The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 12-06-2016 4A Ci ty Council Report City Council Meeting : December 6, 2016 Agenda Item: 4.A 1 of 21 To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development , Planning & Community Development, Building & Safety Subject: Study Session on Proposed Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program Recommended Action Staff recommends t hat the City Council review and comment on proposed updates to the seismic retrof it program and direct staff to: 1. Draft an ordinance to amend the seismic retrofit program and tenant protection provisions; 2. Initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) to identify a contractor to assist with reviewing structural assessment reports, plan checks, and monitor compliance; and 3. Establish administrative procedures and fees to implement the retrofit program . Executive Summary There is no greater responsibly of government th an public safety. With earthquakes a way of life in Santa Monica and the Los Angeles region, it’s not a matter of if, but rather when we could experience a significant seismic event. Although Santa Monica adopted mandatory Seismic Retrofit standards in 1 999, many buildings continue to be at risk and it is necessary to update these standards and establish a program to ensure compliance. Staff is completing the review of buildings in Santa Monica which will result in a final Seismic Evaluation Inventory list of buildings. These buildings meet specific characteristics related to age and construction type which could make them less resilient to earthquakes based on their known performance in earthquakes. 2 of 21 Staff seeks direction and comment from Council on a proposed Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program (“Retrofit Program”) to update technical retrofit standards and to establish more robust Retrofit Program implementation and compliance procedures. The proposals are based in large part on the work completed by the City of Los Angeles which adopted its program in November 2015 under the leadership of seismologist Dr. Lucy Jones. The goal of the mandatory Retrofit Program is to reduce structural deficiencies and improve the performance of vulnerable buildings during earthquakes. Without proper strengthening, these vulnerable buildings may be subjected to structural failure during and/or after an earthquake. Background Physical damage to vulnerable buildings, physical injury, and even death are the most appare nt threats from earthquakes. Earthquakes can also cause significant economic damage in their aftermath. Earthquakes cause the greatest amount of fatalities in the world, with earthquake deaths resulting primarily from the failure of building construction . The Southern California region is dispersed with a network of geological seismic faults. Figure 1 is a map created using fault data points from the California Geological Survey (CGS) of earthquake faults in the City of Santa Monica and neighboring c ities. 3 of 21 Figure 1: Regional Faults in the City of Santa Monica Area. Many of these seismic faults are active and have the very real potential to cause major catastrophic damage during earthquakes and aftershocks. The City of Santa Monica is not only wit hin close proximity of major Southern California active faults but also has a fault running through the extent of the City. Mapping of the location and extent of the Santa Monica Fault is under the authority of the CGS. The current map of the Santa Monic a Fault was mapped in 1996 and shows a fault line originating off the Pacific coast and from a west -east extent, proceeds to run through the City of Santa Monica in areas primarily north of the Santa Monica freeway . The 1995 Safety Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica identifies the hazards of ground motions and fault rupture of the Santa Monica Fault. In 1996, the 4 of 21 Santa Monica City Council adopted a resolution declaring the Santa Monica Fault as an active seismic fault. An active seis mic fault is defined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as : “A fault that is likely to have another earthquake sometime in the future. Faults are commonly considered to be active if they have moved one or more times in the last 10,000 years.” A fault that is deemed active then requires proposed developments to evaluate site conditions prior to construction. The USGS is currently updating the map of the Santa Monica Fault it is anticipated that the results will be published in mid -2017. Specifi c areas within the City of Santa Monica are also prone to liquefaction. Liquefaction is presented by the USGS as: “Loose sand and silt that is saturated with water can behave like a liquid when shaken by an earthquake.” Liquefaction is likely to occur wh ere the soil is saturated with granular soils with poor drainage and nonporous sediments. In Santa Monica these areas are found along our coastline and at the eastern parts of the City. The pink areas on the map in Figure 2 show the areas prone to liquef action. 5 of 21 Figure 2: City of Santa Monica Geologic Hazards Map, 2014 In 1994 the Council adopted a series of emergency ordinances establishing procedures for the restoration or demolition of buildings damaged in the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake, repair or reconstruction standards for unreinforced chimneys and retrofitting standards for public buildings, repair and retrofitting standards for critical facilities, and to evaluate, reconstruct and rehabilitate hazardous buildings including: unreinfor ced masonry buildings, concrete tilt -up buildings, soft story buildings, non - ductile concrete buildings, welded steel frame buildings. On June 8, 1999, the Council adopted by ordinance substantial updates to the 1994 Seismic Retrofit Ordinance (see Attach ment A). That ordinance addressed the retrofit requirements of the same five vulnerable building types first established by the Council in the 1994. This 1999 ordinance remains in effect today. Even though this law 6 of 21 required building owners to retrofit t heir buildings, without a formal enforcement effort, compliance was essentially voluntary. As a result, insufficient progress has been made toward compliance. The State of California does not have required seismic retrofit standards for buildings - at -ris k. Although there are references in documents such as the California Building Code and the California Existing Building Code there are no codified requirements. This absence of a statewide requirement has led to many jurisdictions developing their own re trofit standards. On October 13, 2015, the City of Los Angeles City Council adopted a mandatory retrofit program for Wood -Frame Soft -Story and Non -Ductile Concrete buildings. The program became effective November 22, 2015. Los Angeles began to issue not ices to property owners of Soft -Story buildings over a period of 18 months beginning in May 2016. Staff has leveraged the work completed in Los Angeles in establishing the administrative proposals outlined in this report. The technical standards that are proposed are also consistent with those adopted by Los Angeles. More information regarding the Los Angeles program is provided later in this report and a summary of the Los Angeles program, as well as the recently adopted San Francisco program is include d as Attachment C. Discussion Buildings of a certain age and construction type are known to be seismically vulnerable due to structural elements of the building. These buildings exhibit characteristics that make them less resilient to earthquakes. Vul nerable buildings include the following construction types and age:  Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (“URM”) built before January 1, 1975  Concrete or Reinforced Masonry Buildings with Flexible Diaphragms (“Concrete Tilt -Ups”) built before January 1, 19 94 7 of 21  Soft, Weak, Open Front Wall Buildings (“Soft Story”) Where the building was built under building code standards enacted before January 1, 1978, and where the ground floor portion of the structure contains parking or other similar open floor space and th ere exists more than one story  Non -Ductile Concrete Buildings (“Non -Ductile Concrete”) where the building was built under building code standards enacted before January 13, 1977  Welded Steel Moment Frame Buildings (“Steel Moment Frame”) where the building was built under building code standards enacted before December 1995 Without proper strengthening, these vulnerable buildings may be subjected to structural failure during and/or after an earthquake. The technical standards recommendations are for minimu m life -safety requirements to reduce the occurrences of building damage, occupant injury and occupant death, meaning that the standards are intended to protect life by reducing the chance of buildings collapse. Buildings which meet the proposed standards may still be found to be uninhabitable following a seismic event. Certain critical buildings, such as those used by emergency personnel, or buildings designated as emergency shelters are designed and built, or retrofitted, for “immediate occupancy” and “i mmediate operation” to ensure the continuity of these critical operations. A recent report entitled “Safer Cities Survey” (see Attachment B) issued by The Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science for the Society for the Structural Engineers Association of Southe rn California provides information on the risks of seismic events in Southern California, an overview of steps taken by jurisdictions in the Los Angeles region, and a description of vulnerable building types. On October 13, 2015 the City of Los Angeles e stablished its first mandatory seismic retrofit program under the leadership of seismologist Dr. Lucy Jones. The program includes only two types of vulnerable buildings, Soft Story and Non -Ductile Concrete Buildings. On April 18, 2013 San Francisco estab lished a mandatory seismic retrofit program only for Soft Story buildings. Attachment C provides a brief summary of those programs. 8 of 21 Seismic Evaluation Inventory List As a first step in updating the City’s mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program, staff from th e Building and Safety Division initiated a project to develop the Seismic Evaluation Inventory List (“The List”) of buildings that are considered seismically vulnerable and that require a structural evaluation. Owners of any building on the list would be required to complete a structural evaluation. If the evaluation concludes that a building is indeed seismically vulnerable, the building must be seismically retrofitted within an established time frame. The process to identify vulnerable buildings include d a review of building permit records and on -site external visual evaluations. Building and Safety’s engineering and inspection staff performed the assessment for the following three buildings types since these buildings are easily identifiable and could be completed most efficiently with in -house staff, including:  Unreinforced Masonry Buildings  Concrete Tilt -Up Buildings  Soft Story Multi -Family Dwelling Buildings Staff issued a Request for Proposals and contracted with Degenkolb Engineers to complete th e assessment of the more complex building types, including:  Non -Ductile Concrete Buildings  Steel Moment Frame Buildings In addition to the age and construction type of the building staff carefully considered a building owner’s previous efforts to retrofi t. With the two exceptions outlined below, buildings that otherwise meet the definition of a seismically vulnerable building as outlined above are not included in the Seismic Evaluation Inventory List, if staff was able to verify that the building has bee n retrofitted with an approved building permit in compliance with the standards adopted by the Council on June 2, 1999. 9 of 21 The two exceptions include:  Unreinforced Masonry Buildings: Single -Story with tall unreinforced walls 1  Soft Story Buildings: Any th ree story or higher Soft Story with building irregularities 2 Even if these two building types have been previously retrofitted, they would still require further analysis for possible additional improved strengthening elements to the building. The followi ng chart provides the preliminary number of buildings that have been placed on the draft Seismic Evaluation Inventory List by vulnerable building type. Although it was staff’s intent to provide a final version of the list with this report, however, due to issues identified with the current draft, additional review of the list is necessary before it can be finalized and released. Staff anticipates releasing the list by January 2017. It is important to note that when a building is placed on the list it doe s not mean that the building presents an immediate hazard, but rather it meets specific criteria based on age and construction type which potentially makes the building vulnerable, and that without further analysis and proper strengthening, if required, it would be vulnerable to structural failure during and/or after an earthquake. 1 Unreinforced Masonry buildings (URM) have the least resistance to seismic ground motions even if the building has som e form of retrofit strengthening, these buildings are more vulnerable than structures with more resilient building construction. The URM's that pose the greatest threat in collapse potential are those with tall walls with minimal thickness. An example wo uld be masonry brick where the wall thickness is the width of a single brick supports a brick wall of 10 feet or more. These URM cases, whether previously retrofitted or not, will have to perform analysis of the building. 2 For Soft Story buildings of th ree and four stories with building irregularities, staff is recommending a similar approach to the City of Los Angeles in that a detailed analysis is required to understand retrofit solutions. An irregular building is a structure that essentially is not "rectangular" or "box -shaped" in design. An example of an irregular structure is a building that is shaped like a "letter" such as a "U" or "L" shaped building. Under the proposed technical standards, Irregular three or four story Soft Story Buildings, wh ether previously retrofitted or not will require analysis of the building. 10 of 21 Vulnerable Building Type Preliminary Number of Buildings Placed on Seismic Evaluation Inventory List Unreinforced Masonry Buildings 209 Concrete Tilt -Up Buildings 34 Soft -Story Buildings 1573 Non -Ductile Concrete Buildings 66 Steel Moment Frame Buildings 80 Overall Total Number 1,962 Attachment D provides a detailed criteria for each building type that would qualify the building to be placed on the Seismic Eva luation Inventory List. Although the list is being compiled with the best information available, should a building that meets the requirements for inclusion on the list be identified at a later date, the building will be added to the list and the building owner would be subject to all the same requirements as if the building had always been included. Proposed Updates The goal of the mandatory Retrofit Program is to reduce structural deficiencies and improve the performance of vulnerable buildings during e arthquakes to protect life. Staff’s recommendations take into account standards that would provide an improved measure of safety while allowing seismic retrofit to be an achievable task. Staff utilized the Structural Engineers Association of Southern Cali fornia (SEAOSC)3 to ensure that 3 SEAOSC is a non -profit organization consisting of consulting structural engineers in the Southern California region. These professionals are not only practicing structural engine ers in building design and 11 of 21 the review met the highest level of technical expertise in conducting its review of the standards. Also taken into consideration were the benefits of a regional approach to ensure consistency which would be of benefit to b uilding owners. Staff recommends applying the existing standards to the various vulnerable building types: Potentially Seismically Vulnerable Buildings Type Technical Standard Mandatory / Voluntary Unreinforced Masonry Buildings CA Existing Bldg Co de Appendix Chp A1 Mandatory Concrete Tilt -Up Buildings Int’l Existing Bldg Code Appendix Chp A2 Mandatory Soft -Story Buildings City of Los Angeles ASCE 7 Mandatory Non -Ductile Concrete Buildings City of Los Angeles ASCE 41 Mandatory Steel Momen t Frame Buildings City of West Hollywood ASCE 41 Mandatory Single -Family Brace and Bolts CA Existing Bldg Code Appendix Chp A3 Voluntary Buildings that were previously retrofitted under a valid building permit are considered to have met City require ments at the time that the building retrofit was completed. Except in specific cases, these retrofitted buildings will not be affected by the passage of a proposed retrofit ordinance. Generally, building codes are not retroactive unless a specific requir ement is written into building standards due to discovered hazards of retrofit, but are also the top experts who contribute in the development and authorship of the industry technical standards in structural design and structural retrofit. SEAOSC also has an Existing Buildings Committee who specia lizes in considerations of structural retrofit and seismic strengthening of buildings. 12 of 21 certain construction. In the specific cases involving Soft Story buildings and Unreinforced Masonry buildings, these buildings exhibit potential weaknesses whether the building was prev iously retrofitted or not. Staff recommends that these buildings be analyzed to current building standards to determine the seismic safety of these buildings even if they underwent a recent retrofit. Under existing local law seismic retrofits are require d to meet modern building code requirements. Staff is proposing meeting 75% of modern building code requirements to meet life safety standards because both experience and State Law guidance (e.g. California Existing Building Code) provides that 75% is suf ficient to meet life safety standards in a seismic retrofit. A public hearing of the Building and Fire Life -Safety Commission was held on November 3, 2016. The Building Officer and his staff presented the Commission with the technical proposals for retro fit standards. The Commission unanimously recommended that the Council adopt staff’s proposed technical standards. Compliance Time Frames and Noticing Staff is proposing that all buildings that have met the criteria to be placed on the list would be issue d a notice to comply (“Notice”) with all compliance time frames beginning from the time that Notice is sent to the owner from the Building Officer. The following chart provides the recommended time limits for each type of building: Potentially Seismical ly Vulnerable Buildings Type Structural Evaluation Report Due Buildings Permits Must be Obtained Within Retrofit 4 Must be Completed Within Unreinforced Masonry Buildings 3 Months 12 Months 24 Months Concrete Tilt -Up Buildings 4 Months 18 Months 36 Mon ths Soft -Story Buildings 24 Months 42 Months 72 Months 4 Compliance time frames differ from the requirements adopted by Los Angeles for the two building types subject to the City’s mandatory retrofit program. Attachment E provides a comparison of these differences. 13 of 21 Non -Ductile Concrete Buildings 36 Months 78 Months 120 Months Steel Moment Frame Buildings 36 Months 180 Months 240 Months Staff proposes that the compliance time frames begin at the time the Noti ce is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service by U.S. certified mail. To manage work load more effectively, staff would issue the Notices phased over time by building hazard priority as follows: 1. Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Concrete Tilt -Up Building s 2. Soft -Story Buildings (3 or more stories) 3. Soft -Story Buildings (16 units or more) 4. Non -Ductile Concrete, and Steel Moment Frame 5. Soft -Story Buildings (2 stories, 7 to 15 units) 6. Soft -Story Buildings (2 stories, 6 or less units) For each building that is fou nd to not meet the established retrofit standards, a Notice will be mailed to the owner and a copy of the Notice will be filed with the County of Los Angeles Department of Registrar/Recorder requesting recordation of the notice on property title. This rec orded notice will stay on the title until a complete retrofit has been achieved in accordance with all requirements. Following notice to the owners that an owner is required to retrofit its building to current standards, the owner will be required to then notify all tenants residing in the building of the finding and order by the Building Officer that the building requires structural strengthening. An estimated schedule for the roll out of the notices is provided as Attachment F . Appeals Based on existin g law, the owner of any building subject to seismic retrofitting requirements will have multiple opportunities to seek review of the Building Officer’s decisions during the retrofitting process. First, anyone who receives a notice from the Building Office r, indicating that the Building Officer has determined that their building is 14 of 21 potentially seismically vulnerable and requiring the submission of a Structural Evaluation Report, may appeal this determination to the Building and Fire -Life Safety Commission. Additionally, once a Structural Evaluation Report has been reviewed by Building and Safety, and staff determines that, based on the Report, a building is sufficiently vulnerable to warrant seismic retrofitting, that determination may also be appeal to the Commission. Time Frame Extensions While, as indicated above, staff proposes to set forth concrete timeframes for retrofitting, many unforeseeable or unusual circumstances could make strict compliance with such time frames impossible. For instances, owne rs may not be able to timely secure assistance from licensed engineers as there are a limited number of structural engineering firms available in the Los Angeles area, and the City of Los Angeles is also undergoing this same type of seismic retrofitting pr ogram. Additionally, unexpected personal developments, such serious illnesses, could also hinder compliance. Any person experiencing any such unforeseen or unusual circumstances would be able to seek a time extension from the Planning Director (or his or her designee), whose decision would be appealable to a City Hearing Officer. Enforcement Action The Program will have enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance of each time limit milestone. Code Enforcement staff will coordinate closely with staff in Bui lding and Safety when enforcement is necessary. In egregious cases of noncompliance, staff will refer such cases to the City Attorney’s Office. Tenants Owners of vulnerable buildings that require retrofitting would be required to comply with existing ten ant protection provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) including Chapter 8.100 Tenant Protection During Construction and Chapter 4.36 Tenant Relocation Assistance . This would include any future amendments to those codes. 15 of 21 In response to recen t experiences related to air quality concerns during construction and the health and safety of tenants, staff is also proposing to include with amendments to the retrofit program minor modifications to Chapters 8.100 and 4.36 of the SMMC to strengthen the City’s response when there is an identified risk to tenants. Staff is also modifying its current protocols when air quality issues arise which are currently under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management Division (AQMD). Although AQMD w ould continue to maintain jurisdiction over air quality, including asbestos testing and abatement permitting, staff proposes to establish greater tenant protection protocols, coupled with contracting with a licensed environmental consulting firm to initiat e testing in such cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of a potential hazard. Staff proposes to amend the SMMC to hold the building owner responsible for costs associated with testing when such testing is required due to the actions of the owner. This change is not intended to supersede AQMD’s authority but rather to keep staff focused on the City’s goal to first protect the health and safety of tenants. This would allow staff to initiate a relocation order more expeditiously instead of waiting fo r AQMD or the Los Angeles County Department of Health to respond to an immediate need. If necessary staff will submit as part of the FY2017/18 biennial budget a request for funding for environmental testing. Any needs that arise during the remainder of FY 2016/17 will be paid for with existing budget. Land Use and Other Regulations Staff does not propose any major changes to zoning, permitting or review requirements that may result from work needed to complete a retrofit, except in the case of parking requ irements. For example, any retrofit project that would trigger review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) or the Landmarks Commission must obtain such review and approval before a building permit could be issued authorizing commencement of the project . However, there are a couple of notable exceptions proposed. 1. Consistent with Los Angeles, staff does propose that if a retrofit should cause a need to reduce the number of parking spaces that staff (instead of the Planning Commission) be authorized to approve such reductions if the applicant can show 16 of 21 that there is no practicable method to complete the retrofit without reducing parking. 2. Staff proposes allowing permit extensions up to the time frame established for completion, including any extensions granted. 3. If the cost of the retrofit requires that reconfiguration of trash areas, staff proposes that the Public Works Director (or designee) should be able to waive the requirement if impracticable. Demolition Staff does not propose any changes in es tablished requirements for demolition of buildings. Owners will not be provided with the option to demolish a building in lieu of completing a retrofit. An owner who wishes to demolish a building would be required to meet all requirements of Chapter 9.25 of the SMMC. As is the case today, only in such cases where the Building Officer determines that a building is so unsafe that it is an imminent threat to public safety could the building be demolished without first meeting the requirements of Chapter 9.2 5. Staffing and Fees Staff anticipates that the resources needed to mail the initial notices to building owners who are on the Seismic Evaluation Inventory List, informing them of their need to obtain a structural evaluation report will be absorbed by e xisting clerical staff and budget. If necessary staff proposes to contract with short term temporary staff assistance to complete minor clerical tasks in completing the mailing. Staff proposes to upgrade the currently vacant but budgeted position of Bu ilding & Safety Supervisor to Building & Safety Administrator as part of the FY2017/19 biennial budget process. The upgrade would allow for the hiring of an employee with the experience and level skill set appropriate to serve as program manager/ombudsman for Permit Center operations. This change will also provide necessary programmatic and process skills within the unit to oversee and improve the Construction Permitting process. This position would continue to supervise the permit center employees, but would also work towards continual process improvements to address systemic permit 17 of 21 processing issues. Staff will seek to use savings from other staffing adjustments in Planning and Community Development to offset the cost. Routine administrative duties t o support the program would be managed by this position with support from existing permit center staff. The newly created Neighborhood Preservation Coordinator would assist with monitoring projects in residential buildings with tenant occupants. Staff also proposes to issue a Request for Proposal to contract with an engineering firm to assist with reviewing the structural engineering reports and plan checks. Utilizing a consulting firm to assist with this work will allow for flexibility in resources as work increases and decreases due to the rolling deadlines. Inspections would be conducted with existing staff. If necessary staff would bring forward a budgetary request in the future for additional staffing resources. Existing Plan Check and Buildin g Permit fees would apply for seismic retrofit work to be completed, including a Seismic Retrofit Engineering Report Review Fee. However, as part of the FY 2017/19 biennial budget process, staff will include any necessary fees related to the mandatory ret rofit program that may be identified. Economic Cost of Seismic Retrofit Work The current estimated cost of a non -complex, two -story Soft Story building ranges from $5,000 to $10,000 per unit. This would make the cost of an average six -unit Soft Story ret rofit range between $30,000 to $60,000. Both the Los Angeles and the San Francisco have estimated typical Soft Story retrofit costs at $60,000 to $130,000 per building. The cost estimates by Los Angeles and San Francisco are consistent with what owners ca n expect in Santa Monica based on the current inventory of Soft Story buildings. For commercial buildings, there are not established standards of retrofit costs as the methods of retrofit solutions vary widely. Rent Controlled Units and Building Owner “Pass -Through Costs” 18 of 21 Following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Council passed an ordinance requiring the repair, and strengthening of Soft Story multi -family buildings. This effort provided some measures of additional safety by allowing a form of strengthe ning of Soft Story and Weak Front buildings. Following Council’s action in 1994 for Soft Story strengthening, the Rent Control Board adopted Regulation 4113 which allowed building owners to pass -through 100% of earthquake related repairs and retrofitting costs to tenants. Effective February 16, 1994, the regulation allowed 100% of the reasonable costs plus financing to be passed -through as permanent rent increases provided the work was completed by June 30, 1996. As of August 1, 1995, Rent Control Regula tion 4113B allowed owners to pass -through 50% of the costs associated with retrofitting required by City Council Ordinances 1748 and 1771. Currently, if an owner undertakes and completes retrofit work, a “net operating income petition” can be filed with t he Rent Control Board. This petition would compare current net operating income versus net operating income in 1978 prior to the passage of the rent control law. If the petition finds that the owner is not making a fair return, relative to the 1978 refer ence, then improvement costs can be passed -through as permanent rent increases. While many petitions were filed under Regulation 4113, only one petition was filed under Regulation 4113B and no rent increases based upon seismic retrofit costs have been r equested through the net operating income process. This may be attributable in large part to the passage of the Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing Act by the State legislature in 1995. With the ability to reset rents to market rate for all new tenancies that s tarted since January 1999, owners may take all existing and anticipated operating costs into consideration when establishing a new rent. For this reason, and because a mandatory retrofit program is not yet in place, owners have not pursued permanent rent increases in recent years for retrofitting costs. The City of Los Angeles will allow a fifty -percent pass -through cost to tenants, if approved by the Los Angeles Housing Community Investment Department. The maximum rent increase is $38 per month for 10 years. The recovery period may be 19 of 21 extended until the full approved amount is collected. Seismic retrofit costs are divided among all the units. Applications for the increase by the owner must be submitted within 12 months of completing the retrofit wor k. City staff will work with the Rent Control Board staff to provide recommendations on the issue of pass -through to the Rent Control Board, following Council’s passage of the Seismic Retrofit Ordinances. Financing for Seismic Retrofit Work There are al so options for property owners to receive property assessed clean energy (PACE) program financing. The City, by joining a number of joint powers authorities (JPAs) has authorized seven separate PACE programs to operate within the City’s boundaries (Attach ment G ). Currently, four of the seven PACE programs provide seismic retrofit financing to Santa Monica property owners, with the potential that the other three PACE programs operating in the City may also add seismic retrofitting as an eligible activity i n the future. PACE financing allows participating property owners repay the cost of the seismic retrofit improvements through an assessment levied against their properties, which is payable in semi -annual installments on property tax bills. A lien is file d against the property as security until the assessment is re -paid. The assessment remains with the property should the owner transfer or sell the property before the loan is re -paid. As a participant in a JPA, the City is not obligated to repay the bonds issued by the authority, or collect or pay the assessments levied on the participating properties. Program Implementation Elements If directed to do so, staff will prepare an ordinance to amend the SMMC and develop the administrative procedures for the pr ogram, issue a Request for Proposal for an engineering firm, train staff, and begin issuing notices to building owners. Following direction, staff will send a letter to all property owners on the list to provide them with information regarding the propos ed program, their responsibilities, and the anticipated roll out schedule for the notices in advance of bringing an ordinance to Council. Staff anticipates bringing an ordinance for Council consideration to its February 14, 2017 meeting. Budgetary items w ould be included with the FY2017/18 Biennial budget. 20 of 21 Staff proposes to launch a custom Seismic Retrofit Program webpage to allow visitors the option to search by property address or Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) to determine if a building is on the Sei smic Evaluation Inventory List. The web site will also contain information for both building owners and residential tenants. Staff has begun public outreach, including Rent Control staff, the Santa Monica Chamber Commerce, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., Building Owners and Management Association (BOMA), ACTION Apartments Association, Inc. in preparation for the study session with Council. Staff will continue and expand outreach following direction from Council on the program, including offering education al programs and materials on the administrative and technical aspects of the program, such as a Seismic Retrofit Fair and/or seminars. Materials and meetings geared towards tenants will be developed to ensure that tenants are also well informed of the pro gram. Staff will also work closely with Rent Control staff in developing outreach and educational programs. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions. Pre pared By: Ron Takiguchi, Building Officer Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. 2016 Safer Cities Survey 21 of 21 B. June 8 1999 Staff Report Seismic Retrofit Standards C. San Francisco and Los Angeles Retrofit Programs D. Vulnerable Building Type Criteria E. San Francisco and Los Angeles Comparison on Timelines F. Proposed Noticing Timeline G. March 1, 2016 Staff Report (PACE Program) H. Written Comments 2016 Safer Cities Survey Attachment B Loaded with soft-story retrofit questions? Well, we have the answers. We are here to provide technical resources and jobsite assistance with the vulnerable buildings associated with the Safer Cities Survey. Call (800) 999-5099 or visit strongtie.com for help on finding your perfect retrofit solution. © 2016 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. 1 Evaluating current approaches to retrofitting seismically vulnerable buildings in Southern California and safer cities survey seaosc.org This Safer Cities Survey has been prepared by the Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science and Society (DLJCSS) for the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC), and is published as part of our association’s educational program. While the information presented in the document is believed to be correct at the time of publication, the materials, practices, and understanding of the matters discussed are sometimes subject to differences of opinion and approach, and are constantly evolving. As such, neither SEAOSC nor its Board, committees, writers, editors, firms, or individuals who have contributed to this survey make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here - in. This survey should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. This survey is not intended to amount to minimum standards for any purpose. Users of this survey assume all liability arising from such use. The user is advised to check updates/errata pertaining to this survey, which are posted at www.seaosc.org. Inquiries may be addressed to seaosc@seaosc.org. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California © 2016 SEAOSC All rights reserved. This document or any part thereof may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of SEAOSC. Disclaimer Presented by A partnership between drlucyjonescenter.org 2016 Safer Cities Survey seaosc President's message Dear Southern Californians,W e live in an age of unparalleled global interconnectedness and access to information with 24/7 news channels and mobile technology with near constant social media availability. As a result, we are exposed to major natural disasters in real time. Even in the fortunate event where the death toll is low, affected communities can lose many buildings which may have an extreme detrimental economic impact and require decades of recovery time. The news exposure to recent events has increased the public’s knowledge of natural disaster risk and building performance and has driven public discussions on how we can increase the safety and resilience of our communities. Thankfully, technology, tools and methodologies to evaluate and communicate natural disaster risk are available. Coupled with continued advancement in building performance determination, the public and policymakers are afforded a better understanding of risk and potential solutions and are provided with a better way to understand and communicate the cost of doing nothing versus taking action. In order to develop an effective strategy to improve the safety and resilience of our communities, it is critical to benchmark building performance policies currently in place. For Southern California, this benchmarking includes recognizing which building types are most vulnerable to collapse in earthquakes, and understanding whether or not there are programs in place to decrease risk and improve recovery time. In light of this, the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) partnered with the Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science and Society (DLJCSS) to perform a survey of the cities in Southern California with the goal of providing a snapshot of current strategies to strengthen the built environment in our region. SEAOSC Past President Michelle Kam-Biron, Dr. Lucy Jones, and SEAOSC President Jeff Ellis. 3 This Safer Cities Survey is designed to be used as a tool to help identify vulnerable building types, show where we are in addressing these buildings through retrofit ordinances, and provide a lens to better see where to focus our attention to reduce our vulnerabilities. Structural engineers have long recognized the need to strengthen existing buildings, but policy changes required to achieve this require input from many stakeholders and the skill and adeptness of our local leaders to advance common goals. As the discussion continues, SEAOSC will update the information in this report to measure progress, which is something we can only achieve with the stakeholders working together toward a common goal for safer and more resilient cities. SEAOSC is a one of the oldest structural engineering associations in the world. We strive to advance the state-of-the-art in structural engineering and to provide the public with safe structures. SEAOSC stands ready to help jurisdictions develop strategies to mitigate risk and increase resilience by decreasing recovery time. Improved performance of our community’s and region’s built environment is critically important to saving lives as well as important to protecting its economy, character and fabric. One of the first steps in developing a mitigation strategy includes consulting with practicing professional engineers so they may establish an inventory of vulnerable buildings within a city, assist in the development of draft retrofit ordinances, and provide input toward the creation of a back-to-business program. SEAOSC can provide an objective, third party review and offer advice on the developed ordinances and programs. In fact, SEAOSC has already provided this advisory service for jurisdictions in Southern California at their request. We endeavor to make this Safer City Survey a useful tool in understanding where we are as a region and in the development of prioritized strategies to increase the safety and resilience of our communities. Southern California is an incredible place to live, full of great opportunities with a diverse population and many cultures stretching from the beach to the mountains and desert. Let us continue to work together to sustain these opportunities by ensuring our region does not get knocked out by the next natural disaster but is able to roll with the punches and quickly recover. Yours for a safer and more resilient southern California, Jeff Ellis President, SEAOSC 2016 Safer Cities Survey S tudies show many types of buildings in California built under earlier versions of the building code are now known to be very vulnerable to earthquake damage and will be responsible for the majority of deaths in future earthquakes. Ordinances to encourage or man - date the retrofit of these buildings for improved seismic safety are the main tool available for local jurisdictions to reduce this risk. This Safer Cities Survey report (referred to as Survey in this report) provides an overview of the seismic ordinances that have been enacted or are under consideration in the jurisdictions of Southern California. Summary The Safer Cities Survey By: DLJCSS 5 Southern California has the highest risk of earthquake damage in the United States. Straddling the plate boundary between the Pacific Ocean and North American plates, southern California has over a hundred faults crisscrossing the region with almost 20 million inhabitants. The combination of many faults and dense population means that between one third and one half of the nation’s estimat - ed $4.5 billion/year seismic losses are expect - ed to occur in the region (Jaiswal et al., 2015). Several scenarios have been created for possi - ble big earthquakes in the region to better un - derstand the most likely causes of major loss and the triggering of regional depression (ex - amples include Jones, 2015; Wein and Rose, 2011; Jones et al, 2008; EERI, 2011). The two biggest factors are the loss of buildings for res - idential and commercial use and the disrup - tion to basic infrastructure. The deadliest type of building loss is in the older structures that do not meet current building code standards for life safety. No building code is retroactive; a building is as strong as the building code that was in place when the building was built. When an earth - quake in one location exposes a weakness in a type of building, the code is changed to prevent further construction of buildings with that weakness, but it does not make those buildings in other locations disappear. For example, in Los Angeles, the strongest earth - quake shaking has only been experienced in the northern parts of the San Fernando Val - ley in 1971 and 1994 (Jones, 2015). In San Bernardino, a city near the inter - section of the two most active faults in southern California where some of the strongest shaking is expected, the last time strong shaking was experi - enced was in 1899. Most buildings in southern California have only experi - enced relatively low levels of shaking and many hidden (and not so hidden) vulnerabilities await discovery in the next earthquake. The prevalence of the older, seismically vul - nerable buildings varies across southern Cal - ifornia. Some new communities, incorporated in the last twenty years, may have no vulnera - ble buildings at all. Much of Los Angeles Coun - ty and the central areas of the other counties may have very old buildings in their original downtown that could be very dangerous in an earthquake, surrounded by other seismically vulnerable buildings constructed in the build - ing booms of the 1950s and 1960s. Building codes do have provisions to require upgrading of the building structure when a building undergoes a significant alteration or when the use of it changes significantly (e.g., a warehouse gets converted to office or living space). Seismic upgrades can require changes to the fundamental structure of the building. Significantly for a city, many buildings nev - er undergo a change that would trigger an upgrade. Consequently, known vulnerable buildings exist in many cities, waiting to kill or injure citizens, pose risks to neighboring build - ings, and increase recovery time when a near - by earthquake strikes. Introduction/Background The Safer Cities Survey By: DLJCSS 2016 Safer Cities Survey The DLJCSS surveyed seismic safety ordinances enacted and under consideration in the 191 cities and 6 counties of Southern California that are shown in Figure 1. The primary data was obtained through telephone calls and emails to the Building Offi - cials of each jurisdiction, supplemented with searches of city codes available online and discussions with active members of the building code community. DLJCSS asked about retrofit or - dinances addressing the most common types of dangerous buildings as well as business resumption programs that have been used in California jurisdictions to reduce earth - quake losses. Figure 1. Area of California considered in this study. The main tool available to cities to reduce this risk are ordinances to recommend or mandate strengthening of buildings through seismic retrofitting. Most retrofit ordinances are at the com - plete discretion of an individual jurisdiction and have passed when the community members, structural engineers, elected officials and building departments work together because of a shared commitment to safety. This report reviews the different earthquake building vulnerabil - ities that can be addressed through seismic retrofit ordinances, the approaches being taken in cities across southern California and the status of progress. methodology 7 The three most damaging earthquakes to strike southern California , the 1933 Long Beach M6.4, 1971 San Fernando M6.7, and 1994 Northridge M6.7 earthquakes, each exposed significant weaknesses in existing buildings and led to changes in the building codes for new structures. For example, following earth - quakes, unreinforced masonry buildings were out - lawed, concrete construction was required to be more flexible (ductile), soft-story construction was restricted, requirements for tilt-up construction were strength - ened, and welded steel moment frame connections un - derwent a massive testing program. It is the buildings built before these earthquakes, and before subsequent changes to the code, that represent a major risk to the safety of the occupants. Below are descriptions of each significant type and what is needed to make them safer. Types of Vulnerable Buildings 2016 Safer Cities Survey The 1933 Long Beach earthquake was a moderate earthquake, magnitude 6.4 that caused a high level of damage because the fault ran through the populated areas of Long Beach where vulnerable buildings were built in loose, saturated soils. Most of the damage occurred in brick and masonry buildings without any internal steel reinforcement. When the mortar between the bricks and stones lost strength in the shaking, the bricks holding up the roof fell, causing the roof to collapse. Because the bricks and roof are often very heavy, collapse of these buildings is par - ticularly deadly. These risks to life can be significantly reduced with targeted retrofitting. In 1986, the state of California passed the unreinforced ma - sonry (URM) law that required all jurisdictions in high seismic activity areas (identified as Seis - mic Zone 4 in the Uniform Build - ing Code) to catalog their URM buildings and develop a program to address the risk but left it to each jurisdiction to determine what form the program would take. Seismic Zones are no lon - ger a part of the building code, which now uses the National Seismic Hazard Map from the US Geological Survey. Much of the southern California region is in what was Seismic Zone 4, with the exception of the eastern parts of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Because of the State URM Law, most jurisdictions have some law enacted. Front wall of the John Muir School, Pacific Avenue, Long Beach, California, downed by the March 11, 1933 earthquake. Photo credit: W.L. Huber, earthquake.usgs.gov Unreinforced Masonry (URM) 9 Wood-Frame Buildings In general, properly built, wood-frame buildings, such as the average single-family home, are some of the safest buildings in California during earthquakes. Wood is light and flexible, both admirable characteristics under earthquake shaking. The 1933 earthquake showed that when a building slides off its foundation, it may not kill people, but it can be a complete financial loss. The 1935 Uniform Building Code required that buildings be bolted to their foundation. The 1971 earthquake showed this was not enough for buildings with raised foundations and cripple walls. A cripple wall, a wood stud wall between the foundation and the first floor, creates a crawl space and is typically made of spaced 2x lumber that can topple like dominoes when pushed side - ways in an earthquake. Therefore, since 1976, these buildings are required to be bolted to the foundation and have wood struc - tural panels to brace the 2x framing within the cripple wall. No jurisdiction has imposed man - datory requirements on single-fam - ily homes. Some have adopted voluntary programs to encourage retrofitting and the California Earth - quake Authority (www.earthquake - authority.com) partners with some jurisdictions to provide funding to encourage improvements. Wood-frame building in Long Beach, California, destroyed by the March 11, 1933 earth - quake. Photo credit: earthquake.usgs.gov 2016 Safer Cities Survey Non-Ductile Reinforced Concrete Buildings Concrete is a “non-ductile” material, meaning it cracks and breaks during strong earthquake shaking if there are not enough steel reinforcing bars to hold the concrete together. The partial collapse of the then-recently built Olive View Hospital in the 1971 San Fernan - do earthquake was shocking and led to major changes in the 1976 building code requirements for concrete build - ings. These buildings were common, representing many of the commercial buildings built in southern California. Like for tilt-up buildings (which are real - ly a subset of the non-ductile reinforced concrete type), the 1976 code required a different approach to connecting the walls and roof. The collapse of more of the buildings of the older type in the 1994 Northridge earthquake as well as many other earthquakes in other parts of the world have demonstrated that these are some of the deadliest vulnerable buildings during earthquakes (e.g., Otani, 1999). After the 1994 earthquake, the California Seismic Safety Commission recommended retrofit be required for these buildings (CSSC, 1995). Partial collapse of the Olive View Hospital in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Photo credit: NOAA/NGDC, E.V. Leyendecker, U.S. Geological Survey. Tilt-Up Concrete Buildings These are buildings where concrete walls and columns are created on site in hori - zontal position on the building slab and then tilted up to be tied together and connected to the roof structure. Many of these failed in the 1971 earthquake because the connections between walls and roof were not adequate enough. The standards have been improved and post-1976 tilt ups have performed bet - ter. Several jurisdictions adopted pro - grams to upgrade older buildings after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.Tilt-up concrete building damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Photo credit: George Sakkestad. 11 After the failure of the concrete buildings in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, many turned to steel as a better building material for seismic safety. Because steel is “ductile” (bends rather than cracking when pushed beyond its strength), it seemed a safer way to build buildings. Even if the strength of the building is exceeded, it was thought that the ductility of the steel would prevent collapse and people could get out alive. The 1994 Northridge earth - quake exposed flaws in this construction. In some buildings, the welding of beams to columns changed the material proper - ties of the steel and cracks formed in the welds. In a bigger earthquake than Northridge where ground shaking will last for a longer duration, engineers now know there is a real risk of collapse in these older, steel moment frame buildings. Pre-1994 Steel Moment Frame Buildings A steel frame building in Kobe, Japan where cracks through columns led to col - lapse of one floor in the 1995 M6.9 earthquake. Photo credit: Chuo Ward. Soft First-Story Buildings The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area and the 1994 Northridge earthquake together brought home the problems presented by soft first story construction practices. A “soft first-story” building is one where a big opening in the first floor walls, such as a for carport or retail windows, makes the first story much weaker than the stories above. This concentrates the shaking into the first story during the earthquake and makes it more likely to collapse at the first story endangering the inhabitants. Because many of the buildings are residential, they represent a particularly critical threat to lives and a major loss to a community after the earthquake. The retrofit is also relatively eco - nomical and non-invasive, involving just a strengthening of the first story. This has meant that several jurisdictions have started considering ordinances to address the problem. Collapse of the Northridge Meadows apartment building in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Photo credit: NOAA/NGDC, M. Celebi, U.S. Geological Survey. 2016 Safer Cities Survey J urisdictions have taken a variety of approaches to increase their com - munity’s earthquake resilience that include retrofitting ordinances that seek to reduce the risk before the earthquake happens and programs that will improve the ability of the community to recover. The retrofit or - dinances are, in general, specific to the type of building and may be either mandatory or voluntary. In the Survey results, there are the following pos - sible categories: • Mandatory : An enacted ordinance that requires retrofitting • Mandatory but incomplete: This is used only for the URM laws that have been in place for several decades. It is an enacted mandatory ordinance with incomplete enforcement so that less than 50% of the buildings have been retrofitted or demolished. • Voluntary: An ordinance that encourages retrofitting and provides technical standards without requiring the action. • In development: Survey response was that ordinances are being ac - tively developed. • In discussion: Survey response was that city personnel are beginning to discuss the options and explore possibilities. • Not Applicable: Many jurisdictions have no URMs so there would be no point in having a URM law. The data is available through the State URM law (State of California, 1986). • None: No ordinance in place or in discussion. Unlike for URMs, there is no data to determine if each jurisdiction has any of the other build - ing types, such as tilt-up concrete or steel moment frame. Several building officials told us their city is young and they do not believe they have problem buildings. This should be considered when looking at the data. Approaches for Mitigation 13 RESULTS Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Because the 1986 California URM law requiring all jurisdictions in the earlier Seismic Zone 4 per the Uniform Building Code to develop a retrofit program, these programs are widespread (see Figure 2). These buildings were prohibited from being constructed after 1935, so 58 jurisdictions surveyed had no URMs and therefore no need for a program. The majority of the remaining ju - risdictions have programs that mandate retrofit of URMs although not all have been successful in retrofitting or demolishing all of their URM buildings. Twelve jurisdictions have mandatory programs that achieved less than 50% compli - ance. Imperial and Los Angeles Counties have the highest rate of mandatory programs while San Bernardino County has the lowest. Figure 2. Ordinances to address Unreinforced Masonry for all six counties and by county. Imperial County Unreinforced Masonry Riverside County Unreinforced Masonry San Bernardino County Unreinforced Masonry Orange County Unreinforced Masonry Los Angeles County Unreinforced Masonry Ventura County Unreinforced Masonry Overall Unreinforced Masonry Not Applicable Mandatory Mandatory (Incomplete) Voluntary None 2016 Safer Cities Survey Figure 3. Ordinances to address tilt-up concrete buildings for all six counties and individually by county. For the remaining types of vulnerable buildings (wood- frame, tilt-up, non-ductile concrete, pre-1994 steel mo - ment frame, soft first-story), very few jurisdictions are considering any action at this time. No jurisdictions in San Bernardino or Riverside Counties have any program to ad - dress the other five building types. Imperial County has one jurisdiction with a mandatory tilt-up concrete retro - fit program but no other programs. Six other jurisdictions have tilt-up concrete retrofit requirements, one in Orange County and five in Los Angeles. The City of Downey is an interesting case. In 1985, the Downey City Council passed a law (amended in 1995) that all buildings built before 1957 of all types had to be evalu - ated for their seismic resilience and brought up to code if they were found to be deficient. This law addresses many of the issues discussed here but not completely as all build - ings designed prior to the 1971 earthquake are possibly vulnerable. In the data analysis, it was considered a man - datory code for all building types, but note that the critical 1957-1975 period has not been addressed. The most common mandatory code other than the required action on Unreinforced Masonry is for concrete tilt-up buildings (see Figure 3). Most of these laws were enacted after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Other Vulnerable Building Types Orange County Imperial County Riverside County Los Angeles County San Bernardino County Overall Tilt-Up Ventura County In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None 15 The most common interest currently is in retrofitting soft first-story buildings (see Fig - ure 4). Seven of the 191 cities are consider - ing or have taken action, including one city in Ventura County and six in Los Angeles County. Two cities have enacted mandato - ry programs, two have voluntary programs, and three are in discussion or working on developing a proposed program. In addi - tion, Los Angeles County is working on a vol - untary program and, if it is included in the county building code, it will apply to its con - tract cities. Because this is not yet clear, DL - JCSS marked the contract cities as being in discussion. Figure 4. Ordinances to address soft first-story construction for all six counties and individually by county. Imperial County Riverside County San Bernardino County Orange County Los Angeles County Ventura County Overall Soft First-Story In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None 2016 Safer Cities Survey Only two mandatory programs have been enacted for non-ductile concrete buildings (see Figure 5). Santa Monica enacted a mandatory program after the Northridge earthquake but has not achieved sig - nificant enforcement and is discussing moving for - ward with a new law to close that gap. The 2015 law in Los Angeles is the only recent action and requires retrofitting within 25 years. Downey’s pre-1957 building law shows up here. Long Beach and Bur - bank have voluntary programs from the 1990s, and West Hollywood and Beverly Hills are in discussion about enacting new programs. Figure 5. Ordinances to address non-ductile concrete buildings for all six counties and individually by county. Imperial County Riverside County San Bernardino County Orange County Los Angeles County Ventura County Overall Non-Ductile Concrete In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None 17 Progress is also noted in addressing issues seen in pre-1994 steel moment frames. The problem with cracks in steel moment frame buildings was discov - ered in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and most of the programs date from the 1990s (see Figure 6). Both Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County estab - lished programs mandating inspections and repairs of connections in buildings with cracked welds in ar - eas of high seismic shaking in the Northridge earth - quake. This did not include downtown Los Angeles. Santa Monica and Burbank established mandatory programs covering all steel moment frame buildings in their cities. West Hollywood and Beverly Hills are working now on several building types including steel moment frame. Figure 6. Ordinances to address steel moment frame buildings for all six counties and individually by county. Imperial County Riverside County San Bernardino County Orange County Los Angeles County Ventura County Overall Steel Moment Frame In Development Mandatory In Discussion None 2016 Safer Cities Survey A Back-to-Business or Building Occupancy Resumption Program (BORP) program speeds busi - ness resumption after an earthquake by having private structural engineers work with building owners and jurisdictions to develop a program for expedited building inspections after an earth - quake. Results include: • Yes. A program is in place. • No. Nothing has been discussed. • In development. Five jurisdictions have established such programs (see Figure 7). The programs have been enact - ed in four cities in three counties. Figure 7. Back-to-Business programs for all six counties and individually by county. Back-to-Business Programs Imperial County Riverside County San Bernardino County Orange County Los Angeles County Ventura County Overall Back-to-Business / BORP In Development Yes In Discussion No 19 Discussion T he vulnerable buildings considered in this study represent a significant threat to the lives and safety of their inhabitants. These buildings have the potential or even the likelihood of collapse in strong shaking. Communities would need to invento - ry hazardous buildings and adopt programs to retrofit or remove such buildings to avoid numerous injuries and fatalities in the in - evitable future earthquakes of southern California. As expected in disaster mitigation, most existing programs have been put in place in response to the occurrence of a damaging earthquake. Most of the URM ordinances were enacted in re - sponse to a State law that was itself triggered by two deaths in URMs in the 1983 Coalinga earthquake. The Northridge earth - quake led to several measures to address soft first-story, non-duc - tile concrete and steel moment frame buildings. There is a third wave in the last few years that for the first time is not tied to a recent earthquake. Two large cities, San Francisco (http://sfgov. org/esip/capss) and Los Angeles (https://www.lamayor.org/resil - ience-design-building-stronger-los-angeles), have taken action, successfully adopting mandatory programs with community sup - port, and other jurisdictions have taken notice. 2016 Safer Cities Survey Although the number of jurisdictions addressing many of these problems is small, it still represents a significant fraction of the population (see Figure 8). The actions of these jurisdictions is providing momentum for action. Many of the building officials contacted in this study expressed interest in knowing what other jurisdictions are doing and said they were looking for guidance in how they could address these issues. URM-Affected Population Soft First-Story-Affected Population Cripple Wall-Affected Population Steel Moment Frame-Affected Population Population Affected or Unaffected by Any Ordinance (Excluding URM)Population Non-Ductile Concrete-Affected Population Tilt-Up-Affected Population Back-to-Business/BORP Affected Population Not Applicable Mandatory Mandatory (Incomplete) Voluntary None In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None Affected Unaffected In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None In Development Yes In Discussion No Figure 8 21 ABOUT THE 2016 SAFER CITIES SURVEY Measuring Safer Cities Measuring the safety of cities by the extent to which local govern - ments have enacted ordinances or planned initiatives to address vulnerabilities of existing build - ings, the Safer Cities Survey is presented to help frame contin - ued conversations at all levels of engagement with regard to seismic hazards, building per - formance and community resil - ience. Prepared by the Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science and Society (DLJCSS), the Survey has assessed the status of vulnerability determi - nation and implementation of strengthen - ing strategies in place or planned within the survey area. While the safety of cities is a multifaceted topic, the anticipated viability of building structures to sustain occupancy, provide shelter, and support economic sta - bility following a devastating earthquake is a measurable component of a city’s ability to limit losses and recovery time. Mayor Eric Garcetti & Dr. Lucy Jones release "Resilience by Design" program. 2016 Safer Cities Survey Code Performance And Public Expectations From 1927, when the first consistent statewide building code was adopted, significant strides have been made in in - creasing the structural performance of buildings during earthquake events. However, nearly every exist - ing building gains little to no benefit from the continued code enhance - ments because current codes rare - ly require upgrades to buildings built in compliance with past codes. Instead, owners are most often left to decide how and when to implement upgrades, if any, to their structures. Even when upgrade requirements are triggered by current codes, the building can remain vulnera - ble, as compared to a new building, due to the fact that portions of the building continue to contain older methods of construction not conforming to current standards. This can be further exacerbat - ed by the need of building owners and ret - rofit designers to work within fixed bud - gets focused on enhancing a building’s performance while staying just below a threshold that may trigger mandated re - quirements. The result is a building inven - tory with non-uniform performance ob - jectives and capabilities. For city officials, policy makers, and emergency planners, this increases the difficulty of prioritiz - ing planning and response programs. For current and future building owners and tenants, this can result in unmatched ex - pectations with regard to long-term value and short-term recovery time of their buildings. "nearly every existing building gains little to no benefit from continued code enhancements" Building performance levels after an earthquake. A typical building designed per the current codes has a "life safety" standard that would prevent loss of life but would result in a damaged building. 23 Code Performance And Public Expectations Knowing A City’s Building Stock In the aftermath of recent devastating natural disasters, many in the structural engineering and city governing commu - nity recognize the need for better discus - sions regarding the ability, or potential lack thereof, of the built environment to sustain a community beyond life-safety goals established by the minimum stan - dards set forth in current building codes. In order to further these discussions, SEAOSC’s Safer Cities Survey initiative is intended to baseline our communities with regard to the status of active, pend - ing or planned (voluntary or mandato - ry) regulations addressing the most vul - nerable building types. Specifically, the Survey identifies unreinforced masonry, tilt-up concrete wall panel, non-ductile concrete, pre-Northridge steel moment frame, and wood soft-story conditions as building or structure types having the potential for significant losses in future earthquakes. Whether it be understand - ing the inability of unreinforced mason - ry to withstand out-of-plane flexure or in-plane shear forces resulting in lost support for elevated floors and roofs; the potential for sudden failure of concrete and steel moment frame connections resulting in excessive and dangerous build - ing drift; the possible loss of an - chorage of large concrete wall panels to the roofs of industrial or similar tilt-up buildings and resulting collapse of the wall panels and supported roof; or the potential for excessive drift and collapse of open front wood framed buildings; knowl - edge of the vulnerable building inventory within a community is a key component to address - ing the overall community risk and resil - ience. With this in mind, the Safer Cities Survey asks Cities if they have an active or planned program to assess the build - ing inventory to gauge the number and locations of potentially vulnerable build - ings. This is one of the first steps in de - veloping appropriate and prioritized risk mitigation and resilience strategies. Soft story buildings. Photo credit: Simpson Strong-Tie. 2016 Safer Cities Survey Rapid Business Recovery After An Earthquake Additionally, the Survey keys into City programs for timely restoration of occu - pancy to buildings. Some cities have es - tablished “Back-to-Business” or “Building Re-Occupancy” programs, creating part - nerships between private parties and the City to allow rapid review of buildings in concert with the City safety assessments. While City resources must be initially fo - cused on critical infrastructure and first response facilities, Back-to-Business pro - grams help ensure the economic viabil - ity of individual residents, business and ultimately the City itself, by allowing pri - vate parties to activate pre-qualified as - sessment teams, who became familiar with specific buildings to shorten evalu - ation time, to support city inspections. These key programs help define poten - tial timeframes of recovery and measure “safety and resilience of the city” as it re - lates to the ability to predict outcomes and plan sustainable community wellbe - ing. Image courtesy of SAFEq Institute / Structural Focus. BORP and B2B Timeline 25 SEAOSC is committed to remain an active participant in the continued conversa - tions on building resilient communities and, to that end, will update this Safer Cities Survey report with addi - tional information as it is gath - ered. The Association’s role is to provide independent technical and non-technical information for decision makers to use in as - sessing risks and developing risk mitigation and resilience strat - egies. To leverage this informa - tion, policy makers and building officials are encouraged to reach out to SEAOSC for input on ordinances or city programs that can be implement - ed towards building safer cities through setting effective performance objectives and resilient planning initiatives. Back- to-Business or Occupancy Resumption programs should be reviewed as effec - tive ways to partner with community businesses to alleviate immediate de - mands on limited city resources resulting in quicker recovery. Building owners and tenants are welcome to visit the Associ - ation’s website (www.seaosc.org) where they can learn more about specific risks, retrofit measures, and how to reach some of our 1000-plus members to be - gin the journey toward better perform - ing buildings. The SEAOSC office contact information is shown on the website and they may be contacted for more information. As mentioned in the President’s Message, Southern California is a region of great op - portunity. SEAOSC and its mem - bership is dedicated to sustain - ing these opportunities for all by helping local building officials and the general public survive and more quickly recover from tomorrow’s earth - quake through better building perfor - mance and resilient community planning today. SEAOSC Is A Resource For Owners And Policy Makers “quickly recover from tomorrow’s earthquake through better building performance and resilient community planning today” SEAOSC presents resources at the City of Los Angeles Seismic Retrofit Fair on April 7, 2016. 2016 Safer Cities Survey California Legislature. “The URM Law,” Section 8875 et seq., Government Code, California Statutes of1986, California Seismic Safety Commission. (1995). Northridge Earthquake Turning Loss to Gain. Retrieved from http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/cssc95-01/cssc5-01b-toc.pdf. California Seismic Safety Commission. (2006). Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law: 2006 Progress Report to the Legislature, Seismic Safety Commission SSC Report 2006-04. Retrieved September 15, 2014 from http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC%202006%20URM%20Report%20 Final.pdf City & County of San Francisco, Department of Building Inspection. (2014). BORP Guidelines for Engi - neers. Retrieved from http://sfdbi.org/borp-guidelines-engineers 52 City of Glendale. (2014). 20 Years after Northridge Earthquake Be: Ready with Glendale’s Back to Business Pro - gram. Retrieved from http://www.glendaleca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8/2129?arch=1 EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute), 2011, Scenario for a Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake on the Seat - tle Fault, Mark Stewart, ed., published by Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and Washington Military Department, Emergency Management Division. Jaiswal, Kishor S., Douglas Bausch, Rui Chen, Jawhar Bouabid, and Hope Seligson (2015) Estimating Annualized Earthquake Losses for the Conterminous United States. Earthquake Spectra: December 2015, Vol. 31, No. S1, pp. S221-S243. doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/010915EQS005M Jones, L. M., Bernknopf, R., Cox, D., Goltz, J., Hudnut, K., Mileti, D., Perry, S., Ponti, D., Porter, K., Reichle, M., Seligson, H., Shoaf, K., Treiman, J., and Wein, A., 2008. The ShakeOut Scenario: USGS Open File Report 2008- 1150 and California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of2008/1150 and http:// conservation.ca.gov/cgs, Sacramento, CA. Otani, Shunsuke (1999) RC Building Damage Statistics and SDF Response with Design Seismic Forces. Earth - quake Spectra: August 1999, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 485-501. doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/1.158605 Wein, Anne and Rose, Adam, (2011) Economic Resilience Lessons from the ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario. Earthquake Spectra: May 2011, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 559-573. doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/1.3582849 references 27 NOTES 2016 Safer Cities Survey NOTES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS SEAOSC and the DLJCSS would like to thank the following individuals for their time and contribution towards making the Safer Cities Survey possible: David Cocke, S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, Structural Focus John Duncan, DLJCSS Jeff Ellis, S.E., Simpson Strong-Tie Michelle Kam-Biron, S.E., SECB, American Wood Council Annie Kao, P.E., Simpson Strong-Tie Robert Lyons, S.E., Risha Engineering Kenneth O’Dell, S.E., MHP Inc Ron Takiguchi, P.E., CBO, City of Santa Monica. Victoria Wigle, S.E., DPR Construction David Williams, S.E., Degenkolb John Bwarie, Stratiscope Special thanks to the California Building Officials (CALBO) members and the SEAOC Foundation for their support. About SEAOSC The Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) is the premier professional organization to which local Structural Engineers belong. The organization serves its members in the noble profession of structural engineering by fostering and promoting the contributions of structural engineers to society. SEAOSC is a member-centric organization, where substance and image are equally promoted through fiscally responsible management and optimization of the benefits to the members. SEAOSC leadership and membership will strive to reach the ideals represented by the following five pillars of the association: membership value, image & advocacy, codes & standards, education, and legislative participation. www.seaosc.org. About the Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science and Society The Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science and Society was created in 2016 with a mission to foster the understanding and application of scientific information in the creation of more resilient communities. Working with both the public and private sectors, The Center will increase communities’ ability to adapt and be resilient to the dynamic changes of the world around them, and will help scientists become better communicators of their results and help decision-makers understand how they can partner with scientists and use results of scientific studies to make better informed decisions. www.drlucyjonescenter.org STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 437 S. Cataract Ave., #4-B San Dimas, CA 91773 Phone: 562-908-6131 Fax: 562-692-3425 Email: seaosc@seaosc.org Website: www.seaosc.org unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html[11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] Item 8-A Council Meeting: June 8, 1999 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Making Findings of Local Climatic, Geological and Topographical Conditions as Required to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Building Standards Code; and Adopt the California Building Standards Code, Santa Monica Amendments to The California Building Standards Code, Other Technical Codes, New Technical Standards for the Existing Seismic Retrofit Requirements; and Declare the Presence of Emergency INTRODUCTION This staff report explains the adoption process for building standards; why and how the City can amend these codes; and what amendments will benefit the City. This staff report recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution making findings of local climatic, geological and topographical conditions, which State law requires be adopted before the City can adopt local amendments to the California Building Standards Code (See Attachment A). This staff report also recommends introduction of the attached emergency ordinance that adopts the California Building Standards Code, other uniform technical codes, local amendments and new technical standards for the existing seismic retrofit requirements (See Attachment B). Background Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, the California Building Standards Code applies throughout the State of California. This set of building standards incorporates by reference various model codes with amendments created by interested State agencies. The California Building Standards Commission publishes these amended codes once every three years. One hundred and eighty days later, all cities and counties must follow these building standards unless the local jurisdiction makes any amendments. During the period between publication of the California Building Standards Code and mandatory local adoption, cities and counties may make amendments based on topographical, geological and climatic concerns. For amendments to be effective , the local governing body must make specific findings of any one of the aforementioned concerns, pass an ordinance adopting these amendments and file a copy of the express findings and local ordinance with the Building Standards Commission. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES The new issues before the Council for adoption include: clarification of administrative provisions for permits and appeals supplemental seismic safety requirements supplemental fire prevention requirements improvements in building security and pool fencing requirements new electrical requirements not regulated by the model codes Attachment A unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] new plumbing requirements to protect ground water and the Santa Monica Bay adoption of seismic retrofit standards authorization of new fees for projects subject to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act new property maintenance standards for existing buildings and structures REORGANIZATION OF CODES As part of the local adoption of the California Building Standards Code, the affected portions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code are reorganized to reduce the number of digits in all code references and match the majority format of our Code. Staff believes this will assist building inspectors and code compliance officers in citing code sections for notices of violation and citations. As part of this reorganization, new chapters of the Municipal Code have been created, but in most instances, the substantive provisions in these new chapters remain essentially the same as current law. Some previous local amendments may now be deleted because they are now included in the California Building Standards Code or other technical codes adopted by reference. These include low flush fixtures and some fire prevention requirements. Existing requirements for seismic retrofitting and damage repair for the Northridge Earthquake are also separated in the reorganization so that the new retrofit design standards can be incorporated without conflict. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS It is recommended that the City >s administrative regulations related to construction be amended in the following areas: Boards of Appeal, Required Permits, Building Permit Terms, Permit Fees, Permit Issuance, Suspension or Revocation, Building Address Numbers, Building Security Provisions, Pool Enclosures and Repair/Maintenance Requirements . Boards of Appeal Previous amendments to the 1994 Administrative Code created requirements and limits of authority for two appeals and advisory boards: the Building and Safety Commission and Accessibility Appeals Board. The new amendments will clarify the jurisdiction of each board in relation to the Nuisance Abatement Board. These amendments will give clear governing jurisdiction to the Nuisance Abatement Board for all items brought under abatement proceedings. They will also clarify the role of the Building and Safety Commission for appeals from all other technical codes except for issues of accessibility (See Section 8.08.020). Required Permits Current administrative provisions in the codes require a separate permit for each building. While this can be important when several main buildings exist on a site with different responsible parties, it is not germane to the large majority of permits. Most permits (.75%) relate to the construction or alteration of single family dwellings where all responsible parties are the same. The proposed amendment allows simplification of the permit process by authorizing the City to issue one permit for all related construction. This procedure will improve customer service and reduce the City =s costs of operation (See Section 8.08.040). Building Permit Terms In the past, the City experienced a number of situations where minimal construction work was performed under a building permit, and completion of the project stretched over a period of years. This practice raised a number of concerns. These include: unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] 1 . neighbors of such sites being impacted by the dust and noise of prolonged construction activity; 2 . safety issues associated with construction sites; 3 . extended visual and aesthetic impacts; 4 . changes in either building and planning codes since the permit was issued due to unique local conditions, resulting in concerns about public safety and consistency with community planning objectives. To address these issues, City Council approved regulations which establish maximum time limits to complete construction, with the amount of time varying based on permit valuation (see Section 8.08.060). This approach has proven to be effective and was modeled on standards used in both San Francisco's and Irvine =s building code. The time periods vary. Projects with higher permit valuations are allocated longer time periods to complete construction. In addition, three extensions of the time periods may be granted by the Building Official, providing additional flexibility to address special situations. This amendment renews existing law so that it applies to the latest version of the technical codes (See Section 8.08.060). Permit Fees The new State Seismic Hazard Mapping Act requires outside review of geotechnical and geologic reports for many of the City =s new construction projects. State administrative law requires the review of these reports by licensed geotechnical engineers and due to lack of such qualified staff, the City must contract for these services. The proposed amendment authorizes the City to charge fees based on their direct costs including administration and overhead. certain provisions are now being added to the administrative code to allow the City to recoup its reasonable costs as allowed in Health and Safety Code Section 17960.1(c) for review of geotechnical reports. New proposed changes in the fee structure should later require set fees for review of geotechnical reports. As in previous amendments, permit fees will not be set by adoption of the technical codes, but instead will be set by separate Council resolution (See Section 8.08.080). Suspension of Work Currently, the authority of the Building Officer to stop construction is mostly limited to errors in permit issuance or the failure to follow the technical codes. However, other violations of both Municipal and State law frequently occur during construction. These violations include excessive noise and failure to follow City required construction mitigation measures. The Uniform Administrative Code is silent on the ability of the Building Officer to suspend work or revoke a permit for violations such as these. To clarify intent of the City to enforce its own regulations, the proposed amendment will authorize the Building Officer to suspend or revoke a permit when City related construction requirements and standards are not being followed (See Section 8.08.070). Building Address Numbers Frequently, commercial buildings may use several numerical addresses. This practice poses two areas of concern. Without adequate restrictions, addresses can change over time for the same portion of a building. Addresses can also change to a different building on the same parcel. Reasonable rules are necessary to protect record integrity for building and land use approvals. Another area of concern is the ability to quickly identify a building for emergency services. When a building has several addresses, emergency personnel must often review addresses at each main entrance on one or more buildings to find the address in question. A remedy to these problems is to limit the address for any unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] main building to one main numeric address during its lifetime. This provision will only affect new buildings (See Section 8.08.140). Mobile Home Parks Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18300, the City may assume the responsibility for the enforcement of state building standards relating to mobilehome parks, and on November 11, 1961 the City Council adopted Resolution # 2536 by which the City assumed this responsibility. This Ordinance will continue that provision (See Section 8.08.110). Security Provisions The City =s current standards for security in commercial and residential buildings has not changed since adoption. More recent provisions in the technical codes for exit doors require corresponding changes in the City =s security provisions. These changes update test standards, increase strike plate safety and outlaw deadbolt locking mechanisms with key opening only from the inside. The proposed amendments will make the security provisions for residential buildings consistent with the Uniform Security Code and make all exit doors conform to the California Building Code (See Chapter 8.48). Pool Enclosure For a number of years, the City has required pool enclosures for any body of water 18 inches or deeper. Recently, State laws have changed regarding the height and nature of pool enclosures. The State also distinguishes between private pools and public pools. Under State law, private pools are bodies of water for swimming by up to three owners on a parcel. Public pools are all other pools. To ensure that City code is no less restrictive than State law, certain amendments and definitions must now be added to the pool enclosure requirements. These include requirements for heights no less than five feet for all pools as defined under State law and separate enclosure requirements for private and public pools. Public pools cannot open to private habitable space while private pools can with certain additional restrictions like pool covers, alarms or latches at certain heights. These requirements will now be added by reference to the appropriate State code (See Section 8.52.020). Repair and Maintenance Existing City code requirements for repair and maintenance are mostly limited to provisions for substandard residential buildings under the Housing Code (Chapter 8.92) and unsafe buildings of all types under the Dangerous Building Code (Chapter 8.88). While these code sections provide a remedy for serious problems, there are some important gaps that should be filled. Staff believes that the City is best served by requiring that repair work, past certain thresholds, meets current code requirements. Currently, Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapter 34, which was written in response to FEMA concerns, only addresses buildings damaged by a declared natural disaster. Adopting this appendix alone will not speak to the issue of repair of damage in the non-declared general case. Staff believes that the thresholds shown in the Appendix Chapter apply to all buildings in need of repair. This will ensure that aid is available to repair damaged structures from any source and that all property owners will have the same requirements for repair (See Section 8.84.040). LOCAL AMENDMENTS BASED ON FINDINGS The following are local amendments to the California Building Standards Code. Many of the Fire Safety amendments are identical to those previously adopted. Seismic retrofit amendments no longer require special findings because they are recognized by right in the California Building Code (Part 2 of the California unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] Building Standards Code). Seismic Safety The following amendments relate to the seismic safety provisions of the California Building Code. These amendments are necessary due to a number of unique local conditions outlined in Attachment A: Adopt the most current seismic provisions (1997) for steel frame buildings that incorporate the lessons learned to date from the Northridge Earthquake instead of the outdated Pre-Northridge reference standards (1992) in the California Building Code. Require improved connection of tile roofing to prevent slippage during earthquakes and the associated falling hazards. Require all masonry and concrete chimneys to be structurally designed by a licensed architect or registered engineer instead of by prescriptive rules that have allowed failed performance in recent earthquakes, including the Northridge Earthquake. Require the engineer or architect of record to verify that their structural designs are followed during construction. Establish Seismic Hazard Zones and Geologic Hazard Filled Area Zones to require special design requirements (See Section 8.04.100). Require adequate seismic bracing of fire sprinkler installations The seismic retrofit provisions for the protection of existing automatic fire sprinkler systems are based upon experience from the Northridge quake. The new provision addresses those components of fire sprinkler systems that contributed to the failure of fire sprinkler systems as a result of the earthquake. The goal is for all fire sprinkler systems to remain intact and to be fully operational following a major quake. The new provisions address mechanical couplings, means of attachment, and other components that can be replaced or repaired in advance of a seismic event (see Chapters 8.16 and 8.20 and Section 8.44.120). Fire Safety The amendments to the California Building and Fire Codes are necessary for a number of unique local conditions as outlined in Attachment A. In order to address climatic, topographical and geological conditions that place demands on emergency services, the City has adopted Supplemental Fire and Safety Prevention Requirements for a number of years, including a fire sprinkler requirement that applies to all new construction. The fire sprinkler amendments are necessary because in the event of an earthquake or other major disaster, the Fire Department must depend on built-in fire suppression systems to extinguish or limit fires in those structures so that they do not spread to the older structures. This reduces the potential demand from simultaneous incidents on emergency services resources. The following are the local amendments: Continue to require automatic fire extinguishing and detection systems in all new construction and when there is a change in use to a higher classification (See Section 8.44.050). Continue to require compliance with the high-rise provisions of the California Building Code in new high unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] rise buildings with human occupancy above 55 feet of the lowest level of fire vehicle access point in accordance with authority granted to the City in the California Health and Safety Code Section 13216 (See Section 8.44.090). Continue to require automatic fire sprinkler systems for existing public assembly spaces above 5,000 square feet that protect assembly areas and exit ways (See Section 8.44.050). Continue to require the connection with control valves on each floor level with full automatic sprinkler systems in any new building with floors more than 55 feet in height (See Section 8.44.090). Continue to prohibit the use of non-fire retardant wood shingles or non-fire retardant wood shakes for new or replacement roofing and require a moderate level of fire retardant roofing as a minimum standard. (See Section 8.44.140). Require adequate seismic bracing of fire sprinkler installations (see Section 8.44.120). ELECTRICAL CODE AMENDMENTS The enactment of local amendments to the California Electrical Code are necessary for a number of unique local conditions. The California Electrical Code does not address electrical safety requirements for non- construction related electrical equipment, including portable electrical equipment and machinery. The unregulated use of such equipment poses a potential safety hazard to citizens and property in Santa Monica by increasing the risk of fire. Based upon the local conditions outlined in Attachment A, it is necessary to enact local amendments to the electrical code to ensure fire safety and prevent accidents from electrical procedures and appliances. The local amendments include the following: Ensure that any wiring not having metal protection over the conductors shall be entirely concealed within the building structure to prevent and inhibit tampering and restrict the use of aluminum wiring found to be hazardous (see Section 8.24.030). Prohibit the sale and use of any electrical material, device, or equipment unless it complies with provisions of this section, including rating and conformance with national standards (see Section 8.24.040). Provide regulations for temporary service poles used on construction sites (see Section 8.24.060) Provide regulations for underground concrete vaults and handholes (see Section 8.24.070). MECHANICAL CODE The amendments to the California Mechanical Code are necessary for a number of unique local conditions as detailed earlier in Attachment A. As a result, it is necessary to enact local amendments to the mechanical code to ensure fire safety and prevent loss of support of grease ducts. The local amendments include the following: Provide sufficient gage support of grease ducts during earthquakes (see Section 8.28.030). Require the use of Type I fire protective hoods for all cooking ovens that cook food with grease (see unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] Section 8.28.040). PLUMBING CODE The enactment of local amendments to the California Plumbing Code are necessary for a number of unique local conditions as outlined in Attachment A. Based upon the local conditions outlined above, along with the local conditions related to fire risk detailed earlier in the staff report, it is necessary to enact local amendments to the California Plumbing Code to reduce consumption of scarce water resources and ensure fire safety by preventing accidents from pressure gas systems and preserving local water supplies. The local amendments include the following: Require initial approval and more thorough inspection of medium pressure gas installation to prevent potentially hazardous and confusing systems for emergency services which could result in fire hazards if not properly installed (see Section 8.32.030). Prohibit water softener systems from using drywells to discharge effluents in order to protect local ground water and the Santa Monica Bay (see Section 8.32.040). (This standard is already used by the City of Santa Clarita and is a proposed amendment for the Los Angeles Regional Code Adoption Program). Prohibit the use of combined storm drain and sewers to prevent the possible future contamination of the Santa Monica Bay (see Section 8.32.050). SEISMIC RETROFIT STANDARDS The California Building Code is a set of building standards whose primary use is for the design and construction of new structures. Because it dedicates only one chapter to existing buildings, this code does not speak to the unique engineering challenges presented during the repair or rehabilitation of buildings. These challenges include equivalency of alternatives and the extent of repair required to meet the intent of the code. State law, in recognizing these facts, mandated all cities and counties to use the Uniform Code for Building Conservation (U.C.B.C.), Appendix 1 for the seismic rehabilitation of structures with unreinforced masonry bearing walls. This code gives alternative values for materials no longer allowed in the current California Building Code. The most current edition of the U.C.B.C. now also gives guidance for the retrofit of concrete tilt-up buildings. The next edition, due to be published in September 1999, will also include retrofit standards for non-ductile concrete and soft story apartments. These standards are essentially complete and are proposed as the retrofit standards to be adopted by this ordinance. Modifications are made to the language of these standards to accommodate the mandatory status. Because the City already has mandatory retrofit programs for its seismically vulnerable structures, it is now necessary to adopt standards that reflect achievable goals for these existing buildings. These standards were developed in concert with and by the Structural Engineer =s Association of California (SEAOC). SEAOC is responsible for developing the earthquake regulations that appear in the Uniform Building Code. Their experience in creating and their support in adopting these standards will ensure that the retrofit standards are thorough, achievable and will meet the City =s intent to protect the life safety of its citizens during unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] earthquakes. Certain administrative features are being added to the existing requirements to enhance their implementation. These features include: improving definitions of the building types affected requiring all alteration permits to include the retrofit work unless minor in nature recording notices on properties so that future owners will understand their obligation to retrofit the building they are buying making it unlawful to occupy buildings that do not meet their obligations within the time periods allowed. Unreinforced Masonry Buildings In addition to the aforementioned amendments, new requirements are added to better define the strength of existing unreinforced masonry walls. Tests of existing walls are already required and this amendment will better define the test procedure. This codification of the test procedure will ensure that the strength values reported for unreinforced masonry walls are not overestimated (see Chapter 8.60). Concrete and Reinforced Masonry Buildings The existing retrofit requirements address only one class of building in which heavy walls are attached to a flexible roof: concrete tilt-up buildings. The proposed amendments will include reinforced masonry and poured in place concrete wall buildings when they have the same inadequate roof connections. As was demonstrated during the Northridge Earthquake, heavy mass walls, whether concrete or masonry, will accelerate away from lighter flexible roofs unless adequate connections exist. Adding the small number of buildings included in these two other classes, will ensure that all building types with this structural weakness are addressed. This will implement the legislative intent of the original ordinance to protect public safety and welfare and reduce the associated demand for emergency services. One other important amendment is to change the year of construction for affected buildings. After the Sylmar Earthquake, roof connections for these buildings were first improved in the 1976 Uniform Building Code. As a result, most retrofit standards before the Northridge Earthquake, referenced pre-1976 construction as problematic. However, other important code requirements have changed for these structures and their connections. In 1991, the Uniform Building Code increased the strength requirement of connections fifty percent for the middle portion of the roof structure based on actual acceleration readings of wood roofs in buildings during an earthquake. The roof accelerated more than the ground itself in a whiplash-type motion. This important finding must be considered in the retrofit of buildings and in determining which buildings need to be included in the scope of the mandatory requirements (see Chapter 8.64). Wood Frame- Unbolted Houses and Small Apartment Buildings One new voluntary retrofit standard is being added to the municipal code. Chapter 8.68 addresses the need to bolt down pre-1940 houses to their foundations and strengthen the weak walls that support raised floor construction. This retrofit standard is essentially the same as the draft version of Appendix 6 of the Uniform unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] Code for Building Conservation, 2000 Edition. This chapter will set provisions for the number of bolts, plywood sheathing and other connections that will meet the intent of the current building code provisions for proper connection of a small wood frame dwelling to its supports. The strengthening provisions of this new chapter will be followed when homeowners elect to retrofit their buildings voluntarily (see Chapter 8.68). Soft Story Buildings Current provisions for Soft Story Buildings include all buildings that have a soft story as defined in the Uniform Building Code. As stated, this scope would include all building types. However, the original intent of these provisions was to address certain types of wood frame buildings that were damaged during the Northridge Earthquake. The proposed amendments to the existing provisions will better identify the type of building targeted and provide the scope of work necessary to comply with the required retrofit work. The retrofit standard is from the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, 2000 draft Edition and has the support of both the engineering and regulatory community. The standard is the result of extensive study of wood frame buildings damaged during the Northridge Earthquake, including the Northridge Meadows Apartment complex. The retrofit standard identifies the most vulnerable portions of these building types and cost-effective means to strengthen them. The provisions are meant to preserve life safety and reduce the risk of loss of occupancy. The City of Los Angeles has already adopted this standard in its building code; Santa Monica =s Building Officer was instrumental in the development of this national standard (see Chapter 8.72). Non-Ductile Concrete Current scope provisions include all existing concrete buildings, whether of precast or cast-in-place construction. Such width of scope lumps together buildings designed with current code provisions with others that have little ability to absorb earthquake forces. Amendment to these existing provisions will better identify the targeted buildings and set a standard for their strengthening. There are several retrofit standards for non-ductile concrete structures. These include FEMA 273-NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, ATC-40, State of California =s IV-R and Division 95 of the Los Angeles Building Code. The Uniform Code for Building Conservation will soon publish its year 2000 Edition. One new chapter, Appendix Chapter 8, will combines the best of the different approaches. This standard was created by the Structural Engineers Association of California and is recommended as the base document (see Chapter 8.80). Steel Frame Buildings Except for the aforementioned administrative provisions added, only one amendment is proposed to the existing regulations for steel frame structures. This amendment recognizes the newest FEMA guideline as produced by the SAC Joint Venture (see Chapter 8.76). BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct budget and financial impact to the City of adopting the 1998 California Building Standards Code and local amendments. As a result of the standards for seismic and fire life safety, the approval of this ordinance will increase costs of construction and repair to certain structures, including City-owned structures. The specific costs and cost sharing arrangements for City structure repairs that might be mandated by the standards are not known at this time. Council will have the opportunity to review such costs and cost sharing arrangements when repair contracts are agendized. unsaved:///newpage10.htm http://www.smgov.net/departments/council/agendas/1999/19990608/s1999060808-A.html [11/29/2016 11:28:17 AM] RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1 . Adopt the attached resolution making findings of local climatic, geological and topographical conditions as required to adopt local amendments to the California Building Standards Code. 2 . Adopt the California Building Standards Code, Santa Monica amendments to the California Building Standards Code, other technical codes and new technical standards for the existing seismic retrofit requirements. Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development Tim McCormick, Building Officer Jim Hone, Fire Marshal Steve Locati, Assistant Fire Marshal Attachment A: Resolution making findings of local climatic, geological and topographical conditions as required to adopt local amendments to the California Building Standards Code Attachment B: Ordinance adopting the California Building Standards Code and adopting the Santa Monica Amendments to the California Building Standards Code 1 Los Angeles and San Francisco Recently Adopted Retrofit Programs The Following Information is from the Seismic O rdinance of California Web Site www.seismicordinances.com LOS ANGELES Los Angeles currently has a mandatory retrofit program for two vulnerable buildings types: 1) Soft Story and 2) Non -Ductile Concrete. Following is a summary of those programs. 1. Wood -Frame Soft -Story Structures The city of Los Angeles Ordinance #18 3893 is effective as of November 22, 2015. Scope Los Angeles’ mandatory wood -frame soft -story program applies to existing buildings that have the following characteristics: • Wood -frame construction • Construction permit was applied for prior to January 1, 1978 • Four or more dwelling units • Ground floor containing parking or similar open floor or basement space causing soft, weak, or open lines where there exists at least one or more levels above Building officials have identified approximately 13,500 buildin gs in the city of Los Angeles that fall within the scope of this ordinance. As of April 2016, the preliminary inventory of wood - frame soft -story apartments (download the list ) and condominiums (download the list ) has been made public by the Los Angeles Depa rtment of Building and Safety (LADBS). Timeline The city of Los Angeles requires that wood -frame soft -story building retrofits adhere to the timeline shown below. It is expected that notices to building owners will be delivered within the first 1.5 years following the ordinance’s approval in November 2015. The notice is intended to provide a description of the ordinance and additional guidance. Following delivery of notices, an official order to comply is issued to owners of buildings that fall within the scope of the ordinance. Once the order to comply has been received, the subsequent deadlines are initiated. It is important to note that notices and orders will be delivered in phases according to the priority level of the structure. Attachment C 2 MILESTONES REQUIRE MENTS BEGIN PROCESS Order to comply received by building owner 1 YEAR AFTER ORDER Submit one of the following: 1. Proof that structure meets ordinance requirements OR 2. Plans for retrofit OR 3. Plans for demolition 2 YEARS AFTER ORDER Obtain one of the following: 1. Permit for rehabilitation OR 2. Permit for demolition 7 YEARS AFTER ORDER Complete one of the following: 1. Construction/retrofit OR 2. Demolition Priority Designations The Los Angeles wood -frame soft -story ordinance will be carried out in phases. The timeline for compliance for each unique structure begins following service distribution of the order from the LADBS. Orders will be issued according to the priority levels outlined below. Priority I Buildings with 16 or more dwelling units Priority II Buildings with three or more stories with fewer than 16 dwelling units Priority III Buildings with fewer than three stories and fewer than 16 dwelling units 3 2. Non -Ductile Concrete Structures On October 13, 2015, the city of Los Angeles passed Ordinance #183893, which includes the L os A nageles Non -Ductile Reinforced Concrete Ordinance Scope Los Angeles’ mandatory non -ductile concrete ordinance applies to existing buildings that have the following characteristics: • Reinforced concrete construction • Construction permit was applied for prior to January 13, 1977 This ordinance excludes detached single -family dwellings and detached duplexes. It is currently estimated that approximately 1,500 buildings in the city of Los Angeles fall within the scope of this ordinance. Timeline The city of Los Angeles requires that non -ductile concrete building retrofits adhere to the timeline shown below. The timeline is similar to that of the wood -frame soft -story retrofit mandates; however, longer time allowances were established between actio n items. It is expected that notices to building owners will be delivered within the first 1.5 years following the ordinance’s approval in November 2015. The notice is intended to provide a description of the ordinance and additional guidance. Following n otification, an official order to comply is issued to owners of buildings that fall within the scope of the ordinance. Once the order to comply has been received, the subsequent deadlines are initiated. MILESTONES REQUIREMENTS BEGIN PROCESS Order to comply received by building owner 3 YEARS AFTER ORDER Submit one of the following: 1. Proof that structure meets ordinance requirements OR 2. Plans for retrofit OR 3. Plans for demolition 10 YEARS AFTER ORDER Obtain one of the following: 1. Permit for re habilitation OR 2. Permit for demolition 25 YEARS AFTER ORDER Complete one of the following: 1. Construction/retrofit OR 2. Demolition 4 SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco currently has a mandatory retrofit program only for Soft Story buildings only. San Francisco established its mandatory wood -frame soft -story program in April 2013. Building owners with properties affected by this ordinance were notified beginning in September 2013. Scope San Francisco’s mandatory wood -frame soft -story program applie s to existing buildings that have the following characteristics: • Wood -frame construction • Ground floor containing parking or similar open floor or basement space causing soft, weak, or open wall lines • Permitted for construction prior to January 1, 1978 • Thre e or more stories (or two stories over a basement or an underfloor area with any portion above grade) • Five or more dwelling units Building Tiers San Francisco has established building -tier classifications to prioritize retrofit efforts in order of the ap parent risk associated with damage to the structure based on occupant load. This classification (Tier I, II, III, or IV) determines the timeline for conformance as shown below. Tier I Buildings that contain a Group A (assembly), Group E (educational), Grou p R - 2.1, R -3.1, or R -4 (residential) occupancy on any story Tier II Buildings with 15 or more dwelling units, except for buildings assigned to Tier I or IV Tier III Buildings that do not fall within the definition of another tier Tier IV Buildings that contain a Group B (business) or Group M (mercantile) occupancy on the first story or in a basement area with any portion extending above grade, and buildings that are in mapped liquefaction zones, except those assigned to Tier I 5 Timeline The timeline (shown in years) for this program is dependent upon the compliance tier (I –IV) established for each wood -frame soft -story building. MILESTONES REQUIREMENTS PROCESS BEGINS Ordinance passed 90 DAYS Timeline initiates 1 YEAR Deadline to submit screening form and optional form (all tiers) 2 YEARS Deadline to submit permit application with retrofit plans (Tier I) 3 YEARS Deadline to submit permit application with retrofit plans (Tier II) 4 YEARS Completion of work (Tier I) Deadline to submit permit appli cation with retrofit plans (Tier III) 5 YEARS Completion of work (Tier II) Deadline to submit permit application with retrofit plans (Tier IV) 6 YEARS Completion of work (Tier III) 7 YEARS Completion of work (Tier IV) DECEMBER 31, 2020 Final deadline for completion of all work for which extensions were issued Vulnerable Building Type Criteria Requiring Mandatory Seismic Review • Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (“URM ”) Built Before January 1, 1975, including buildings that have been retrofitted and utilize masonry brick where the wall thickness is the width of a single brick supports a brick wall of 10 feet or more. These URM cases, whether previously retrofitted or not, will have to perform analysis of the building. • Concrete or Reinforced Masonry Buildings with Flexible Diaphragms or Concrete Tilt -Ups (“Concrete Tilt -Ups”) Built Before January 1, 1994 . • Soft, Weak, Open Front Wall Buildings (“Soft Story”) where the building was built under building code standards enacted before January 1, 1978, and where the ground floor portion of the structu re contains parking or other s imilar open floor space and there exists more than one s tory . Also included are Soft Story Buildings of three and four stories with an irregular structure that essentially is not "rectangular" or "box -shaped" in design. An e xample of an irregular structure is a building that is shaped like a "letter" such as a "U" or "L" shaped building. Under the proposed technical standards, irregular three or four story soft story buildings, whether previously retrofitted or not will requ ire analysis of the building. • Non -Ductile Concrete Buildings (“Non -Ductile Concrete ”) Where the Building was Built Under Building Code Standards Enacted before January 13, 1977 • Welded Steel Moment Frame Buildings (“Steel Moment Frame”) Where the Building was Built Under Building Code Standards Enacted Before December 1995 Attachment D Comparison of Proposed Deadlines for Santa Monica (SM) with Los Angeles (LA) and San Francisco (SF) Potentially Seismically Vulnerable Buildings Type Structural Evaluation Report Due Buildings Permits Must be Obtained Within Retrofit Must be Completed Within SM LA SF SM LA SF SM LA SF Unreinforced Masonry Buildings 3 Months n/a n/a 12 Months n/a n/a 24 Months n/a n/a Concrete Tilt -Up Buildings 4 Months n/a n/a 18 Months n/a n/a 36 Months n/a n/a Soft -Story Buildings 24 Months 12 Months 12 Months 42 Months 24 Months 24 -36 Months * 72 Months 84 Months 48 -84 Months * Non -Ductile Concrete Buildings 36 Months 36 Months n/a 78 Months 120 Months n/a 120 Months 300 Months n/a Steel Moment Frame Buildings 36 Months n/a n/a 180 Months n/a n/a 240 Months n/a n/a *San Francisco has established multiple deadlines for Soft -Story buildings depending on certain characteristics or combination of characteristics of a building , such as whether they are an assembly or educational facility, 15 or more stories, or if it is a building in a liquefaction zone. Attachment E Proposed Noticing Schedule Building Type Categories Start Date of Sending Notices Approximate Quantity C ompliance Dates - Evaluation Report Due Compliance Date - Retrofit Complete URM May 1, 2017 200 Aug -Oct 2017 (3 Months) Aug -Oct 2019 (2 Years) Concrete Tilt Up Ju ly 1 0 , 2017 30 Nov 2017 (4 Months) Nov 2020 (3 Years) Soft Story - >2 Stories July 24 , 2017 4 0 0 July -Aug 2018 (1 year) July -August 2023 (6 years) Soft Story - 16 or more units October 16 , 2017 60 Oct -Nov 2018 (1 year) August -October 2023 (6 years) Non -Ductile Concrete October 16 , 201 7 70 Oct 2020 (3 Years) Oct 202 7 (10 Years) Steel Moment Frame October 1 6, 2017 80 Oct 202 0 (3 Years) Oct 2037 (20 Years) Soft Story – 2 Stories, 7 to 15 Units November 27 , 201 7 3 00 N ov 2018 -Feb 2019 (1 Year) Nov 2020 -Feb 2021 (3 Years ) Soft Story – 2 Stories, <7 Units February 19 , 2018 300 Feb -Apr 2019 (1 Year) Feb -Apr 2024 (6 Year) May 7 , 2018 300 May -Jul 2019 (1 Year) May -Jul 2024 (6 Year) August 6 , 2018 300 Aug -Oct 2019 (1 Year) Aug -Oct 2024 (6 Year) Attachment F Ci ty Council Report City Council Meeting: March 1, 2016 Agenda Item: 3.J 1 of 8 To: Mayor and City Council From: Dean Kubani, Sustainability Manager , Office of Sustainability & the Environment (CMO) Subject: Adopt Resolutions to Authorize Additional Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) providers Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council: 1.Adopt resolutions authorizing additional Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs through the following joint powers authorities: California Home Finance Authority, California Enterprise Development Authority, California Muni cipal Finance Authority, and California Statewide Communities Development Authority. 2.Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and enter into member agreements with the following Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs): California Home Finance Authority and Cali fornia Enterprise Development Authority. Executive Summary The Office of Sustainability and the Environment is responsible for helping the City of Santa Monica meet established targets for energy reduction and greenhouse gas emissions as outlined in 15 x 15 Climate Action Plan, adopted by Council in 2013 (Attachment A). To help residents and businesses find ways to reduce their energy use, Council authorized Santa Monica’s participation in the Home Energy Renovation Opportunity (HERO) in 2013. HERO is a provider of services and resources that connect home and building owners with incentives and rebates through Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. Staff would like to authorize five additional PACE service providers to operate in Santa Monica. Authorizing more PACE providers would offer multiple competitive financing mechanism options that provide benefits for residential and commercial property owners Attachment G 2 of 8 and the City with minimal resource impacts on the City. In addition to improvements related to e nergy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation, several providers are eligible to provide financing for seismic retrofit projects. This powerful financing tool will enable the City to encourage seismic upgrades before and after a mandatory ordin ance is adopted. In order to authorize additional PACE providers, the City must be a member of the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that oversees the PACE providers’ operations and adopt a resolution to authorize the PACE provider to operate within the City. S taff are proposing to authorize five PACE providers operating under four JPAs. Santa Monica is already a member of two JPA’s and therefore, staff recommends that Council join the remaining two JPA’s and authorize all five PACE providers. Background The PA CE financing mechanism was first conceived in 2001, and allows property owners to fund energy and water efficiency, renewable energy, and seismic retrofit projects with no up -front costs. When a PACE program is authorized, a municipality or county may form special tax districts or join designated joint power authorities with authorized PACE providers to help property owners finance these projects. Participating property owners repay the cost of the improvements through an assessment levied against their pro perties, which is payable in semi -annual installments on property tax bills. A lien is filed against the property as security until the assessment is re -paid. The assessment remains with the property should the owner transfer or sell the property before th e loan is re -paid. On July 13 th , 2010 Council authorized participation in the Los Angeles County Energy Program (LACEP) which, at the time had only offered financing to commercial property owners. On November 12 th , 2013, Council adopted a resolution to join Western Riverside Council of Governments’ (WRCOG) under its JPA authority thereby enabling the HERO PACE program to operate in the City of Santa Monica. Since the authorization of HERO in Santa Monica, 32 residential property owners have had solar pho tovoltaic and water 3 of 8 and energy efficiency projects approved for PACE financing. 17 projects have been completed thus far, valuing $495,000 in total. In sum, the projects will provide $591,000 in energy savings and $14,900 in water savings. In terms of a li fetime reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 849 tons will be abated from the currently completed projects. Discussion PACE providers assist property owners with funding and consumer protections, and support contractors with certification, marketing, and administrative software. They are facilitated by large JPAs that offer the program only to their member agencies, after being authorized by official resolutions to do so. JPAs provide all assessment administration, bond issuance and bond administration fu nctions for PACE programs. As a participant in a JPA, the City is not obligated to repay the bonds issued by the authority, or collect or pay the assessments levied on the participating properties. PACE financing addresses two key issues that often preven t property owners from installing energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy projects: 1. PACE eliminates the need for property owners to pay out of pocket up -front costs for improvements. 2. PACE establishes a loan obligation that is attach ed to the property and not to the individual borrower. The availability of PACE financing supports the local economy by creating energy retrofit jobs and stimulating construction activities. Energy retrofit improvements to existing buildings in the City w ill allow property owners to reduce energy and water use as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Participating property owners reduce operating costs for electricity, natural gas and water and improve the comfort and safety of their homes and businesses. Inc reasing renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements in the City is a critical component of the 15x15 Climate Action Plan adopted by City Council in February 2013. Currently, there are ten PACE providers operating throughout California. The five ad ditional PACE vendors being recommended by staff are the only vendors that operate 4 of 8 statewide programs and are eligible to operate in the City of Santa Monica. The five vendors are Ygrene, Figtree, Alliance NRG, CaliforniaFIRST and Energy Efficient Equity. The other five companies operate within specific jurisdictions and are not available to Santa Monica or LA County. Many other jurisdictions have seen an increase in solar energy and energy efficiency installations once PACE financing is made available. Ygr ene, Figtree, Alliance NRG, and CaliforniaFIRST are all listed by the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) as prominent PACE providers operating in the region. Below is a description of each provider: 1. Ygrene Energy Fund (“Ygrene”) is a PACE adminis trator facilitated by the California Home Finance Authority (CHFA), a Joint Powers Authority established in 1993. The City is not a member of CHFA, and would therefore need Council approval to become a member in addition to authorizing Ygrene. Ygrene curre ntly operates in the states of Florida and California, and allows for financing of both residential and commercial renewable energy generation, energy and water efficiency improvement, and seismic strengthening projects. From projects in both states, Ygren e has helped to save $1.3 billion in energy costs and 2.8 billion gallons of water, and has created 9,700 new jobs. Most recently in California, the cities of Los Angeles and Poway adopted Ygrene as a PACE provider on September 22 nd and October 20 th , 2015, respectively. 2. Figtree is a PACE administrator facilitated by the California Enterprise Development Authority (CEDA), a JPA with a current membership of 40 cities and 21 counties. The City is not currently a member of CEDA, and would therefore need Cou ncil approval to become a member in addition to authorizing Figtree. Figtree allows for financing of commercial renewable energy, energy and water efficiency improvement, and seismic retrofit projects. The program’s residential financing mechanism planning is currently underway. 3. Energy Efficient Equity (“E3”) is a PACE administrator facilitated by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA), a JPA designed to assist local governments, non -profit organizations and business with financing economic de velopment projects throughout California. Specifically, E3 provides program design, consulting, and turnkey administration for energy efficiency and 5 of 8 renewable energy generation projects, for both residential and commercial properties. The City is currently a member of the CMFA JPA, thus, Council would only need to authorize E3 to operate within Santa Monica. 4. Alliance NRG is a PACE administrator facilitated by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), the largest Joint Powers Aut hority in the state of California. Alliance NRG offers PACE financing for residential and commercial energy and water efficiency, renewable energy generation, and seismic strengthening projects statewide. Alliance NRG provides PACE financing for the City a nd County of San Francisco’s Earthquake Safety Implementation Program. Alliance NRG is one of the two major PACE programs provided by the CSCDA, under the JPA’s greater OPEN PACE initiative. By authorizing multiple providers, OPEN PACE enables local jurisd ictions to benefit from one authorization. The City is currently a member of the CSCDA, thus, Council would only need to authorize OPEN PACE. 5. CaliforniaFIRST is a PACE administrator also facilitated by the California Statewide Communities Development Au thority (CSCDA). CaliforniaFIRST offers PACE financing for residential and commercial energy and water efficiency, renewable energy generation, and seismic strengthening projects statewide. CaliforniaFIRST is the other of the two major PACE programs provid ed by the CSCDA, under the JPA’s greater OPEN PACE initiative. By authorizing multiple providers, OPEN PACE enables local jurisdictions to benefit from one authorization. The City is currently a member of the CSCDA, thus, Council would only need to authori ze OPEN PACE. Authorizing multiple PACE providers to operate within the City of Santa Monica would provide additional benefits to the property owners, including: Competition: Additional PACE providers would compete to provide the best service and rates for property owners. Property owners would have more financing options and the ability to shop for their desired price and service. Seismic retrofits: The current HERO program in Santa Monica does not provide financing for seismic retrofits. Four of the five proposed PACE providers allow for 6 of 8 seismic retrofit project financing (Ygrene, Figtree, Alliance NRG and CaliforniaFIRST). With seismic retrofits aimed at increasing resilience of buildings garnering increasing interest from both residential and commer cial property owners, PACE financing will become increasingly attractive. Examples of such retrofit projects include strengthening of soft -story buildings, non -ductile concrete buildings, non -ductile welded steel -framed buildings, unreinforced masonry buil dings, concrete tilt -up buildings, and the bracing and bolting of building foundations in single family dwellings. Increased impact: The HERO program has already shown success in providing financial and greenhouse gas emissions savings during its two yea rs in Santa Monica. The addition of more PACE providers would provide more opportunity for property owners to save money and add to the City’s sustainability. Loan loss reserve: Some PACE providers participate in risk mitigation vehicles such as Californ ia’s PACE Loss Reserve Program (“the Program”), which allows for loan loss reserve. In 2013, seeking to address the concerns of mortgage lenders who opposed the fact that PACE loans were senior to mortgage loans, the State enacted SB 96 directed the Califo rnia Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA) to develop the $10 million Program, which mitigates the potential risk to mortgage lenders associated with residential PACE financing. Specifically, it makes first -time mortg age lenders whole for any losses in a forced sale or foreclosure that are attributable in any way to a PACE -related lien. Effectively, it aims to put first -time mortgage lenders in the same position they would be in without a PACE lien. As of November 2015 , 36,729 PACE financings with a total principal value of $810,164,896 are enrolled in the Program. Currently, HERO, Ygrene, Alliance NRG, and CaliforniaFIRST participate in the Program. Should the resolutions be adopted, the legal counsels of all five PAC E programs would begin a process of judicial validation to: ensure the JPA has the legal approval to provide its services and issue debt to finance valid PACE assessments; and to ensure that any local government is protected from all liability associated w ith JPA 7 of 8 assessments and that, despite future changes in related law, the assessments that have been placed are secure and valid. During that time, City staff would begin to inform property owners and contractors of the pending availability of PACE financin g. The City, in partnership with the providers, would begin education, outreach and marketing to raise awareness to the community. Marketing and outreach material templates will be provided by the program at no charge for use by the City in its own promoti on of the program within the community. The City will provide additional marketing and outreach about the program to Santa Monica residents and businesses through the ongoing activities of the Solar Santa Monica program. Alternatives If the City Council w as to take no action, LACEP and HERO would remain as the only two PACE providers for commercial and residential property owners. Alternatively, property owners could utilize other existing financing options for renewable energy, energy and water efficiency , and electric vehicle charging installation projects, including home equity loans, business lines of credit, and consumer credit. Financing for energy efficiency is also available through the Energy Upgrade California Program. Additionally, financing plan s, leases, and power purchase agreements (PPAs) are commonly offered by solar installation companies. Currently, there are no financing options available to property owners related to seismic retrofit other than PACE. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There are no direct financial impacts associated with adoption of these resolutions. With the process of permitting more PACE providers, local government agencies in general bear no costs for setup or implementation. All PACE administrative costs are cover ed through an initial administrative fee included in the property owner’s voluntary contractual assessment and an annual administrative fee which is also collected on the property owner’s tax bill. The amount charged from the fees varies per PACE provider. Prepared By: Garrett Wong, Sustainability Analyst 8 of 8 Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. July 13, 2010 Staff Report to Council - Adoption of Res olution Authorizing Participation in the Los Angeles County Energy Program B. November 12, 2013 Staff Report to Council - Resolution Authorizing Participation in the California HERO Program C. CMFA Authority Resolution D. CSCDA Authority Resolution E. CEDA Authority Resolution F. CFHA Authortiy Resolution G. Authority Resolution H. CEDA (Figtree) Membership Agreement I. CHFA (Ygrene) Membership Agreement 1 Vernice Hankins From:Hank Koning <hkoning@kearch.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:19 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:City Council Agenda item 4 - Siesmic Study Session Mayor, Council Members, I am pleased to see Santa Monica is updating its seismic retrofit ordinance. Safety is most important and the costs of seismic damage can be enormous. As such the City needs to do as much as possible to make undertaking the seismic upgrade work as easy and efficient as possible especially those involving housi ng. Here is a typi cal rent controlled multifamily building that has I believe a soft story condition. I don’t know for certain until “the List” is available, but it sure looks like a soft story condition. And I am not in any way affiliated with this building or representing the owner but rat her using this as a simple case study. The soft stor y exists at the garage level where there is insufficient lateral resistance to prevent the structure being pushed over in an earthquake. The typical solution to this is to add some steel moment frames to one or more of the door openings such as this: Item 4-A 12/06/2016 1 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 2 The columns in this example are quite wide and can be smaller is more frames are used. I believe these columns can be as narrow as 8”. However the walls separating the garages of this building as only about 5” thick: Therefore adding a frame to the door opening will reduce the opening width. I certainly hope that the ordinance provides an by right exemption from the City’s parking standards to allow for this. Similarly my understanding is that if the cost of the seismic retrofit is greater than $50,000 then the project needs to comply with the Resource Recovery and Re cycli ng room requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. I estimate that the cost of adding moment frames would be in the order of $20,000 per frame and that this building would require 3 or 4 frames. Therefore it would have to meet this requirement and as this is a 12 uni t building a 21’ X Item 4-A 12/06/2016 2 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 3 14’ room would be required. Currently there is no such room. Trash bins are in the alley similar to what other adjacent buildings do: To provide such a RRR room would mean removing 2 parking spaces which will be most problematic for the tenants. I don’t see why the existing arrangement cannot be maintained. Therefore I recommend that any seismic upgrade ordinance should include language this compliance does not trigger any other City Code upgrade. Let’s not give owners more reason to El lis their properties. Thanks for your time. ____________________ Hank Koning FAIA FRAIA LEED A.P. Founding Principal KoningEizenberg | 1454 25th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 310 828 6131 x111 www.kearch.com Item 4-A 12/06/2016 3 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 4 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 5 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 December 6 , 2016 Ron Takiguchi , PE Building Official City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Division 1685 Main Street, Room 111 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Subject: Seismic Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings City of Santa Monica Dear Mr. Takiguchi, The Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) wishes to express our support for adoption of a Seismic Retrofit Program for existing buildings that are vulnerable to collapse during a seismic event in the City of Santa Mon ica. We understand it will be considered and voted on in the near future by the City of Santa Monica City Council. In your letter to SEAOSC dated January 2, 2015, you explained that the City of Santa Monica is developing a Seismic Retrofit Program for e xisting buildings vulnerable to collapse during a seismic event and requested technical input by SEAOSC. In response, we conv ened a volunteer ad hoc advisory committee consisting of several structural engineers with expertise in seismic evaluations, retrof it design, and construction. This technical ad hoc committee met with City officials and provided advi c e with respect to their proposed Seismic Retrofit Program . SEAOSC strongly supports retrofit programs that target and reduce the risk of significant seismic vulnerabilities often times found in older buildings. These programs promote improved safety for building owners and building occupants, benefiting the entire community. We encourage t he City Council to approve the S eismic R etrofit Program for existing buildings vulnerable to collapse during a seismic event in order to improve the safety of the community. Sincerely, SEAOSC Board of Directors Item 4-A 12/06/2016 6 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 7 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 8 Item 4-A 12/06/2016 December 6 , 2016 Ron Takiguchi , PE Building Official City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Division 1685 Main Street, Room 111 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Subject: Seismic Retrofit Program for Existing Buildings City of Santa Monica Dear Mr. Takiguchi, The Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) wishes to express our support for adoption of a Seismic Retrofit Program for existing buildings that are vulnerable to collapse during a seismic event in the City of Santa Mon ica. We understand it will be considered and voted on in the near future by the City of Santa Monica City Council. In your letter to SEAOSC dated January 2, 2015, you explained that the City of Santa Monica is developing a Seismic Retrofit Program for e xisting buildings vulnerable to collapse during a seismic event and requested technical input by SEAOSC. In response, we conv ened a volunteer ad hoc advisory committee consisting of several structural engineers with expertise in seismic evaluations, retrof it design, and construction. This technical ad hoc committee met with City officials and provided advi c e with respect to their proposed Seismic Retrofit Program . SEAOSC strongly supports retrofit programs that target and reduce the risk of significant seismic vulnerabilities often times found in older buildings. These programs promote improved safety for building owners and building occupants, benefiting the entire community. We encourage t he City Council to approve the S eismic R etrofit Program for existing buildings vulnerable to collapse during a seismic event in order to improve the safety of the community. Sincerely, SEAOSC Board of Directors Item 4-A 12/06/2016 9 Item 4-A 12/06/2016