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
>.