not be made larger, nor constructed of materlals that are not longer allowed by the buildlng code. However, the building materials would have to be as close to the origlnal standards as possIble. No change In occupancy would be allowed unless mutually agreed upon by the Clty and the building owner. The following outllnes the state model ordinance standards: Standards For Repair o If a bUIlding owner elects to demolIsh rather than repaIr, or the bUIlding is requlred to be demolished due to a threat to public health and safety, current planning and zoning standards related to buildlng size, lot coverage, parking, and site improvements should be waived provided: 1. The bUllding is reconstructed to the same configuration. floor area, height, and occupancy as the original building and the building is constructed of simIlar 23 construction materlals. Existlng unrelnforced masonry and concrete materials should be replaced with similar materials reinforced in accordance wlth the current building codes. 2. All parts or portions of the original constructIon are completely removed, except as provided by the Building Offic1al, 3. The site 1S prepared in accordance wlth a foundation report prepared by 1nd1vidual registered by the state of California to perform foundatlon investigation. 4. All new construction compIles fully w1th the requirements of the current building code. 5. For buildings which contained non-conforming occupancies, the non-conforming occupancy may be malntained ln the new structure provided occupancy is lawful and not in violatlon of any other portions of the municipal code. 0 The implementatIon of the above standards are appealable to the local Clty Council. 0 When the estlrnated value of repalr does not exceed 10% of the replacement value of the structure, the damaged portlons must be restored their pre-disaster conditlon. This applles except when the damaged elements include suspended celling systems, the ceiling systems must be repaired and all braclng requlred by the current bUllding code must be installed. 0 When the estImated value of the repalr lS greater than 10% but less than 50% of the replacement value of the structure, the damaged elements, as well as the crltlcal ties, supported elements and supporting elements associated with the damaged elements, shall be repaired and/or brought lnto conformance wlth the structural requirements of the current code. 0 When the estimated value of repair is 50% or more of the replacement value of the structure, the entlre structure shall be brought lnto conformance wlth the structural requlrements of the current code. 0 Historic bUlldlngs lncluded on a natlonal, state or local register af hlstaric places, or wh2ch are quall.fY2ng structures wlthln a recognlzed hlstoric dlstrlct, which have been damaged as a result of a dlsaster, should have an engineer1ng evaluation performed. The mlnlmurn repaIr crlteria should comply w1th the above standards with due conslderation given to the historical rating and nature of the structure. Additional standards and crlterla, as noted ln Part 8, Tltle 24, California Code of Regulations, the State of Californla 24 Historic BUllding Code, should apply. Where conflicts exist between the above standards and the state of Californla Historic Buildlng code, the Historic Building Code should apply. 0 An appeal process to the local city Council of the building code standards should be established. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendations ln this report do not have a budget or financial impact. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city Councll and Rent Control Board provide directlon to staff for the preparation of an ordlnance and Rent Control Board regulatlons implementing pollcles for the repalr and reconstructlon of damaged bUlldings. 25