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