The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About28-City Administrator OR\GiNAl CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Fred Wilson, City Administrator Subject: Discussion concerning unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings Dept: City Administrator's Office Date: November 14, 2005 MICC Meeting Date: November 21,2005 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the Mayor and Council refer this matter to the Legislative Review Committee for further consideration. Contact person: Joe Lease Phone: 5171 Supporting data attached: staff report Ward: all FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: none Source: (Accl. No.) (Accl. Description) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. ~ III '-Il~ ST AFF REPORT Subiect: Discussion concerning unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings Backeround: A recent newspaper article highlighted issues concerning unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, and the potential public safety hazard they pose in the event of an earthquake. Since the city of San Bernardino lies along several major fault lines, the issue is especially significant in this city. Mayor Valles requested that this matter be agendized for discussion. At the Council meeting, staff will make a presentation concerning the matter and outline possible options for addressing the URM issue for consideration by the Legislative Review Committee. Financial impact: None by this action. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Mayor and Council refer this matter to the Legislative Review Committee for further consideration. ST A TUS OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OVERVIEW Seismicity of San Bernardino Unrein forced Masonry Buildings - Defined SB 547 Requirements Past Actions by the City 2005 Survey of Unrein forced Masonry Bldgs. AB 2533 - lenna's Bill Options for Improving The City's Mitigation Program . - Seismicity of San Bernardino Intersected By Two Major Faults The San Andreas Fault The San Jacinto Fault Liquefaction Potential 1~?J05 I ~..~. ~. : 1~t1:.<:"' ~ -:~~ < <'. ~:: ~. " ,l. The San Andreas Fault (Southern Segment) Past Earthquakes A Major Rupture Occurs on Average Every 200-250 years Last Major Rupture was Approximately 300 years Ago (:>o.nm:e Cahfonna GeolOgical Survey) Probability 1:5 Chance ofa Magnitude 7,5-8,0 Earthquake in the next 30 years &lure.: Special PubhcaUol'lIO:;!. CaLOl:pl.ofCOnser'iali<ln.I993 The San Jacinto Fault Past Earthquakes Occur at 50-100 year intervals Based on fault slip rates it is estimated that we are in the later stages of an interval. (Pub. 102, page 31) Probability 1:5 Chance of a Magnitude 7 Earthquake over the next 30 Years :ipcCialPubliutiol'lIO:.Calilhmia Del;'ofCOnSCl'\liltion,I99J 2 -. "..-W'.-''':'::::-l~i..Fo -------.. \ " 0-"'''''=='= I_~ iii i---~.--._--- 1 I _____~,.~_ .____._....._:::...__ )~lIUk!oI....lIIIoJ1H' ~:fi:-~~=g:- ! .;;-_~~=:.-=== .?:;;~~..~~ 1'OO~=:,I....IloII.. ,-- = - I .-=.----- --='--'---1 ------. .'--. --.. =~;~- -.. ~:- I -~~-;;..:.::.:- .~~=~~:~:-- @i":-::- '- -:::;.- ! I =-'=:='3::-"..- ===;-:-:=-s.:?'"":-' :'!'''"'.'.'':'''':': -:':.. - ,- ..,-...- Special Publication 102: San Jacinto Earthquake Planning Scenario "Buildinl!s: Based on past experience, buildings having unrein forced masonry (URM) bearing walls present serious life safety risks. Available information indicates that few of the 500 URM buildings in the San Bernardino-Riverside area have completed seismic upgrading. Most of the URM buildings are located in areas of projected earth shaking MMl VIII or IX, and will suffer severe damage or collapse in the scenario earthquake." . . . Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Constructed of Brick, Block or Stone Masonry Lime Mortar Lack Steel Reinforcing Bars Often Lack Adequate Connections Between the Masonry Walls and Roof and Floors Typically Built Before 1940 Poor Performance When Subjected to Moderate Seismic Forces 3 After an Earthquake Examples of Parapet Collapse Partial Collapse SB 547 - The URM'Law (Gov!. Code 8875 et seq) Adopted in 1986 to Address the Statewide Hazards of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Declared URM Buildings to be " Potentially Hazardous Buildings" Applied to All Cities/Counties in Seismic Zone 4 (365 jurisdictions) 4 The URM Law (continued) Required Local Building Departments to: Inventory URM Buildings by Jan. I, 1990 Develop Mitigation Programs to Reduce the Risks Associated with URM Buildings Report to the City Council and the Seismic Safety Commission Regarding Inventory Results and Mitigation Program The Urm Law (continued) Mitigation Programs Shall Include: Notification to The Legal Owner May Include: Adoption of a Hazardous Building Ordinance Measures to Strengthen Buildings ~feasures to Reduce Occupancy of URMs Measures to Demolish URMs Seismic Rehabilitation Assistance (low-cost loans. tax incentives. grants, etc) Adoption of Structural Standards for Strengthening . Waming Placards Gov!. Code 8875.8 Added in 1993 Requiring URM Buildings to be Posted With a Warning Placard to Notify the Public ofthe Risks Law Established Civil Liability on the Part of Owners for Injuries/Deaths if a Building is not Properly Posted 5 Past Actions By the City to Comply With the URM Law 1985(7) SBMC 15.12 Adopted Requiring Strengthening of URM Buildings Prior to Reoccupancy if Vacant >6 months Consultant EQE Engineering. Conducted Inventory of URM Buildings 1989 1990 . Report to Council. Resolutions No. 90.1 17 and 90- 214 Adopted by MCC. Required Strengthening or Demolition by October, 1992 1990 - Notifications to Owners 1993 . Ordinance Adopted Amending SBMC Chapter 15.12, Establishing A Mitigation Program and Extending Timelines by 3 yrs. Past Actions (continued) 1993- Second Notification to Owners 1994-95 - EDA Funding for Preliminary Engineering Evaluations 1996 - SBMC Amended to Extend the Timelines for Strengthening 3 years 1996 - Third Notification to Owners 1999 - SBMC 15.12 Repealed (only warning placards required) . 2005 Survey of URM Buildings In the City of San Bernardino Preliminary Results Occupied (no progress) Vacant Strengthened Demolished Reduced Occupancy TOTAL 68 27 17 46 4 162 Progress = 41 % 6 Comparison of Mitigation Progress Statewide 85 % San Bernardino 41 % Inland Empire 20 % Comparison of Progress (continued) CITY No. of UR1Vls No.Mili.ated Percenhme LA 9208 8105 88% Long Beach 936 936 100% Pasadena 759 739 97% San Bernardino 162 67 41% Fontana 45 4 9% Highland 12 3 25% Rancho Cuca. 22 20 91% Riverside 200 23 12% They died not knowing that the unposted URM building in which they wori.':cd was unsafe. 7 AB 2533 - Jenna's Bill (continued) Effective Date: Jan. 1,2005 Strengthens Requirements for the Posting of Warning Placards Authorizes Local Building Departments to Impose Fines for Noncompliance AlIo~s Concerned Citizens to Request Enforcement Lawsuits By Concerned Citizens Current Compliance With Posting Requirements In San Bernardino No. of Bldgs. Posted 2 No. Bldgs. Req'd to be Posted 116 Compliance Rate: 1.7 % . . . Options For A Mitigation Program Enforce AB 2533 Posting Requirements Annual Notifications to Building Owners Require Retrofitting Prior to Reoccupancy of Vacant URM Buildings Adopt Ordinance to Deem Long-term Vacant URM Buildings to be Public Nuisances Subject to Abatement Financial Incentives to Demolish or Retrofit URMs Target UR1\1 Properties for Redevelopment Projects Mandatory Strengthening Any Combination of the Above etc. 8 Status of the U nreinforced Masonry Building Law ;'<i;ji:i;1',>,'--~ 2004 Report to the Legislature Seismic Safety Commission SSC 2005-02 .. Seismic Safety Commission Dr. Lucile M. Jones Commission Chairman Seismolo,>y Richard Alarcon Alternate: Chris Modrzejewski State Senate Lawrence Klein Utilities Celestine Palmer Insurance Donald R. Parker Commission Vice Chairman Fire Protection Mark Church Local Government Carol Liu Alternate: Don Manning. State Assembly Daniel Shapiro Structural Engineering Seismic Safety Commission Staff Richard J. McCarthy Executive Director Bob Anderson Karen Cogan Rebecca Romo Kyshia Davis URM Report Staff J ames Lee Sue Celli Andrew A. Adelman Cities/Building Official Dr. Bruce R. Clark Geology Linden Nishinaga Cities Government Jimmie Yee Social Services Henry Sepulveda Henry Reyes Fred Turner URM Program Manager Cover Photos Provided By former Commissioner Patricia Snyder Adopted June 9, 2005 by the California Seismic Safety Commission 1755 Creekside Oaks Dr., Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95833 i!;) California Seismic Safety Commission All Rights Reserved .. 2004 Report to the Legislature Status of the Unrein forced Masonry Building Law California Seismic Safety Commission 1755 Creekside Oaks Dr.. Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95833 June 9, 2005 SSC 2005-02 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface.................................................................................................. . Introduction: Unrein forced Masonry (URM) Buildings.................. 2 The URM Law.......................................................................... 2 The Scope of the URM Law..................................................... 2 Measures of Implementation .............................................................. 3 - Types of Programs ................................................................... 3 Standards for Retrofitting....................................................... 3 Current Status ofImplementing the URM Law................... 5 Loss Reduction Program Effectiveness.................................. 6 Effectiveness ofIncentives in Voluntary Strengthening Programs. 8 New State Laws Effecting URM Buildings........................................ 8 Conclusions..................................................................... ...................... 9 Commission Recommendations.................................... ...................... 9 Acknowledgments................................................................................ 10 References............................................................................................. 11 Table A: Statewide Summary ofthe URM Law Implementation... 12 Appendix A - Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts ......... AI Appendix B - Selected State Laws Relevant to URM Buildings ..... B 1 STATUS OF CALIFORNIA'S UNREIN FORCED MASONRY BUILDING LAW PREFACE In 1986, California enacted a law that required local governments in Seismic Zone 4 to inventory unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, to establish a URM loss reduction program and report progress to the state by 1990. Each local government was atlowed to tailor their program to their own specifications. On the surface, the level of compliance with this law has been quite high with about 98 percent of the 25,400 URM buildings now in loss reduction programs. But so far, a little over two thirds of the owners have reduced earthquake risk by retrofitting in accordance with a recognized building code or by other means. Significant progress has occurred, yet many URM programs are ineffective in reducing future earthquake losses. What lessons can be drawn from California"s experience with URM buildings and how can they be applied to future loss reduction efforts? ThisJ:~jJort summarizes the status of local government and building owner efforts to comply with this law. The Seismic Safety Commission has adopted this report to the State Legislature with its recommendations on improving this law: . Mandate the strengthening of all unreinforced masonry bearing buildings including state- owned buildings in accordance with the state's model building code. . Recommend that local governments with little or no retrofit progress provide incentives to encourage owners to retrofit. Adopt the International Existing Building Code as the State's model building code so that future alterations to existing buildings trigger seismic retrofits to the latest standards. . Establish retrofit standards and mitigation programs for other types of collapse-risk buildings such as soft-story apartments, tiltups and older concrete buildings. 1 INTRODUCTION: URM BUILDINGS Most unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings possess features that can threaten lives during earthquakes. These include unbraced parapets, walls and roofs that are not well attached to each other, and walls that are poorly constructed. When earthquakes occur, inadequate connections in these buildings can allow masonry to fall. Floors and roofs may collapse leaving occupants and passers-by in harm's way. These risks to life can be significantly reduced with seismic retrofits. The URM Law California's main effort to reduce these earthquake losses is the URM Law. Passed in 1986, this state law requires 365 local governments in the highest Seismic Zone 4 (lCBO, 1985) to do three things: . Inventory URM buildings within each jurisdiction . Establish loss reduction programs for URM buildings by 1990 . Report progress to the California Seismic Safety Commission In addition, the law recommends that local governments: . Establish seismic retrofit standards . Adopt mandatory strengthening program!> . Enact measures to reduce the number of o'Ccupants in URM buildings. This law can be found in Section 8875 et seq. of California's Government Code (CA, 1986). It allows each local government to choose its own type of loss reduction program. This leeway is, in part, intended to allow for each jurisdiction to take political, economic, and social priorities into account. The evidence suggests that individual communities pursued earthquake loss reduction programs best suited to their own local priorities reflecting the local balance of safety versus economy (CSSC, 1995-05). California's Seismic Safety Commission monitors local government efforts to comply with this law and reports to the state's Legislature. This report updates the Commission's prior Year 2003 status report (SSC, 2003-03). The Scope of the URM Law Seismic Hazard Zone 4 is a region defined in the California Building Code nearest historically active faults. In 1986, it included the major metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco, roughly 28 million people, or more than three fourths of the state's population. When the law was passed, the city of San Diego was not considered to be in Zone 4 (lCBO, 1985). Since then, San Diego has been added to Zone 4 and has now voluntarily adopted a URM loss reduction program (ICBO, 1997). Approximately 25,400 URM buildings with an average size of 10,000 square feet have been inventoried in Zone 4's 365 jurisdictions. This is a relatively small percentage of California's 2 total bui Iding stock of 12 million or so buildings, but this law impacts many cultural icons and historical resources in older parts of the state. In the 1980's, it was estimated that the URM Law would result in roughly $4 billion in retrofit expenditures with activity well into the new century. This cost, although large, pales in comparison with several hundred billion dollars in anticipated damage from one major urban earthquake in California. Future earthquake losses can be greatly reduced by carrying out effective URM programs. For more information about the pioneering efforts before the passage of the URM Law, early progress, social and economic issues, refer to an earlier stat\ls report (CSSC, 1995-05). MEASURES OF IMPLEMENTATION Types of Programs There are four basic types of URM programs that cities and counties have adopted. They are explained below in Table I. Later in this report, their popularity and relative effectiveness is further described. ", Few jurisdictions rely on demolition to eliminate their relatively few hazardous buildings. Most local governments regard demolition as a last resort, and far more URM buildings statewide are being retrofitted rather than tom down. Standards for Retrofitting California requires all jurisdictions to enforce the 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation Appendix Chapter 1 (UCBC) as a model building code although local governments may adopt amendments under certain circumstances (lCBO, 2001). For historical buildings, the California Historical Building Code also refers to the UCBC (ICBO, 2001). The UCBC contains technical standards that are intended to significantly reduce but not necessarily eliminate the risk to life from collapse, The statewide standards contain no administrative or retroactive triggers for retrofitting other than the issuance of permits. Each local government can tailor its own triggers for compliance. A significant amount of retrofitting was performed in accordance with local ordinances that preceded the UCBC. These earlier retrofits may only partially comply with the latest UCBC. Since the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) merged with other model code organizations to form the International Code Council (lCC), the UCBC is no longer being maintained and updated. ICC has since published the first edition of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC), which contains an updated chapter of retrofit requirements for unreinforced masonry buildings. The State's Building Standards Commission is in the process of adopting new model building codes and may soon consider the adoption of the applicable portions of the IEBe. 3 Table 1. Types ofURM Loss Reduction Programs Ranked by General Effectiveness From Most to Least (CSSC, 1995), Program Type Summary Mandatory Strengthening These programs require owners to strengthen or otherwise reduce risks in their buildings within times prescribed by each local government. Time schedules vary and generally depend on the number of occupants: Programs are based upon the City of Los Angeles' Division 88 ordinance (LA, 1981) which is also t~e historic basis for the - Uniform Code For Building Conservation (UCBC) Appendix Chapter I (ICBO, 2001) and the Seismic Safety Commission's Recommended Model Ordinance (CSSC, 1995). Triggers for the Model Ordinance were developed in 1991 in cooperation with the California Building Officials. This is the most effective program type. -'. V oluntary Strengthening These programs establish seismic retrofit standards and require owners to evaluate the seismic risks in their buildings. Owners then write publicly available letters to their local governments indicating when they intend to retrofit (CSSC, 1990). This type of program is somewhat more effective than Notification Only. Other Types Variations of the other program types with unique requirements and ranges of effectiveness. (CSSC, 1995) Notification Only Local governments write letters to owners stating that their building type has been known to perform poorly in earthquakes. This is typically the least effective type of program. Most jurisdictions have adopted more comprehensive measures than this. 4 Current Status ofImplementing the URM Law The California Seismic Safety Commission periodically contacts local governments affected by the URM Law and asks them to summarize their efforts to date. In the summer of 2004, the Commission contacted the 283 jurisdictions in Seismic Zone 4 with URM buildings. As of December 2004, ] ] 0 jurisdictions responded to the survey. This corresponds to a response rate of 39 percent, compared to a 65 percent response rate in 2003. Table 2. Status of Compliance with the URM Law in 2004 Cities & Counties Number Percent Population - Percent URM's Percent . with inventories not complete 6 2% 1]5,789 <1% 55 <]% . with inventories complete, but no 2] 6% 664,02] 2% 445 2% URM programs . with no URM buildings 82 22% 2,937,420 ]0% 0 0% - - -- . With URM programs 256 70% 24,660,426 87% 24,9]3 98% Totals 365 ]00% 28,377,656 100% 25,4]3 ]00% The URM Law continues to gain effectiveness in 2004. While there weren't dramatic changes from the 2003 data, most of the changes depict the continued efforts of local governments and owners to carry out the URM Law. 69 percent of the buildings have been mitigated so far. In the past three years: . Three more cities have completed their inventories ofURM buildings. . The number of cities and counties with URM buildings in compliance with the law increased from 251 to 256. . The number ofURM buildings that are in communities that don't have earthquake loss reduction programs decreased slightly from 613 to 500 (2 percent of those inventoried). . 560 more URM buildings were reported by local governments as retrofitted since 2003 to bring the total to ] 3,863 or 55 percent of those inventoried. . 108 more URM buildings have been demolished since 2003 to bring the total to 3,566 or ] 4 percent of those inventoried. 5 The numbers of each type of loss reduction program are summarized in Table 3. Most local governments chose to adopt mandatory strengthening programs that are more effective than other types even though the state didn't require them. The remaining jurisaictions not included in this Table 3 either do not have URM buildings or have yet to comply with the law. For more information on them see Table A on Page 12. Table 3. Number and Scope ofURM Loss Reduction Programs in California's Zone 4 as of June 2003 Type of Loss Reduction Entities Percent Population Percent URM's Percent Programs Mandatory- 132 51% 15,751,701 64% 19,123 77% Voluntary 41 16% 2,710,553 11% 1,318 5% Notification Only 44 17% 2,590,091 10% 1,553 6% Other 39 15% 3,608,081 15% 2,919 12% - TOTALS 256 100% 14,660,426 100% 24,913 100% Since 2003, there has not been a significant change in the types of loss reduction programs. The numbers of jurisdictions with mandatory, voluntary and other programs each increased by two, while the number of jurisdictions with notification programs decreased by one. Overall, this fluctuation corresponds to an increase in the total number of jurisdictions with loss reduction programs from 251 to 256. Loss Reduction Program Effectiveness Several simplifying assumptions were made to monitor the relative effectiveness of different types of mitigation programs. Tables 4 and 5 below are predicated on the assumption that most loss reduction programs have had sufficient time to cause substantial retrofit activity. Most programs were initiated around 1990 and have had about 15 years of seismic evaluation and retrofit activity. However, there are major exceptions to this assumption. Some programs are still just getting started and others were completed years ago. So the data may be subject to other interpretations, particularly since some programs are still in progress. In many ways, each jurisdiction's as well as each building owner's situations are unique. The Commission has attempted to generalize with simplistic interpretations and statewide averages of the data below. Appendix A summarizes the significant variations in progress among jurisdictions. Readers should note that many strengthening programs have unique time schedules for compliance and that local economies vary widely from those with high property and rental rates 6 to others facing high vacancy rates, low rents and property values. These variations are not captured by the information below. Nevertheless, one way to gauge the effectiveness of different types of programs is by comparing average rates of retrofit and demolition. Table 4 shows percentages of buildings retrofitted in substantial compliance of Appendix Chapter I of the UCBC or demolished since their original inventories. This information is based on the partial responses from the 2004 survey as well as responses in prior years from other jurisdictions that did not respond in 2004. It is interesting to note that jurisdictions with URM Notification Only Programs currently have lower retrofit and demolition rates than jurisdictions that have not established URM programs. Table 4. Average Rates ofURM Retrofit and Demolition - Type of Mandatory Voluntary Notification Other Numbers Numbers Total Program Only and Rates and Rates Numbers for URM for URM and Rates - Buildings Buildings for URM Within Not In Buildings Programs Programs In Zone 4 Retrofitted to 50% 14% 6% 13% 10198 15 10.213 meet the -- .- UCBC or an 41% 3% 40% equivalent Retrofitted to 19% N/A N/A N/A 3,650 N/A 3,650 different local standards than 15% 14% the UCBC Total Retrofit 69% 14% 6% 13% 13,848 15 13,863 Rates 56% 3% 55% Demolition 16% 7% 4% 7% 3,464 102 3,566 Rates 14% 20% 14% Retrofit Plus 85% 21% 10% 21% 17,312 117 17,429 Demolition Rates 70% 23% 69% Total Number 19,123 1,318 1,553 2,919 24,913 500 25,413 ofURMs Cities and 132 41 44 39 256 27 283 Counties 7 Effectiveness ofIncentives in Voluntary Strengthening Programs Although data is limited, it appears that economic incentives may encourage voluntary retrofits by owners albeit at a slower pace than Mandatory Strengthening Programs. Nine cities with voluntary programs and economic incentives have an average 20% rate for retrofits compared to an 11 % rate for the 32 cities without incentives. So it appears that economic incentives coupled with URM programs seem to encourage owners in Voluntary Strengthening Programs to retrofit. These observations about the relative effectiveness of program types and financial incentives should be tempered with the unique characteristics that the state's URM Law confronts - relatively high cost retrofits on buildings constructed before the mid 1930's in a high seismic region. Other types of retrofit and incentive programs will produce different results. (EERI, 1998) New State Laws Effecting URM Buildings In 2004, three new laws were enacted that effect unreinforced masonry buildings. AB 2533 (Salinas), Chapter 659 of the 2004 Statutes, adds teeth to the state's existing law that requires warning placards to be posted at the entrances to URM buildings. Prior to January I, 2004, the state's placard law had no enforcement mechanism. Jurisdictions reported that owners of only 276 buildings had posted warning placards - about one percent of those inventoried. After January 1, 2004 new signs are required to be a somewhat larger 8" x 10". New penalties and civil action can be pursued against owners that do not post signs. Many new signs have been installed in recent months. They state: Earthquake Warning. This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near unreinforced masonry buildings during an earthquake. AB 3032 (Y ee), Chapter 308 of the 2004 Statutes, allows owners to take down the warning placards once they have retrofitted. In that event, jurisdictions may authorize such owners to erect a different sign: This building has been improved in accordance with the seismic safety standards of a local building ordinance that is applicable to unreinforced masonry. AB 3033 (Yee), Chapter 308 of the 2004 Statutes, prohibits local governments from imposing additional building or site conditions such as parking, onsite offsite requirements or fees on or before the issuance of a building permit for seismic retrofits. The Seismic Safety Commission is required to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of this new law by 2007. 8 CONCLUSIONS 98 percent of the 25, 413 unreinforced masonry buildings are now in mitigation programs in California's highest seismic region as a result of the state's laws. A little over two thirds or 17,429 of these buildings have either been retrofitted or demolished. The great majority of the remaining third of these buildings is still at significant risk of collapse and life loss because of ineffective local mitigation programs and a lack of economic incentives. 85 percent of the unreinforced masonry buildings in Mandatory Strengthening Programs have either been retrofitted or demolished compared to 10 to 21 percent in other program types. These differences in rates demonstrate that Mandatory Strengthening Programs are considerably more effective than other program types. Voluntary Strengthening Programs have not been as effective because current economic incentives are typically not sufficient to create market-driven willingness to retrofit. The Commission has proposed additional retrofit incentives in its California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan (CSSC, 2002). That plan recommends that state and local governments "encourage economic incentives, such as improved mortgage terms, reduced insurance rates, and positive tax benefits, for upgrading structural and non-structural elements in buildings." Since the development of new local URM programs and retrofit progress has slowed, future surveys oflocal government may be undertaken less frequently. Still much remains to be done with respect to the-,JRM Law since the public continues to be exposed to life-threatening risks: California has 27 remaining jurisdictions with 500 URM buildings that are not in compliance with the law. In addition, 7,984 buildings remain un- retrofitted and at significant risk of collapse in the state's high seismic regions. COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nONS The Legislature should revisit the state's Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Law and consider the following actions: Mandate the strengthening of all unreinforced masonry bearing buildings including state- owned buildings in accordance with the state's model building code. . Recommend that local governments with little or no retrofit progress provide incentives to encourage owners to retrofit. Adopt the International Existing Building Code as the State's model building code so that future alterations to existing buildings trigger seismic retrofits to the latest standards. Establish retrofit standards and mitigation programs for other types of collapse-risk buildings such as soft-story apartments, tiltups and older concrete buildings. 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Commission wishes to thank all of the local governments that responded to the 2004 URM Survey. Without their efforts, this report would not have been possible. The Commission also acknowledges the efforts of Kyshia Davis in compiling the data in this report. 10 REFERENCES California Legislature. "The URM Law," Section 8875 et seq., Government Code, California Statutes of 1986, see Appendix B. California Seismic Safety Commission. "California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan." SSC 2002-02,2002. California Seismic Safety Commission. "Incentives to Improve California's Earthquake Safety: An' Agenda in Waiting''', SSC 99-02. California Seismic Safety Commission. "Status of the Unrelnforced Masonry Building Law." SSC 2003-03, 2003. California Seismic Safety Commission. "Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law." SSC 1995-05, 1995. California Seismic Safety Commission. "Earthquake Hazard Identification and Voluntary Mitigation: Palo Alto's City Ordinance," SSC 90-05, 1990. International Conference of Building Officials: "Uniform Building Code," 1985 Edition, Seismic Zone Map in effect at the time of the passage of the 1986 URM Law. International Conference of Building Officials. "Uniform Code for Building Conservation, Appendix Chapter 1," 1997 Edition, California Building Standards Commission, Part 1 0, Title 24, "California Code for Building Conservation," California Code of Regulations, 2001. International Conference of Building Officials. "California Historical Building Code," 2001, California Building Standards Commission, Part 8, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, 2001. International Conference of Building Officials. "Uniform Building Code," 1997 Edition, California Building Standards Commission, California Building Code, Part 2, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, 200 I. Los Angeles, City of. "Division 88 - Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings," February 13,1981. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, "Incentives and Impediments to Improving the Seismic Safety Performance of Buildings," EERI, 1998. 11 Table A 2004 State Summary of the URM Law Implementation ~ <rJ .. '" '" = <rJ QJ C QJ QJ 0 bO .S: ell ell .... eo: eo: .... <'IS <J .... ... ... <rJ ... .... = eo: c S; C '1:l QJ :; QJ ill <rJ <J U U .... ... Q. s.. ~ s.. ... ;:l QJ 0 ill ill -. ~ ~ ~ ;::l ~ '---- Cities without inventories started 0 0% - 0 0% 0 0% Cities with inventories not completed 5 1% 97,625 <1% 49 <1% Cities with inventory completed - No mitigation 19 5% . 524,749 2% 420 2% program started Cities with no URMs 77 21% 2,420,464 8% 0 0% Cities with mitigation programs 235 64% 20,752,967 73% 23,851 94% Cities in Zone 4 affected by the URM Law 336 92% 23,795,805 84% 24,320 96% Counties without inventories started 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Counties with inventories not completed 1 <1% 18,164 <1% 6 <1% Counties with inventory completed-No mitigation 2 <1% 139,272 <1% 25 <1% program started ~. Counties with no URMs 5 1% 516,956 2% 0 0% Counties with mitigation programs 21 6% 3,907,459 14% 1062 4% Counties in Zone 4 affected by the URM Law 29 8% 4,581,851 16% 1093 4% Cities and counties without inventories started 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Cities and counties with inventories not completed 6 2% 115,789 <1% 55 <1% Cities and counties with inventory completed - No 21 6% 664,021 2% 445 2% mitigation program started Cities and counties with no URMs 82 22% 2,937,420 10% 0 0% Cities and counties with mitigation programs 256 70% 24,660,426 87% 24,913 98% Total cities and counties in Zone 4 365 100% 28,377,656 100% 25,413 100% Types of mitigation programs established Mandatory Strengthening Program 132 51% 15,751,701 64% 19,123 77% V oluntary Strengthening Program 41 16% 2,701,553 11% 1,318 5% Notification Only 44 17% 2,590,091 10% 1,553 6% Other 39 15% 3,608,081 15% 2,919 12% Total cities and counties with mitigation programs 256 100% 24,660,426 100% 24,913 100% Cities and Counties replying to 2004 URM Survey 110 39% 9,054,309 36% 7,516 30% · Based on 2000 Census Data 12 Appendix A 2004 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts in Seismic Zone 4 Average Mitigation Rate 690/0 Statewide URM Retrofit and Demolition Rates (Percent of Buildings) . 80 to 100 % o 60 to 79 % E 40 to 58 % o 20 to 39 % . 0 to 19 % o Regions Not Affected by the URM Law 1 Appendix B -Selected State Laws Relevant to URM Buildings Selected State Laws in the Government Code Relating to URM Buildings - The URM Law and Placard Laws: 8875. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the construction of this chapter: (a) "Potentially hazardous building" means any building constructed prior to the adoption of local building codes requiring earthquake resistant design of buildings and constructed of unreinforced masonry wall construction. "Potentially hazardous building" includes all buildings of this type, including, but not limited to, public and private schools, theaters, places ofpublic assembly, apartment buildings, hotels, motels, fire stations, police stations. and buildings housing emergency services, equipment, or supplies, such as government buildings, disaster relief centers, communications facilities, hospitals, blood banks, pharmaceutical supply warehouses, plants, and retail outlets. "Potentially hazardous building" does not include warehouses or similar structures not used for human habitation, except for warehouses or structures housing emergency services equipment or supplies. "Potentially hazardous building" does not include any building having five living units or less. "Potentially hazardous building" does not include, for purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 8875.2, any building which qualifies as "historical property" as determined by aniippropriate governmental agency under Section 37602 of the Health and Safety Code. (b) "Local building department" means a department or agency of a city or county charged with the responsibility for the enforcement of local building codes. 8875.1. A program is hereby established within all cities, both general law and chartered, and all counties and portions thereof located within seismic zone 4, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 2-23 of Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, to identify all potentially hazardous buildings and to establish a program for mitigation of identified potentially hazardous buildings. 8875.2. Local building departments shall do all of the following: (a) Identify all potentially hazardous buildings within their respective jurisdictions on or before January I, 1990. This identification shall include current building use and daily occupancy load. In regard to identifying and inventorying the buildings, the local building departments may establish a schedule of fees to recover the costs of identifying potentially hazardous buildings and carrying out this chapter. (b) Establish a mitigation program for potentially hazardous buildings to include notification to the legal owner that the building is considered to be one of a general type of structure that historically has exhibited little resistance to earthquake motion. The mitigation program may include the adoption by ordinance of a hazardous buildings program, measures to strengthen buildings, measures to change the use to acceptable occupancy levels or to demolish the - B1 - building, tax incentives available for seismic rehabilitation, low-cost seismic rehabilitation loans available under Division 32 (commencing with Section 55000) of the Health and Safety Code, application of structural standards necessary to provide for life safety above current Code requirements, and other incentives to repair the buildings which are available from federal, state, and local programs. Compliance with an adopted hazardous buildings ordinance or mitigation program shall be the responsibility of building owners. Nothing in this chapter makes any state building subject to a local building mitigation program or makes the state or any local government responsible for paying the cost of strengthening a privately owned structure, reducing the occupancy, demolishing a structure, preparing engineering or architectural analysis, investigation, or design, or other costs associated with compliance of locally adopted mitigation programs. (c) By January I, 1990, all information regarding potentially hazardous buildings and all hazardous building mitigation programs shall be reported to the appropriate legislative body of a city or county and filed with the Seismic Safety Commission. 8875.3. Local jurisdictions undertaking inventories and providing structural evaluations of potentially hazardous buildings pursuant to this chapter shall have the same immunity from liability for action or inaction taken pursuant to this chapter as is provided by Section 19167 of the Health and Safety Code for action or failure to take any action pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 19160) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. 8875.4. The Seismic Safety Commission shall report annually to the Legislature on the filing of mitigation programs from local jurisdictions. The annual report required by this section shall review and assess the effectiveness of building reconstruction standards adopted by cities and counties pursuant to this article and shall, commencing on or before January 1,2007, include an evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of Section 8875. I O. 8875.5. The Seismic Safety Commission shall coordinate the earthquake-related responsibilities of government agencies imposed by this chapter to ensure compliance with the purposes of this chapter. 8875.6. On and after January I, 1993, the transferor, or his or her agent. of any unreinforced masonry building with wood frame floors or roofs, built before January I, 1975, which is located within any county or city shall, as soon as practicable before the sale, transfer, or exchange, deliver to the purchaser a copy of the Commercial Property Owner's Guide to Earthquake Safety described in Section 10147 of the Business and Professions Code. This section shall not apply to any transfer described in Section 8893.3. 8875.7. If the transferee has received notice pursuant to Section 8875.8, and has not brought the building or structure into compliance within five years of that date, the owner shall not receive payment from any state assistance program for earthquake repairs resulting from damage during an earthquake until all other applicants have been paid. - B2- 8875.8. (a) An owner who has received actual or constructive notice that a building located in seismic zone 4 is constructed of unreinforced masonry shall post in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building, on a sign not less than 5 X 7 the following statement, printed in not less than 3D-point bold type: "This is an unreinforced masonry building. Unreinforced masonry buildings may be unsafe in the event of a major earthquake." (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), unless the owner of a building subject to subdivision (a) is in compliance with that subdivision on and after December 31, 2004, an owner who has received actual or constructive notice that a building located in seismic zone 4 is constructed of unreinforced masonry and has not been retrofitted in accordance with an adopted hazardous building ordinance or mitigation program shall post in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building: on a sign not less than 8 X 10 the following statement, with the first two words printed in 50-point bold type and the remaining words in at least 3D-point type: "Earthquake Warning. This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near unreinforced masonry buildings during an earthquake." (c) Notice of the obligation to post a sign, as required by subdivisions (a) and (b), shall be included in the Commercial Property Owner's Guide to Earthquake Safety. (d) Every rental or lease agreement entered into after January 1,2005, involving a building subject to the requirements of subdivision (b) shall contain the following statement: This building, which you are renting or leasing, is an unreinforced masonry building. Unreinforced masonry buildings have proven to be unsafe in the event of an earthquake. Owners of unreinforced masonry buildings are required to post in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building, the following statement: "Earthquake Warning. This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake. " (e) An owner who is subject to subdivision (b) and who does not comply with subdivision (a) may be subject to an administrative fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to be levied by the local building department no sooner than 15 days after the local building department notifies the owner that the owner is subject to the administrative fine. If the owner does not comply with the requirements of that subdivision within 30 days of the first administrative fine, the owner may be subject to an additional administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($\ ,000). (f) Ifan owner who is subject to subdivision (b) does not comply with subdivision (b), any person may bring a civil action for injunctive relief if all of the following have been met: (I) He or she has made a request to an appropriate authority for administrative enforcement of this section at least 90 days prior to the action. (2) An administrative fine has not been levied since the request was made pursuant to paragraph (I). - B3- (3) At least 15 days prior to the filing of the action, the person has served on each proposed defendant a notice containing the following statement: "Y ou are receiving this notice because you are alleged to be in violation of Section 8875.8 of the Government Code, which requires that the owner of an unreinforced masonry building post a sign, not less than 8 X 10, in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building with the following statement, with the first two words printed in 50-point boldface type and the remaining words in at least 3D-point type: "Earthquake Warning. This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near unreinforced masonry bui"Idings during an earthquake. Failure to post the sign in compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 8875.8 within 15 days of receipt of this notice entitles the sender of the notice to file an action against you in a court of law for injunctive relief.'" (4) The owner has failed to post the sign in accordance with the requirements of subdivision (b) within 15 days of receipt of the notice served pursuant to this subdivision. (g) The prohibitions and sanctions imposed pursuant to this section are in addition to any other prohibitions and sanctions imposed by law. -A civil action for injunctive relief pursuant to this section shall be independent of any other rights and remedies. 8875.9. Section 8875.8 shall not apply to either one of the following: (a) Unreinforced masonry construction if the walls are nonload bearing with steel or concrete frame. (b) A building that has been retrofitted in accordance with an adopted hazardous buildings ordinance or mitigation program, in which case the local jurisdiction may authorize the owner to post in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building, on a sign not less than 5 X 7 the following statement, printed in not less than 3D-point bold type: "This building has been improved in accordance with the seismic safety standards of a local building ordinance that is applicable to unreinforced masonry buildings." 8875.95. No transfer of title shall be invalidated on the basis of a failure to comply with this chapter. 8875.10. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city or county may not impose any additional building or site conditions including, but not limited to, parking or other onsite or offsite requirements, fees, or exactions, on or before the issuance of a building permit that is necessary for the owner of a potentially hazardous building to conduct seismic-related improvements to that building in order for that building to meet the requirements of a mitigation program established pursuant to Section 8875.1 and adopted pursuant to Section 8875.2, if the building or site conditions do not relate to, or further the purpose of, seismic improvements to the building and the improvements comply with applicable building codes and meet or exceeds the requirements of state and federal law and regulations that would otherwise apply. - B4- (b) This section shall not apply to any changes in use, design, or other building features that are unrelated to the seismic improvements. This section shall also not apply to a request for other entitlements for the project, including, but not limited to, a general plan amendment, zone change. or approval pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,2009, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1,2009, deletes or extends that date. Selected State Housing Laws in the Health and Safety Code Relating to URM Buildings 17922. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5, and the other rules and regulations that are contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as adopted, amended, or repealed from time to time pursuant to this chapter shall be adopted by reference, except that the building standards and rules and regulations shall include any additions or deletions made by the department. The building standards and rules and regulations shall impose substantially the same requirements as are contained in the most recent editions of the following uniform industry Codes as adopted by the organizations specified: (I) The Uniform Housing Code of the International Conference of Building Officials, except its definition of "substandard building." (2) The Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of Building Officials. (3) The Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. (4) The Uniform Mechanical Code of the International Conference of Building Officials and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. (5) The National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association. (6) Appendix Chapter I of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation of the International Conference of Building Officials. (b) In adopting building standards for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 for publication in the California Building Standards Code and in adopting other regulations. the department shall consider local conditions and any amendments to the uniform Codes referred to in this section. Except as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 1890 I), in the absence of adoption by regulation, the most recent editions of the uniform Codes referred to in this section shall be considered to be adopted one year after the date of publication of the uniform Codes. (c) Except as provided in Section 17959.5, local use zone requirements, local tire zones, building setback, side and rear yard requirements, and property line requirements are hereby - 85- specifically and entirely reserved to the local jurisdictions notwithstanding any requirements found or set forth in this part. (d) Regulations other than building standards which are adopted, amended, or repealed by the department, and building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5, governing alteration and repair of existing buildings and moving of apartment houses and dwellings shall permit the replacement, retention, and extension of original materials and the continued use of original methods of construction as long as the hotel, lodging house, motel, apartment house, or dwelling, or portions thereof, or building and structure accessory thereto, complies with the provisions published in the California Building Standards Code and the other rules and regulations of the department or alternative local standards adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13143.2 or Section 17958.5 and does not become or continue to be a substandard building: Building additions or alterations which increase the' area, volume, or size of an existing building, and foundations for apartment houses and dwellings moved, shall comply with the requirements for new buildings or structures specified in this part, or in building standards published in the California Building Standards Code, or in the other rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this part. However, the additions and alterations shall not cause the building to exceed area or height limitations applicable to new construction. (e) Regulations other than building standards which are adopted by the department and building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 governing alteration and repair of existing buildings shall permit the use of alternate materials, appliances. installations, devices, arrangements, or methods of construction if the material, appliance, installation, device, arrangement, or method is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this part, the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this part in performance, safety, and for the protection of life and health, Regulations governing abatement of substandard buildings shall permit those conditions prescribed by Section 17920.3 which do not endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupant thereof. (f) A local enforcement agency may not prohibit the use of materials, appliances, installations, devices, arrangements, or methods of construction specifically permitted by the department to be used in the alteration or repair of existing buildings, but those materials, appliances, installations, devices, arrangements, or methods of construction may be specifically prohibited by local ordinance as provided pursuant to Section 17958.5. (g) A local ordinance may not permit any action or proceeding to abate violations of regulations governing maintenance of existing buildings, unless the building is a substandard building or the violation is a misdemeanor. 17922.1. Notwithstanding Section 17922, local agencies may modify or change the requirements published in the State Building Standards Code or contained in other regulations adopted by the department pursuant to Section 17922 if they make a finding that temporary housing is required for use in conjunction with a filed mining claim on federally owned - B6- property located within the local jurisdiction and that the modification or change would be in the public interest and consistent with the intent of the so-called Federal Mining Act of 1872 (see 30 U.S.c., Sec. 22, et seq.), relating to the development ofrhining resources of the United States. 17922.2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, ordinances and programs adopted on or before January I, 1993, that contain standards to strengthen potentially hazardous buildings pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8875.2 of the Government Code, shall incorporate the building standards in Appendix Chapter I of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation of the International Conference of Building Officials published in the California Building Standards Code, except for standards found by local ordinance to be inapplicable based on local conditions, as defined in subdivision (b), or based on an approved study pursuant to subdivision (c), or both. Ordinances and programs shall be. updated in a timely manner to reflect changes in the model Code, and more frequently if deemed necessary by local j urisd ictions. (b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), and notwithstanding the meaning of "local conditions" as used elsewhere in this part and in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 1890 I), the term "local conditions" shall be limited to those conditions that affect the implementation of seismic strengthening standards on the following only: (I) The preservation of qualified historic-structures as governed by the State Historical Building Code (Part 2.7 (commencing with Section 18950)). (2) Historic preservation programs. including, but not limited to, the California Mainstreet Program. (3) The preservation of affordable housing. (c) Any ordinance or program adopted on or before January I, 1993, may include exceptions for local conditions not defined in subdivision (b) if the jurisdiction has approved a study on or before January I, 1993, describing the effects of the exceptions. The study shall include socioeconomic impacts. a seismic hazards assessment, seismic retrofit cost comparisons, and earthquake damage estimates for a major earthquake, including the differences in costs, deaths, and injuries between full compliance with Appendix Chapter I of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation or the Uniform Building Code and the ordinance or program. No study shall be required pursuant to this subdivision if the exceptions for local conditions not defined in subdivision (b) result in standards or requirements that are more stringent than those in Appendix Chapter I of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. (d) Ordinances and programs adopted pursuant to this section shall conclusively be presumed to comply with the requirements of Chapter 173 of the Statutes of 199 I. - B7- Selected State Building Safety Laws in the Health and Safety Code Relating to URM's 18938. (a) Building standards shall be filed with the Secretary cif State and codified only after they have been approved by the (Building Standards) Commission and shall not be published in any other title of the California Code of Regulations. Emergency building standards shall be filed with the Secretary of State and shall take effect only after they have been approved by the commission as required by Section 18937. The filing of building standards adopted or approved pursuant to this part, or any certification with respect thereto, with the Secretary of State, or elsewhere as required by law, shall be done solely by the commission. (b) The building standards contained in the Uniform Fir~ Code of the International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire Chiefs Association, Inc., the Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of Building Officials, Appendix Chapter 1 ofthe Uniform Code for Building Conservation of the International Conference of Building Officials, the Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, the National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association, and the Uniform Mechanical Code of the International Conference of Building Officials and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, as referenced in the California Building Standards Code, shall apply to all occupancies throughout the state and shall become effective 180 days after publication in the California Building Standards Code by the California Building Standards Commission or at a later date after publication established by the commission. 19160. The Legislature finds and declares that: (a) Because of the generally acknowledged fact that California will experience moderate to severe earthquakes in the foreseeable future, increased efforts to reduce earthquake hazards should be encouraged and supported. (b) Tens of thousands of buildings subject to severe earthquake hazards continue to be a serious danger to the life and safety of hundreds of thousands of Californians who live and work in them in the event of an earthquake. (c) Improvement of safety to life is the primary goal of building reconstruction to reduce earthquake hazards. (d) 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. 19161. (a) Each city, city and county, or county, may assess the earthquake hazard in its jurisdiction and identify buildings subject to its jurisdiction as being hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake if those buildings were constructed prior to the adoption of local building codes requiring earthquake resistant design of buildings, are constructed of unreinforced masonry wall construction, and exhibit any of the following characteristics: - B8- (1) Exterior parapets or ornamentation that may fall. (2) Exterior walls that are not anchored to the floors or roof: (3) Lacks an effective system to resist seismic forces. (b) Structural evaluations made pursuant to this section shall be made by an architect as defined in Section 5500 of the Business and Professions Code, or a civil or structural engineer registered pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or a building inspector of the enforcing agency, as described in Section 17960, supervised by an architect or civil or structural engineer authorized by this subdivision to make the structural evaluations. 19162. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 19100 or 19150 or any other provision of law, the governing body of any city, city and county, or county may, by ordinance, establish building reconstruction standards applicable to the reconstruction of any buildings identified by the city, city and county, or county as being hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake, pursuant to Section 19161. Such building reconstruction standards may be applied uniformly throughout the city, city and county, or county, or may be applied in specific areas designated by the city, city and county, or county. 19163. Any local ordinance adopted pursuanHo Section 19162 shall require that: (a) Any reconstruction of any building identified as being hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake shall provide for the reasonable adequacy of: (1) Unreinforced masonry walls to resist normal and in-plane seismic forces, (2) The anchorage and stability of exterior parapets and ornamentation, (3) The anchorage of unreinforced masonry walls to the floors and roof, (4) Floor and roof diaphragms, (5) The development of a complete bracing system to resist earthquake forces. (b) Reconstruction of any building or portions of any building shall be designed to resist and withstand the seismic forces from any direction as set forth in the building reconstruction standards using the allowable working stresses adopted pursuant to this article. (c) The governing board of any city, city and county, or county may establish, by ordinance, standards and procedures to fulfill the intent of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) without regard to the remainder of the requirements specified above. 19163.5. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 12.5, an ordinance adopted by a city, city and county, or county pursuant to Section 19163, may establish higher standards for the reconstruction of those structures or buildings which are needed for emergency purposes - B9- after an earthquake in order to preserve the peace, health, and safety of the general public, including but not limited to, hospitals and other medical facilities having surgery or emergency treatment areas, fire and police stations, government disaster operations centers, and public utility and communication buildings deemed vital in emergencies. 19164. Any city, city and county, or county may assign allowable working stresses to existing materials based on substantiating research data or engineering judgment. Such allowable working stresses shall be limited by a safety factor which is reasonably commensurate with the importance of the element in which the material is used. In the event the local jurisdiction does not have the ability to assign such allowable working stresses, it may employ as a consultant the office of the State Architect. Allowable working stresses prepared by the office of the State Architect for any city, city and county, or county shall be subject to approval by the Seismic Safety Commission. 19165. Any city, city and county, or county adopting an ordinance establishing seismically hazardous building reconstruction standards applicable to the reconstruction of buildings identified as being hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake, shall file for informational purposes with the Department of Housing and Community Development a copy of such standards and all subsequent amendments. 19166. Any building identified as being a seismic hazard to life and reconstructed in compliance with building reconstruction standards adopted pursuant to this article and properly maintained, shall not, within a period of 15 years, be identified as a seismic hazard to life pursuant to any local building standards adopted after the date of the building reconstruction unless such building no longer meets the seismically hazardous building reconstruction standards under which it was reconstructed. 19167. No city, city and county, or county, nor any employee of any such entity, shall be liable for damages for injury to persons or property, resulting from an earthquake or otherwise, on the basis of any assessment or evaluation performed, any ordinance adopted, or any other action taken pursuant to this article, irrespective of whether such action complies with the terms of this article, or on the basis of failure to take any action authorized by this article. The immunity from liability provided herein is in addition to all other immunities of the city, city and county, or county provided by law. 19168. Nothing in this article shall apply to those buildings and structures governed by the provisions of Chapter I (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 12.5 of this code or Article 3 (commencing with Section 39140) of Chapter 2 of Part 23 of the Education Code or Article 7 (commencing with Section 81130) of Chapter 1 of Part 49 of the Education Code or any state-owned buildings or structures located in any city, city and county, or county. - BID -