SR-8-A (197)F:ppd/share/ccreport/reconstl
Council Meeting: April Z9, 1994
TO: City Council
FROM: City Staff
Santa Monica, California
APR 1 9 ~
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance for Repa~r and
Reconst~uct~.an af AesXdential and Non-residential
Buildings Damaged by the January 17~ 1994 Northridge
Earthquake
INTRODUGTION
On March 1, 1994, the City Council directed staff to prepare an
o~dinance ~rhi.ch ~,aould fac~la.ta~e recovery from the Narthridge
earthquake by establishing deveiopment review standards for the
r~pair and reconstruction of damaged buildings. In addit~on, the
C~uncil directed staff to study various issue~ related to the
repair and recanstructias~ star~dards and rev~ew emergency ordinances
previously adopted in respanse ~a the Northridge eax-thquake.
This staff report provides the results of the studies requested by
Council concerning on-site park~ng, reeonstruct~on bonuses, and the
finar~cial impact of the recanstruction standards and incentzv~s,
and discusses the specific provisions af the earthquake recovery
ordinance.
APR 1 9 ~
~
BACKGRDUND
On March 1, I994, the City Cquncil r~vze:ti~ed the general parameters
of a progra~ presented b}r staff for tl~e repair and reconstruction
of residentlal and non-residential bui~dings damaqed by the
Northridqe earthquake and dzrected staff ta prepare an ordinance ta
implement thi~ prograr~. 'The Council additior~ally asked staf~ to
study cer~ain issues related to the proposed repa~r and
recanstruct.~Qn standards and return to Co~zncil :ti~ith th~ results of
~ts evaluations.
The propos~d program~ is des~.gned to achieve the goals of
facil~tat~ng a rapzd r~covery, r~azntainzng affordable housinq, and
preserving the resldential and commercial character of Santa
Manica. ~n c~eneral, th~ pragram provides for expedited perrnit
pracessing f~r earthquake-reZated repairs and recon~tructian,
aZlows damaged buildings to be rebuilt tv their pre-earthquake
cond~tions (even ~ahen these cond~.tions do not conform to presen~
zaning standards), and ~stab~ishes ~nc~nt~ves for the rapid
recon~truct~on of r~ulti-family ren~a~ developr~ent5. At the same
time, the prograr~ es~ablzshes threshalds for compliance with
building codes.
This staff report is argan~zed around three major issues: 1) the
results of the staff et~aluation o£ issues related to possibla
parkzng r~quirer~ents and aev~lop:~ent bonuses for reconstructed
btzildings; 2} a discusszon cf the results of a fYnanc~.al analysYs
2
af development incentives fo~ recanst~uction; and, 3) a descriptlon
af the provisions of the proposed repair and reconstruction
ordinance.
The key r~comme~dations of thzs report are as folla4:s:
a In-ki~d Repair and RecQnstruction; A~lo:a ~or in-klnd repair
and reconstruction of legal non-can~ormzng structures and
expedited permat processing;
a Parkinq: Requir~ replace:~ent of pre-earthquak~ parkzng
spaces~ but no add~tional park~ng;
a Incentiv~s for Repair and Reconstructio~: For multi-family
rental hous~ng, allo;~r a 15 percent square foatage bonus, a
f~ve-foot heaght bonus, and decreased setbacks, as long as
se~}~ack non-conformity is not increased, ar the pxa~ect
complies wi~h t}~e mir~~mum setbacks ~n the Zonxng Ordir-ance.
a AffordabZs Housing: 4:her~ affardable hausing rec~u~remer-ts
are not imposed by Ren~ Con~.ro~, require tha~ 25 percent of
the reconstructed units in residential housinq projects be
affordable t~ lo~r- and :noderate-~ncor~e hauseho~ds.
ISSUES ~'OR STLTDY
In con~unction ~~i~h the dlrectian ~o prepare ~he ordinance, Counca~
d~rected staff to ~valuate specY~a.c ~.ssues related to the prapo5ed
repair and recanstruction d~velopment standards, zncludang: 1) the
need and desirab~lity of requ3ranq additional parkzng for
3
earthquake-damaged build~ngs havi~g substandard parking, 2) the
feasibility of floar area bonuses ta encouraqe reconstruction of
multi-family residential pra~ects, and 3) th~ f~nancia~ ~mpact of
allowing developnent incentives for multi-family rental
developments.
Pazkinq
Sta~f exa~ined pre-earthquake parking con~itzans in yello~~:- and
red-tagged buildzngs in order to determ~ne th~ extent of
underpaxk~ng. Util~z~ng co~struc~lon date~ obta~ned from asses~or
fi~es, staff compared building dates ~•~ith applicable City parking
standards at th~ time of constructi4n to estimate the amount of
parking at each site.
Residential Structures
A reviettiT of the City's histor~cal parking require~^ents sho~•~s that
there w~re no parking requirements for multi-fam~il~ resid~ntial
development until 1937. In tha~ year, the C~ty adopted a
requ~reraent of Z space per unzt for r~ulti-far~zly residential
deve~.opment~ which repres~nts approx~na~e~y 50 percent of the
City's current s~tandazd. In 1a48, this standard ~~•ras madif~.ed ~a
require 1 space per every t~;o units far pro7ects above 5 units in
the R2 zone, and 1 space per e~ery three units for pro~ects abave
10 units in the R3 and R4 zone, effecti~.;el~ reducing the amount of
required park~nc~ for larger pra3ects. In 1960, the parking
requirement fQr multi-far~~ly reszdential de.~relapment *:ras raised ta
~
~ and 1/2 spaces per un~t, rr~~ese:~t~ng approxzmately 75 percent of
~he current star~dard. Ir: i975, ~he Czty began to require 2 spaces
per un~t for un~~s ~r~~'.: ~wo or more be~rooms. Carrentiy, for
multi-family a~a~-~~:e~~ ~eve?apr;ent, the C~ty requires 1.5 spaces
per ane-bedroo~, 2 spaces per 2 or more bedrooms, and vis~tor
parkxng for gro~ects of f~ve units or more. For condomim~ums, the
C~ty requ~res 2 spaces per or.e or more bedrooms.
Table I shows when iY:e red- and yellow-tagged multz-famaly
buzldings were bu~lt in rela~zor~ to the time periods corresponding
to different parking sta::dards. Nearly half of the build~.ngs were
built przor =o ~937 when ~he City had no specific parkzng
requirements. Appraximat~ly 19 percent were buslt between 1937 and
1959 when the Clty required approxamately 1 space per unit.
Anoth~r 22.2 percent w~re built dur~ng the 196Q--~975 perlod when
the C~t~r r~~u~red one and one-half spaces per unit. Less than 5
percent were constructed under the requirement of two spaces p~r
unit far one- and two-bedraom un~ts.
Sxte ~.nspections of several of the buildings showed that ~ndeed
many of the pre-1937 developments provide substantially less
parkzng than curre:t cod~ requ~res. For example, the Charmant
apart:nents and ~ov~~e~gn apartments have no on-s~t~ parking. On
the other hand, ~he E3 Cortez apartments provide 23 parking spaces
for 90 units. However, tne E1 Cortez apartmenCs appear ta be the
exception rat?~er than the rule for pre-1937 residential buil~ings.
Mast are 5everely ~u::d~rparked and rely on stree* park~r_g.
5
TABLE I
Construction Dates and
Appticable Qn-Site Parki~ag Stanc~ards
for a~l Yet~ow and Red Tagged
11tu!#i-Famil~~ Residential Builafngs
~s of 3/13I9~3
Time Period #} ~`c App~icab~e Parking 5t~~tida~d
of BIdgs, of B1dgs. (generalized~`)
Pre 1937 91 50 ~ E I~To required Parking
1937 - 1959 38 19 ~9 Approximately 1 spaceiun~t
1960 - 1975 41 ~? `' ~ 1 1!' spaces; un~t
1975 - preser~t 6 3 3 ~• .approx~rnatzly 2 5paces,'unit
;~'o date a~~a~iable ~ 6 7 ~
Total 180 1 QD ~
"~tandards may ~~a~ dependfng ~por~ un~t ~quare toataae a~d n~nnber of ~edrooms Ylease cansult
applicable ordinances ~
t `•pp~`~share~~ccreport!~-zlrzct
Non-residen~ial Structures
Prio~ ~0 19~8, the City had na spec~fic ~zni~~um parking
require~ents for retaal and office develop~ent. Beginn~ng in
1948i the City required or.e ~pace per 1,000 ~quare E~et for
buildings ~arger than 2,500 s~~ar~ ~eet. ~n I96o, the requir~~ent
was increased to one space per 30D square feet of off~ce and retai~
developmant~ which is the same as the City's current requir~ment.
Table II sho~~rs that approximately 67 percent of the non-residential
red- and yello~:--tagged bui~dings were lauilt prior to the tame that
the City i~ad any applica~le park~ng requ~rements. F~nother 9.7
pexcent .aere constructed c~urzng the Z~=~8-1~59 per~od ~•.~hen the City
required 1 space per 1,0~~ square feet, or app~oxir,lately one-third
of th~ cu~rent requ~rement. anly 18 percent ~1ere built under
requirements similar to current sta:~dards.
Although a~arc~e prapartian of the non-residential buzldings in the
City ~~°ere canstructed prior ta ~he im~osition of park~.ng
requirernents, most stitl appear to provide some on-site parking.
Site inspections of several af the pre--1948 buildings revealed ~hat
on-si~e parkinq at:~ounted ta betT.~.een 30 and 6~ percent of the
current o~-~~te parkzrq require:~er.~s. T'his r~ay be because o~.ners
have provided parkinc; voluntar~l~.~ for bus~ness purpases, Qr because
they have ]~een requared by the C~ty to increase parking as part of
development applicat~ons.
G
TABLE II
Construction Dates and
Applicable Qn-5ite Parking Standards
far Non-Reside~~t'sa!
Red and Fel1o~~- Tagged Buildings
as af 3I13/9~
Time Period # ~lo App[icable Parking Standat•d
of Bldgs. of Bldgs. (generatized~}
Pre - 19~$ 101 70 1~ No required P~r~:~n;
19~8 -1959 15 IO ~% 1 space/1,OQ0 s r for
develapment abo~~e '',~00 s f
1960 - Present 26 1 S 0`~ 1 spacei 300 5 f
No date ava~lable ' 1~ ~
Total 14~ 1 ~0 ~
f '.p}xl`~•chare`,ccreporr`~redyel
Pazkinq Recomme~dation
Even thouqh ~any of ~he earthquake~damaged buildings, especially
residential bu~~dinqs, may have substandard on-site park~ng, staff
does not recomnen~ requiring additZOna~ pa~king as ~art of the
reconstxuction ordinance. Th~ prz~ary goal of the City's repair
and reconstruc~iqn progra~ is to allc:~.~ pr~perty o~hners to promptly
restare properties to their pre-earthquak~ conditions. In many
cases, requiring additional parking cauld result in a substantial
chanqe in bui~ding design and costs, ~~~hich cou~d in turn ~mpede the
C~.ty~s goal of fac~latatinq rapid repair anc~ reconstruction. It
is th~ opinion of experts cantact~d by City staff that lenc~~rs will
be forgiving in terms of substandard parkzng, t~ the extent that
they, toa, are eager to facilita~e rebuaiding. Moreover, since the
number of residential units cannot be ~ncreased, and square fOOtage
cannot be added to co~:~ercial s~ruct4res, the der~and for parking
w~ll be no greater ~Y~an that exzsting priar to the earthquake.
wnere a res~dential rental property o~~~ner :;ish~s to volun~arily
increase pa~'king, or ~.here the lender r~ay require r~ore park~,ng as
a condition af lending to such an at.~ner, the pr~posed ordinance
a11a~•rs for an increase in pazk~ng.
other Data on Red- and Yellow-Taqqed Buildinqs
~n order to deterri~ne key d~r,7en~ions of the ]~uildings that were
damaged by the earthquake, data o~ the number of storles and nu~tber
of units per buildinc~ ~rere gathered and analyzed. Table II~ sha~,as
7
Tabte Iii
Bre~kdo~~~n by l~umber of Stories
of Rer~-and-Yellow Tagged
~•ii~tti-Family Bui~dings
as of 3/13194
~1 of Staries # of A~Iult1-Fam~ly Bu11d~~as % Total
1 32 24.6
2 74 ~6.9
3 15 11 5
4 2 1.5
S 3 2.3
6 1 .7
Not Available 3 2 3
Totat 130 100~'0
Source• ly~b Janbarn Maps
f lppolsharelccrepart`•.tab3
the number and proportion of red- and yelloL~-tagged buildings by
number of storie5. The table sho°ti.s that the ma~ority (56.9
percent) of the buzldangs have t~~To stories. Approxlmately ane-
quart~r {24.6 percent) have only one stary, wh~le another 11.5
percent have three stories. Less than five percent are ~ore than
three s~ories.
Tab1e I57 shows the breakdo~~.n among red- and yelloti~~-tagged buildings
by number of unzts in the bui~d~ng. Among 177 residential damaqed
buildings including s~ngle-famzly homes, approxiraately 34 percent
cons~st of on~ flr t*,.~o F1T]Z~S~ th~a~, the r:a~ority have three or more
units. Approxir~ately 18 percent of the bui~d~ng5 consist of
betG~een 3 and 5 units; 3-.4 percent cons~st of bet,.~een 5 and 15
units. Approxir~ately 10 percent have bets~:een 16 and 3o units. Few
buildings have more than 30 un~ts.
Feasibility af Develapmen~ Bonuses
The Council. directed staff to ~nvestigate the f~asibilaty and
impact of per~itt~ng a developnent bonus as an incentive for the
reconstruct~on of residential developnent.
Zn evaluating the appropriateness of allo,•-ing ar. increase ~.n the
pre-~arthquake size of rasidential build~.ngs, staff first
determined that such an incer.tzve ,~ou1d be mast appropriate for
multi-far~ily rental developm~ent. This ls due primarily to
potential fox sign~fzcant loss of this type of housing as a result
8
Table IV
i~Tu~~~ber of Red-and Yello~~-T~gged
Residential Buildings by Number of Units in Building*
# of
Bldgs % # of
Blc~gs ~ # oi
Bldgs %
ft Units Yellow-
Tagged Yellow-
Tagged Red-
Ta~ged Red-
Tagged Total Total
1-2 59 42 8% 2 5 1~ 51 34. 5~
3-S 22 15.9% 11 28.2~a 33 18 b%
6-9 30 21 7 ~ 9 23 0~ 39 22.D%
1D-IS 17 12 3~O 5 12 $~ 2Z 12 4%
I6-20 4 2.9% 3 7 b% 7 3 9%
2i-3a 4 2 9% 6 15 3~ 10 5 6%
31-40 Q 1 4~ 1 2 5~ 1 5%
41 + 2 1 4~ 2 5 1~ 4 2 3%
TOTAL 138 100~10 39 100~/'o I77 1(}0%
~ As or s~ lsiy~
f lppolsharalccreportly~tr
of the earthquake, and the goal art~culated by the City Cauncil to
mainta3n a~fordabl~ housing. The develop~ent bonus dzd not seem
necessary for can~o~inzun dev~lopm~n~ and s~ngle-family hames due
to the fact that the candominium and single-family homeo~~ner, by
virtue of the fact that s/he qenerally resides in the unit, already
has a strang incentive to recanstruct; and, due to the practical
di~ficulty of deterrnining ho~.,~ to distribu~te the banus ar.~ong the
numerous condominiu~ns.
The approach ut~lized by staff ~a deterr~ine the zncremental
increasE in square footage that T,~:auld be necessary to pravide a
signifacant ~.ncentive to enco~rage affordable housing develapment
i~ described in detail zn t~e next section of this report. It
sh4uld be noted that ri=h~le the sq~are ~ootac~e bonu~ -::i11 perrzt an
~ncrease ~n building square footage, it ~~:ill not perr~it an increase
in the number of d;~~ellinq units.
The City Attcrney has rev~e~•rpd the applicable State ZdGti' and
determined that the 5tate ~ensity bonus provisions ~•-i11 not apply
ta reconstruc~ion unc~er this ordinance.
FINANC~AL ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMEN`I' iN~ENT~VES
The City C~uncil directed staff to eva~uate the financial impact of
various alternative develop:~ent standards incent~ves for
reconstruction. The analysis ~•:ould adentify a s~t of devela~ament
9
standards vrhzch c•:ould provide a sign~ficant financial incent~ve tQ
encaurage rapid reconstruction ~•:hile sir~ultaneously achieving the
City's goal af maintaining affordable housang. The fsnancial
incentive F~ould equal or exceed other investment options, thereby
providing a ~evel of econor.:ic return tha~ ~~ould be highly
attractive to the o~,Tner. The firm of Katin, Regan ~ r?ouch~y (KRM) ,
Inc. was cont~acted to conduct the anaZysis.
BEfore descr~bing the :~ethodology and results oF this analysis, it
should be noted that there are many tactors Erhich go into the
decisian of :.rhether to reconstruct. Thes~ include the exter~t to
which earthquake insurance is available, the nature and t~rms of
the d~bt encu~bering the praperty, and the fznancial circumstances
af the o~aner, along F~ith the size, density, and configuration of
the existing development. It ~•,ould not be passible in an analysis
of this sart to capture all the possib~e cambinatians of fznancial
and other clrcumstances facing an a,.~ner. rleverthel~ss, the
analysis performed ~aas deszgned to capture a reasonab~e range of
alternatives and dep~ct the rela~i~Te zmpact of different polic~es.
Belor~~, the development sc~narios and assumpt~ons contained in the
analys~s are described, the f~nancial ,=~ethodology and assumpt~ans
are disctzssed, and a summary o~ the results are ~-eported.
Developm~nt Scenarios and Assumptians
The ana~ysas focuses en reconstruction, as opposed to repair. ~t
10
assumes that each structure ~•.•311 be demolished and reconstructed to
its pre-~arthquake dir-~nsions, including numb~r of units and on-
site parking spac~s; that all projects will b~ subject to a the
req~irements af one af t~:ra rent contral removal processes; and,
that al1 pro~ects W1~~ be eligible for a reconstructian bonus.
Five r~ul~.i-fa:~ily develap~ents in the Caty that .~~re either red- or
yellow-tagged as a result of tne earthquake tirere used as prototyp~s
in the analys~s. In order to reflect the diversity of r~ulti-family
housa.ng developments ln the C~ty, these pro~.otypes vary in size and
lnclude 8, 10, 16, 24, and 42 unzts, respectlve~y. Four of the
five developments are locat~d north af t:ilshire, :•~here the na~ority
of the red- and yel~o:,~-tagged re~id~ntial bu~ldings are lacated.
The reconstruct~on scenar~os focus on the different~al impacts of
twa key variables: square footage bonuses and affordable ho~sing
requirements. Square footage banuses af 4, 10, 15, 2D, and 25
perc~nt ~Jere analyzed. Tt .•~as assumed that there ti~:a~zld b~ no
increase in the o~rerall nu~~ ber of units zn each developr~ent, and
that the increm~ntal squar~: footage fro~ the bonus ~Tould be
absorbed by the individual units. ~q~are footage bonuses would
anly apply to existing ~ulti-family apar~.ment develo~~ents.
Alte~native affordable haus~ng requiremer-ts o~ Of i5, 20, and 25
percent are analyzed. The 1~ percent affordable requirement
scenaria, applicable to an ~arthquake Category D rer,lova~, assurnes
1~
that the affordable uni~s 1:auld be affardable to lov~er-income
households (i.e., househo~ds earning 80 percent of the Los Angeles
County med~an inco~e). This scenarzo also assumes that the
remaining 85 percent of the un~ts init~ally would be rented at
market rate and thereafter be sub~ect ~o rent control.
Applicable ta an Earthquake Category C removal, the 20 and 25
percent alternative affordable requirements assume that exactly
half of th~ afforc~able units :•~ould be affordable to :r,oderat~-income
households (i.E., hous~holds ~arning 100 perc~nt of the Caunty
~ed~an hausehold inco~^e) , ~-rhYle thn renaining half c~ould be
affordable ta IbT]-11']COi`le househo~ds (i.e. ~ hauseholds earn~ng 60
percent of the Caunt~.~ r~edia:~ household zncor~e) . I'he balance of
units in each de~>elopment ~•~oald be ~:~arket rate ~nzts and not
subject to rent control.
Affordable units ~,,rere asssmed to be 600 square feet for one-
bedroor~s, 850 square feet f~r 2-bedroo?-~s, 1, 080 square feet for 3-
bedrooms, and 1, 260 for 4-bedrooms. The nur.~sber of affordable un~~s
in each d~velopment ~:~as deter~~lneci by using a 0.5 round-up factor.
For the 25 percent affoxdable hous~ng requirenent scenarios, ~t 4~as
assur,~ed that the first affordabie unit E•:auld be affordable to a
maderate-ineome household, the second unit to a lo4•:-income
household, and thereafter alternating.
Financia~ Methadoloqy and Assumptions
The financial ar~alysis focuses upan the cost of reconstruction fror~
I2
the perspecti~e of the existang property o~Jner. The objectlve of
the analysis ;,~as to determine if the propert}= o,:~ner cou].d recover
original (pre-earthquake} net operatinq incame (P3oI) and also
obtain a significant additional financial return on investment to
~ncourag~ reconstruct~.on.
Origanal net operating ~nco:~~ (r:ol} ~aas calculat~d using gross rent
levels pr~v~ded by the Rent Cantro~ Departr-~ent _ operat~ng expenses
u~er~ estimated based on an average af $.27 per square foot per
month. NO~ was calculated by reciuc~.ng total rental incame by
operating expenses.
The new NOI (that is, the NOI from the ne~r~y reconstruct~d
bui~ding) ~s calculated based upon xnco~~ from ne~~~ rents minus
operating expenses. Margznal income, or the d~fference b~ts;,reen
rental incorie genera~ed after r~construc~ion and r~ntal inco:~e
prior ta the ~arthquake, ::as th2n caleulated by subtracting the
original NOI fror•: the ne:,• :~lOI. I'aking the :~arginal incam~ and
dividing by the cost of rebuild~ng yields the return on investr-~ent
(ROI} on ne43 invest~ent capital. The analysis considers only the
return on investment durzng the f~rst year.
Threshold ROI
In order to establish a threshold return on investr~en~, three main
factors must be consi~ered: the availability and eos~ of equity
capYtal; the availab~lity ar~d cast of debt flnanc~ng; and, the
13
expectatian of future rents.
~ar the purposes of thzs analysis, a Ioan-to-value ratio of 85
gercent is assumed, Xt is also assumed that debt f~naneing ~~°ould
be obtained at a rate o~ 8~ereent, .vh~ch assumes a combinatiQn of
market rate and Snall Business Ad~~n~stration (SBA) loans. Equ~ty
capital--that is, the por~ion ~f funds needed to cover the
remaining 15 percent of the cost of reconstruction--is assumed to
require a rate of retuxh af at least 20 percent. In o~~Qr words,
in order to provid~ tY:e o:•,n~r s~gnificant incentives ta reconstruct
as opposed ta in~~est ~he sar~e cap~ta~ in anather investr~ent, s/he
would need to real3ze at least ?0 percen~ return on that capital
through recan~truct~on.
The chart balow~ sha.L~s ha~r.~ the threshold return, or ~he minimuri
financial return required in order to prortpt investr-~errt~ is
calculated on the investment n~cessary ?n order for the o:•~ner to
meet the deb~ serv~.ce on an ~ percEnt loan and still obtain 20
p~rcent return on the eq~ity portiors of the investment.
Calculating Threshold ROI on
Entire Financing (Debt plus Equity}
A. Debt Portian: 85~ Loan
x 8~ Interest Ra~e
b.8~
B. EquiLy Portion: ia~ ~o;.n payment
x 20~ Return on Investment
3.0°
A + B = 9.So
14
The table shovrs that the co~b~ned threshold ROI far the debt and
equity portion of the investm~en4 is 9.8 pe~cent.
Th~ threshold ROI of 9.8 p~rcent also assumes ~ha~ apart~ent rents
would increase :•rith the norr.-~al irsflat~an rate. Ho~n~ever, threshald
ROI ~•:au~d be same~•:hat higher ~or units Tr~ith contro3led rents.
Based on the City's prior experience •~ahereby controlled rents
increased at approx~mate~y 70 percer~t of the CPI, KR~~ has estimated
that the thr~shold RpI ~•~ould have ta be ad~usted by .7a percent to
provxde a property o:•~ner ~•,~th an equivaJ.ent long-ter~n rate of
return, thereby req~z~r~ng a 1~~ ~~ R~I ior un~ts su~~ect ta rent
cantrol.
Other Assumptions
A numb~r of other assumptions factor into the analyszs, including
assu~nptions about market rents, aperating expenses, design and
construction costs, park~nq costs, and overhead costs, amonq
others. Ihe standard assu;npt~ons used in the analys~s and a sample
profarma are eambined ln r~tachment A. Because of the na~ure of
the assumpt~ons utilized ~n this analysis (~.e., cansideration af
pre--earthquake net operacing ircome and exclusion o~ land costs),
the appraach taken is not transferabl~ t~ an d1~131'y'S15 of the
financial feaszbilit~~ cf n~;r constracr.icn.
~~
Results
Table V shot~-s th~ r~~u~4s of this analysis far the different
affardab~e and square footage bonus levels. In order to interpret
the table, it is ~mportant to keep ir~ mind the applicable threshald
ROI at which netiv development is likely to occur under each tk'pe of
Rent Control removal perr~at: for Earthquake Category D removal,
1a.55 percent (9.8 percent p~us 7~ percent to factar for
addYtional return requzred for the rent controlied ~nzts}; for the
Earthquake Cat~gory C removal, 9.3 perc~nt.
Staff utiliz~d Table V to ident~fy an appropriate combination of
squax'e fbotage bonus and affordable hausing requirements that u:ou~c~
meet the threshoid RoI und~r either a Cateqory C removal, w~th a 2~
percent affor~~able r~q~irer~ent, or ~.h~ Category D re:~oval, .+rith a
~5 percent af~ordable rEquzrement.
The ta}~le sha~~:s that severa~ combinataons of affordable
requirements and squar~ footage bonuses r:eet the threshold ROI.
Far example, nearly all protot~:pes provide sufficient financ~a~
return under the 20 and 2~ percent sc~uare faatage banuses and a~.1
affoxdable housing requirer~,ent l~ve~s to encou~age reconstruction.
In addition, all but one prototype would meet the threshold ROI.
In particular, under the 15 percent square footage bonus allo~tiTance,
the threshold ROI ~s me~ for four of the fir.~e proto~ypes under a
15, 20, or 25 percent aFfor~able housing reqa~re~~~ent. More
specifieall.y, the threshald RaI is :net for Prototypes 1, 3, and 4
16
~~r~n.Re~n d~ Maw:hly. ~NC i
Ta b 1 e tr
SUMMARY OF RE5ULT5
SCENAR IO: Market Rents & Replace Original Parking
Inclusionary Units Cafculated with Moderate Income Units First
~
PB0T07YPE
PROTOTYPE
PltOTOTYPE
PROT07YPE ~
PRaTOTYPE
APARTMEMT CHARACTER15T1CS No f No 2 No. 3 No 4 No. 5
Number nf Pre-Qu~ke Umts 10 units 8 umts 24 wuts 42 umts 16 umts
Aver.~e Pre-Quake Un~t Si~c 118U sq ft 774 sq ft 755 sq fi 144p sg !t u11 sq ft
I'otal Lul Svc 7500 sy ft 75U0 sq R 223GU sq (C. 34640 sq ft. 108VU sq Ft
Tntal Pre-Quake Parkuig Spaces 15 spaces 5 spaces lo spaces 84 spaces 19 spacx,~s
Tntal Req Spac~rs iF ISldg Replaced 75 spaces 5 spac-~~c 10 spaces 84 sFuoes '19 spaocs
R6PLACEMENT OF STItUC7URE5 ~
e urn on -
e~CTon ~
e~um on
e~ urlE~ n an ~
e urn oe
AVERACE
Returnonlnwstmr.nl lnvestment Invesfinent Investment Investrnent InMestment VALUES
~~~
NO DENSITY BONUS CRANTED '~
No Inciusionary Un~ts Req'd {ren[ c.ontroll 12 ~3q5 F! 7ry5 9 7°~ 9 9% 9 096 10 096
15°~ of Unrtc are Inclusioriary Srent conlrol} 12 79~ 8 7qo 9 3°yo 9 3qb ff 7% 9 796
20~, of [lmts are Inclusionary 12 4% E! Sryb 9 39~ 9 1 ryb fS 4ryG 9 G96
25'~ nf Unlts arc iACluswnary 12 5% 8 59a S 9ry5 8 9yb 8 39~ 9 4qo
i 4q6 DET~15llY BONUS GRAAITED
No Inclusionary Unrts Rirq'd (rent contrcil) 13 6ryo 9 4go 70 G96 10 7$6 16 Oqo 10 9'9a
1S%of Umts are Indusionary Srenl cohlrol) 13 4% 9 5q5 10 3qo 10 2°~ 9 7~0 1Q G96
20%nf Un~ts are Inclusionary 13 1;6 9 3y~ 7p 390 10 135 ~3 935 10 Syd
25%oF llmts arc Incius~aiary rt3 2% 4 3% 70 0% 9 S~b 9 496 10 396
159o DENl51YY BONUS GRANTED
hRo Indusux~ary Units Req'd (reo~t control) 13 990 9 7qb 11 OqG 11 1% 10 4qG 11 2%
'{5~0 of Umis arc Inclusionary (rent cx,ntrol~ 13 7qo 9 89~ 10 796 10 G% 10 2~ 71 096
2o%of Uni~s arc Indusionary 13 490 9 696 10 796 1Q 596 10 396 10 9%
25~ oF Unlts arC Inclusionary 13 Sryo 9 G96 10 4qk 10 396 9 896 1U 7q6
2D% DENSITY BONUS GRANTED
No Inclusionary tlnrts Req'd (rent c.'orllyd} 14 19G 10 09L 11 4q6 7 l 5~, 10 8qo 11 G%o
15% of Un~ts arc inclusionary (rent contrrrl) t 3 9% 70 1 ry6 11 196 1 T 09b 10 6% 11 3'%
2096 nf tJn~ts are Inclus~onary 13 7qS~ 9 9go 11 130 14 ti% 10 7qb 11 296
25%uf Un~ts are lnclus~onary 13 iS'yb 9'.?96 10 A96 70 7% 1~ 33u 11 196
25% ~ENlSITY 84iVUS GRANTEp
No Indusionary Uni~s Req'd qrent cantrol) 14 496 10 3% 11 896 17 F~% i1 296 19 99b
159b uf Umts are Inclusionary (rent oontrd~ 94 296 1q 4% 11 5% 11 3% 71 095 11 790
24% a( Units arc Inc.lusionary 14 096 14 2y6 1 i 5% 11 296 11 29b 71 696
z5%o( Units are Inclusionary 14 9% 70 2%
w.~.~ 11 2q6
~ 11 0%
~~..~ 10 7gb
~ t1 496
~
oaroaroa
Fae SMC9aqNnNM1C]pFl1SUM1ULIY[2[ f4epgiedfOrf.Ryo(SanpMonks
with a 15 percent affordab?e housing reauirement, and for prototype
5 with a 25 ~ercent affardable hous~ng requ~re~ent. At the same
time, the table suggests th~t, ~:ath a 15 percent square footage
banus, ar~ aPfordable housing requirement above 25 percent u~auld nQt
provide the thr~shold ROI desired to encourage reconstruction.
Consist~nt ~f~ith the program goal of :~a~.ntaining the character af
existing developr7ent and neighbornaod~, staff recar-mends allawing
the minirtur~ square foo~age bcr:us needed to ~-eet the threst~old RaI.
Based an prec~c~ing analy~sis, th~s ~s ~5 percent. The 15 percent
bonus ~;rould provide sufficienL financial returns either at the 15
percent or 25 percent afforda3~le housing ~equ~rerr.ent level to
stimulate r~construction.
Th~refax-e, staff is recommending a 15 percent square footage bonus
along ~,~ith the follo.:ing affardable housing requirer~er~ts for
reconstruction:
o For Earthquake Cateqory D re:~ovals, 15 percent of the units
shall be affordai~le t~ lo-aer-incon~e nausehoids, and,
o~or Earthquake Category C rer~~ova~s, 25 percent of the units
shal]. be deed-rEStric~ed for affordabl~ housing~ GTith ha~f
affordable to t~~oaerate-income households and ha?f affordable
ta lo~~:-inccr:e households.
1~
REPAIR/RECONSTRUCTI~N ORDINANCE PRpVISIONB
The key sectlons of th~ Re~air a~d Recons~ructzon Standards
Ord~nance are as fa~lo:•.~s: ~Yndings and Purppse ~Section 1),
Definitions (Section 2) , Develop:;~ent Standards and Use Restrictians
(Section ~}, Affordable Housing Obligation (Sect~an 5), Permit
Application ar~d Revieti•r prccesses (S~ctions 6 and 7}, Standards for
Revie~r (Section 8), and Buildlr.g Stand~rd Compliance (Section 11}:
The fo1lo~:ing discussior cutlires the key pravisions af the
praposed ordznance.
Key Provisions
In the int~rest of rav~ng clear and rea~il~ understar.dable rules
that w~l~ fac~~atate re~?air and reconstrsction, the proposed
ordir-ance se~s forth a sincsle set of standards and procedures for
repair and recor:struction :-°hich o~;~errzde the exxsting ZanYng
Ordinance.
In for~u~ating these developr„ent standards, staff has attempted to
considex a range of re~ui~d~n~ 5cenarios to address a ~~ariety of
s~tuations that :~iaht reas~nably ]~e expected to accur.
Nev~r~hel~ss, as applications for repa~r and reconstruction are
pracessed, ~t r-iay beca~e apparent that nodif~cations and
requi,rerzents are necessary Staff believes that the Cit~= shauld be
open ta such modlfscatians ~~hen it is apparent that they could
improve and expedite the recc~.~er}~ prccess.
~s
The provisions of t~e praposed ord~nance, including the repair and
reconstructian threshold criterYa and revze.~~ procedares, and the
building and safety requiremer~s, are descr?bed jn deta~l belo.~.
Repair/Reconstruc~ion Thresholds and Review Process
The proposed ordinance estabZishes a four-tier revieTf~ pracess for
repazr or reconstruction, t•:ith the requzred Iev~l o£ r~VZ2W
continqent upon the extE?~t and cost of tne damage and the scope of
changes ta the project. i:~hile scme ~ra~ects r~ay be sub~ect to mare
than one af the follo::~ing steps, a11 pro~eets ~f:ill ultimately
require at least a plan check.
Plan Check Only
The falla<<Ting pro~ects ar~ sub~ect to a plan check re~iew
process only:
1. Structures ...~here the repazr c~sts are l~ss than 500 of
the est~mat~d replace:t-~ent value of the structure and are
reconstructed to the hezght, setbacks, denszty, number of
and type of un~~s (apartr~ents, condom~niums), design and
parking that existecl prior to the earthquake.
2. Structures ,~~here the r~~alr ccsts are greater than 50% of
the estlmated replace~ent value of the structure, and
~•rh~re less th~n 50% of the ex~.erior wa11s tyill be
demolished, and t?~e bui~dinq is reeonstructed to the
height, setbacks, density, nur~ber anc~ ty~e of units
(apartments, condo~~niu~s), design, and parking that
existed pr~or to the earthquake,
~xpedited ARB or LandmarkJARB Review
The folloG:ing pra~ects are sub~ect ta an expedited
Architectural Rev~e~•: Board process, or Landmark/ARB re~iew
pxocess if applicable, and 4he;~ sub~ect t~ a plan check revie~,~
19
pracess.
l. 5tructures ;ahere the repair costs are qreater than 5a o of
the esti~nated replacer~~ent valu~ of the structure, and
UThere more than 50 0 of the exterior :aalls Lrill be
demolished, and the ne~T development ~s belottir the
d~velopr~~ent revie,: thresh~ld for the distr~ct in e.h~ch it
is located. Tt:~ Land~ark Co:~:~ission members are required
ta rev~e.~ and vote o~ the praject as part of the ARB
revae;~~ process if the pro~ect involv~s a landmark or
potential iand~^ark.
Expedited Administrative R~view
If the pro~ect is cons~ste:~t c•Tith ~he above threshoids, yet
the project moc~~fies the flooa~- area, hezght, or fontprint by
no raore that 1~ ~, th~ pro~ect :.~ill be sub~ect t~ an expedited
adm~nl~strat~ve revie„ pr~cess. A~t~r cor;p'e~ion of the
administrative revle,-~, t?-~e pro~ect ,~.ill be sub~ect to the ARB
or ARB/Landr;ark Revie~•r ar;d plan check process~s outli~ed
abo~e.
Expedited P~anninq Commission Re~iet~r
The follo~~.ing pro~ects are sub~ect to an expedited Planning
Cor~mission revie~,,~ ana tren subject ta a plan check revieNr.
1. Structures 4rherz the repair costs are qreater than ~0 o af
the estir-~ated replace:~~ent ~Talue of the structure, and
~~here mar~ tnan ~C% of tr,~ exterior ;.~a~ls ~h~ll be
de?~alished~ ard the structure is abov~ the developr:lent
revie~,~ thresholc~ for t~e d~strict in T.~hzch it is located.
Requirements Unique ~o Residential Uses
The develapm~nt threshalds and re~Tie:4~ processes are nearly
zdentical fcr reszc~ential and ~~n-residential deve~opr~ent.
20
However, the pravisions for the repaar and reconstruction af mult~-
family rental deveiop~~ent dzffer ~n that they a~la~:~ ~evelop~ent
incentives for recorstruction and, ~ahere afifardable housing
r~quirements are not iTMpo~ed ~~- Rent Control, establ~sh ad~itzonal
requirements for a~fordable hou~~n~.
BUildinq Code S~andards
The proposed ard~nance contains ~he fo11a4~,=ing bu~ldinq standards as
directed by the Counc~l. These standards are bas~d in large part
upan the 5tate I~~ode~ Ord~nances.
o bvhen the estimated value of repazr cloes not exceed 100 of the
replacen,ent value of the structure, oniy the c~amaged portions
may b~ restored to ~ne~r pre-disaster condition This appZzes
except ~•~hen the dar~aged elements include suspend~d cexling
syster~s, in tiahzch case the repair must comply with the current
technical code.
o When the estimated value of t?~e re~air is greater than 10%
but less tnan 50% of the re~lacement value of the struc~ure~
the damaged e le~ettts , as ~~~ ~ 1 as the cr i~. ica ~ t ies , supported
ele:~ents and suppart3ng elem~nts associated ~~ith the dar~agEd
elements, shall be repasred and/or brought into conformance
~~~th s~ructu~-al requ~rer-ents of the c~rrer~t technlcal code.
o Gdhen the estlr~ated value of repa~r is 50% ox nore of the
r~placer~~ent value of tl~~ structure, the ent~re structure shal~
be braught into canfart~anc~ ;•~ith the eurrent technical code.
o Landr.:axk el~r~ible buildirgs sha11 comply :•~t'.: the above
provisions; ho::~ever, ar. oT,r,er r:ay rec~uest a~odificatzan to
the abave pravis~ons as long as the modzf~cation is consistent
with Part S, T~t~e 2-, C~,~f~rn~~ Cad~ of R~;~ulat~ans, the
State of Califarnia Histcric Build~ng Code_
Other Provisions
The repair and reconstructior ordinance contains various ather
provisions t•~hic~ are descr~be~ beifl~-:.
21
o Environmental Revie~: (CEQA): The City's existing
admin3strat~ve C~.QA Gu~ddlines do no~ pro~,;ide for an exemption
for reconstructian af~er a natural d~sas~~r. Therefore, the
proposed ordinance esta~~l~shes a cat~gorical e~e:~ption for all
pxo~ects receiving an Earthquake Recovery Permit.
o Parkanq: The ~roposed ardir~ance requires that the a~rount ~f
on-~ite park~nq be no less than that prov~ded priaz to the
earthquake.
o Riqht of Re-Occupancy: The pro~aased ordinar:ce establishes
procedural requare~ents governzng the r~ght af reoccupancy of
res~.dential rental units by tenants displaced fram these un~ts
due to an owner's need to repa~r or reconstruct an earthquake
damaged structure.
o Non-confcrminq Uses: The same use that eXlstecl prior to
the earthquake may be re-estab~ished. For non-residential
structures, noncanforming uses r~ay pe resurred after repair or
reconstruct~on, or may be replaced ~:ith conform~ng uses.
Conforming ~ases ray be changed ta other confor~ing uses so
~ong as the park.zng _reqti~rement for the ne~~.~ use does not
exceed the parking require~~nt for the pre-ea:.-tr~~uake use.
o Non-conform~nq bu~ldinqs: G~h~~e the proposed ordi~ance
will perrit the "in-k~nd°T reconstruction and lir~ited ~xpans~on
2?
of existang, non-ccnfor~ang bul~d~ngs, any expans~on in the
non-canforming building beyond the li~its spec~fied in the
proposed ardinance L,7ould be sub~ect to the non-confar~~ng
sectian (Sectian 9.Q4.18) of the Zoninq Ordinance.
o Demolition: DemolitYdn c•~ould be perr~itted as ~art of an
Earthquake Recovery Permit and only upon issuance of a
bu].lding perr~~t. pemolzt~ons zn any other circumstances tiaill
be proeessed accordinq_ to the existzng City procedures unless
the de~o~iticn ,~as ordere~ b~,~ the City`s r:uisance Abatement
Board.
o Timefrar~e for Re~aairs• Consistent with Council directian,
the ~roposed ordinar~ce :•~i~ ~ requ~.re that building per:~its for
repair or recanstruct~.on be issued ,:zth~n t:•.o years of date of
the ordinance.
o Tzr~e Lamit for Permit Proeessana: The City C~uncil asked
staff to cons~der and Yeco~r~end appropriate time limits for
the processing of perr~~ts for reconstruction. Hoti.ever, until
the volume af app~ications is knof=n, staff zs ~eluctant ta
comr~i~ ta a specific ~imefrar-~e ~rithi~ an ard~nance. Staff
will pracess the ~p3~liC3tlOT7S ~xp~dit~~usly and, once the
volume is better kna.•~n, develo}a timelines for pub~ic
distri~ut~on.
o Construct~.on Hours: The council or~ginaily d~rectec~ the
23
establishment of t°~.o 5ets af cons~ruct~an ~ours, on~ for
resident~~l and th~ ather for non-r~sidential deveiopment.
Hot.~ver, due to the dlfficulty af enforcYng t4~o sets of
standards, staff is reco~~ending a single standard for all
development, as follo:•~s: from 7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m. on
ti~eekdays, and 7:G0 a.m. to 6:Ofl p.r~. on Satuxdays.
o Repair or Reconstruction Pra~ects Sub~e~t ~o ~xist~ng Zoning
Ordinance Standards: Any structure that does not qua~~fy for
an Earthquake Reco~Tery Perr~~t shall ~e sub~ect to the present
Zoning Ordinance stan~a~-ds.
o Suspensian of ?lorth of i;?ilsh~~-e Construction Rate Proqrar~:
T~e pxoposed ordinance exempts all repair and recanstruc~.ion
pro 1 ects in tlze ~r orth of G•. i Z sY~, i re area f rot~ the North of
ti~ilsf~ire Construc~ion Rate Proqra:~.
o~'erificat~on of p?-e-existinc~ bu~.ld~nc~ d~rtiens~ons: At ~east
t4JO sources of docur~ntati~n des~~onstratir~q the prior
~evelop:~ent con~i~ions of th~ bua~dinc~ sha~l be required.
a D~terTM~ininq R~aar and Reco__nstruct~on_Costs: For purposes
of deterr-kinznq th~ cost of recor~struution, tne p~-operty a~:ner
~.ill b~ r~quire~ ~o s~bmit a~.~ai~d contrac~ .lith a licensed
contractor for the repazr s.rork and t:•,o est~:~ates fron praperly
licens~d contractars for the repair t:ork. I'he estimates ~aall
24
be r~quir~d to conta~n suff~cient detail to ascertain the
scope of the proposed :-:ork and ~nclude prof~t, overhead and
insurance cost. The City t,Yl~ de~er~zne the replacefient cost
by using the quarterly ad~usted, natio~all~~ recogn3zed,
construct~on cost ~ndicators for bulldings af s~~~11ar use,
constr~ction and ar~~it~~5.
o Increasinq the s~z~ and numb~r of reszdent~al units:
For res~den~ia~ uses, the square foatage and number of
bedxooms af ~nd~v~dual unlts ~ay be znczeased. HoTti~ever, th~
number of units m~ay no~ be incr~ased.
a Heiqht and Setback .~~o:~~f ica~ian~ for buildznq and safety
reasans: Bui~d~ng ~o~ifications ~;auld be perr~it~ed in order
to comply :.ith te~hnical consCruc:.t~.on eodes even though Lhis
may result in r~odYf~cations to ~he height and setbacks.
o Fee ?r:aiver: Th~ propos~d ordinance au~horizes the City
r~anager ta G~aive an~~ and all ~er~~_it process~ng f~es r,ti~hich r~ay
other~a~se be necessary for the repair and reconstruction af
earthquake-damaqed buiidinqs. This is consistent ~aith th~
Cour~e~l's pre~tious ~c~icn.
The proposed ordinance does not prevent pr~perty o~.nezs ,~~ho have
purchased theZr propert}l aLter t~e 3anuary 17 eartnquake from
applying far an Earthquake R~covery Per=~~t.
25
Finally, the praposed crdinance ~odifies the C~ty's standard
se~erability clause ~n that lt stlpulates that if any section of
the ordinance is found tQ be inva~a.d or unconst~tutional, the
ent~.re ordinan~e shall be considered ir,tiral~d.
STATUS ~F QTHER EMERGENCY ORDINANCES
Since the Nor~hr~dqe earthq~iak_e ~he C~ty Counczl a~lopted several
emergency ordzr~ances t~ a~~ress the posti-earthquake conditians.
The follo4Ting sumt~arizes the status of the adoptea ordlnances:
brdinance 172a: Jr~anar.ce s~<aivzng de~ela~*~~nt related fees. T'his
ordznance is being rep~aled in Sec~ion ~~ af the prapased
ordinance. I'he fee s,ai~rer provisions are no.a included in Section
15 af the propose~ ardinan~e.
Ordlnance 1722: Ordinance requ~ring structural engineering r~ports
and restoration oi v~tal build~ng systems. This cr~inance is being
repealed since the propose~ ordinance no~; reqair~s the subr~ission
of a structural eng~neerirg report ~,r~or to the ~ssuance of an
earthquake recovery perr~it. =~ requ~r~ment to restore vital
building functions for gr~En-tagged build~nqs is no Zonger
necessary.
Ordinance ~723; Orcii::ar:cz reguia4ir.g price inczeases. This
ardinance ~•,i11 remain ~n °ffec~.
26
Cr~~__~~_ve - ~ ~ ~~r:.---_ _ ~ -
~~_Ct~.~: C. ~ril~7 ~~..~.~~1:....__.~~
Zn'.`~'_.~L-'.~~CQ _1~ rl_..~".. FJ rl7uVC ~~ ~'i~~
~oard a~:~~r~ss th~s ~ss~~.
_~~~.~_ _j~_~ ,"~ ~ ~:,r~ _.~~,.'r .,. ±E~G~_
_~ %_-~~~:ila '~~; '~"r~~=..1 ~:l'_:1,~ ~__~ u'ri..'~-~~.1'•~rEJ
._~u~'..~'C G~_'~A G~.l'.i~rC~.l 1.:~` _._ - _"K~=~1~ ~-v _~r~il
O~d~_~~~^e = Y~ ~:~ru~.=~~n~~ r~-µ~l-~r~i-_n r~ .~_~ ar_ __~.~r_~~~LCt,.-,~
prcce~~ares _~_ aa~~u~u ~t~t~~tt~-~.~. `~~is ~r.~~n~~~~ ~s ~e-r_g
repeGled s~:-ce ~~r~ ~Y~ v4Y ~Y~_r_~~vv ~~ ~_ _~rtr~ _--~ =~~~7 f~..
sta^~ :r~~ .
CEQA
Un~~r ~ec_i~__~ =~~~~~;, y-_ "~"', .___ i =~' = ot ~r= ~a-==~.,--_~a
=_1t~~r~~r,.~.~. t~~ ~Y:; ~_-t- : ^'- , _ :}_-y ~r~ ,-- --~~;~r A- .-~~ai~~. ~
J~~~..~ .~_ c'_T`'_"C~~1: cv a_-~l^-- .,_ a-- ~z_ _~ ~.~~_~ ~~ ~~L~=~_ ~~L~~~~~
disa~r2r, r~~s--d~~g _~rc~~-~« ~_re ~.,:r~_ - -~~~:r =r~°--Y.~~: --r_tal ~~.--~,•,~.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
T::e ~ec~~:r~r~ _~G`-~--., ~-- _=-_~ _ ~='~ : _~_ _i : `e ~ ~-~~__..~~~ _:-~~~c~ c~s~
tG t.i~ .n_ . ~ ~ ~- . ~iI°~~ t:- _~ _~ _"-_ , 1 ~ l~ ~ _•_- ~ _ -_.,, =::cr =~1~5
.,_-- r_o~ ~,~ ~ ~i~~r_~~~~~:_-- _- " _- _~
RECOI~KENDATION
5~~~~ r~~~r~~-~~~a.a~ ~:~~~ ~--- .-- ~ ~-~.----_- .~_..:~.~* a ~~~_~~ ~.-.~~ir_~ a:_?
~~~^-~~ ~~e _~r~:.~uG~=~ r~ _i: .~ a ___._~=`fi`'~-~=--- _~a_::~r_~-.
F~?FGr~a ~, ~...~..u---=~ ~ r-~=~, i~:=~. =-~~v~~=r
~'c'_.l _,~5~ '~ --"r-1: .,~.Y1=^~r' ~_c:'~:7cr
`~a~ _ v .~i, =_~_ ~~~t= --u:.~~r'
~ttacr~~r~t~ __ - F=r~T-, ,- _ ,F~.,~,- ;ra~ ~i~ _ _~~mrr= __~ ~r.~
~'_.. E'~__-~~. ~ - -
~ - Re~ar_ _ _.~, _ ~-_---~-_-___~.~_~ :,Ya~.aa_ ~~
A TTA CHMENT A
SENT ~Y~K~?IN REGAN ~~UCHLY ; ~-i1-~4 : 4~17PM ~ 1310~ZC1743y ~1~45$339p~~ ?
Attachment A
SANTA MbNICA A~'ART~+iENT REC~N~TRUCT~ON ANALYS~S
KRM an~iyzed the fi~anclal lmpact of recan~cttor~ af earthquake damaged unit~ fram the
per~pet~ve of ~e ori~~na! owner. The vbjec~ive oF th~ analy6is was tc~ d~te~mine tf the
prop~~ty own~rs ca~~d recover th~ir prior Net C7p~rating l~aome {NO!) and ~till obtain an
ad~uatr additicn~l financial return tv provide a flr~andai tnc:entive to rehuilci.
In ~rder to da this, we e~rrated arigina~ Het O~~r~ti ng income by ~sing ~re-earthquake gros~
rent ~e~~ls prarrided by the Rer1t Cor~tro~ Department and deducaing ~t~mac€~ of prevlous
operating exper~ses. Q~d aperating exp~sesw~re e~timated based on an average of 5~7 per
sq~are ~at per m~nth. The new h~l from reca~stru~tfon ts determined from the new rer~:
ar~a expense assumpc~ans aut~ined b~low. ~-4~rginai i~come r~presents t~e ~urplus generated
by sub~ractEng ti~e a~~naJ hlDl ~tim~e~ before the earthquake from the new NC]i Tak~n~
the marg~nai income ancf dividing by ti~~ s~t p# r~c.v~strustian yields the ROI on new
inv~stment capiral dur~ng the first full y~ar af o~eratio~s
Deveia~ment Assumptions
Mar~cet Rents - North of l~AClshire
Market Rents - S~uth of 11V[lshire
Vacancy ~~ - Market ~ni~
Vaca~c~r Rate , Inclusionary Unit~
Uperating Expense.s
Prope~+~tjr Tax
Fixed F,~cpenses
Managemen#
~-Y .~4/sf
31.2~/s`
59E
7%
7.~59~ o~ value
$1,rt0 p~r sq~are fc~at
5.2596 af r~rrt
De~~gn an~ C~s~rurSi~n Cast
Parking ~st (tudc undery
Qve~head Ca~trs (no :.ity iees)
Loa~ Feea
~~s.ao~t
~s,~00i5~a0~ t~c'sstir~g spaces only)
5g~ of hard cc~sts
~.5%
~•+~~ IES~CSatlwP+b~G4-S 77t~1(
IfoLn, Regan & Mouchly, Inc POST-QUAKE APAR7MENT ANALYSIS Md~EL
APARTMEti'T SGREE\'INC MODEL Last Run 04/08/94 10 27
ASSUMPTEONS
PRpTpTYPE APARTMEM1T ho 5 25% Inclusartary Scenano
LocaLOn North of Wifshire Low Inc @% o€ Cp Medan Inc 6096
Number o# Unrts 16 Mod Inc Q%of Co Median Inc 1009G
~at Area 1 Q800 Sq Ft Parkmg Lot Costs fPer Spacef 58,000
# of Unffs {Bns Inc ) 16 Rehudd Gosts (Per Sq F[ 1 558 00
Total Lot Size in An~ 0 25 Reqwred Parkmg Spaces 13
7ear povvn.~Budd New 100% a{ value County Media~ Inc {~ 009G1 448,30Q
PRQJECT PROFILE Cak'd
Res~deM~al E;ses No of Bon~ Total Size R~t
Umts UnNS Units SqFt f994 S's
Reni Levek ---- --- - ---- --- °-----
Studp Units (low mc ) D 0 0 D S~
9 Bedraom Unrts {low mc ) 1 0 y 600 558U
2 Bedroorn l;nrts (low ux } 1 0 1 850 5688
3 Bedroam UnKS pow mc } 0 0 Q Q S~
4 Bedioorn Unds (low ux } 0 0 6 Q $U
Stud~o Units {~ i~ ) 0 0 0 Q $0
1 Bedroom Un~rs Imod mc } t 0 1 b4p 584~ Arfwdable @ Mod Jnc = 5966 whr~ ~s ~earer than Marlaet
2 Bedroom Un~ (mod inc ) 1 0 1 BSU $1,747
3 Bedraom l:rnts (mod inc } 0 0 U a SO
4 Bedroorn Unrcs [mod inc ) ~ 0 0 D $0
Studro Unrts (mkt} 0 0 ~ D $U
~ Bedroom tJn~ts (mkt) S 0 8 928 bt,299
2 Bedraom L'nrts (mld) 4 0 4 1,148 $1,6fl7
3 Bedroorrk Unrts (mf~ D 0 0 D b~
4 Bedroom Lnrts (rroid) 0 0 0 0 50
CALCI.LATEU70TAL5 16 p 16 14,41$ E20,080 PROTOTYPE 5
ULCI.iATEDAVERAGES 9sz S~,zss RESTORAT{ON SCENARIO Replacement
TOTALBL:ILDIhG512E tia,9ys PERCENTINC~USIONARY 2596
DENSIN BONUS 1596
INCLUSIONAI2YMIJC Moderatelst
Month~y Macellaneous Income (Per Und} y2
~urauon oF Lease-Up 3 months
Stabd¢ed vacancy Rate 4 0096
OPERAT1045
In(lat~on Rate 0 OD96
Years to lnFlate For StakHl¢ed incqme t year
Property Tax Rate 1 25%
OperaEing ~xpense Fixed Component ($1s(} i 10
Marragemeni F.xpense Vanable Comppnent aQ 5 25qo 0 85
Calnilated Operating Total Experues
DEBT
t]e6t Ser+nce Coverage Rata 1 20
Permanerrt Laan Term 30
Percnanerrt Loan IMeresE Rate (market- 8 08%
Pemranent Loan Fee 1 50%
DEVELDPMEn"T CQST Bq515
Land Value 5723,604
Plannmg & Predevelopmerrt o
Common Area FacdiLes p
Budd~ng ConstrucLan 865,232
Parking 104,000
Marketing 0
General & Admm~stratrve 48,452
Deprenable 8aas 1,o17,594
~ ~~~5;~'i~~ii~~~~~i~511~~~~~~~~~'~i'~~~~'t~~~~~~~'~ti~~~~~~~t 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~`~~1~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~i~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~t5'~1%~S~5~ti~1~t1~1 ~~:11~i~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~ii~
MEASURES QF RETURN
Development Costs & Loan Fees 1,p4B,883
Sta6ihzed ~et Dperating Inmme INOI) 781,369
Pre-Quake VOI 7B,t73
~'et NOI 103,197
ROI on Marginal Irnestment
*~et ~OI;'tRe6wld Costs) 9 B%
04/08/94 14 Zb
?ile SMC 94~'SMAWWIODEL~PRO-SA WQ+
A T TA CHMEN T B
CA:atty~muni\iaws1mhs\eqrec Santa Monica, Galifornia
City Council Meeting 4-19-94
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council Series)
AN EMERGENCY 4RDINANCE 4F THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONYCA
ENTiTLED "THE EARTHQL3AKE RECOVERY ACT,"
ESTABLISHING PR~CEDURES AND STANDARDS
FOR REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION
OF EARTHQUAIiE DAMAGED STRUCTURES
THE PRESENCE OF AN EMERG~NCY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTIDN 1. Findinqs and Purpose. The City Council finds and
declares:
(ay Numeraus residential and commercial bui~.dinqs in the City
af Santa Monica experienced substantia~ damage due to the January
17, 1994 Northridge earthquake and its aftershacks. Citywide, more
than 2000 dwelling units and 135 non--residential structures were
significantly damaged. As a resu~t, residents have been dispiaced
from their homes and businesses, and owners face the task of
rebuilding damaged structures. Without a streamlined permit
process, families may be ieft homeless, neighborhoads wil~ continue
to experience the negative effects of unrepaired buildings, and
economic hardsh~ps will result from the delay in reconstruction.
1
(b) Many o~ the buildings which were damaqed are currently
nonconfarming with respect to density, setbacks, height, floor area
ratio~ or other code requirements. Under existing zaning ordinance
provisions. if damage to a structuxe equals ar exceeds one-half of
replacement costs immediate~y prior to such damage, the structure
must conform to current zaning upan rebuilding. Adherence to these
aoning provisions would significantly delay rebui~ding and
recavery.
{c) In additian, numerous damag~d buildings contain more
housing units than allowed by current zoning. If current
rebuilding pravisions were followed, there is the patential for a
lass of housing units on these sites.
(d) In order to preserve the City's hausing stock, t~
encourage rapid rebui].ding Qf residential and commercial
structures, to maintai.n the City's existing residentia~ and
coinmercial character, and to otherwa.~e promate the public welfare,
it is necessary to adopt an expedited permit process for
rebuilding, and reconstruction standards which encourage
rebuilding.
(e) This Ordinance creates a new permit, an Earthquake
Recovery Permit, whieh wi~l be availab~e for the next two years.
An Earthquake Recovery Permit wil]. authorize repair and
reconstr~ction af eaxthquake damaged structures to their pre-
earti~quake candition. The Ordinance also establishes an expedited
review process, in which the level af re~iew depends upon the
extent of damage to the structure and the averall size of the
2
project. This Ordinance sets praperty development standards,
allowinq in-kind repair or reconstruction of Iegal nonconforming
structures without complying with current zoning requirements. The
Ordinance also d~lineates the building standards applicable t4
repair and reconstruction, which depend upon the magnitude of
damage to the structure. The Ordihance establishes reoccupancy
rights for displaced residenti~i tenants of buildinqs requiring
repair or reconstructian.
(f) In arder to pre5erve same level of affordability af
residential rental units, and at the same time provide an incentive
ta rebuild, this Ordinance allows residentia~ rental structures
which are demolished and reconstructed to increase in size by
fifteen percent (15~). An affordable housing abligation is also
created ~or structures requiring a removal permit from the Rent
Cantrol Board. The obligation may be satisfied by complying with
any Rent Control Board imposad a~fardab~e housing obZigatio~, o~ by
deed restricting twenty-five percent (25~~ of the units to be
affordable to l.ow and moderate income households, with the
remainder of the units uncontrolled at market rents.
{g) FinaZly, this Ordinance repeals the majority of the
emergency ordinances adopted since the Northridge earthquake, and
incorporates key provisions of those ordinances which axe intended
to remain in effect.
SECTION 2. Definitions. Wo~ds used zn this Ordinance shall be
defined as provided in this Section. Words not specifically
3
def~ned in this Ordinance sha~l ~e defined as set forth in the
2aning ardinance.
(a) Aftordab~e Housinq IInit. A rental unit meeting the
requirements of Section 5 of this ordinance which is affordable to
a household with low or moderate incQme.
(b) Chanqe of Use. For residential structures, a change to
non-residential use or a change fram apartments to condominiums;
for nan-residential structures, any use with a different parking
requirement.
(c) Cvst of Repair. The estimated cost to repair ar
reconstruct to be determined by the City based upon infarmation
provided pursuant to Sectian 6(a) af this Ordinance. Cost af
repair shall include the cost af including any additionai square
foatage allawed as a size incentzve pursuant ta this ordinance.
(dj Current Technical Codes. The provisions af Santa Monica
Municipal Code Chapter 8.04, and any other construction related
technical codes adopted by the City, in effect at the time of
issuance af the building permit.
(e) Earthquake Damaqea Structures. Structures damaged by the
Northridge earthquake or its aftershocks far which the cost of
repair exceeds $1.Od per square foat of building area.
(f) Earthquake RecQVery Pe~mit. A permit to repair, ar
remove and reconstruct, earthq~ake damaged struct~res or partions
of earthquake damaged structures, issued pursuant to this
ordinance.
4
(g) In-kind. In-kind means that, excluding any 5ize
Incentive allowed by this ordinance, and except as nec~ssary to
comply with required Current Technical Code provisions, the square
footage of the proposed stzucture does not exceed the amaunt which
existed in the building pre-earthquake; the number of dwelling
units is no greater than the number existing pre-earthquake
(although the number of b~drooms or configurations of units ~ay
vary); the height o€ the structure is no greater than that which
existed pre-earthquake; the setbacks are no less than those which
existed pre-earthquake; the number af parking spaces pr~vided is no
less than the parking provided pre-earthquaka (unless the structure
~s Iocated in the Dawntown Parking Assessment District); ~ot
ca~erage is no greater than that which existed pre-earthquake;
landscaping, trash and recyc~ing enclosures are substantially
simi~ar ta thase existing pre-earthquake; and that th~re is na
change in use except as specificalZy allowed by this Ordinance.
(h) Landmark eZiaible. A structure meeting one or more of
the fallowing criteria:
(1) Listed on the Natianal Register af Historic Places;
{2) Listed on the Caiifornia Register of Hiatorical
Resources;
(3) Designated as a City Landmark;
(4) Identified in the City of Santa Monica Historic
Resources Inventary and evaluated as: {a) eligible for the Natianal
Register of Historic Places as an individual structure or as part
af a district or (b) eligible for designation as a City Landmark.
5
{i) New Construction. F~r nan-residential structures, any
construction which is not in-kind; for residential structures, any
construction which, excluding any Size Incentive allowed by this
ordinance, is not in-kind.
{j) Pre-earthquake. The conditzons existing immediately
prior to the January 17, 1994 Northridge eaxthquake.
(k) Reconstruction. The demolition of an earthquake damaged
structure and construction of an in-kind replacement structure.
(1) Repair. The in-kind restaratian o€ an earthquake damaged
structure in which tata~ cost of repair is less than fifty percent
(50~) af the replacement va~ue of the structure, or in which 1~55
than fifty percent (54~) of the exterior walls are removed to the
foundatian.
{m) Re~lacement Value. The estimated cost of replacing th~
earthquake damaged structure, to be determined by the City using
the most current Building Valuation Tabl~ p~blished by the
In~ernational Conference af Building officials.
(n) Residentzal Rental Pro~ect. A parcel containing two ar
more rental dwelling units ~ot held in condominium o~ cooperative
ownership.
(o) Siqnifica~t Desiqn Chanqe. The architectural style of a
building, building faotprint, or the majarity of the exterio~
building materials are substantia~ly different from that whzch
existed pre-earthquake.
{p) Size Incentive. An incentive allowing a totaZ square
footage increase of up to fifteen percent (15~) over pre-earthquake
6
square f~otage on the parcel, a tatal flaar area ratia (FAR)
increase o~ up to f~fteen percent (15~) over pre-earthquake FAR on
the parcel, a total height increase of five feet per structure on
the parcel~ but not allowing any increase in the number af dwelling
units.
(q) ~enant. Any tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee, or any
oth~r person occupying a rental hausing unit pursuant to a rental
hausing agreement.
SECTION 3. Applicability. This Ordinance authorizes the
issuance of an Earthquake Recovery Permit only for InRkind repair
or reconstruction of earthquake damaged structures. Any
application fQr repair, demolitian, or replace~ent af earthquake
damaged structures involving ather than in-kind repair or
reconstruction shall be considered an applicatian for New
Construction.
An applicatian for an Earthquake Recovery Permit shall be
processed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of thi5
Ordinance. The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to
applications far New Construction. An application for New
Construction shall be processed and evaluated under app~icable
Municipal Code provisions, including Subchapter 9.04.18 of the
Zoning Ordinance concerning the repair and alteration of
nonconforming building and uses.
7
SECTION 4. Earthquake Recoverv Permit Development Standards
and Use Restrictions. An Earthquake Recovery Permit authorizes ~n-
kind repaix or reconstruction, ~ubject to the foll~wing provisions:
(a~ Nonconformina Suildinqs and Structures. Any legal
nonconforming building ar structure otherwise quaiifyinq for an
Earthquak~ Reco~ery Permit may be recanstructed ta its previous
noncontarming status. Any residential unit created without a
building permit, and registered with the Santa Monica Rent Cantral
Board (a "baotleg unit"j, may be repaired provided the unit meets
minimum habitabi~ity standards. Residential Rental Projects which
are reconstructed pursuant to this Ordinance and which contain one
or more bootleg units may count those units in the total number af
units which may be reconstructed provid~d all reconstructed units
meet the requirements of the Current Technical Codes.
(b) Chanqe in Use. No change in use shall be allowed for a
residential structure. Far a non-residential structure, a
nonconforming use may be resumed after repair or reconstruetion, or
may be replaced with a conforming use; and a canforming use may be
changed to another confarmir~g use so long as the parking
requirement for the new use does not exceed the parking requirement
for the pre--earthquake use. Notwithstanding the above,
nonconforming o~fice use shall not be replaced with nonconfozming
retail use, and nonconforming retail use shall not be replaced with
nonconforming office use.
(c) Size Incentive. A Residential Renta~ Project qualifying
for an Earthquake Recovery Permit is entitled to a Size Incentive.
S
A Size Incentive allows a total square foatage increase of up to
fifteen percent (15~) over pre~earthquake square foatage an the
parcei, a total floor area ratio (FAR) increase vf up to fifteen
percent {15$) over pre-earthquake FAR on the parcel, and a tatal
height increase af five (5) feet per structure an the parcel, but
daes not allow any increas~ in the number of bedrooms. A
reconstructed building qualifying for a Size Incentive may have lot
ca~rerage or setbacks which vary from those of the pre-earthquake
structure, but no new nonconformity in lot cove~-age or setbacks may
be created, or any existing nonconformity in ].ot caverage or
setbacks be increased. A si~e incentive may not be used tn
construct an additionai structure or structures on the parcel which
did nat exist pre-earthquake.
SECTION 5. Affordable Housinq Obliqation. The provisiar~s of
the City's Inclusionary Hausing Prngzam, Chapter 9.28 of the
Municipal Code, shall not appiy to any project obtaining an
Earthquake Recov~ry Permit, except as specifically incargorated in
this Section. An affardab~e housing abligation shall apply to any
Residential Rental Pro~ect obtaining an Earthquake R~covery Permit
which also requires a removal permit from the Santa Monica Rent
C~ntrol Board. The ~ollawing affordable hausing obligation sh~ll
apply:
(a} If the project has an affordable housing abligatinn
imposed by the Rent Control Board, such obligatian shall satisfy
the requirements of this Section.
9
(b) If no affordable housing o~ligation is imposed by the
Rent Control Board, not less than twenty-five percent (25$) of the
total number of dwellinq units in the Residential Rental Praject
sha11 be affordable to law and maderate income households. Law and
moderate income levels shall be defined as set forth in Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.28.020.
(c) In determining the number of affordable units required,
the fol~awing chart shall he utilized:
No. of Units
Reconstructed Low Income Maderate Income
2 0 1
3 0 1
4 0 1
5 0 1
6 1 1
7 1 1
$ 1 1
9 1 1
1o i 2
11 1 2
12 1 2
~3 1 2
14 2 2
15 2 2
16 2 2
i~ z z
ia ~ ~
io
19 2 3
2~ 2 3
For mare than twenty (20) units, the number of affordable
units required shall equal twenty-five percent (25g) of the number
of units built; any decimal fraction of 0.5 ar mare rounded up to
the nearest Whole number, and any decimal fraction of less than 0.5
rounded down to the nearest whole n»mher. The first affordable
unit required nZay be affordable to lo~,~- ar maderate income
hou5eholds, and alt~znating thereafter.
{d) Affordable units may have reduced size or amenities as
long as there are no significant identifiable differences between
thE affordable units and mark~t rate units visible from the
exterior of the dwe~ling e~nits, and each of the affordable units
satisfy the following minimum total floar area:
4 be3roam 50p square f eet
1 bedroam 600 square feet
2 bedroams 850 square feet
3 bedrooms 1080 square feet
4 bedrooms l~Qfl square feet.
(e) The mix of bedraam sizes of affordable units shall be
substantially similar to the mix of bedroom sizes af the market
rate units in the project.
(f) Affordable units shall also cornply with the requirements
for inclusionary units set forth in Santa Monica MunicipaZ Code
5ections 9.28.050{c), 9.28.100, 9.28.110, 9.28.130, and 9.28.140.
11
SECTION 6. Earthauake Recove~y Permit Application. To
request an Earthquake Recovery Permit, the applicant must submit a
camplete applicatian on a form provided by ~he Planning and Zoning
Divisian in addition ta any other material, reparts, dimensioned
plans, or other information required to take action an the
application. Each applicatian shall also include:
(a) Two estimates of the cost of repair or reconstruction
from properly lic~nsed contractors. The estimates must contain
sufficient detail tv ascertain the scope of the proposed work and
include the contractor~s profit, ~verhead and insurance cost.
{b) For structures that have been posted with either a no
entry notice {Red-tagged} or limited entry notice (Yellow-tagged),
a written structural analysis of the structure prepared by a
licansed engineer in accordance with the standards providad by the
Building and Safety Division.
(c) Two sources of documentation af the pre-earthquake
condition of the property or structure sufficient to enab~e the
City to determina whether the project involves in-kind repair or
recnnstruction. Documentation may ~nclude: approved building
permits; approved construction drawings; surveys from licensed
surveyars; coun~y assessor informatian; certified property
appraisals; Sanbarn maps; reports or drawings prepared by an
insurance company to suppart damage claims; photographs; City
plann~ng xecards; or any other varifiabla information.
12
SECTION 7. Review brocess. Each application for an
Earthquake Recovery Permit shall require plan check approval as the
final review prior to issuance af the Earthquake Recovery Pez-mit.
In addition~ th~ fallowing pracedures shall apply:
(a) Where the cost of repair is less than fi.fty percent (50~)
of the replacement value of the structure, ar where less than fifty
percent (50~) of the exterior walls ara remaved ta tha faundation
(regardless Qf cast af repair), the follawing review or reviews
will be required:
(1) If there is not a significant design change from the
original design, plan check only.
(2) If the project includes a Size Incentive,
Administrative Approval ("AA"j is required.
(3) If there is a significant design change,
Architectural Review Board ("ARB") review is required. Single
family hames arQ not subject to P,RB review pursuant to this
subsectiqn unless the structure is also landmark eligible.
If an application requires bath AA and ARB review, AA review
shall precede ARB review.
{b) where the cost of repair equals ar exceeds fifty percent
(54~) of the replacement value of the structure, and fifty pereent
(50$) or more af the exterior walls are removed to the foundation,
but the development on the parcel is be~ow the develapment review
thrashold for the district in which it is ~ocated, ARB review shall
be required. If the project incZezdes a Si~e Ince~tive, A~ Reviaw
shall also be required prior to ARB review.
13
(cy Where the cast of repair equals or exceeds fifty percent
(50~) of the replacement value and fifty percent (50$) or more of
the exterior wa~ls are removed to the foundation, and the
development on the parcel is above the deve~apment review threshold
for the district in which it is located, Planning Commission review
is required pr~ar to plan check. ARB review shaZl not be required
far any project requiring Planning Commission review.
(d) Hearinus and Notice. Review la~ the ARB or Planning
Comn~issian shaZl require a public hearing, to be noticed and
conducted substantially in compliance with the provisions of
Section 9.32.180 of the Municipal Code for ARB hearings, and Part
9.04.20.22 of the ZOning Ordinance far Planning Com~nission
haarings. For Planr~ing Cammission hearings, notice shali be given
to all owners and residential and commercial tanants of property
within a radius of 30D feet from the exteriar boundaries of the
property involved in the application.
(e) Issuance af Build~nq Permit. A building permit shall be
issued anly after the application has received all appravals
required under this Section, and after approval is granted fram the
California Coastal Commission if required. A project may appl.y for
an Earthquake Reco~ery Permit before obtaining a removal perinit or
determinatian that a removal permit is not required from the Rent
Contro~. Board. A bu~.lding perznit shall not i.ssue, hawever, until
such remaval p~rmit or determination is granted.
(f) Demalition Permit. Projects receiving a Earthquake
Recovery Permit pursuant to this Ordinance shall not 7require a
14
separate demo~ition permit. Demolition may occur at any time after
the building permit is granted, and while the building permit is
still va~id. Demolition ather than pursuant to an Earthquake
Recovery Permit shall require a demalition permit pursuant to
applicable M~nicipal Code provisions unless the demolition was
ordered by the Gity's Nuisance Abatement Baard.
(g) Annea~s. Action of the ARB and Planning Commission shall
be appealable pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.32.160 of the
Municipal Code and Part 9.04.24 of the Zoning Ordinance~ except
that the appeal af any ruling of the ARB or Planning Comrnission
must be made within five (5) days of the date that such ruling is
made.
SECTION 8. Standards for Review. The ~'ollawing standards
sha~l govern the review of an application for an Earthquake
Recavery Pern-it:
(ay AA Review. AA approval shall be granted if the project
plans reflect in-kind repair or recanstruction, and any additional
square footage, height ar FAR complies with the Size Incentive
requirements of this Ordinance.
(b} ARB Review. The ARB, or Planning Commission on appeal,
shall grant approvaZ if both of the following findings can be made:
(1) The structure's architectural design is
substantially similar to the pre-earthquake design; or, if a
significant design change is invalved, the structure's
15
architeatural design is compatible with the qenera~ area in which
it is lacated.
(2) I~ the structure is landmark eligible, the repair
will not unduly campromise the architectural or historical
inteqrity of the structure or patential district; or, if
recanstructian is invalved, based upon an estimate from a
professional experienced in rehabilitation of historic structures,
it is nat economically feasible to repair the structure.
{c) P~anninq Commissian R~view. The Planning Cammission, or
City Council on appeal, shall grant approval if both of the
fallowing findings can be made:
(1) The structure's architectural design is
substantially si~ilar to the pre-earthquake design; or, if a
sign~ficant d~sign change is invalved, the structure's
architectural design is compatible with the genera~ area in which
it is located,
[2) If tha structure is landmark eligible, the repair
will not unduly compramise the architectural ar historical
integrity of the str~cture or potential district; or, if
reconstruction is invalved, based upon an estimate from a
professionaZ experienced in rehabi~itation of histaric structures,
it is not economically feasible to repair the structure.
(d) Plan Check. Plan check review wi1~ be 3imited to the
issue of whether the project complies with the requiremants of this
Ordinance.
16
(e) Conditidns of A~~roval. In granting approval of an
Earthquake Recovery Permit, the ARB, Planning Commissian, or City
Council on appeal, may impase anly such conditions as may be deemed
necessary to bring tha project into compliance with this ordinance,
or as necessary to enable the required findings for approval to be
made.
SECTIaN 9. Duratian of Permit. The rights granted by an
Earthquake Recavery Permit shall expire if a building permit is not
issued within two (2) years of the effective date of this
ordinance, or if the bui~ding per~it expires. No extensions of an
Earthquake Recovery Permit shall be granted. After expiration af
an Earthquake Recovery Permit, any subsequent application shall be
considered an application for Ne~a CQnstruction.
SECTION I0. Composi.tion of ARB. For purpases of ARB review of
an applicatian for an Earthquake Recovery Permit involving a
landmark e~igible structuze, structure af inerit, structure within
a historic di.strict, or structure identified on the City Hi,staric
Resources In~entoxy, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 as of January 17, 1994,
twa (2) members of the Landmarks Commissian, appainted by that
bady, shall serve as additional voting members of the Architectural
Review Board. Five (5) affir~ative votes shall be required far
approval.
17
SECTION 11. Buildinq Standard Comnliance. The following
buildinq standards govern any work performed pursuant ta an
Earthquake Recovery Permit:
(a) When the cost of repair does not exceed ten percent (10~}
af the replacement ~alue of the structure, only the damaged portion
af the structure may be restored to the pre-earthquake Candition
without complying with Current Technical Codes. Notwithstanding
the above, when the repair includes repair to suspended ceiling
systems, the repair must camply with Current Technical Codes.
(b) When the cast of repair is greater than ten percent (10~}
but less than fifty percent (50$} of the replacement value of the
structure, the damaged ~lements, as well as the essential ties and
support elements associated with the damaged elements, shall be
brought into conformance with the structural xequirements of the
Current Technical Codas,
(c) When the cost of repair exceeds fifty percent (50$) of
the replacement value of the structure, the entire structure shaZl
be brought into canfarmance w~th the Current Technical Cades.
(d) Landmark eligible buildings shall comply with subsections
(a) through (c) above; hawever, an owner may request a modification
of the above standards which shall be gxanted so long as the
requested modificatian is consistent with Part 8, Title 24,
California Code of Regulations, the State o~ Califarnia Historical
Building Code.
{e) Notwithstanding (a) -(c) above, the grovisions of
Ordinance Number 1729(CCS) concerning repair and recanstruction
18
criteria far unreinfarced chimneys and walls over 42 inches in
height shall apply to any project obtaining an Earthquake Recovery
Permit.
(f) The standards of this Section shall constitute minimum
standards. Nothing in this Section 11 shall be construed to
prohibit an awner from repairing or reconstructing a structure ta
a higher standard than set forth in this Section.
SECTION 12. Compliance With Other Laws. Except as otherwise
specificaily provided in this Ordinance, projects obtaining an
Earthquake Recavery Permit shall nat be requ~red to comply with the
following provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code:
(a) Chapter 7.10 concerning Urban Runoff Pollutian;
(b~ Chapter 9.Q4 concerning Zoning Regulations;
(c) Chapter 9.28 concerning Inciusionary Housing;
(d) Chapter 9.32 concerning Architectural Review;
(e) Chapter 9.36 concerning Landmarks and Histaric Districts;
and
(f~ Chapter 9.40 concerninq the Third Street Neighborhoad
Historic Di,strict Standards.
Except as specifacally exempted in this 5ection, projects
obtaining an Earthquake Recovery Permit sk~a~l comply with the
Municipal Code and alI other applicable ~aws and regulations. For
purposes vf Chapter 9,52, the Santa Moni.Ga Sign Qrdinance~
nanconforming signs remaved during work performed pursuant to an
I9
Earthquake Reco~ery Permit shail not be replaced, or sha~l be
modified to canf~rm to the requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
SECTION 13. Riqht of Displaced Tenant to Reoccupv Residential
Housin~ Unit. A tenant displaced from a residential housing unit
in an earthquake damaged structure shall be entitled to reoccupy
the unit in accordance with the following provisions:
(a) Any owner who reconstructs a residential housing unit
pursuant to an Earthquake Recovery Permit shall first offer the
reconstructed unit for rent or lease to any tenant who has been
displaced from the unit due ta the need to undertake the
rec~nstruction. This requirement shall apply only if the tenant
within thirty (30} days of the displacement or the adoption af this
Ordinance~ whichever is later, has provided the owner with written
notice of his or her desire to consider an affer ta renew the
tenancy and has furnished the owner with an address to which that
offer is to be directed. That tenant may advise the owner at any
time during the disp~ace~ent period of a change of address to which
an affer is to be directed.
(b) Within fifteen {15) days after final City sign-off on the
bui~ding permit authorizing the recons~ruc~ion, the owner shall
submit a goad faith affer to renew a rental agreement or lease on
terms permitted by law to any displaced tenant wh~ has complied
with the requizemEnts of sulzdivision (a) of this Section. The
owner shall aZso inform the tenant of the expected date that the
unit will be available.
20
(c) This offer shall be deposzted in the United States mail,
by reqistered or certified first class mail with postage prepaid,
addressed to the displaced tenant at the address furnished to the
owner as pravided in this Section and sha1~ describe the terms af
the affer. The displaced tenant shall have thirty (30) days from
the deposit of the offer in the mail to accept the offer by
personal delivery af that aeceptance or by deposit of the
acceptance in the United States mail by registered or certified
first class mail with postage prepaid.
(d) The City shall make availab~e official forms to tenants
entitled "Notice of Desire to Renew Tenancy" and "Notice of Change
of Address" which may be utilized by tenants to meet the requisite
notice requirements of this Section.
(e~ Within five (5) days after final City siqn-off on the
building permit autharizing the repair of an earthquake damaged
structure, any Qwner wha was required to recover possession of a
residential housing unit due to the need to undertake the repairs
shall natzfy the displaced tenant that the unit is ready for
reoccupancy. Priar to displacement ar wi~hin thirty {30) daya
after adoption of this ordinance, whichever is later, the owner
shall obtain an address to which the tenant notification is to be
directed. Any tenant who has been displaced from such a unit for
a periad exceading fourteen (14) days shail have fourteen (i4) days
from the receipt of the owner's natice to reoccupy the unit and
recommence rental payments in the amount established by the R~nt
Control Board. An owner shall be relieved of the obligations
21
specified in this subsection an~y if the tanant has previously
terminated his ar her tenancy in the unit in a manner authorized by
law.
(f) A copy o€ any natice required to }~e p~rovided to an owner
or a displaced tenant under this Section shall be pro~ided to the
Santa Manica Rent Control Baard within two {2f business days after
it is provided to the owner or dispiaced tenant.
(g} No owner or agent of the owner ~hall rent a rasidential
housing unit in an earthquake damaged structure to a new tenant
unless the owner has complied with the terms of this Sectian or is
otherwise excused from complying with this Section.
(h) Ar~y displaced tenant may prosecute a civil actian to
enfarce this Section. The relief available to the tenant in such
an action shall include money damages, equitable relie€, and
reasonahle attarneys' fees.
(i) The right of a displaced tenant to reo~cupy a residential
housing unit as established in this Sect~on is in addition ta any
right to r~occupancy that may otherraise be authorized by law or
c~ntract.
(j} Notwithstanding any prov~sion of Section 5 of this
Drdinance to the contrary, a displaced tenant may have priority for
the rentaZ of affordable housing units. This priarity will be
established by administrative regulation to be adopted by the
City's HQUSing and Redevelopmen~ Division.
22
SECTION ~4. Construction Hours and Canstruction Rate Proqram.
CQnstructian hours for all construction, ~hether gursuant ta an
Earthquake Recovery Permit or otherwise, shall be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. through 6 p.m. on Saturday. The
provisions of the North of Wilshire Construction Rate Program shall
not apply. The provisions of this Section 14 shall no longer be
effective two years from the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION I5. Californ~a Enviranmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Exemption. Natwithstanding existing City CEQA Guidelines, pursuant
ta Sectivn 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the State of
Emergency declared by the Governor of Califarnia, pxojects
undertaken pursuant ta an Earthquake Recavery Permit shall be
considered categorically exempt fram the requirements of CEQA.
SECTION 16. Fee Waivers. Th~ City Council authorizes the
City Manager or his or her designee to waive payment of any permit
processing fees o~ such other applicable fees as may otherwise be
necessary for the repair and reconstruction of earthquake damaged
buildings or structures~ if the City Manager in his ar her sale
discretion deems such waiver apprflpriate to facilitate the speedy
repair or rec~nstructian of any building or other structure damaged
by the January ~7, 199~ earthquake or its aftershvcks.
SECTI~N 17. Ordinance Numbers 1720(CCS), 1722(CCS),
1725~CCS), and 1730(CCS} are hereby repealed.
23
SECTION 18. Any prov~sian or provisions of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code or appendices thereta, incansistent with the
provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent af such incansistencies
and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent
necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 19. This Ordinance is declared ta be an urgency
measure adopted pursuant ta the provisions of Section 615 of the
Santa Manica City Charter. It is necessary for preserving the
public health, safety, or welfare as set farth in the Findings and
Purpose section of this Ordinance.
SECTI~N 2Q. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance is €or any reason held to be invalid ar
unconstitutianal by a decision of any court af any competent
jurisdiction, such decision sha11 not affect the validity of a~l
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that it would not have passed this Ordinance if any
portian, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase would
subsequently be declared invalid or u~constitutional.
24
SECTION 21. The Mayor shall sign and the City C2erk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Qrdinance shall ~e
effective upon its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
`~ t ~.,,,
~~ ~ ~~°_ [ _S `v ~. ~ ~. vu~~ ~ ''1 C'~ ~ :~.~
MAR~IA ~TONES{~~IOUTRIE ' T ~
City Attorney
25