STAFF REPORT. Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 To: From:

Transcription

1 STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 To: From: Subject: Honorable Mayor & City Council Raj Patel, Assistant Director of Community Development / City Building Official Updates And Discussion Regarding Proposed Ordinance For Retrofitting Of Existing Multi-Family Soft-Story Wood-Frame Buildings Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Letter from Structural Engineers Association of Southern California 3. Safer Cities Survey INTRODUCTION Beverly Hills takes pride in maintaining a safe environment for its citizens. A primary focus is to reduce the potential risk of loss of life, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from earthquakes. There are several active faults mapped by the California Geological Survey that are in or near the City of Beverly Hills, including the recently mapped extension of the Santa Monica Fault Zone. Based on the seismic history of the Los Angeles region, it is not a matter of if, but rather, when we will experience the next significant earthquake. The US Geologic Survey (USGS), California Geologic Survey (CGS), and the Southern California Earthquake Center, recently predicted a 97% probability of a 6.7 magnitude earthquake, the same size as the 1994 Northridge, would hit Southern California in the next 30 years. Although the California Integrated Seismic Network is working on a reliable system to detect seismic waves as an earthquake happens, called the Early Earthquake Warning, we are still a long way from predicting precisely when an earthquake will occur. One way to reduce the devastation is to be proactive and not to wait for a disaster to occur before addressing the seismic deficiencies in existing buildings. Current building codes require new buildings to adhere to the most current building standards however the Code does not require existing buildings to be upgraded unless the building is undergoing major alterations. As such, many city jurisdictions in California are now implementing mandatory seismic ordinances to reduce the risk of these existing

2 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 seismically vulnerable buildings. A recent report entitled Safer Cities Survey issued by The Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science for the Society provides information on the risks of seismic events in California, an overview of steps taken by jurisdictions in the Los Angeles region, and a description of vulnerable building types (Attachment 3). Since 1978, the Building Codes have made significant changes to address structural deficiencies in seismically vulnerable buildings. In the City of Beverly Hills, the majority of multifamily buildings were permitted prior to the adoption of these codes. As such, these buildings may possess seismic vulnerabilities. Some of these buildings are located in close proximity to mapped faults. A soft-story building refers to a multi-story, woodframe structure that contains parking or other similar open floor space that causes soft, weak, or open-front wall lines, or the majority of the ground floor or basement portion of the structure contains an open floor space, and there exists one or more stories above. Many of these buildings are particularly vulnerable to major damage or collapse in a major seismic event. City Council directed staff to identify all potentially seismically vulnerable buildings. Staff collaborated with Degenkolb Engineers, a top structural engineering company specializing in seismic strengthening solutions, to determine the types of vulnerable buildings to be identified. Degenkoib conducted a physical survey of the city and reviewed permit records to develop a preliminary survey of potentially vulnerable buildings. The survey results that were presented to City Council identified approximately 300 softstory wood frame buildings, 80 non-ductile concrete type buildings, and 80 steel moment frame buildings. In previous earthquakes, each of these types of buildings has demonstrated weaknesses that make them vulnerable to severe damage. The results of this survey were intended to establish a baseline for future actions. Staff is now recommending a multi-phase mandatory seismic retrofit program to reduce the risk of building collapse and improve the resiliency of the city s existing building inventory. The first phase would require retrofit of all soft-story wood-frame buildings that applied for a building permit prior to January 1, Subsequent phases would require retrofit of non-ductile concrete and steel frame buildings that applied for a building permit prior to January 1, Staff seeks direction to move forward with the first phase, a proposed soft-story mandatory retrofit ordinance (Attachment 1) including any revisions by City Council and return at a later meeting for approval and adoption. DISCUSSION Currently, there is not a statewide requirement for seismically retrofit of soft-story buildings. However, the State allows local cities to determine soft-story multi-family buildings as potentially hazardous and require their retrofit. Specifically, the California Health and Safety Code, Section 19161(a) states that Each city, city and county, or county may assess the earthquake hazard in its jurisdiction and identify to its jurisdiction as being potentially hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake. Such structures include Wood-frame multiunit residential buildings constructed before January 1, 7978, where the ground floor portion of the structure contains parking or other similar open floor space that causes sof(, weak, or open-front wall lines, as provided in a nationally recognized model code relating to the retrofit of existing building or substantially equivalent standards. Page 2 of 10 7/20/2018

3 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 Seismic Evaluation Survey The current City of Beverly Hills survey identifies approximately 300 multi-family buildings (apartment and condominium buildings) categorized as having a soft-story deficiency. It is estimated that there are approximately 2,000 housing units contained within these 300 buildings (see Table 1 below). The proposed ordinance would improve public safety by requiring structural retrofit thereby reducing the risk of collapse and subsequent death or injury in an earthquake. The ordinance would also protect the public welfare by reducing the loss of wood frame apartment buildings which are currently the city s most affordable housing stock. TABLE I N umber of Units Number of Buildings <4units Regional Retrofit Efforts On January 17, 1994, the 6.7 magnitude Northridge earthquake affected the Los Angeles region. Soft-story buildings caused more damage and injury than any other type of building damaged during the earthquake and caused over $20 billion in property damage. In response, the City of Los Angeles developed a voluntary soft-story retrofit ordinance that became effective in May The minimal success of the voluntary program led the City to adopt mandatory standards in October The City of Los Angeles estimates the mandatory standards will affect 13,500 soft-story multi-family buildings. Soft-story buildings are requited to have their retrofit completed within 7 years from receipt of order to comply. In addition, the City of Los Angeles adopted a mandatory retrofit ordinance for Non-Ductile Concrete Frame buildings that requires retrofitting be complete within 25 years of receipt of order to comply. The loss of 1500 apartment units (5% of their total housing units) during the Northridge earthquake was the impetus for the City of Santa Monica to adopt a mandatory soft-story retrofit ordinance in Although the City of Santa Monica adopted mandatory standards, in December 2016, the City reported that approximately 1700 buildings continued to be at risk. As a follow up the City adopted updated mandatory soft-story retrofit standards effective May Soft-story buildings ate required to have their retrofit completed by In addition, the City of Santa Monica adopted mandatory retrofit ordinances for Non-Ductile Concrete Frame buildings requiring retrofitting be completed by 2027, and for Steel Moment Frame buildings requiring retrofitting to be completed by Page 3 of 10 7/20/2018

4 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 In 2017, the City of West Hollywood performed a survey and identified approximately 780 soft-story buildings that had applied for a building permit prior to January 1, The City of West Hollywood adopted a mandatory soft-story ordinance requiring softstory buildings to have their retrofit completed within 5 years of compliance notice to owner. In addition, the City of West Hollywood adopted mandatory retrofit ordinances for Non-Ductile Concrete Frame buildings requiring retrofitting be completed within 20 years of notice to owner, and for Steel Moment Frame buildings requiring retrofitting to be completed also within 20 years of notice to owner. See comparison Table 2 below regarding mandatory seismic retrofit programs adopted in neighboring jurisdictions: TABLE 2 Mandatory Retrofit Approximate Complete Jurisdiction Standards Number of Retrofit after Buildings Notice Los Angeles Soft-Story (4 units or more) 13,500 7 years Santa Monica Non-Ductile Concrete 1, years Soft-Story (All) 1,700 6 years Non-Ductile Concrete years Steel Moment Frame years West Soft-Story (All) years Hollywood Non-Ductile Concrete, years Steel_Moment_Frame Retrofitting Existing Soft-Story Buildings The proposed ordinance creates minimum standards to reduce seismic risk by improving the performance of the 300 soft-story buildings within the City of Beverly Hills. Retrofitting a soft-story building does not require major structural changes. Retrofit of a soft-story weakness involves the addition of lateral stiffness and strength on the soft level (ground floor parking level). Examples of strengthening measures include the addition of shear walls, steel moment frames, and anchoring walls to the foundation. Most retrofits will be accomplished with the addition of steel moment frames at the perimeter of the opening(s). The retrofit would typically not extend to any stories above the ground floor or require any work on the interior of the building. Such retrofits would not require relocation of tenants or demolition of existing structures and is not expected to reduce the amount of first floor parking area or change the aesthetics of the exterior of the building. The technical requirements of the proposed ordinance are based on the latest State building codes and national standards developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The technical standards required are the same as those required by the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. Designated historical buildings would be required to comply with the proposed ordinance. However, the ordinance allows owners to follow the standards provided in the latest edition of the Page 4 of 10 7/20/2018

5 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 California Historical Building Code in order to preserve their historic character. Currently, the preliminary survey identifies one building that has been designated as historic. Staff requested the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) for a peer review of the technical provisions in the proposed ordinance. The SEAOSC Board of Directors responded with a letter commending the City of Beverly Hills for their efforts and supported adoption of this proposed ordinance (Attachment 2). Proposed Compliance Timeline Once the city has provided notice to the owner, the proposed ordinance provides specific time limits for building owners to (1) submit a Screening Form to the City verifying whether their building has structural vulnerabilities, (2) submit building plans to the City for review, (3) obtain building permits to begin the work, (4) commence construction by calling for the first building inspection, and (5) complete the construction and receive final inspection approval from the city. Due to the critical nature of seismic retrofitting and the smaller volume of soft-story buildings in the City of Beverly Hills, the original proposed ordinance developed by staff required owners to complete the retrofit in two and one half years (30 months) of receiving notice. This is a more aggressive timeline than neighboring cities (see table 3 below). In reviewing similarly sized projects in the City of Los Angeles, staff believes a reduced timeline is possible based on the typical duration of this type of retrofit project. In discussions with local engineers and contractors, typical retrofit (installation of steel frames, cantilever column, and/or shear walls) can be completed in one to two months. However, during the outreach process, it must be noted that Commissioners and property owners believed the timeline should be extended due to issues related to securing financing and the availability of engineers, contractors, and materials in the region. Other possible concerns include availability of day parking, traffic and noise impacts caused by having multiple simultaneous projects under construction. TABLE 3 Retrofit Timeline Comparison (All timelines are from the date of notice to owners) Submit Required Submit Action by Obtain..... Commence Engineering Retrofit Building Complete Owner. Construction Report Plans Permit Construction Beverly Hills (as proposed) 6 Months 1 Year 1.5 Years 2 Years 2.5 Years Los Angeles N/A 1 Year 2 Years N/A 7 Years Santa Monica 2 Years 3 Years 3 Years N/A 6 Years Vest Hollywood 1 Year 2 Years 4 Years 4 Years 5 Years Page 5 of 10 7/20/201 8

6 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 Retrofit Cost The exact cost of retrofitting a specific building will not be known until a structural engineer has completed an assessment report and construction bids to complete the work have been obtained. Retrofit costs will include the engineering evaluation and design, the plan review and permitting, and construction. During the past 12 months, the city has received permit applications to voluntarily retrofit ten soft-story buildings that range in size from four to seventeen housing units (see Table 4 below). The following table indicates the construction declared valuation of the retrofit work: TABLE 4 Voluntary Submittals Year Built Stories Number of units Sides to be retrofitted Declared Valuation $90, $35, $30, $75, $35, $60, $60, $25, $140, $30,000 The purpose of plan check and permit fees is to recover the cost of providing the service. Staff estimates plan check and permitting fees to be approximately ten percent of the declared construction valuation cost. The total fees for reviewing and inspecting the retrofit of 300 soft-story buildings is estimated to be $1.5 million dollars. Based on staff research, neighboring cities require the payment of plan check and permitting fees to recover the cost for providing timely plan review and inspection. It is anticipated that plan review work will be performed by consultants and therefore staff is recommending that plan check and permitting fees not be waived. Retrofit Cost Recovery for Rent Stabilized Units The cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood have rent stabilization ordinances that apply to buildings required to be retrofitted. Each of these cities allows or is considering allowing the housing providers to pass through a portion of the retrofitting costs to tenants (see Table 5 below). The preliminary survey identified approximately 300 soft-story buildings requiring retrofit. Of those, 287 are subject to rent stabilization. For city mandated capital improvement projects, such as mandatory seismic retrofitting, housing providers are allowed to pass along the costs to Chapter 5 Page 6 of 10 7/20/2018

7 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 tenants. There is currently no allowance for housing providers to pass through costs to their Chapter 6 tenants. During the public outreach process some Commissioners and housing providers believed at least a portion of the cost of retrofitting a building should be shared by the tenants. The topic of passing through capital improvement costs to tenants is currently being studied by the Rent Stabilization Program as part of an overall analysis of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Information on this analysis is expected to be presented initially to the City Council during a meeting scheduled for August 7, TABLE 5 Pass-Through Comparison Jurisdiction Retrofit Cost Sharing by Tenants Los Angeles Santa Monica West Hollywood Pass through 50% of retrofit costs to tenants with maximum of $38/month for a period not to exceed 10 years The Rent Board is currently considering allowing a pass through for a portion of costs The Rent Commission recommended to City Council to allow pass through of 50% of retrofit costs with a maximum of $38/month for 10 years. Allowed for Chapter Beverly 5 Tenants Hills Not allowed for Chapter 6 Tenants Tenant Impacts Construction involving the retrofit of soft-story buildings is typically limited to the ground floor parking area. The impacts to existing tenants include unavailability of parking during construction working hours, dust, and noise. In accordance with the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the city will require a Construction Means and Methods Plan identitying methods of mitigating tenant impacts to be submitted with the retrofit permit application including potential reduction in services as a result of loss of parking privileges. If, upon review of the Tenant Habitability Plan, it is determined by the Rent Stabilization Program that work required for retrofit affects the tenant ability of any building or residential unit as defined in California Civil Code Section The owner shall be required to pay relocation benefits pursuant to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. However, the mere undertaking and completion of work perlormed by the owner is not expected to, in and of itself, result in any building or residential unit being deemed un tenantable or uninhabitable as defined in California Civil Code Section Page 7 of 10 7/20/2018

8 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 Financial Assistance The City has identified available financing through the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. By joining a number of joint power authorities (JPA), the City can expand the number of PACE programs that can provide seismic retrofit financing to Beverly Hills home providers. PACE administrators can arrange for a loan directly between the lender and the property owner. PACE financing allows participating property owners to repay the cost of retrofit improvements through an assessment levied against their properties, which is payable in semi-annual installments on property tax bills. A lien is filed against the property as a security until the reassessment is repaid. The assessment remains with the property should the owner transfer or sell the property before the loan is repaid. As a participant in the 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. Another potential source of financing the retrofit cost is through the California Seismic Safety Capital Access Loan Program (CaICAP). CaICAP is administered through the State of California Pollution Control Financing Authority. The CaICAP/Seismic Safety Financing Program incentivizes private lenders to provide financing to California small businesses, commercial and residential building owners for seismic safety retrofits to protect buildings from damage in future earthquakes by offering participating lenders loan loss reserve coverage on enrolled loans for qualified seismic building improvements. The CaICAP program offers loan loss reserve accounts for enrolled lenders to incentivize lending by providing up to 100% coverage on certain loan defaults. By participating in CaICAP/Seismic Safety, lenders have available to them a proven credit enhancement to meet the financing needs of California s small businesses, commercial and residential building owners. Outreach Efforts and Feedback Since development of a draft soft-story seismic retrofit ordinance in 2016, staff conducted various outreach efforts. As a part of the public outreach process, staff has presented this ordinance to the Health and Safety Commission, the Planning Commission as well as the Human Relations Commission. Each of these commissions had a unique perspective on the needs of the community and provided valuable feedback which was taken into consideration with the proposed ordinance. An informational presentation detailing the benefits of retrofitting, compliance timelines, and estimated costs was also shared with building owners through a community outreach meeting. Staff also previously met with the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles and the Building Owners and the Building Owners and Managers Association. Page 8 of 10 7/20/2018

9 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 Table six provides an overview of the feedback from the city commissions and building owners focused on the following major concerns: I Major Concerns Human Relations Commission TABLE 6 Health & Safety Commission Planning Commission Building Owners Ad Hoc Committee I Compliance timeline is too short Waive plan check & permitting fees Allow retrofit cost pass-through to tenants V V V V V V V V Impacts to tenants parking, relocation, construction noise/dust V V V Financial Assistance for Building Owners V V V V Staff presented this information to the Seismic Retrofit Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Vice Mayor Mirisch and Councilmember Bosse. The Ad Hoc was supportive of implementing a mandatory retrofit program in two phases. The first phase would require the retrofit of soft-story buildings and the second phase would apply to non-ductile concrete and steel frame buildings. The Ad Hoc also supported the timeline requiring soft-story buildings be retrofitted within 2.5 years and suggested staff explore methods of assisting building owners in identifying and securing qualified construction professionals so work can be done in a cost effective manner. The Ad Hoc recommended that the Rent Stabilization Program explore options for appropriate cost sharing of retrofit costs between housing providers and tenants. Finally, the Ad Hoc encouraged staff to investigate methods to incentivize timely compliance to provide for a safer and more resilient community. FISCAL IMPACT Potential future costs to the city include the following: (1) Upgrades to the City s existing permitting system to include enhancements to issue Notices to Property Owners and assist with tracking individual building compliance with the seismic retrofit program. Page 9 of 10 7/20/2018

10 Meeting Date: July 24, 2018 (2) Professional service agreements for the following consulting services: Complete ordinance development Plan review/peer review Program implementation Hearing officers for appeals (3) Additional Rent Stabilization staff time will be required to assist tenants and housing providers during the retrofit process. RECOMMENDATION Staff seeks direction to move forward with the proposed ordinance or to make changes, revise the ordinance and return at a later meeting with the proposed mandatory seismic retrofit ordinance for approval and adoption. Susan Healy Keene, AICP Approved By Page 10 of 10 7/20/2018

11 Attachment 1

12 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ESTABLISHING MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION IN EXISTING WOOD-FRAME BUILDINGS WITH SOFT, WEAK, OR OPEN-FRONT WALLS, AND AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE A. Recitals and Findings. (i) Health and Safety Code Section provides, in part: In order to make building reconstruction economically feasible for, and to provide improvement of the safety of life in, seismically hazardous buildings, building standards enacted by local government for building reconstruction may differ from building standards which govern new building construction... Soft story residential buildings are an important component of the state s housing stock and are in jeopardy of being lost in the event of a major earthquake. Soft story residential buildings were responsible for 7,700 of the 16,000 housing units rendered uninhabitable by the Loma Prieta earthquake and over 34,000 of the housing units rendered uninhabitable by the Northridge earthquake. During an earthquake, soft story residential buildings may create dangerous conditions as illustrated in the Northridge Meadows apartment failure that claimed the lives of 16 residents. The collapse of soft story residential buildings can ignite fires that threaten trapped occupants and neighboring buildings and complicates emergency response....therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to encourage cities and counties to address the seismic safety of soft story residential buildings and encourage local governments to initiate efforts to reduce the seismic risk in vulnerable soft story residential buildings. (ii) Health and Safety Code Section provides, in part: Each city, city and county, or county, may assess the earthquake hazard in its jurisdiction and identify buildings subject to its jurisdiction as being potentially hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake... including wood frame, multiunit residential buildings constructed before January 1, 1978, where the ground floor portion of the structure contains parking or other similar open floor space that causes soft, weak, or open-front wall lines, as provided in a nationally recognized model code relating to the retrofit of existing buildings or substantially equivalent standards. (iii) Health and Safety Code Section provides, in part: Notwithstanding... any other provision of law, the governing body of any city, city and county, or county may, by ordinance, establish building seismic retrofit standards applicable to the seismic retrofit of any buildings identified [in Recital (ii), above] by the city, city and county, or county as being potentially hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake. 1 B \ v1.doc

13 (iv) Health and Safety Code Section 19163(b) provides: Any seismic retrofit of any building identified [in Recital No. (ii), above] as potentially hazardous shall comply with a nationally recognized model code relating to the retrofit of existing buildings or substantially equivalent standards. If the city, county, or city and county adopts local amendments to those provisions, it shall determine that the amendments are consistent with Section (v) Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section , before making any changes or modifications pursuant to Section , the Council shall make an express finding that any changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Code are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. (vi) To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance constitute a change or modification to the building standards contained in the California Building Code, or to the provisions of any nationally recognized model code relating to the retrofit of existing buildings, then, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections and , the City Council hereby expressly finds that such amendments and modifications are reasonably necessary due to the following local geological conditions: (a) The City is bounded on the east by the San Andreas fault and is in close proximity to various other earthquake faults, and therefore the City is susceptible to the geological conditions of earthquake faults; and (b) area of the country. The City of Beverly Hills is located within the most seismically active (c) Seismic experts predict a massive earthquake on one of these faults within the next 30 years and several earthquakes similar in intensity to the Northridge Earthquake during the same period; and (d) The 1994 Northridge Earthquake, which was a moderate size (6.8 magnitude) earthquake, caused extensive damage to buildings and structures, including damage to more than 115,000 buildings, moderate to major damage to more than 3,000 buildings and the vacating of about 21,000 residential units including 2,000 homes, and resulted in the loss of human life; and (e) Massive earthquakes pose unusual and extraordinary stresses on buildings and structures requiring more stringent building regulations than would otherwise be required; and Based upon the foregoing, any amendments to building standards contained in this Ordinance, including building standards related to all wood-framed multi-story buildings with soft, weak, or open front walls, are reasonably necessary due to the local geological conditions described above. Furthermore, the City Council finds and declares that existing wood-framed multi-story \ v1doc

14 buildings with soft, weak, or open front walls present a substantial risk to the public health, safety, and welfare thereby justifying the need to require the seismic retrofitting of such buildings, within the time periods set forth herein. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. correct. The facts and findings set forth in the Recitals, Part A, above, are true and Section 2. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 5 ( SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM ) of Title 9 ( BUILDING AND PROPERTY HEALTH AND SAFETY ) of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code by adding a new Article 4 to read as follows: ARTICLE 4. STANDARDS FOR SEISrVIIC STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING WOOD- FRAME BUILDINGS WITH SOFT, WEAK OR OPEN FRONT tyalls : Purpose : Definitions : Scope : Compliance Requirements : Time Period for Compliance/Prioritization : Administration : Occupancy and Tenant Advisory : Historical Buildings : Analysis and Design : Information required on plans : Quality Assurance : Violation/Penalty : PURPOSE: The purpose of this Article is to promote the public welfare and safety by reducing the risk of death or injury that may result from the effects of earthquakes on existing wood-framed multi story buildings with soft, weak or open front walls. Generally, this type of structure consists of partial tuck under parking on the first floor level with living space in the floors above. In past earthquakes many of these types of structures have performed poorly and collapsed causing loss of life, personal injury, and substantial property damage. This Article creates minimum standards intended to mitigate the risk of collapse and improve the performance of these buildings during earthquakes, reducing, but not necessarily preventing, the loss of life, injury and damage to property : DEFINITIONS: 3 B \ v1.doc

15 Notwithstanding the applicable definitions, symbols and notations in the Building Code, the following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Article: BUILDING CODE: is the Building Code of the City of Beverly Hills. CRIPPLE WALL: is a wood-framed stud wall extending from the top of the foundation wall to the underside of the lowest floor framing. GROUND FLOOR: is any floor within the wood-frame portion of a building whose elevation is immediately accessible from an adjacent grade by vehicles or pedestrians. The ground floor portion of the structure does not include any floor that is completely below adjacent grades. OPEN-FRONT WALL LINE: is an exterior wall line, without vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system, which requires tributary seismic forces to be resisted by diaphragm rotation or excessive cantilever beyond parallel lines of shear walls. Diaphragms that cantilever more than 25 percent of the distance between the first two adjacent parallel lines of lateral force resisting elements from which the diaphragm cantilevers shall be considered excessive. Cantilevers shall not exceed more than six feet. OWNER OR BUILDING OWNER: is the person, individual(s), agent, firm, corporation, or entity having legal possession, equitable interest in the property, or rights to sanction evaluation or retrofit of a building. QUALIFIED HISTORICAL BUILDING: is any building designated or currently in the process of being designated as a qualified historical building as defined in Part 8, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. SOFT WALL LINE: is a wall line, the lateral stiffness of which is less than what is required by story drift limitations or deformation compatibility requirements of this Article. In lieu of the engineering analysis required by this Article to determine whether a wall line s lateral stiffness is less than the aforementioned story drift limitations or deformation compatibility requirements, a soft wall line may be defined as a wall line in a story where the wall stiffness is less than seventy percent (70%) of the stiffness of the exterior wall above for the direction under consideration. STORY: as used in this Article, is defined as the portion of a structure between the tops of two successive finished floor surfaces and, for the topmost story, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the roof structural element, but also includes any basement or underfloor space of a building exceeding four feet in height. STORY STRENGTH: is the total strength of all seismic-resisting elements sharing the same story shear in the direction under consideration. WALL LINE: is any length of a wall along a principal axis of the building used to provide resistance to lateral loads. WEAK WALL LINE: Weak Wall Line is a deficiency of a Wall Line at the Ground Floor in which the wall strength is less than eighty percent (80%) of the strength of the wall above in the 4 B \ v1.doc

16 direction under consideration or is an exterior wall where the majority of the Ground Floor or basement portion of the structure contains an open floor space and the Ground Floor Story Strength is less than 80 percent of the Story Strength above : SCOPE The provisions of this Article shall apply to all existing buildings of wood-frame construction, or wood-frame portions thereof, where: 1. A permit for Construction of a new building was applied for before January 1, 1978, or if no permit can be located, the structure is determined by the City Building Official to have been built under building code standards enacted prior to January 1, 1978, and 2. The ground floor or basement portion of the structure contains parking or other similar open floor space that causes soft, weak, or open-front wall lines, or the majority of the Ground floor or basement portion of the structure contains an open floor space, and there exists one or more stories above. Notwithstanding any provision of the Building Code, compliance with this Article shall not require existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical or fire-safety systems to be altered to comply with existing code unless they constitute a hazard to life or property. The existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical or fire-safety systems shall comply with the current Building Code if the seismic retrofit interferes or alters any of these systems : COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS The Owner of each building within the scope of this Article shall cause an investigation of the existing construction and a structural analysis to be made of the building by a Registered civil or structural engineer in the State of California, or a qualified architect licensed by the State of California, and if the building does not meet the minimum standards specified in this Article, that shall cause it to be structurally altered to confonu to such standards within the time limits stated in this Article. The Owner of each building within the scope of this Article, which has been analyzed to demonstrate compliance or structurally altered to comply with the minimum earthquake standards in this Article, shall maintain such building in conformity with the requirements of this Article in effect at the time of such analysis or structural alteration. Buildings within the scope of the Article may not be added to or structurally altered or otherwise remodeled without first complying with the provisions of this Article unless the Building Official determines that the alterations are minor in nature. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Code to the contrary, a building that is found to be within the scope of this Article and is not brought into compliance with this Article in the time frame indicated in Table A, shall be declared unsafe and subject to the requirements of Section 203 of the Uniform Administrative Code. 5 B \ v1.doc

17 This provision shall not apply if alteration or repair work has commenced to bring the building into compliance with requirements of this Article, and such work is proceeding in accordance with the time limits set forth in any order of the Building Official : TIME PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE/PRIORITIZATION A. Engineering Report. Within the time limits shown in Table A below, the Owner of any building that may be subject to the provisions of this Article shall engage an Engineer or Architect to submit a properly completed screening form to the Development Services Division. The screening form is intended to demonstrate whether the structure conforms to the earthquake design provisions contained in this Article. Minimum form requirements shall be as specified by the building official. Buildings determined to be outside of the scope of this Article based on the screening form, shall not be required to retrofit. B. Plan, Permits and Construction. If the screening form concludes the structure is within the scope of this Article, the structure shall be strengthened to comply with the standards of this Article within the time periods shown in Table A below. Minimum plan requirements and necessary permits shall be as specified by the building official. TABLE A TIME LIMITS FOR OwNER : ADMINISTRATION A. Issuance of Order. When the City determines that a building is within the scope of this Article, the City shall issue an order as described in section B to the Owner of the building. B. Contents of Order. The order shall specify that the building has been determined by the Building Official to be within the scope of this Article and, therefore, is required to meet the seismic strengthening provisions of this Article. The order shall specify the building type classification and shall set forth the Owner s alternatives and time limits for compliance. 6 B \ v1.doc

18 C. Service of Order. The order shall be in writing and shall be given by USPS Certified mail in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the Owner as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. D. Failure to Receive Order. Failure of any Owner to receive such notice shall not relieve the Owner from compliance with this Article. E. Appeal from Order. The Owner of the building may appeal the building official s determinations relative to the application and interpretation of this Article to an Administrative Hearing Officer appointed pursuant to Section of this Code. Such appeal shall be filed with the building official within the earlier of sixty (60) days from the service date of the notice or within sixty (60) days of the date of the determination being appealed. The building official shall promptly forward the written appeal to the appointed Hearing Officer who shall schedule a public hearing to occur not less than fifteen (15) days, nor more than sixty (60) days after receipt of the written appeal. The appeal shall contain a statement of the facts on which the appeal is based sufficient to enable the Hearing Officer to understand the nature of the controversy, the basis of the appeal and the relief requested. Upon receipt of such appeal, the building official shall, by USPS certified mail, provide notice of the hearing to adjacent property owners having common boundary line with the subject building. The Hearing Officer shall conduct the hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section The building official, or legal representative, shall present the City s case. Within thirty (30) days of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall prepare and serve by USPS certified mail, a written decision regarding the appeal stating all determinations and findings thereof in a clear and concise manner. The Hearing Officer shall sustain the appeal, with or without conditions, or deny the appeal. The Hearing Officer s decision shall be final. If the appeal is denied, it is the appellant s responsibility to immediately comply with this Article. If the appeal is sustained with conditions, then, in addition to any other applicable violations of this Article, it shall be a violation of this Article for the appellant to fail to comply with those conditions. The compliance periods set forth in Section , Table A, shall not be deemed tolled or extended as a result of filing any appeal that is denied. F. Recordation. Once a building that was determined to be within the scope of this Article has failed to comply with the requirements of this Article within the time limits provided in Table A, the Building Official shall record in the office of the Los Angeles County recorder a certificate stating that the subject building is within the scope of this Article and requires seismic retrofit. The Certificate shall also state that the Owner thereof has been notified of the need to retrofit the building. Once the building has been retrofitted to comply with this Article, the Building Official shall record a Certificate indicating that the subject building no longer is in violation of this Article : OCCUPANCY AND TENANT ADVISORY A. Notification to Tenants and Occupants. When the Building Official determines that a building is within the scope of this Article per field survey, the Owner shall advise in writing all current and prospective tenants, subtenants, lessees, sublessees, or any other person(s) entitled to 7 B \ v1doc

19 the use and/or occupancy of the building of such determination. With respect to current and prospective tenants, subtenants, lessees, sublessees, or other person(s) entitled to the use and/or occupancy of the building, the property Owner shall advise such persons of the Building Official s determination in writing. Upon compliance with this Article the Owner shall provide a letter of notification to the tenants indicating the current status of the building. The language of the written notifications shall be as specified by the Building Official. B. Tenant Habitability Plan. Tenants affected by this Article shall comply with section L. of the Administrative Code of the City of Beverly Hills : HISTORICAL BUILDINGS Buildings designated as historical or architecturally significant landmarks on national, State or local historical registers shall also comply with the provisions of this Article. At the Building Official s discretion, modifications to the standards set forth in this Article may be permitted when such modifications are consistent with the provision of the California Historical Building Code : ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Scope of Analysis. As required by this Article, the alteration, repair, replacement or addition of structural elements and their connections shall meet the strength and stiffness in conformance with the Building Code except as modified herein. The lateral-load-path analysis shall include the resisting elements and connections from the wood diaphragm immediately above any soft, weak or open wall lines to and including the foundation. Stories above the weak wall line shall be considered in the analysis but need not be modified. Engineer shall investigate existing conditions as applicable for the required analysis, including performing initial material testing and as-built of existing conditions. Minimum investigation requirements shall be specified by the Building Official. B. Design Base Shear and Design Parameters. The design force in a given direction shall not be less than 75% of the design base shear as determined based on the seismic provisions of ASCE 7 and design provisions as approved by City Building Official. The structure shall be analyzed and/or strengthened in order to mitigate the Weak, Open-Front, and/or Soft Wall Line deficiencies defined in Section C. Limitations to Lateral Force Resisting System. Strengthening systems with concrete walls or masonry walls, or steel braced frames shall not be permitted unless a full story analysis considering proper diaphragm stiffness and torsional behavior is performed. D. Horizontal Structural Irregularities in Buildings with Three or More Stories. Structures with three or more stories having horizontal structural irregularities of either type 2, 3, 4, or 5 listed in ASCE 7, Horizontal Structural Irregularities Table, shall be altered to meet the additional requirements of those sections referenced in the table for the weak or open wall lines being considered. 8 B \ v1.doc

20 E. Alternate Analysis, Base Shear and Design Parameters. The Building Official may approve alternate analysis and/or design methodologies that meet the same performance intent as those prescribed by this Article and that achieve the objectives established by this Article. Design criteria shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to submission of plans. F. Story Drift Limitations. The calculated story drift for each retrofitted wall line shall not exceed the allowable deformation compatible with all vertical load-resisting elements and times the story height. Drift calculations shall be in accordance with ASCE 7 requirements and design provisions as approved by City Building Official. The structure shall be analyzed and/or strengthened in order to mitigate the Weak, Open-Front, and/or Soft Wall Line deficiencies defined in Section G. Cantilever Column System. The effects of rotation and soil stiffness shall be included in the calculated story drift where lateral loads are resisted by vertical elements where required depth of embedment is determined by pole formulas or as specified by an approved geoteclmical investigation report. H. Elements not Part of the Lateral Force Resisting System. The requirements of the Building Code shall apply, except as modified herein. All Structural framing elements along the retrofitted line and immediately adjacent to the retrofitted line and their connections not required by the design to be part of the lateral force resisting system, shall be designed and detailed to be adequate to maintain support of design dead plus live loads when subject to the expected deformations caused by seismic forces. The stress analysis of cantilever columns shall use an effective length factor of 2.1 for the direction normal to the axis of the beam. I. Ties, Continuity and Collectors. All parts of the structure included in the scope of analysis shall be interconnected and the connection shall be capable of resisting the seismic force created by the parts being connected as required per the Building Code. J. Anchorage of masonry/concrete structural walls to diaphragms. When using new masonry or concrete walls to meet the requirements of this Article, proper in-plane and out-ofplane anchorage of walls into the diaphragm shall be provided per the Building Code : INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PLANS A. General. For existing and new construction, the plans and specifications shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature, design methodology, and extent of the proposed work and to show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this Article and other applicable section of the Building Code. B. Engineer s or Architect s Statement. The responsible engineer or architect shall provide the following statements on the approved plans: 1. I am responsible for designing this building s seismic strengthening in compliance with the minimum standards of the Mandatory Earthquake Hazard Reduction In Existing Wood Frame Buildings with Soft, Weak or Open-front Walls (Article No. 9 B \ v1.doc

21 C. Owner or Owner s Representative Statement. Unless the entire building has been evaluated and retrofitted as needed to meet the full intent of the current Building Code, the Owner shall provide and sign the following statement on the cover of the drawings: I understand the seismic evaluation and strengthening performed under this project complies with the Mandatory Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood-frame Buildings with Soft, Weak or Open-front Walls (Article No. ) which is intended to improve the perfonnance of the building during a seismic event. I understand the entire building has not been evaluated nor strengthened for other potential structural deficiencies that may cause a life safety concern, injury, or property damage risk resulting from a seismic event. D. Quality Control and Assurance Requirements. General notes shall show the requirements for material testing, special inspection, structural observation and the proper installation of newly added materials : QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Structural Observation. All structures regulated by this Article require structural observation during construction. The Owner shall employ the engineer or architect responsible for the structural design, or another engineer or architect designated by the engineer or qualified architect responsible for the structural design, to perform structural observation as defined in the Building Code. B. Special Inspection. Special inspections shall be provided as required by the Building Code. Additional inspections shall be noted on drawings as required by Building Official : VIOLATION/PENALTY A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code to the contrary, it shall be unlawful for person or business entity receiving the order described in Section , to: (i) fail to comply with any of the time limits set forth in Section , Table A, including bringing the affected structure into full compliance with the minimum seismic standards specified in this Article; and/or (ii) maintain, use or occupy any such structure that has not been brought into full compliance within the time limits set forth in Section , Table A. Any person who violates or causes or permits another person to violate this Article is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be subject to prosecution and/or administrative enforcement under the City of Beverly Hills Municipal Code. for purposes of this paragraph, any person includes an Owner, lessor, sublessor, manager or person in control of a building subject to this Article. This term shall not include any person who is merely a tenant or other individual occupying any dwelling unit, efficiency dwelling unit, guest room or suite in a building. The legal Owner of a building is that person, finn, corporation, partnership or other entity whose name or title appears on the record with the Office of the County Recorder, as well as all successors or assignees of these persons. 10 B \ v1.doc

22 EXCEPTION: This section shall not apply to any building on which work is proceeding in compliance with the time limits set forth in this Article, or in compliance with any extensions of time granted by the Building Official; or any action, order or determination made by the Building Official in the implementation of this Article. Section 3. Enviromiiental Compliance. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines thereunder exempt certain classes of projects from its provisions through statutory and categorical exemptions. Pursuant to CEQA, an Initial Study was conducted concerning the adoption of this Ordinance. Based thereon, the City Council has determined that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Sections (b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, (Class 1 - Existing Facilities), and (Class 2 - Replacement or Reconstruction). Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 19165, the Building Official shall cause a copy of this Ordinance to be filed with the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the California Building Standards Commission. Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the city within fifteen (15) days after its passage in accordance with Section of the Government Code, shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance and the city Clerk s certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this city. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (3 1st) day after its passage. Adopted: Effective: ATTEST: JULIAN A. GOLD, M.D. Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills BYRON POPE City Clerk (SEAL) 11 B \ v1.doc

23 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: LAURENCE S. WIENER City Attorney MAHDI ALUZRI City Manager SUSAN HEALY KEENE Director of Community Development 12 B \ v1.doc

24 Attachment 2

25 JEFF ELLIS PRESIDENT ROBERT LYONS PRESIDENT-ELECT P&HRAN POI.mZANJANI TREASURER LORENA ARCE SECRETARY DIANt OCHOA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Tel: (562) Fax: (562) seaoscseaosc.org STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA A.Won-Profit California Corporation 437 S. CATARACT AVENUE, #4-B SAN DIMAS, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS LORENA ARCE MAH BARNARD SANDRA BIDDULPH TODD BROWN JEFF ELLIS JOSH GEBELIEN JEFF HAIGHT MICHELLE KAM-BIRON ROBERT LYONS MEHRAN POURZANJANI JACKIE VINKLER VICTORIA WIGLE November 30, 2016 Raj Pate!. PE City Building Official City of Beverly Hills 455 Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA Subject: Soft-Story Seismic Retrofit Ordinance for Existing Wood-Framed Buildings City of Beverly Hills Dear Mr. Patel, The Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) wishes to express our support for adoption of a soft-story seismic retrofit ordinance by the City of Beverly Hills. We understand it will be considered and voted on in the near future by the City of Beverly Hills City Council. In your letter to SEAOSC dated September 15, 2016, you explained that the City of Beverly Hills is developing a soft-story seismic retrofit ordinance for existing wood-framed buildings and requested technical input by SEAOSC. In response, we convened a volunteer ad hoc advisory com]tlittee consisting of several structural engineers with expertise in soft-story seismic evaluation, retrofit design, and construction. This technical ad hoc committee reviewed drafts of the proposed ordinance and provided advisory feedback to the City. SEAOSC strongly supports retrofit ordinances that target and reduce the risk of significant seismic vulnerabilities often times found in older buildings. These ordinances promote improved safety for building owners and building occupants, benefiting the entire community. We encourage the City Council to approve the soft-story seismic retrofit ordinance for existing wood-framed buildings. Sincerely, SEAOSC Board of Directors Page 1 of 1 SAFER BUILDINGS THROUGH STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

26 Attachment 3

27 2016 FERC su ITI ES RV EY

28 perfect retrofit solution SIMPSON Survey Call (800) or visit Strongtje corn for help on nding Your JObste assistance with the Vulnerable buildings associated with the Safer Cities Well, we have the answers We are here to Provide technical resources and

29 SAFER CITIES SURVEY Presented by =Ii.I Evaluating current approaches to retrofitting seismically vulnerable buildings in Southern California A partnership between seaosc.org and o The Dr Lucy Jones 00. o,p Center t for Science and Society drlucyjonescenter.org Disclaimer 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, orassume any legal liability or responsibilityfor 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 Inquiries may be addressed to seaoscseaosc.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. 1

30 SEADSC 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. SEAOSC Past President Michelle Kam-Biron, Dr. Lucy Jones, and SEAOSC President Jeff Ellis. 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 (DUCSS) 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 Safer Cities Survey

31 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 inputtoward 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, I I.; I- ti JEFF ELLIS PRESIDENT, SEAOSC 3

32 SUtRY I Studies 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 Safer Cities Survey

33 i:ii 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 Most buildings in southern California have only experi enced relatively low levels of shaking and many hidden (and not so hidden) vulnerabilifies await discovery in the earthquake. III 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. IT next 5

34 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 The DUCSS 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 s 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. L DLJCSS asked about retrofit or- Las Vegas dinances addressing the most 0 common types of dangerous buildings as well as business resumption programs that San Bernardino have been used in California jurisdictions to reduce earth- Ventura Los quake losses. Angeles Orange Riverside..aF)legL Imperial Figure 1. Area of California considered in this study Safer Cities Survey

35 TYPES OF VULNERABLE BUILDINGS 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. A 7

36 Unreinforced Masonry (URM) 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 retrofiffing. 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 Front wall of the John Muir School, Pacific Avenue, Long Beach, California, downed by the Seismic Hazard Map from the US March 11, 1933 earthquake. Photo credit: WI. Huber, earthquake.usgs.gov 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 Safer Cities Survey

37 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 ( 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 9

38 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 fled 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. i4 Tilt-up concrete building damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Photo credit: George Sakkestad. 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 Partial collapse of the Olive View Hospital in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. ly a subset of the non-ductile reinforced Photo credit: NOAA/NGDC, E.V. Leyendecker, U.S. Geological Survey. 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) Safer Cities Survey

39 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. Collapse of the Northridge Meadows apartment building in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Photo credit: NOAA/NGDC, M. Celebi, U.S. Geological Survey. Because many of the buildings are residential, they represent a particularly critical threat to 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 lives jurisdictions have started considering ordinances to address the problem. Pre-1994 Steel Moment Frame Buildings 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 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. 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. 11

40 APPROACHES FOR MITIGATION J urisdicfions 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 URM5 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 URM5, 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 Safer Cities Survey

41 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. Overall Unreinforced Masonry Not Applicable Mandatory W Mandatory (Incomplete) Voluntary R None Orange County Unreinforced Masonry San Bernardino County Unreinforced Masonry Ventura County Unreinforced Masonry IS Riverside County Unreinforced Masonry Imperial County Unreinforced Masonry Los Angeles County Unreinforced Masonry Figure 2. Ordinances to address Unreinforced Masonry for all six counties and by county. 13

42 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 period has not been addressed. San Bernardino County Overall Tilt-Up Ventura County 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. a In Development Mandatory S In Discussion Voluntary None Figure 3. Ordinances to address tilt-up concrete buildings for all six counties and individually by county. Riverside County Imperial County Los Angeles County 2016 Safer Cities Survey

43 V. V : V 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. Overall Soft First-Story Orange County San Bernardino County Ventura County In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None Riverside County Imperial County Los Angeles County Figure 4. Ordinances to address soft first-story construction for all six counties and individually by county. 15

44 Overall Non-Ductile Concrete Orange County San Bernardino County Ventura County Riverside County Imperial County Los Angeles County In Development * Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None Figure 5. Ordinances to address non-ductile concrete buildings for all six counties and individually by county. 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 Safer Cities Survey

45 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. Overall Steel Moment Frame Orange County San Bernardino County Ventura County Riverside County Imperial County Los Angeles County In Development Mandatory In Discussion None Figure 6. Ordinances to address steel moment frame buildings for all six counties and individually by county. 17

46 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. Overall Back-to-Business I BORP Orange County San Bernardino County Ventura County Riverside County Imperial County Los Angeles County In Discussion B in Development B No B Yes Figure 7. Back-to-Business programs for all six counties and individually by county Safer Cities Survey

47 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 ( org/esip/capss) and Los Angeles ( ience-design-building-stronger-los-angeles), have taken action, successfully adopting mandatory programs with community sup port, and other jurisdictions have taken notice. 19

48 URM-Affected Population Steel Moment Frame-Affected Population Non-Ductile Concrete-Affected Population, - 5 Not Applicable Mandatory I Mandatory (Incomplete) Voluntary None In Development 5 Mandatory S In Discussion Voluntary None In Development Mandatory r In Discussion Voluntary 5 None Soft First-Story-Affected Population Population Affected or Unaffected by Any Ordinance (Excluding URM)Population Tilt-Up-Affected Population I In Development 1 Mandatory - In Discussion Voluntary 5 None S Affected Unaffected In Development Mandatory In Discussion Voluntary None Cripple Wall-Affected Population Back-to-Business/BORP Affected Population In Development Mandatory r In Discussion Voluntary S None Yes 5 In Discussion In Development No Figure 8 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 Safer Cities Survey

49 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 fdljcss), the Survey has Mayor Eric Garcetti & Dr. Lucy Jones release Resilience by Design program. 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. 21

50 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 bythe need of building owners and ret rofit designers to work within fixed bud- NEARLY EVERY EXISTING BUILDING GAINS LITTLE TO NO BENEFIT FROM CONTINUED CODE ENHANCEMENTS 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. 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 Safer Cities Survey

51 Knowing A City% 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. Soft story buildings. Photo credit: Simpson Strong-Tie. 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. 23

52 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 Weeks 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 fimeframes of recovery and measure safety and resilience of the city as it re lates to the ability to predict outcomes and plan sustainable comm unity wellbe ing. BORP and B2B Timeline For A Hypothetical Yellow-Tagged Building more CURRENT PRACTICE WITH 1 Postinc Initial Inspections & by City Itispecto When?, What. Is Posting correct? CITY & QES INSPECTORS K. I & hire tructural El Recias FRe-occu gineer A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED PROGRAM U Immediate Measures for Re-occupancy -. r swicaoóns & iccucy E. on retainer WITH BORP IN PLACE Immediate Measures for Re-occupancy - n busin ss... S. E. on realner Re-po ting by 5.1 Image courtesy of SAFEq Institute / Structural Focus Safer Cities Survey

53 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 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. Backto-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 ( where they can learn more about specific risks, SEAOSC presents resources at the City of Los Angeles Seismic Retrofit Fair on April 7, 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. 25

54 -: L :;if REFERENCES 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 :// b/cssc95-01/cssc5-olb-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 Retrieved September 15, 2014 from Final.pdf V City & County of San Francisco, Department of Building Inspection. (2014). BORP Guidelines for Engi neers. Retrieved from 52 City of Glendale. (2014). 20 Years after Northridge Earthquake Be: Ready with Glendale s Back to Business Pro gram. Retrieved from 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. Si, pp. S221-S243. Uoi: Jones, L. M., Bernknop R., Cox, D., Goltz, J., Hudnut, K., Mileti, D., Perry, S., Ponti, D., Porter K., Reichie, M., Seligson, H., Shoaf K., Treiman, J., and Wein, A., The ShakeOut Scenario: USGS Open File Report and California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25, and 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 dol: Wein, Anne and Rose, Adam, (2011) Economic Resilience Lessons from the ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario. Earthquake Spectra: May 2011, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp doi: Safer Cities Survey

55 NOTES A 27

56 - NOTES r I V 2016 Safer Cities Survey

57 ACIOWLEDGMENIS 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, DUCSS 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. 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.

58 JO 3sOeasMMM :asqa :pew3 SZVE-69-9S :xej 1E Z99 :auoq ELL16 VD sewi(j ues g-vu av peieiej s at VINNOdI1VO NNJHIflOS JO NOIIVIDOSSV SU]3N19N3 lvnflflflhls <.,.. N <1...,,....., 4 S.. S4.-. 4<. N 1 :- T Pr:>.4.<jp. N 4 1 -, tf -4 k.