HomeMy WebLinkAbout30-Planning and Building
CITY OF SAN BEOARDINO - REQUESUOR COUNCIL ACTIO~
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Adoption of Ordinance Establishing :~n
Unreinforced Masonry Building
Dept: Planning and Building Services Mitigation Program.
Da~: April 16, 1993
Synopsis of Previous Council action: See attached Staff Report.
/
Recommended motion:
That further reading of Ordinance be waived and that said
Ordinance be laid over for final adoption.
CC: Shauna Clark, City Administrator
James Penman, City Attorney
Contact person:
Joseph Lease
Phona:
5071
Supponi"ll d_ .tc..hecl: Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: n/ a
Source: IAcct. No.1
IAcct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council No.:
Aaenda Item No ~
CITY OF SAN BERt'RDINO ... REQUEST a>>R COUNCIL ACTION
BACKGROUND
STAFF REPORT
::
Chronology of Events:
1933
1937
1937-1981
1981
1983
1986
1989
Jan. 1990
I 5.0264
Long Beach Earthquake: This earthquake resulted in an
extensive failure rate for URN buildings with
significant loss of life. FOllowing the earthquake,
the State Legislature enacted the Riley and Field Acts
requiring seismic design standards for new masonry
bUildings. These standards were incorporated into
the 1934 Edition of the UBC.
The City of San Bernardino adopts the 1937 Edition of
the UBC, the first edition adopted by the City to
include lateral design requirements for masonry
buildings. (The 1927 Edition was used up until this
time. )
Various earthquakes, such as those that occurred in
Alaska (1964) and San Fernando (1971), further
exemplify the inherent hazards associated with URN
buildings.
The Ci ty of Los Angeles adopts Division 88, which is
the first major ordinance requiring retrofitting of
existing URN bUildings constructed prior to Oc:tober
6, 1933.
The Ci ty of San Bernardino adopts SBHC Chapter 15.12,
"Earthquake Hazard Reduction in EXisting Buildings",
which is modeled after L.A. Div.88, except that
it only requires retrofitting if the bUilding
is vacant for 180 days or more, or declared a public
nuisance. This proved ineffective because procedures
were not developed and implemented to monitor
vacancies.
The California State Legislature adopts S.B.
547, which reqUires all local jurisdictions in seiamic
zone 4 to conduct a survey to identify all U1lH
. bUildings and to implement a mitigation program by
January 1, 1990.
The City of San Bernardino contracts with EQE
Engineering to conduct a survey of
bUildings within the city.
URN
The survey is completed and the report is submi tted
to the Ci ty. The report includes potentially hazardous
bUildings.
o
o
Feb 1990
Jan-Mar 1990 Staff's review of the EQE report finds
various discrepancies, including an inflated number
of URM bUildings listed due to an inadequate records
search by EQE. Following a reinvestigation of the
records by EQE the list is revised to include only 247
buildings.
Members of the HJ.storical Review Board review
the survey report to identify potentially
historic buildings.
Apr 2,1990 SBHC Sec. 15.12.050 is amended by Ordinance MC-718 to
require retrofitting of existing URM bUildings
identified in the survey.
Apr 3,1990 Resolution No. 90-117 is adopted by the City Council
and sets forth timelines for compliance with
SBHC 15.12.
Apr 5,1990 Letters of notification are mailed to 247 bUilding
owners.
Apr-May '90 Two publiC forums were held (the first of which _s
televised) to prOVide further information to buHding
owners and to answer their questions.
June 5,1990 Resolution No. 90-214 is adopted by the City Council
amending Resolution No. 90-117 to delete
wording regarding demolition of buildings.
Sept 1990 Enforcement of Resolution No.90-117 is suspended at
the direction of the City CouncJ.l. The Legislative
ReView Ccmaittee rLRC) directs staff to
revise Resolution No. 90-117 by reVising the timelJ.nes
for compHance based on occupancy l~ds of
the bUildings. (Ref, Interoffice Nemo 9009-3325)
Feb 25,1991 A report is submitted to the LRC providing a breakdown
of buJ.ldings by. occupancy load categories based on
estimated occupancy loads. (Ref, Interoffice
Memo 9102-4101)
Apr 18,1991 During LRC meeting timeHnes are agreed upon
as follows,
Catecorv Dcc.LoadfX} Years for nmnnl1ance
II X 1. 100 4 + 3*
111 20 ~ X < 100 6 + 3*
IV X < 20 8 + 3*
* Three additional ~ars to be allowed for full
campHance if diaphragm anchors are installed.
Also, LRC directs staff to revise the
existing ordinance.
Apr-May 1991
Oct. 1991
June 1992
July 1992
to Present
March ' 93
o
o
Staff's review finds many discrepancies
the original ordinance. Staff is asked
comparison of Chapt. 15.12 with the
Ordinance.
in
to make a
State Model
Staff presented the revised URM bUilding ordinance to
LRC. LRC accepted the ordinance, but directed staff
to explore the feasibility of a Financial Assistance
Program prior to going forward wi th the ordinance.
Staff met with a small group of bUilding owners to
obtain input and to discuss the feasibility of a
VOluntary assessment district as a financing
mechanism.
CDBG funds are approved for the Prel iminary
Engineering Analysis of URM Buildings. Phase I,
the research and documentation phase of the program
has been co~leted, and the number of buildings
remaining on the list is 149. Phase II, which
includes pachometer tests, an engineering review and
report, and cost estimates for each building, will be
completed by the end of the fiscal year. It is
anticipated that this phase of the program will
further reduce the number of buildings on the list by
an additional 20 ,to 40 buildings, to approximately 110
to 130 bUildings.
LRC approved the Revised URM Building Ordinance to go
forward for the Mayor and Common Council's
consideration.
o
o
COMMENTARY
Senate Bill 547 (Alquist, 19B6) mandated that local jurisdictions
in seismic zone 4 identify unreinforced masonry (URN) bearing wall
buildings by January, 1990, and institute a hazard mitigation
program to alleviate the potential life threatening hazards
inherent in these types of buildings when subjected to the effects
of moderate to high magnitude earthquakes.
In 1990 the Hayor and COIlDOn Council adopted Ordinance HC-71B and
Resolution No. 90-117 which reqUired that owners retrofit their
bUildings within a 3 year time period. Enforcement of these
reqUirements was suspended in September, 1990, and staff was
subsequentlY directed to revise the ordinance and resolution.
Assembly Bill 204 was passed by the State LegiSlature and became
effective on January 1, 1992. This la", requires local
jurisdictions to adopt as part of their mitigation program, the
deSign standards contained in the Uniform Code for BUildiDg
Conservation (UCBC), Appendix Chapter 1.
The following features are contained in the revised ordinance:
The time limits for compliance have been expanded and are
contained in Table No. A-I-G. The tilll8 limits for
compliance vary for each risk cateaorv (I, II, III, or
IV). Risk categories, as defined by UCBC Appendix
Chapter 1, are based on the occupancy load of the
building. Also, the ordinance provides tor an additional
3 years tor tull compliance it diaphragm anchorage is
accompl ished wi thin the time 1 imi ts contained in the
table.
UCBC Appendix Chal'ter 1 is adopted by reterence.
Revised Administrative Provisions which are an
amalgamation ot those I'resently contained in Ordinance
Ne-71B, Council Resolution No. 90-117, SMC Chapter'
15.12, and the Seismic Satety COIIIIJissioD's -RecQ/DIJfUJded
Hodel Ordinance-. These I'rovisions I'rovide expanded
appeal procedures, to insure due I'roaess, and turther
clarity the specifi.c actions required to be taken by the
building official.
o
o
:.
In order to establish an effective and workable mitigation program,
and to reduce the negative impact on affected businesses, a
financial assistance program may be necessary. Economic
Development Agency staff has been researChing various financing
options. The following synopsis of various financing options has
been prepared by EOA staff, and is provided for informational
purposes only. Once the program for the preliminary engineering
analysis is completed, it will provide the necessary data to
determine the most appropriate form of financial assistance.
~&IIr.DG OPrIOIIS
While it is po..ib1e that there -.y be .ome owner. who are able to
finance their buildiq upcrade. vith their own cub. it will be the cue
that mo.t owner. viii need out. ide source. of fund. for .eiaaic retrofit
projects.
A common hurdle to obtaininc financinc for retrofittinc i. that the
buildinc. often do not meet estatiliahed len4iq criteria. Bi&hb
1everaced buildinc. (from recent purcha.e. or from refinancinc.) are
unable to meet the loan-to-value ratio.. particular~ if owners find it
difficult to attract tenant. bec.use th.., are considered hazardous.
letrofittinc. per .e. doe. not neces.ari17 cenerate reveaae (i.e. if the
buildinc i. present~ lea.ed and occupied) and the impact. of
retrofittinc "7 include busine.. interruption or temporar.J relocation
of tenant.. For the.e reasons. retrofit-on17 project. are uncommon and
retrofitinc is frequent17 undertaken in conjunction vith larcer
remodelinc project. which are ezpected to re.ult in reveaae increue.
sufficient to pay for the project and the tempora~ income losses.
To ensure the .ucces. of a local .eismic retrofit pro,r.. it i. helpful
to have financial assistance pro,r... u incentive. u much u it i.
critical to have an effective ordinance reqairiq retrofit or demolition
of hazardous .tructures. Even when f.ced vith the ultillate Iou of
their propert7. maar owner. viii not retrofit either because the 8OD87
to do .0 i. not acce..ible to them or becau.e th.., .imp~ caaaot afford
to make intere.t and principal P&7mllllt. on the ftnanciq.. 'ro,r.. can
be made available. however. to ua1.t owner. in retroflttlnc
unreinforced ...~ structure..
.-
--
COBVDTIOIUL UOxlWlCIIG
o
As mentioned above, conventional bank financing is difficult because of
the lending criteria that ,must be met. Loan-to-value ratios and debt
service coverage (the ratio of funds available to make payments, to the
amount of the payments themselves) are difficult to meet except by
owners who have built up substantial amounts of equity in their
buildings which will support the additional loans.
While it seems reasonable to argue that banks hOlding loans on URM
property would find it in their own self-interest to be concerned with
upgrading their URM properties, they do not seem to be greatly motivated
to actually make additional loans. This may be because the owner's
ability to repay is not usually enhanced, the market value of the
collateral is not necessarily improved, and the risk of loss is viewed
primarily as an underwriting hazard (that is it is already calculated as
a risk in doing business).
Bew lenders have even strieter tests of collateral because, until the
retrofit is complete, the banker considers that at any moment the
earthquake may happen and the structure collapse. From a collateral
perspective, then, unless earthquake insurance is available the banker
really can only count on the value of the underlying land, lua
demolition costa, lAD existing loans. It is a rare property that can
withatand this form of anslysis and still support a loan for a
retrofitting project.
Bank lending criteria is driven primarily by the perspectives of bank
regulators. Bote that the relulators make no allowances for Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans; CRA loans have to meet ordinary eredit
criteria. However, if the projects could stand up to ordinary criteria,
we would not need to rely upon CiA to let them funded. CiA turu out to
be a very weak lever wi th which to pry loans out of the banking
communi ty .
LOCAL JWII:LOQ POOL
Despite all of the above difficulties with bank financing, thare baa
been some succe.. vith local bank pools. Botably, the City of lIQvard
is successfully implementing a proar.. for their 45 UIIIIa. They vera
unable to use the assesament district financing approach discussed below
because of their prozimity to earthquake faults (a fault l'UD8 literally
down the lIiddle of Main Street and directly underneath one of the
bUildings) .
The first requirement of their DIll atrate-y vas to II8Jte retrofitting
mandatory. If it had not been, the banks vonld not have been interested
because the owners would not have been sufficiently IIOtivated and the
banks vould not have been driven to take action to preserve their base
in the busine.. collllllUDi ty .
Hayward's total bank loan pool is tarleted at .6 to .7 million which
will be available at preferential rates. The city vill earn loan fees
for packaging the loan (Using Urban Financial Services Group which is
also paid from the fees). After IIauy hours of nelotiation, the banks
alreed to desirable loan rates once they were convinced of the city's
proactive commitment.
.
The pooled loan Qaru 18 one '~f four .tr.teaies:&.t lIa7v.rd 18 u.ina
to revitalize it. downtown. The other .trategie. (si.ilar to those we
are usina here in San Bernardino) are:
* To demonstrate it. commitment to the downtown area, the City
will have a catalyst project. A new city hall 18 now beina
considered.
* Three redevelop.ent aites are now beina actively marketed
primarily for new market-rate housina.
* New events and activities are beina programed in the downtown.
Active one-to-one marltetina has been found to be e.sential for the
pooled loan program to be successful. Each buildina requires a custom
progru that involves consideration of all aspects of the buildina'.
needs and not just seis.ic renovation alone.
This approach appears to be feasible for San Bernardino as the sue
.otivations do or can be made to exist here as in Ba)'Warll. Th18 proaru
was created with bank officials above the local and reaional levels and
has application outside the city of Ba)'Ward.
SPECIAL ASSBSSIIDr DISDICT FIlIOCIK
Special Assesuent District financina was US.d in 19.9 iD Torrane. and
in 1991 in LOllI Beach for retrofittina progr... Torrenc. finanCed the
retrofit of 7 structures with $6'0,000 in bond.. Lona leach financed
$17.4 .illion worth of ..i..ic r.trofit proj.cts on l37.tructur...
Both Torrance and LOllI B..ch are charter citi.. which Provid.. .om.
flexibility in d.alina with a......ent district r.quir--.nt.. Sp.cial
A.sessment District financina could includ. M.llo-Ioo. fiDancina. and
oth.r si.ilar .eehani....
Membership in the assessment di.trict i. voluntary for iDdividual
buildina owner., .0 there are few compliance probl.... Uthouah there
may be a sianificant uount of staff time required for the formation of
the district, there are few hard coste to the City as all the fe.. are
passed throup to the district itself. One of the .ore difficult
efforts associated with district formation is determininl auideline. for
memberShip in the district (for example settina lien-to-value ratios).
While not usable for pUblic bUildinas, Special Ass....ent bonds can be
used to finance the retrofit of all types of privately owned,
seismically hazardous .tructures. Because the bonds are for the benefit
of private property, the intere.t i. tazable at the Federal level but it
is exempt fro. California State taxes. Limitations on this procedure
.-
..
include the fact C the money rabed lIUat be u.eQ,or a public
purpo.e, .uch a. improved public .afety, and th.t the a..e.8IIent of any
parcel mu.t be proportionate to the benefit received by that parcel.
The intere.t rate for the Lona Beach i..ue was 11.31. The intere.t rate
and the overhead formation co.t. for .uch a di.trict vary widely and may
even be unobtainable as in the Hayward ca.e above. In the Lona Beach
case, the first two categories of buildinas (the 1I0.t d-n-erous and the
more danserous) were already brOught into compliance through code
compliance efforts durina the 1980's. Lona Beach did not provide these
owners with any financial or other incentive.. The a..e.8IIent di.trict
was formed to provide financina for those bUildina. categorized a. lcII1
daftflerous.
Insurance provi.ions, the quality of the COllateral, the lien-to-value
ratio., the local circum.tance. a. to geOlogy and .ei8llicity, and even
/ the timina of earthquake activity in relation to the .ale. date of the
bond. will all be determinina factors in the intere.t rate. of
assessment district bond.. High intere.t rate. and formation co.t.
could impede participation by owners who have limited lIeans of repayment.
In the Lona Be.ch ca.e, 137 .tructure. or about one quarter of the
city'. remainina URMs bec8lle a part of the di.trict. In order to carry
out the progr8ll, Lona Beach 8IIended it. municipal code to provide for
the power to form the di.trict, leY,r the a..e.SIIent.. and i..ue the
bond. (usina the firm of O'!lelveny " ""era a. couuel and Evensen Dodae
Inc., a. financial advisor). Undertakina and COllpletilll the project.
waa the .ole re.ponsibility of individu.l property owner. who .ubmitt.d
their own buildina plans and obtained all permit.. Owner. v.r.
reimbur.ed Upon completion or vith progre.. payment. mad. directly to
COlltractor. a. construction progre..ed. The a......ent. are liens
against individual parcel. and not the per.onal ind.bt.dne.. of property
owner. .
The LOlli Beach appro.ch appear. f...ible for San B.rnardino. again
providina ve develop the nece..ary pr.cOllditiOll8 and that local factor.
do not make the intere.t rate. and formation co.t. .0 high a. to be
untensble a. in the ca.e of Hayward.
CClM_JU1'Y DBVELOPIIDr BLOCI: c:uJrrs
To the extent CDBG fund. are .vailable, and where 'propo.al. can b.
desillled to meet program objective. (retrofittina alone i. not ..
desirable), there b the po..ibility of ue1111 CDBc; llOIliee. lzaaplee of
pos.ible programs might be:
* A..btance to neighborhood bue1n...e. that .erv. Lovllloderate
income re.idential area..
..
;.:;,
*
o .. 0
A88istance to s manuf8cturina. busine88 which re8u1t8 in an
expan8ion th8t cre8te8 permanent jOb8 at 1ea8t 51% of which are
for Low/Moderate .income per8ona.
'.
* A low-intere8t loan to a bU8ine88 a8 an inducement to locate a
branch 8tore in a redeve10pina b1iahted area.
* Demolition of an abandoned and deteriorated 8tructure.
TAX IRCREMDT OR TAX ALLOCA1'IOR BODS
Tax increment revenue can theoretically be u8ed to make payment8 on tax
allocation bond8 u8ed to finance 8el8mic retrofit proarama. The Aaency
has little exce88 tax increment revenue and the tax increment revenue
aenerated by 8eismic rehabilitation i8 aeneral1y thouaht to be
in8ufficient to cover bond payment8. This doe8 not appear to be a
likely source except, on a ca8e by ca8e ba8i8, where other redevelopment
functions are met for particular projects.
ll!!!i~~'\'''<''.' '..~";"J
o 0
C I T Y 0 F . SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
James F. PeDlllan, City Attorney
FROM:
Frank L. ahemrev, Deputy City Attorney
DATE:
April 29, 1993
REIRFORCED MABORRY ORDIRARCE
RE:
Chapter 12.2 relating to Building Earthquake Safety was added to
the Government Code in 1986. Section 8875.2 requires that local
building departments SHALL 1) identify all potentially hazardous
buildings before January 1, 1990 (the City has done this), and 2)
establish a mitigation program.
It is clear that the intent of this code section is to insure that
a mitigation program is implemented. Thus, although the code does
not require that the City adopt an ordinance to effect a mitigation
program, it does require that a mitigation program be established.
The City has had a seismic ordinance on the books since 1983. This
ordinance, SBMC 15.12 only required vacant buildings to be
retrofitted. In 1990, this ordinance was amended so as to require
retrofitting of the URM building identified by the survey which was
completed prior to January 1, 1990. Later in 1990 the City adopted
Resolution 90-117 which set forth time lines for compliance or
demolition. After the adoption of this resolution the Council
adopted Resolution 90-214 which deleted the "demolition" wording.
The resolutions are now obsolete in that they required compliance
by October 1, 1992.
Since the City already has a seismic ordinance, it appeared to
staff that the easiest way to establish a mitigation program was by
amendment of the ordinance. The ordinance allows up to eleven (11)
years (depending upon classification and intermediary measures) for
completion of the retrofitting.
I have been advised by staff that 326 buildings were identified.
This number has been reduced to 149 through voluntary retrofitting
and misidentification. Approximately 80% of the owners have had
contact with the Building Department. It would, therefore, appear
that there may not be an overwhelming objection by the public.
Further, it is my understanding that the LRC was adamant about
implementing the mitigation program.
FLR/alCEarthquoke.M..l
.-
,".'
".'.:~f~~~~~
o
o
James F. Penman
Re: Reinforced Masonry Ordinance
Page 2
::
April 29, 1993
I have been advised the cost of retrofittig is approximately $10 _
$12 a square foot. Funding sources are currently being
investigated to assist with the cost of mitigation. However, the
lack of funding sources should not delay the City from establishing
mitigation measure~ as required.
/ '_ r-:
. ~. ..' .,.
/':;4" / '/ '
--Hr.'Y}.
F K L. RHEMREV
:0.
FW.l[EAIrthquote.~
-w
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,".''''''''"",
o
o
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPI'ER 15. 12
OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADDPI' THE UNIFORM CODE FOR
BUILDING CONSERVATION, 1991 EDITION, AND AMENDMENTS THEREON
TO ESTABLISH A MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY
BUILDINGS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 90-117 AND 90-214.
WHEREAS, the city of San Bernardino is located on and to
the southeast of the intersection of the San Andreas and the
San Jacinto earthquake faults, and
WHEREAS, the city of San Bernardino is located within
seismic zone 4 as defined in Chapter 2-23 of Part 2 of Title
24 of the California Administrative Code, and
WHEREAS, Section 8875.1 of the California Government Code
requires all cities within seismic zone 4 to identify
unreinforced masonry buildings, and to establish a mitigation
program, and
WHEREAS, the City has identified unreinforced masonry
buildings in the City of San Bernardino in an Unreinforced
Masonry Building Survey performed by EQE Engineering and on
file with the City Clerk, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 17958 and 17922 of the
California Health and Safety Code, local governing bodies are
required to adopt Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for
Building Conservation, and
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, in an effort to
eliminate unsafe unreinforced masonry buildings and to reduce
the potential loss of life and property damage caused by
a major earthquake, needs to establish a mitigation program,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1
..-
o
o
1 SECTION 1. ,Section 15.12.010 of the San Bernardino
2 Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
3 "15.12.010 Adoption of Code by Reference.
4 Those standards and regulations, as set forth in Appendix
5 Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation
6 of the International Conference of Building Officials, 1991
7 Edition, are hereby adopted by reference as the regulations
8 governing the seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry
9 bearing wall buildings within the City of San Bernardino.
10 Copies of this code shall be kept on file in the City
11 Clerk's Office for inspection and reference and a copy of this
12 code shall be furnished to the Director of the Planning and
13 Building Services Department.
14 In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the
15 above code and the requirements of other City codes or State
16 statutes, the City codes shall apply."
17 SECTION 2. Section 15.12.020 of the San Bernardino
18 Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
19 "Section 15.12.020 Uniform Code for Building
20 Conservation, Appendix Chapter 1, Section A101 amended -
21 PURPOSE
22 Sec.A101. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote
23 public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or
24 injury that may result from the effects of earthquakes on
25 buildings with unreinforced masonry bearing walls. Such
26 buildings have been widely recognized as having sustained
27 life-hazardous damage, including partial or complete
.-
28 collapse during past moderate to strong earthquakes.
2
-""
,""
o
o
1 The provisions, of this chapter are intended as minimum
2 standards for structural seismic resistance, and established
3 primarily to reduce the risk of life loss or injury.
4 Compliance with these provisions will not necessarily prevent
5 loss of life or injury, or prevent earthquake damage to
6 rehabilitated buildings.
7 This chapter provides standards for the classification
8 of buildings with unrein forced masonry bearing walls
9 based on their present or proposed use. Priorities,
10 time limits,and standards are established under which certain
11 buildings which are identified to be of unreinforced masonry
12 bearing wall construction shall be structurally analyzed and
13 anchored. Where the analysis determines deficiencies, this
14 chapter requires the building to be strengthened. OWners
15 of other buildings within the scope of this chapter may
16 voluntarily apply for approval to proceed under this chapter."
17 SECTION 3. Section 15.12.030 of the San Bernardino
18 Municipal ,Code is hereby amended as follows:
19 "15.12.030 Uniform Code for Building Conservation,
20 Appendix Chapter 1, Section A102.(a) amended -
21 SCOPE
22 Sec.A102(a) General. The provisions of this chapter
23 subject to the limitations of Subsections (b) and (c) shall
24 apply to existing buildings having at least one unreinforced
25 masonry bearing wall which were constructed or under
26 construction prior to July 8, 1937, or for which a building
27 permit was issued prior to July 8, 1937, or which on the
28 effective date of this ordinance have unreinforced masonry
3
0 0
-:
1 bearing walls as defined herein. The provisions of this
2 chapter also apply to unrein forced masonry buildings
3 constructed prior to June 1, 1946, which at the time of their
4 construction were located outside of the City limits, and
5 which have subsequently been annexed into the City.
6 These buildings include those buildings identified in the
7 Unreinforced Masonry Building Survey dated January 31, 1990
8 conducted by EQE Engineering and on file with the City Clerk,
9 and any buildings which may be subsequently identified as
10 unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings by the Building
11 Official,
12 EXCEPTION: The following occupancies are exempt from
13 compliance with the requirements of this chapter, provided
14 their use does not change or is not intensified.
15 1. Detached one or two-family dwellings and detached
16 apartment houses containing less than five dwelling
17 units and used solely for residential purposes.
18 2. Unoccupied warehouses or similar structures, when
19 the Building Official determines that such structures do
20 not pose a significant threat to adjacent buildings or
21 public ways.
22 SECTION 4. Section 15.12.040 of the San Bernardino
23 Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
24 "15.12.040 Uniform Code for Building
25 Appendix Chapter 1, is hereby amended by
26 All1(c) through Alll(e) -
27 Sec.A111.(c) Compliance Requirements.
28 1. The owner of each building within the scope of
Conservation,
adding Section
4
o
o
1 this chapter shall, upon service of an order and within the
2 time limits set forth in this chapter, cause a structural
3 analysis to be made of the building by an engineer or
4 architect licensed by the state to practice as such and, if
5 the building does not comply with the earthquake standards
6 specified in this chapter, the owner shall cause it to be
7 structurally altered to conform to such standards.
8 2. The owner of a building within the scope of this
9 chapter shall comply with the requirements set forth above
10 by completing each of the required actions wi thin the
corresponding time limits as specified in Table No. A-1-G.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I
I
I
I
IRequired ActioD
IBy owner I
ISubmit Structur-I
lal Analysis ** I 6
I Within: "
I "
Is~m~t Plans I
IW1th1n: I 1 year
IObtain Building I
Permits Within: 1.5
TABLB 110. A-l-G
TIKB LIKITS POR COMPLIANCE***
I
I
I
months I
"
"
I
11.5
I
years I 2 years
I (5 yr.) *
I
I
I
2 years 12.5 years
1(5.5 yr)*
I
3 years 14 years
1(7 yr.)*
I
I
I
I
I
I
years I 4 years
"
I,
I 5 years
I
4 years I 6 years
(7 yr.)*1 (9 yr.)*
I
I
I
4.5 years, 6.5 years
(7.5 yr)*1 (9.5 yr.)*
I
6 years Is years
(9 yr.)* 1(11 yr.)*
I
,
Cla..ificatioD
II i III
I
1 years I 2
I
"
I,
years I 3 years
I
IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 * If wall anchors are installed at the floor and roof diaphragms
28
Commence
Construction
within:
Complete
Construction
Within:
within the specified time limits, the time limits
5
in parenthesis
o
o
1 apply to the remain~ng work required to complete the rehabilitation
2 of the building in conformance with the structural analysis, the
3 approved plans, and the requirements of this chapter.
4 ** If after the structural analysis is reviewed by the Building
5 Official, and if it is determined by the Building Official that it
6 demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this chapter, no
7 further action is required by the owner.
8 ***Time limits for compliance are measured from the date the order
9 is served.
10 3. Vacant Buildings. Buildings vacant or abandoned in excess
11 of 180 days shall be seismically strengthened in accordance with
12 this chal?ter prior to reoccupancy, but no later than the time
13 limits specified in Table No. A-1-G.
14 (d) Historical Buildings.
15 Alterations or repairs to qualified historical buildings,
16 as defined by section 18955 of the Health and Safety Code of the
17 state of California and as regulated by sections 18950 to 18961
18 of that Code, as designated on official national, state, or
19 local historical registers or inventories shall comply with
20 the state Historical Building Code (California Code of
21 Regulations Title 24, Building Standards, Part 8), in addition
22 to this chapter.
23 (e) Administration.
24 1.Subsequent Identification of Buildings. The Building
25 Official may identify additional unrein forced masonry
26 buildings after the effective date of this ordinance which may
27 have been missed in the original survey. ATC 21, as published
28 by the Applied Technology Council, shall be used as a
6
o
o
1 guildeline for iden~ification.
2 Prior to adding a building to the active list, the
3 Building Official shall notify the owner of record that the
4 building has been identified as having unrein forced masonry
5 bearing walls, and afford the owner the opportunity to submit
6 documentation to the contrary.
7 2. Order - Service.
8 A. The Building Official shall issue an order as
9 provided in this section to the owner of each building
10 within the scope of this chapter. The order shall be
11 in writing and shall be served either personally
12 or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the
13 owner as shown on the last equalized assessment role.
14 B. Prior to or simultaneous to the service of
15 the order, a bulletin may be issued to the owner, and
16 all tenants of the building. The bulletin may contain
17 information the Building Official deems appropriate. The
18 bulletin may be issued by mail or in person.
19 3. Order - Contents.
20 The order shall specify that the building has been
21 determined by the Building Official to be within the scope
22 of this chapter and, therefore, is required to meet the
23 minimum seismic standards of this chapter. The order shall
24 specify the rating classification of the building and shall
25 be accompanied by a copy of Section Alll(c), which sets
26 forth the owner's responsibilities and time limits for
27 compliance.
28 IIIII
7
0 0
1 4. Appeal From Order.
2 A. The owner of the building may appeal to the
3 Building Official the initial determination that the
4 building is within the scope of this chapter. Such appeal
5 shall be in writing on a form provided, and shall be
6 filed with the Director of Planning and Building Services
7 within 30 days from the service date of the order. The
8 Building Official shall schedule an informal hearing with the
9 owner within 60 days of receipt of the appeal. The Building
10 Official shall review any evidence submitted by the owner or
11 other interested parties, and the requirements of this
12 chapter. Following the hearing, the Building Official shall
13 respond to the appeal in writing within 30 days, stating his
14 decision and the grounds thereof clearly and concisely.
15 B.The owner of the building may appeal the Building
16 Official's decision to the Board of Building Commissioners.
17 Such appeal must be filed with the Board within 30 days of
18 the date of the Building Official's decision. Appeals or requests
19 for modifications from any other determinations, orders or
20 actions by the Building Official pursuant to this chapter
21 shall be made in accordance with the procedures established
22 in Sections 105 and 106 of the Building Code.
23 All orders of the Board of Building Commissioners
24 regarding unreinforced masonry buildings shall be final
25 unless appealed within fifteen (15) days to the Mayor and
26 Common Council pursuant to Section 2.64 of the San Bernardino
27 Municipal Code.
28 IIIII
8
o
o
1 5. Recordation.
2 At the time that the Building Official serves the
3 aforementioned order, the Building Official shall also file
4 with the Office of the County Recorder a certificate
5 stating that the subject building is within the scope of
6 this chapter and is a potentially earthquake hazardous
7 building. The certificate shall also state that the owner
8 thereof has been ordered to obtain a structural analysis
9 of the building and to structurally alter the structure
10 to bring it into compliance with this chapter.
11 If the building is either demolished, found not to be
12 within the scope of this chapter, or is structurally capable
13 of resisting minimum seismic forces required by this chapter
14 as a result of structural alterations or an analysis, the
15 Building Official shall file with the Office of the County
16 Recorder a form removing the status of the subject
17 building as being classified within the scope of this
18 chapter.
19 6. Enforcement.
20 A. Any building within the scope of this chapter which
21 does not comply with the requirements of this chapter within
22
23
24
25
26
27 Table No. A-l-G, the Building Official shall verify that the
28 record owner of this building has been'- properly served. If
the time limits as specified herein, is deemed to be a public
nuisance. If the owner in charge or control of the subject
building fails to comply with any order issued by the
Building Official pursuant to this chapter within any of
the time limits set forth in Section Alll. ecl 2 and
9
::
0 0
1 the order has been served on the record owner, then the
2 Building Official shall order the entire building to be
3 vacated within 30 days, and that the building remain vacated
4 until such order has been complied with. The owner may appeal
5 this order to vacate to the Board of Building Commissioners
6 within 15 days.
7 B. When any order or determination by the Building
8 Official, the Board of Building Commissioners or the Mayor
9 and Common Council has been made pursuant to this chapter,
10 it is unlawful for any person to fail, to neglect or to
11 refuse to obey any such order or determination. Failure to
12 comply with such order or determination is a misdemeanor,
13 which upon conviction thereof is punishable in accordance
14 with the provisions of Section 1.12.010 of this Code,
15 in addition to any other civil or administrative
16 remedies provided by law. Each day of noncompliance
17 shall constitute a separate violation.
18 C. If, after any order or determination by the Building
19 Official, the Board of Building Commissioners, or the Mayor
20 and Common Council, made pursuant to this chapter becomes
21 final, and the person to whom such order or determination is
22 directed fails, neglects or refuses to obey, the Building
23 Official shall take action to abate such public nuisance,
24 pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of this code, and to lien the subject
25 property for expenses. n
26 SECTION 5. Sections 15.12.050, 15.12.060, 15.12.070,
27 15.12.080, and 15.12.090 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code
.-
28 are hereby repealed.
10
0
1 SECTION 6.
2 repealed.
3
IIIII
4 IIIII
IIIII
5 IIIII
IIIII
6 IIIII
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
~esolutions 90-117 and 90-214 are hereby
"
11
o
o
1 ORDINANCE... AMENDIN,G CHAPTER 15.12 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL
CODE, TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM CODE FOR BUILDING CONSERVATION, 1991
2 EDITION, AND AMENDMENTS THEREON, TO ESTABLISH A MITIGATION PROGRAM
FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 90-
3 117 AND 90-214.
4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
5 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
6 Bernardino at a
7 day of
8 Council Members:
meeting thereof, held on the
, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
Ana
~
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
9 ESTRADA
10 REILLY
11 HERNANDEZ
12 MAUDSLEY
13 MINOR
14 POPE-LUDLAM
15 MILLER
16
17
City Clerk
18
19
20
21
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
, 1993.
day
of
w. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
22 form and legal content:
23
24
25
26
27
28
JAMES
city
12