Loading...
sr-031081-8acA:sss:LSC:l Council :vleeting 3/10/81 Santa Monica, California STAFF REPORT T0: "Mayor and City Council FROM: City Attorney ~-~ h9AR 1 fl 9983 SUBJECT: Amending the Uniform Administrative Code to Include the Seismic Safety Sections INTRODUCTIOiS This report transmits for first reading a proposed ordinance ammending the Uniform Administrative Code to include seismic safety provisions as recuested by Council at its February 24, 1981 meetincr. BACKGROUiJD The Proposea Ordinance 6dhen t~.e Uni,`_orm Administrative Codes and Technical Construction Codes were adopted in September 1980, sections per- taining to fire safety and seismic safety Caere left blank and reserved for future use. The Council planned to form a Fire and Safety Seismic Task Force, but prior to doing so they appointed a Seismic Technical Committee. The purpose of this corn*ittee, composed of the Building Officer, a Building and Safety Commissioner and a Seismologist, was to determine a minimum life safety standard for nre-1934 unreinforced masonry buildings. Their report, divided into a majority and minority opinion, was presented at the February 24, 1981 meeting. Council concurred. with the rinority opinion and passed a i:?otion to adopt the seis_.~ic safety section with an exception for certain pre-1934 unreinfor"ed mascnry buildings. ;~,..,, v~ ~rlk,c~~.._~ ,~ . _ ~ d~ ~~ 1 ~~ ~~ 1 Q <:- The proposed ordinance adopts the seismic safety section of the local ariendments to the Technical Codes wizich are contained in the Uniform Administrative Code. It includes an exception for certain pre-1934 unreinforced masonry buildings subject to its provisions. To obtair. an exer:lption frorz the Buildina Department, a p.ropertV owner must have a licensed architect or engineer certify in cariting that the roof and walls of the building in question are a*?chored and tied in compliance with the standards of the 1915 or 1921 Santa Alonica Building Code. A Proposed Addition Although it is not contained. in tiie proposed ordinance, the Building Department suggests an addition to the conditions for obtaining an exemption. As presently worded, an exemption is granted for a building with roof anchors anG ties equivalent to those required in 1915 or 1921. This provides a measurable standard of seismic resistance for structures with four solid walls. However, roof anchors and ties are not sufficient to maintain this standard if the structure has less than four solid walls such as a windowed storefront building. Therefore, the Building Department is proposing that the Council add the. follocaing words to the exception (at the points marked by *) "and review indicates a residual resistance to collapse" This would `maintain a consistent standard within the exception for all buildings regardless of the number of walls and windows. -2- The Bui Potentially Hazardous In Anri1 1977, the Council directed the Building Department to undertake a study of pre-1933 earthquake hazardous buildings. This included collecting additional factual data on these buildings and rating them on a preliminary hazard index. It also entailed filing recorded notices o£ potentially hazardous buildings. Notices were filed with the County Recorder in June 1978 after over a year of data collection and study. These notices which were filed on 243 Santa i9onica buildings read in Dart as follows: i10TICE OF SUBSTANDARD AiQD POTENTIALL`_' IL~ZAPDOUS BUILDING Notice is hereby given that those certain buildings described and knocan as: on the below property have been declared "Potentially Hazardous" by the Building Of.f_icer of the City of Santa iKonica ror the following described conditions: Inspection and review indicates that the subjeci building is of a design a.nd tyre o£ unreinforced construction that does not confors to the 1933 minimum California earthquake safety standards. Ref: California Adminis`_rative Code Title 24, Chapter 2, Article 23, Section T17-2314 ^1o date, at least 15 buildings have beep rehabilitated to the required standards of seismic safety. A "Termination of Notice of Substandard and hazardous Building" has begin filed with the County Recorder in each instance. The exception for pre-1934 unreinforced masonry buildings directed by Council and presented in the proposed ordinance exempts certain buildings from rehabilitation. However, since it only requires that roofs and walls be anchored and tied in compliance -3- with a 1915 or 1921 Code it does not bring them to the minimum standard required for termination of the recorded notices. There- fore, the notices which serve to inform a bona fide purchaser as to the condition of his intended purchase will still be public record. In other caords, alt'rough a building may be exempt from the requirement of rehabilitation by meeting the 1915 cr 1°21 standards, the recorded notice will be public record until the building is voluntarily rehabilitated to the 1933 standard. ALTERNATIVES 1. Introduce the proposed ordinance without amendment. 2. Introduce the proposed ordinance with the Building Department proposed amendment to insure a consistent safety standard for exempted buildings. 3. Reject the proposed ordinance. RECOhII~1ENDAT ION It is respectfully recommended that the City Council care- fully consider the impact o:E this ordinance and if they are confident that a 1921 building standard is sufficiently safe, then introduce the ordinance with the Building Department's amendment. Prepared by Stephen S.~ar_e Stark, Acting City Attorney Lvn Beckett Cacciatore, Deputy City Attorney William Ror.1e, Building Officer -4- CA:SSS:LBC:se Council Meeting 03/10/81 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NO. (City Council Series) AN ORDITTADICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MO"dICA AMF;NDIPdG SECTIO"7 206 OF THE 1979 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO INCLUDE SEISMIC SAFETY PROVISIONS W:IEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa P'(onica adopted Ordinance DTo. 1177 (CC S) on September 9, 1980; U7HEREAS, Ordiha*ice ~2do. 1177 adopted the 1979 Uniform Administrative and Technical Construction Codes; WHEREAS, the 1979 Uniform Administrative Code contains the local amendments to the 1979 Uniform Technical Codes; Ta'HEREAS, Section 206 (c) of the Uniform Administrative Code, entitled "Supplemental Seismic Safety Rehabiliation Requirements" reserved the following subsections for future use pending further study: DIVISION 2.00 SCOPE DIVISION 3.00 REQUIREr4E'TTS FOR SEIS^?IC REHABILITATION OF EXISTI'_VG POTENTIALLY ?LAZARDOUS BUILDINGS DIVISION 4,00 STANDARDS FOR SEISMIC REHABILITATION t4HEREAS, the City Council has received the final report of the Seismic Technical Cormmittee; '~TOTJ, THPREFORE, THE CITY COU~dCIL OF muE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLO?PS: SECTIODI 1. Section Code adopted by Ordinance as follows: SFC'c 206 (c) SUPPLEP4ENTAL SEISP2Ii Div. 1.00 purpose The purpose. of this 206 (c) of the Uniform Administrative ?70. 1177 is hereby amended to read SAFETY REHABILITATION REOUIREPZENTS section is to promote public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death and injury that may result from the effects of earthquakes on certain known unreinforced masonry buildings constructed within the city prior to 1934. Such buildings have been widely recognized for their sustaining of life hazardous damage as a result of partial or complete collapse during past earthquakes. The City Council establishes the policy of regulating the enlargement, conversion, alteration and rehabili- tation of these known and recorded buildings so as to significantly reduce the community's exposure to damaging earthquake effects and the potential demands on emergency services from this source.. The provisions of this section are minimum standards for structural seismic resistance established primarily to reduce the risk of life loss, injury and potential demand on rescue resources of the community. They will not necessarily prevent loss of life or injury or prevent serious .earthquake damage to existing buildings which are made to conform. The provisions of this section are intended by the City Council to comply and conform to Sec. 19160 thru 19169 of -2- .Article 4 Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 13 of tb.e California I3ealth & Safety Code. Div. 2.00 Scone The provisions of this section shall apply to all existing buildings other than single dwellings which were constructed prior to 1934 and which have been surveyed and recorded by Building & Safety as "Substandard and Potentially Hazardous" on the effective date of this ordinance. Buildings which are rehabilitated under this section shall also be required to conform to current fire safety and prevention concepts, but shall not be required to con- form to zoning, parking or other non-safety standards as a result of the required rehabilitation ~~~ork. Div. 3.fi0 Requirements for Seismic Rehabilitation of existing Potentially Hazardous Buildings Buildings which meet or exceed'the'criteria set forth in this division shall be required to conform to the Earthquake -Regulations and Seismic Design provisions of this section. 1. Nonconforming buildings that are proposed to be added to or enlarged by either l00 of their total existing floor area or 3,000 square feet, or that are. proposed for additions, alterations or remodeling in excess of 20°s of their replacement valuation in any three calendar years. 2. Nonconforming buildings where a change of existing use i.s proposed that will increase the total design occu- -3- pant load of the building by more than 50% or 100 as defined by current adopted building code. 3. Nonconforming buildings containing A, F, or I occu- pancy that are proposed to be enlarged 100 or more in floor area or remodeled in excess of 10% of their replacement value. 4, Nonconforming buildings where a change of an existing use is proposed that will include an A, R, or I occu- pancy as defined in the current adopted building code. 5. Nonconforming commercial buildings that have SOo of the total existing floor area vacated for a period of 1 year. Exception: Rehabilitation ?aorY, shall be required only in the vacated area where a phased building rehabilitation plan is approved which will be completed within three calendar years. 6. a) On or before July 1, 1955 for all nonconforming"buildings, containing A, E or I occupancies as defined in current adopted building code. Exception: Exemptions from the provisions of this section will be granted to property owners by the building Department upon written certification by a licensed architect or engineer that the roof and walls of the building in question are anchored and tied in compliance with the standards of the 1915 or 1921 Santa r4onica Building Code. -4- b) On or before July 1, 1985 for all other noncon- forming buildings. Exception: Buildings containing R-1 occupancies in more than SOo of the floor area may con- time in use i£ an engineering analysis indicates a residual resistance to collapse from seismic effects. Exception:. Exemptions Prom the provisions of this section will be granted to property owners by the Building Department upon written certification by a licensed architect or engineer that the roof and walls of the building in question are anchored and tied in compliance with the standards of the 1915 or 1921 Santa Monica Building Code. Div. 4.00 Standards £or Seismic Rehabilitation All rehabilitation work required under this section shall con- form to the Uniform Building Code 1973 edition Section 2314 as published by the International Conference of Building 0£ficials. (This standard is recognized as reduced from current seismic design provisions of the Building Code by about 30%. It is accepted and established by the City Council primarily to reduce the community risks of life loss and injury from these substandard structures.) Any design system or method of rehabilitation to be used shall admit of a rational analysis in accordance with well established principles of mechanics. -5- Allowable working stresses for materials and component systems shall be as assigned by the current adopted building code or based on approved testing procedures and aocepted engineering practice. Allowable stresses may be increased by one-third when seismic forces are considered acting alone or in combination with vertical loads, SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica "'tunicipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent therewith, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are herebv repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance. SECTSOPI 3. Sf any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of_ this ordinance is for anv reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of anv court of anv competent i jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The City Council herebv declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase not declared .invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsecruentl~r declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTIOr1 4. The P4ayor shall sign and the Citv Clerk shall attest to tb.e passage of this ordinance. The Cite Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within fifteen (15) days after i.ts adoption. The ordinance shall become effective after thirty (30) days from its adoption. I N F O R M A T I O N Re~Item 8A 3-10-81 CITY Gr" s ~ N T.~ CALIFORNIA Mayor John Hambrick and Members of the City Council City of Santa Monica, California Dear Members of the Council; ONIC.~ BUILDING & SAFETY -. Room 111,1085 Main Street - Santa Monica 90401 March 6, 1981 I have just received a copy of the volume of information that was presented to the council last Tuesday evening (Feb.24) for consideration regarding the "Earthquake Ordinance". This is the first time that I had the opportunity to see the informa- tion that was presented by Drs. Kovach and Sario. >These are several items that I feel should be better'tYl- derstood than as presented by Mr. Kovach. I have no reason to doubt the information with regard to the proximity of previous severe earthquakes that have occured._ in the region near Santa Monica. These are a matter of record. The intensity of those shocks in Santa Monica and their effects here are also a matter of record, However the statement that the buildings in Santa Monica have been tested by these shocks is a matter of opinion on the part of Mr, Kovach and does not comply with general engineering practice. As a matter of fact his conclusions drawn on the data are completely erroneous. For example Dr, Kovach has indicated that the acceleration attained by some of the earthquakes effect on the Santa Monica area exceeded the acceleration which is required by the Riley Act of 1933. This is true for peak accelerations, as an instant- aneous acceleration, However the force required to be designed for as required by The Riley Act is not instantaneous but rather, a sustained force-over a period of time, Mayer John Bambrick and Members. of the City Council Earthquake Ordinance Page 2. This effects a building vastly differently from an instantaneous force which is instantly released. I feel that it is my duty both as a member of the Building & Safety Commission and as a professional structural engineer. who is in the business of designing safe buildings for people to-live in, to point out some of the risks that are being approved by assuming that the unre- inforced masonry buildings in the city are safe as to the protection of life and property without further consideration or review. Dr. Kovach,- in his report made a very positive point of the newspaper reports that as a result of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake the damage in Santa Monica was very slight; and in the 1920 Inglewood earthquake newspaper reports were "No Damage", however in the 1970 San Fernando earth- quake(some 42Km ~ Santa Monfea)"~~-dic`t mention that there"tee buildings that had to be removed as a result of that earthquake. One of these was <; private school which L had the dubious honor or inspecting. In his report there is strong mention of the fact that in the Santa Monica Building codes prior to 1933 the walls of masonry buildings were required to be tied to the floor and roof diaphrams. This is true, but in the Riley Act and succeeding codes the entire building is required to be designed to resist earthquake forces: This means that the walls also must be considered in: the structural system. The walls of earlier buildings were designed to withstand wind loads perpendicular to the wall surface where greater mass indicated greater stability. In earthquake design however, greater mass merely means greater forces to be withstood by the wall itself. The greater mass as often creates more of a problem than it solves. Dr. Kovach made a very strong point of the fact that the accelerations that have been withstood by these masonry buildings were greater than those required by the Riley Ac t. but no mention was made of the fact that a building built according to that act should be capable of withstanding much greater forces than those indicated therein. In addition to the design Mayor John Bambrick' and Members of the City Council Earthquake Ordinance Page 3 forces. required by this act are other built in factors of safety. Among these are the fact that buildings built under the act must consider as design horizontal loads, all of the loads applied on the. building due to gravity(such as floor and roof loads necessary to estimate the maximum people and equipment) and used for the safe design of the structure.. These loads are always greater than will be expected to occur in the life of the building but are included in the mass of the building when designing for earthquake forces by the 1933 Riley Act. Further safety is built into the design in the reduction of the usable.. stresses that are used for the strenght of the materials. This can amount to a factor of as'much as five (5). Thus, when Dr. Kovach states that the buildings in Santa Monica have been --tested to comply with the forces required by the Riley Act, there are several things that have been omitted, hopefully not. in- tentionally. ~-,. When I think of the number of buildings that I have been requested to rehabilitate in the city and other areas that have been built out of unreinforced brick masonry, I recall the number of times that I have found the outer faces of the walls that appear to be sound but the core of these walls are filled with decayed lime mortar that has no more strength than sand. As a matter of fact many times when I have removed the surface brick by scraping the mortar out with a 10 penny nail, the inner core of the wall trickles down into the hole where the brick has been removed. Mayor John Bambrick and Members of the City Council Earthquake Ordinance Page 4 With this I ask that the City Council reconsider the action that it has taken in the last council meeting before this action becomes frozen into law. Z ask this in the name of all of those people who might be killed in the event that a severe earthquake is centered at the north end of the Inglewood-Newport fault, or the fault that I have been given to believe cuts: through the campus at U.C.L.A. This in only approximately 12 miles from the city limits. of Santa Monica. By indicating that these buildings are safe by law, consider the effects that this action would have in the event of a severe earthquake that did extensive damage to- buildings or ki1,3.e~~ ~~, Respectfully submitted, __ , ; C.:. ICn~ _Structural Engineer. ~p828 Member of the Building & Safety Commission of the City of Santa Monica URGENT ~4ESSAGE 'r0 PROPERTY September 7, 1980 OWNERS AND TO S°JHOM IT MAY CONCERN SUMMARY This covering letter summarizes briefly the attached memorandum, ANTA Mf1N Tf:A F'ARTHniTAKR 4CARR _ A N(lAX" The Santa Monica Building Department has cited 240 masonry buildings as allegedly earthquake hazardous and is proposing their reconstruction. In Sections 9-11 of this covering letter an invitation is extended to the organizational meeting of an independent OWNERS SEISMIC ASSOCIATION to supplement the valuable work of the recently formed Commercial Property Owners Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. In cohtrast with the Committee, the Association is open exclusively to the owners of the CITED buildings, deals only with the SEISMIC problem, and is open only to those owners who do not have a conflict of interests. 1. In Sections 5-11 of the attached memorandum, a rigorous scientific proof is given of the fact that, due to the fortunate location of Santa Monica, THERE IS NO EARTHQUAKE HAZARD WHATEVER IN OUR CITY. 2. The proof is based on research by university seismologists; . CONTRAST WITH THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, they are qualified to assess e probability of an earthquake and they do not have an axe to grind. ~ In Sections 12 and 13, it is shown that the earthquake scare in Santa Monica is a HOAX FABRICATED BY SOME SPECIAL INTERESTS proposing the reconstruction. 4. At the meetings of the Chamber of Commerce, and the City Council on August 13, it became evident that the reconstruction is advocated by a small group of those who would reap enormous profits from the proposed X20 million reconstruction: structural engineers, architects, brokers, and the building industry as represented by the BUILDING OFFICER. ~ In Sections 14-19, it is proved that the Building Officer and the document Seismic Safety Element prepared in collaboration with the Building Officer have intentionally MISLED THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC BY ERRONEOUS CLAIMS concerning the seismic hazard in Santa Monica, and the State legislation. It is of extreme interest that the Seismic Safety Element claims that the existence of two earthquake hazardous faults running parallel in the northeasterly direction across the entire city was established by Bailey in his 1968 report. The fact is that this report (a closely guarded secret by the City) deals with new water well sites and does not have a word about any seismic matters. On its page 7, the report states that the longer one of the two faults, running through the center of the city, is DOUBTFUL, and on the map a conspicuous question mark is drawn at each end of this doubtful fault. The Seismic Safety Element has S"_ ~~ s '1 2rl -2- SUPRESSED THE WORD "DOUBTFUL", DELETED BOTH QUESTION MARKS, AND EX- TENDED THE FAULT BY ABOUT 35~. THE OTHER FAULT WAS EXTENDED BY ABOUT 150. LATER AUTHORITATIVE FAULT MAPS SHOW NEITHER OF THESE TWO FAULTS, THUS PROVING THAT BAILEY'S WORD "DOUBTFUL" WAS JUSTIFIED. THIS IS THE SORT OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS _ RASED AT,T, TTS SEISMIC PLANNING. AND IT IS THE BUILDING OFFICER WHO 6. In Sections 21-23, it is shown that any seismic rehabilitation would be,a totally unnecessary expense and an EXTREMELY UNFAIR BURDEN to building owners", business owners, employees, and the general public. ~ Since there is no earthquake hazard in Santa Monica, there is no need to rehabilitate EVEN BUILDINGS 'OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY. 8. In Section 24 it is shown that rehabilitation EVEN TO THE 1934 STANDARD is absolutely unnecessary and a total waste of money. ~ It is imperative that the owners of the cited buildings protect their interests by forming an inClependent OWNERS SEISMIC ASSOCIATION and that the Association is OPEN TO THOSE ONLY WHO ARE OPPOSED TO ANY SEISMIC REHABILITATION. Explicitly: (a) The owners of CITED buildings only belong to the Association. (b) The Association deals with SEISMIC matters only. (c) The Association is open to those only who do not have the akward conflict of interests of belonging to trades that plan, construct, or sell buildings. THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE OWNERS SEISMIC ASSOCIATION WILL BE HELD AT THE RETAIL CLERKS UNION AUDITORIUM, 1420-2ND STREET, SANTA MONICA, ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, AT 10:00 AM. CITY OF SANTA MONICA 1 DATE: September 11, 1980 TO: Bill Rome, Building Officer FROM: Ann Shore, City Clerk SUBJECT: Seismic Association Meeting - September 15 at 10 A.M. Retail Clerks Union Auditorium 1410 Second Street, SM Attached is a notice of the above meeting and background information summarizing their view of the earthquake discussions. This envelope was addressed to City Hall (no individual mentioned) and is sent to you for your information and files. A copy of my memo to you is sent to Acting City Attorney Stark for his information -- and if you think the attachments s}nouId be sent to his attention, please do so. cc: Acting City Attorney Stark (without attachments >.