and handbook - californiaresilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/softstory/soft story...

RESILIENCE POLICY GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

SOFT STORY

MODEL ORDINANCE

AND HANDBOOK

March 2017

Soft Story Model Ordinance

Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Board Leadership and Key StaffJulie Pierce President, Councilmember, City of Clayton

David Rabbitt Vice President, Supervisor, County of Sonoma

Brad Paul Acting Executive Director

Miriam Chion Planning and Research Director

Duane Bay Assistant Planning and Research Director

Lead ConsultantAuthor

David Bonowitz, SE

Association of Bay Area Governments Project StaffProject Manager:

Dana Brechwald Resilience Planner

Credits This guidance document was produced with support from the United States Geological Survey and FEMA.

ABAG Publication #P17001EQK

Table of Contents 1

Table of ContentsSummary: Soft Story Mitigation Options ......................3

Section 1: Introduction ….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….51…1 Terminology1…2 Source Material1…3 Mitigation Options1…4 Project Methodology1…5 Organization of the Report

Section 2: The ABAG-EBCI Workshop …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….7

Section 3: The Model Ordinance ….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….93.1 The Main Options3.2 Preparing the Ordinance Draft3.3 Implementing the Ordinance

References…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…… 21

Appendix A: Model Ordinance Provisions for Mandatory Retrofit with Screening …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…… 23

Appendix B: Model Ordinance Options and Commentary ….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…… 29

Appendix C: Checklist for Preparing the Ordinance Draft ….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…… 49

Appendix D: EBCI Soft Story Workshop Worksheet …….…… 53

1

3

2

SUM

MARY

REFERENCES

APPEND

IX AAPPEN

DIX B

APPEND

IX CAPPEN

DIX D

Soft Story Model Ordinance2

3Summary

Summary

Soft Story Mitigation Options

This report presents model ordinance provisions for a range of feasible soft story mitigation programs. The provisions are consistent with California law and coordinated with the 2016 California Existing Building Code.The report includes background and commentary, as well as instructions for customizing the model provisions for a specific jurisdiction and notes on program implementation.

In order to fully implement the model ordinance, a jurisdiction would need to:

• Select one of the three mitigation program types presented in Appendix B.

• Confirm or revise the basic assumptions and options, as discussed in Section 3.1.

• Customize the ordinance text to suit the specific jurisdiction, as discussed in Section 3.2.

• Take steps to implement the ordinance through a soft story program, as discussed in Section 3.3.

Appendix A presents the complete model provisions for a mandatory retrofit program with a screening phase, in an editable format.

Appendix B presents the Appendix A provisions along with complete model provisions for two different program types, in a tabular format with commentary.

Appendix C provides a tool to assist jurisdiction staff in selecting, confirming, and revising the model ordinance provisions.

SUM

MARY

Section 1 | Introduction 5

Section 1: IntroductionThis report provides background on the development of model ordinance provisions for a soft story seismic mitigation program. It also provides guidance on how a city might customize and prepare to implement them. The model ordinance provisions themselves are presented in Appendices A and B.

The model ordinance was produced for ABAG’s East Bay Corridors Initiative (ABAG, 2015) but is suitable for any California jurisdiction.

Terminology The term “soft story” has come to mean a multi-story wood frame residential building prone to collapse under earthquake loads. Certain programs and ordinances have further defined the term by specifying, for their own purposes, the age, occupancy, number of stories, or number of units in a soft story building. In building codes and engineering standards, however, the term has a more general meaning. In these technical documents, a “soft story” is a type of irregularity that triggers special considerations for seismic evaluation and design; a structure can have a soft story irregularity regardless of its age, occupancy, structural material, or height.

To apply the term “soft story” to mean a certain subset of wood residential buildings is therefore not strictly correct. Nevertheless, this report recognizes the increasingly common use of the term as a shorthand for certain buildings. While this report uses the term in this colloquial sense, the model ordinance, which includes building code provisions, does not use the term in order to avoid confusion and conflict with its original technical meaning.

Source MaterialABAG’s report, Soft Story Retrofit Program Development, provides general background on the nature of the soft story problem and on programs already developed by a few Bay Area cities (ABAG, 2016).

The model ordinance described in this report was developed to work with the 2016 California Existing Building Code (CEBC), which all California jurisdictions are bound to use (with local amendments) and with the authorizing legislation found in Sections 19160 through

19168 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Specific provisions were informed by experience with current Bay Area mitigation programs and by a review of ordinances and technical bulletins developed by San Francisco (Lee et al., 2013; SFDBI, 2016), Berkeley (Berkeley, 2013; Berkeley BSD, 2014), Oakland (Kalb, 2016), Alameda (Johnson, 2009), and Los Angeles (Garcetti, 2015), as well as deliberations by the Existing Buildings Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC).

Mitigation OptionsThe working assumption behind the model ordinance is that a city has already completed some building inventory, recognized its soft story risk, and developed an internal consensus to move forward with a new policy or program. For the EBCI cities, much of this preliminary work is already done:

• Section 19161 of the California Health and Safety Code, as amended in 2005, encourages local jurisdictions to initiate soft story mitigation programs. Section 19161 authorizes them to identify soft story buildings as potentially seismically hazardous.

• Multiple advocacy groups have called attention to the soft story issue (EERI-NC, 2003; SPUR, 2009; ABAG, 2016).

• ABAG has made a preliminary building count for each EBCI jurisdiction (Brechwald, 2016).

• Ongoing work in San Francisco and Berkeley has proven the feasibility of mandatory evaluation and retrofit programs. These current programs have also given rise to a robust Bay Area market for retrofit work. Local engineers, contractors, building officials, and even lenders are now familiar with the buildings, the engineering criteria, and the construction issues.

Given this assumption, the next steps in drafting a local soft story ordinance involve answering a few questions about the city’s preferences and priorities. The key questions include:

• Which buildings should be subject to a targeted mitigation program?

• Should the program focus on retrofit or allow evaluation only?

1


• For each building, should the work be mandatory or voluntary (perhaps with incentives)?

• Should the structural work go beyond the vulnerable first story?

• Should the work address nonstructural seismic hazards?

• Which engineering standards should apply to the work?

• Should the compliance schedule be phased, or should all buildings have the same deadlines?

• Would the city, owners, and tenants benefit from a preliminary screening phase?

Clearly, the best answer to some of these questions will depend on the answers to the others. For example, the appropriate engineering standards will depend on the scope of required work. And the more buildings subject to the program, the more likely that phased compliance will be beneficial, possibly necessary.

Sections 2 and 3 of this report address these questions and outline how a city might customize the model provisions to suit its own needs.

7Section 2 | The ABAG-EBCI Workshop

Section 2: The ABAG-EBCI WorkshopOn September 29, 2016, ABAG held a workshop at which representatives of the EBCI cities discussed mitigation options and provided input regarding their cities’ likely preferences and priorities. Nine individuals from five EBCI cities participated. Appendix D includes a copy of the worksheet used to collect their input.

The broad policy options were presented as a matrix combining the scope of a mitigation program and the nature of its enforcement (Appendix D Section 6).

• Enforcement options included voluntary, triggered (by sale or by other building alterations, for example), and mandatory.

• Program scope options ranged from notification only, to evaluation only, to retrofit of either the critical first story only or the whole building, with or without nonstructural mitigation.

After discussion, each participant was asked to select the two or three combinations that would be most preferable for their city. The two top-rated combinations were:

• Mandatory structural retrofit of the critical story, with no nonstructural scope. This was the first choice of four participants and the second choice of one other participant (out of six who responded in writing). These five respondents represented four different EBCI cities.

• Mandatory structural retrofit of the critical story, plus selected nonstructural retrofit. This was the first choice for one participant and the second choice for two others (both of whom had chosen mandatory structural-only retrofit as their top pick).

These responses suggest a clear preference, at least among the workshop participants, to take advantage of the groundwork and lessons from mandatory retrofit programs currently underway in Berkeley and San Francisco. The Berkeley and San Francisco programs are both mandatory, both require structural work in the critical first story only, and neither requires any nonstructural mitigation.

Specific program characteristics were presented as 24 ideas addressing benefits and costs to stakeholders, implementation options, and technical criteria (Appendix D,

Section 7). Participants were asked to score each idea on a 5-point normative scale. For averaging, the scores were converted to values (“Awful” = 1, “Great” = 5), with a score of 3 representing a middle or neutral position. All 24 ideas received average scores between 2.6 and 4.1, with all nine participants responding in writing.

The lowest-scoring ideas, each with an average score of 2.6, were:

• “Include all buildings with public/commercial space, even if 0-4 units.” The presumption, based on the Berkeley and San Francisco programs, was that only buildings with at least five residential units would be subject to mandatory retrofit. The question was whether other buildings should be included if they have occupied commercial space (as opposed to parking and storage) in the critical story, the approach taken in Los Angeles. The model ordinance presented in this report suggests a default scope of “five or more dwelling units,” open to customization by the implementing city.

• “Owner costs are passed to tenants over time.” The low score suggests that workshop participants viewed soft story retrofit as a benefit more for building owners than for tenants, so the owners should bear the retrofit costs. This issue is related to questions of housing affordability and rent control. Jurisdictions with rent control typically also have pass-through rules that allow building owners to amortize the costs of building improvements and repairs through regulated rent increases. The model ordinance presented in this report does not address cost-sharing, but it does call for coordination with existing city regulations.

• “All the program’s technical details are in the ordinance itself.” The preferred approach, as suggested by this idea’s low score, is to give the broad requirements in the ordinance but to leave technical details to a bulletin to be developed and published by the city’s building department. The model ordinance presented in this report takes the latter approach.

The highest-scoring ideas, each with an average score of about 4.1, were:

• “Owners have technical options for how to comply” and, similarly, “Engineers have technical options for how to comply.” The broad idea here is that any mandatory program should accommodate the reasonable needs of those who bear the costs and obligations. Though

2


not specified on the worksheet, the options might include the opportunity for owners to select their own engineer and contractor (an issue that arose early in San Francisco’s program development), a lengthy compliance period to allow work to be done when most convenient for the owner, a minimal mandatory scope that leaves (or encourages) additional work as voluntary, and the allowance of different engineering standards. One participant noted that while options are beneficial, it is important to the city and to code officials that they should not have to negotiate the requirements separately with each permit application. The model ordinance presented in this report allows owners to use any qualified professionals, allows for a phased program, and lists three different documents as retrofit criteria.

• “One city department has responsibility for the program.” While several departments are likely to contribute to the ordinance, the model ordinance presented in this report assumes that one department – typically the city’s building department – will serve as the lead agency for implementation. While preferable, this will involve some coordination in the implementation phase in cities where the planning or housing departments, for example, typically monitor or regulate work on residential buildings.

• “A screening phase adds time but confirms scope and size of program.” A screening phase requires building owners who might be subject to the program to submit a simple form, on a short timeline, confirming whether their building is subject to the mandate or not. Screening confirms the size of the program for purposes of allocating building department staff. Importantly, San Francisco’s screening phase also helped owners understand the program and plan their work before having to face more serious decisions about hiring an engineer or applying for a construction loan. The model ordinance presented in this report includes an option for a screening phase.

• “New residential buildings should be designed for quick reoccupancy.” This idea (which scored 4.0) is not directly related to the retrofit of existing soft story buildings, but it does serve the same purpose of increasing the resilience of the city’s housing stock over time. Retrofit of 50- or 90-year old buildings is worthwhile, but it will not make them as earthquake resistant as new buildings, especially when the retrofit scope is limited to the critical first story. To achieve real resilience improvements citywide, existing buildings must be improved, and new buildings must be built better than the current building code requires. The model ordinance presented in this report says nothing about the design objectives for new buildings.

Section 3: The Model OrdinanceAppendix B of this report presents the model ordinance provisions, with commentary, for three possible programs supported by the workshop participants:

• Mandatory evaluation only.

• Mandatory retrofit without a screening phase.

• Mandatory retrofit with a screening phase.

Each set of provisions requires structural work only in the critical “target story,” and each allows for the inclusion of nonstructural evaluation or retrofit.

By presenting three sets of provisions side by side, Appendix B allows policy makers to compare the options more effectively, with commentary that highlights some of the pragmatic differences. Appendix A of this report presents the provisions for a single program type – Mandatory structural and nonstructural retrofit with a screening phase – in a format expected to be easier to read and edit.

Each set of model ordinance provisions uses the following broad outline:

“Whereas” statementsSECTION 1. FindingsSECTION 2. Adoption of Chapter 3A into the city’s Existing Building Code

Section 301A. AdministrationSection 302A. ComplianceSection 303A. DefinitionsSection 304A. Structural Engineering CriteriaSection 305A. Nonstructural Engineering CriteriaSection 306A. Application of Other Provisions of This Code

To use the model ordinance provisions, a city would need to:

• Select the basic program type, typically one of the three considered in Appendix B. (A program type is a combination of a scope of work and a mode of enforcement; see Appendix D Section 6.)

• Confirm the selection of the main options, either using the defaults written into the provisions or modifying them as needed. See Section 3.1.

• Customize the model provisions with city-specific information and preferences. See Section 3.2.

• Prepare to take the additional steps needed to implement the ordinance. See Section 3.3.

3.1 The main optionsThis section revisits the questions posed in Section 1 of this report. These are relatively broad policy questions. More specific implementation questions are addressed in Section 3.2.

The following subsections describe the default options written into the three sets of model provisions and providing guidance to supplement the brief commentary in Appendix B. The Section numbers shown here assume that the ordinance requirements will be incorporated into the city’s building code as Chapter 3A of the city’s adopted version of the 2016 California Existing Building Code.

3.1.1. Which buildings should be subject to a targeted mitigation program?

Model ordinance default: “301A.30 Subject Buildings. This chapter shall apply to buildings constructed or permitted for construction before January 1, 1978 or designed based on an adopted version of the 1976 or earlier edition of the Uniform Building Code, that contain five or more dwelling units, and have a wood frame target story.” A “wood frame target story” is essentially what the term “soft story” has come to mean when applied to these buildings. See Section 303A.10 for a technical definition.

Alternatives: The model ordinance definition corresponds to Health and Safety Code Section 19161(a)(2), but each city is free to define its own subject buildings to fit its own building stock and mitigation priorities. Examples:

• Oakland’s screening phase included buildings designed by codes prior to statewide adoption of the 1988 model code by setting its critical date as January 1, 1991.

• San Francisco includes only buildings that have at least two stories above the target story.

• Los Angeles includes buildings with four dwelling units

9Section 3 | The Model Ordinance

3


as well as buildings with ground floor commercial space even if there are fewer than four units.

3.1.2. Shouldtheprogramfocusonretrofitorallowevaluation only?

Model ordinance default: The three sets of model provisions cover both mandatory evaluation and mandatory retrofit, but they treat evaluation and retrofit as separate programs (see Alternatives). The choice is left to the jurisdiction. Retrofit is obviously more effective than mere evaluation, but it is also more expensive and disruptive. If made mandatory, it therefore requires more legislative coalition building. Even so, ongoing programs in San Francisco and Berkeley are showing that mandatory retrofit programs are feasible. For the Evaluation Only program, model ordinance Section 302A.30.E includes a requirement to post a sign identifying the building as a collapse risk. This is consistent with a requirement from the initial Berkeley and the current Alameda mandatory evaluation programs (Johnson, 2009). If this provision is applied, it might be necessary to comply with city regulations regarding accessibility (including language accessibility) and landlord-tenant interactions.

Alternatives: One way to keep the required scope manageable while encouraging additional mitigation might be to mandate structural retrofit together with nonstructural evaluation. To address that program scope, the Evaluation Only provision in Section 302A.30.C should be renumbered and added to the Mandatory Retrofit provisions. Corresponding adjustments to the compliance schedule and submittal requirements will likely be needed. The posting requirement in Section 302A.30.E, if controversial, can be removed from the ordinance. There is little evidence that a posting requirement motivates owners to retrofit or discourages tenants from renting; the requirement in Section 301A.90 to list the buildings and record compliance on title documents is likely to be more effective (Rabinovici, 2012). Posting requirements are also difficult to enforce. The Alameda ordinance required owners to notify current and new tenants, but while such an obligation is apparently legally possible, it is nearly impossible to enforce through the building code.

3.1.3. Foreachbuilding,shouldtheworkbemandatory or voluntary?

Model ordinance default: The three sets of model provisions are written for mandatory programs, matching the current Bay Area programs and the preferences expressed at the EBCI workshop (see Section 2).

Alternatives: As discussed in Section 2, and as shown in Appendix D Section 6, almost any mitigation scope can be left as voluntary, or encouraged as a voluntary supplement to the mandatory scope. Voluntary mitigation is already addressed in general terms by the CEBC, so it need not be addressed by special provisions in the ordinance. If incentives for voluntary work are provided, however, then minimum criteria will need to be set. Many of the model provisions can be applied to that purpose, but modifications to the model ordinance overall will also be needed.

3.1.4. Shouldthestructuralworkgobeyondthevulnerablefirststory?

Model ordinance default: The three sets of model provisions assume that only the “target story” need be evaluated or retrofit, matching the current Bay Area programs and the preferences expressed at the EBCI workshop (see Section 2). Of the documents listed as structural engineering criteria in Section 304A, two (CEBC Chapter A4 and FEMA P-807) are already designed to apply only to the target story and its adjacent load path elements. Other criteria, specifically ASCE 41, will need to be interpreted to allow its use for just the target story, as contemplated by Section 301A.70.

Alternatives: Most soft story programs limit the structural work to the target story. This addresses the building’s dominant deficiency while minimizing retrofit costs and disruptions for owners and tenants. Even evaluation above the target story, if properly done, can require documentation and investigation that owners and tenants might find disruptive. Even so, when the building code triggers mitigation for an extensive repair or alteration, the full building is considered, so it is not without precedent as a building regulation. To implement this alternative, modifications to the ordinance, including removal of CEBC Chapter A4 and FEMA P-807 as allowed criteria, would be needed.

10

Section 3 | The Model Ordinance

3.1.5. Shouldtheworkaddressnonstructuralseismichazards?

Model ordinance default: As written, all three sets of model provisions include nonstructural scope to accommodate the interest expressed at the EBCI workshop (see Section 2). Section 305A.20 and Section 305A.30 cite the ASCE 41 “Life Safety” criteria for nonstructural evaluation or retrofit. That scope is comprehensive, however, and many engineers would consider it excessive, given the limited scope of the structural work. Therefore, it makes sense for a typical soft story program to consider a more limited nonstructural scope.

A limited nonstructural scope might be based on hazards especially common among the city’s soft story buildings, or on the cost and convenience of the work. Since the structural work is intentionally limited to the target stories, it makes sense also to limit the nonstructural work to areas that are either exposed by the structural work or areas where the work will not disrupt the normal use of the building.

Nonstructural components commonly found in the ground floors of wood frame multi-unit residential buildings, which often pose seismic hazards if not properly braced, include:

• Masonry chimneys

• Water heaters

• Furnaces

• Unreinforced masonry veneer

• Unreinforced masonry partitions

• Falling hazards within the structural work area

• Falling hazards over egress areas

• Gas lines without automatic shut-offs (though the risk of a line break is substantially reduced by completing the structural retrofit).

Including each of these items in the program scope will have costs and benefits for the owner, the tenants, and the city. Any water heaters, furnaces, or other equipment installed recently should already be properly braced or anchored. Section 306A.10 of the model ordinance notes that it is not the purpose of the ordinance to find existing violations, but by including these items in the nonstructural scope, a city could ensure that existing

deficiencies are checked and mitigated without the normal violation process.

The benefit of including furnaces, water heaters, and chimneys extends beyond safety. A structurally retrofitted building should be safe to reoccupy after an earthquake, but it will not recover its post-earthquake housing function if heat and hot water are not available.

The benefit of including water heaters, furnaces, and other gas-fired equipment might extend beyond the building itself, as each of these items represents a fire risk to neighboring buildings and a potential demand on the fire department. On the other hand, if a soft story program only targets these risks in the city’s soft story buildings, it is not really addressing the citywide fire hazard in an effective way.

Alternatives: The instructions provided with the model provisions in Appendix B indicate which provisions to omit if nonstructural scope is not included.

While basic nonstructural mitigation (such as water heater bracing) is probably cost effective as part of a soft story program, too much nonstructural scope could raise costs and hurt compliance. Each item of nonstructural scope raises engineering fees, raises construction costs, and adds to the city’s review and inspection tasks. Also, since neither San Francisco nor Berkeley requires any nonstructural scope as part of their mandatory retrofits, adding nonstructural scope to an EBCI city program will not be leveraging the experience already gained by local engineers and contractors; rather, the EBCI city will be setting new precedents.

3.1.6. Which engineering standards should apply to the work?

Model ordinance default: Section 305A of the model ordinance cites one document, ASCE 41, as nonstructural engineering criteria and three documents as structural engineering criteria: ASCE 41, CEBC Chapter A4, and FEMA P-807. (The State Historical Building Code is also cited, but its use will be rare.) All three are in use on the Berkeley and San Francisco programs. Importantly, Section 305A and Section 301A.70 contemplate the development of one or more technical bulletins to interpret and guide the use of each document for a specific mitigation program. The use of three alternative sets of criteria plus technical bulletins to supplement them matches both the preferences

11


of EBCI workshop participants (see Section 2) and the current practice in Berkeley and San Francisco (Berkeley BSD, 2014; SFDBI, 2016). See also Section 3.3 for more discussion of technical bulletins.

ABAG (2016) gives a useful short description of each of the three documents. In brief, each offers certain advantages and disadvantages to owners in terms of the decision-making information it provides, the necessary engineering effort, the resulting construction scope and cost, and familiarity to building officials. For the purposes of this report, the important points regarding application and implementation are these:

• CEBC Chapter A4 is straightforward and easy to apply to retrofit design, but because it relies on code provisions for new construction, it should not be used to evaluate existing conditions (Bonowitz and Rabinovici, 2013). Because Chapter A4 tends to be conservative, engineers using it are likely to petition the building official to allow variances or exemptions based on the less conservative or more specific criteria in the other documents. Some of these variances now have the consensus support of the SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee and can be written into the city’s technical bulletins. (See Section 3.3 for additional discussion.)

• FEMA P-807 is still relatively new and unfamiliar to most building officials. While it was developed specifically for soft story programs, and thus offers some advantages to owners, it cannot be applied until the implementing city specifies a “performance objective.” Berkeley and San Francisco each developed their FEMA P-807 objectives through technical studies of their typical buildings. An EBCI city could adopt the Berkeley objective, but it will not know how FEMA P-807 results will compare with CEBC Chapter A4 or ASCE 41 results unless it does a study that considers its local seismicity, site conditions, and building types.

• ASCE 41 is a national consensus standard, but it is still unfamiliar to many building officials. Unlike CEBC Chapter A4 and FEMA P-807, it is not specifically for soft story buildings, so a technical bulletin will be needed to clarify how it should apply to an evaluation or retrofit scope that considers only the target story. For the San Francisco and Berkeley programs, ASCE 41 is permitted but appears to be rarely used. However, for a program that uses ASCE 41 for nonstructural scope, it might be convenient

for owners and engineers to use ASCE 41 for the structural work as well.

• For nonstructural seismic work, ASCE 41 is the only applicable consensus standard. As noted above (see Section 3.1.5), a soft story program that includes nonstructural scope should consider customizing its ASCE 41 application.

Alternatives: Any of the three cited structural documents could be deleted from the model ordinance. The most likely reason to do so would be to avoid the extra work developing a FEMA P-807 performance objective, or developing technical bulletins, or learning a new methodology. However, since all three documents are in use in Berkeley and San Francisco, an EBCI building official can expect some engineers to propose using one of the excluded documents for the benefit of her client, under the building code’s current provisions allowing alternative means and methods. If the nonstructural work is limited to specific deficiencies (water heater bracing, for example) it should be possible to replace ASCE 41 with a simpler prescriptive requirement.

3.1.7. Should the compliance schedule be phased, or should all buildings have the same deadlines?

Model ordinance default: Section 302A.40 contemplates phased compliance and is written, as an example, with three tiers based on building size and ground floor occupancy. Section 302A.50 gives example deadlines to match the three example tiers.

Phasing can improve a mitigation program’s feasibility in two ways. First, phasing can be used to give certain owners more time to comply, thereby easing the burden on them and their tenants, and increasing the chance that they will both support the program politically and comply with it in practice. To achieve this objective, buildings for which compliance will be especially expensive or disruptive should be allowed in later tiers and given helpful deadlines. For example, retrofit work in an occupied story (as opposed to a parking or storage space) requires more coordination and planning between owners and tenants and often involves more expense because of the finished spaces. Section 302A.40 is therefore written, as an example, to define Tier 3 for buildings with occupied commercial or residential units in the target story. San Francisco has (and Oakland is considering) this type of phasing based on target story occupancy.

12

Section 3 | The Model Ordinance

Second, phasing can be used to control the flow of work so as to match the resources of the building department or the local engineering and contractor community. To achieve this objective, tiers should be defined with roughly the same number of buildings in each one, and with each tier sized to suit the city’s resources. Section 302A.40 as written makes no effort to do this, since the number and size of the tiers would vary for each city.

As a result of the ongoing San Francisco and Berkeley programs, the availability of interested Bay Area engineers and contractors has increased substantially. However, Berkeley’s retrofit deadline is the end of 2018, and San Francisco will have the bulk of its 5000 retrofits in progress through 2019 and into 2020, so the market for engineers and contractors will probably tighten as those dates approach. An EBCI program with construction deadlines in 2021 or later should be able to not only avoid this glut, but take advantage of the waning market in San Francisco.

Phasing can also be used to prioritize certain buildings for which mitigation is deemed more urgent. Section 302A.40, as an example, assigns buildings with more than 15 residential units to Tier 1, with the shortest deadlines. Since soft story buildings are prone to first story collapse, the safety risk is highest for occupants of the critical first – or “target” – story. One might argue, therefore, that buildings with occupied target stories should be prioritized and assigned to Tier 1, regardless of how many total units are in the building. However, this strategy runs exactly opposite to the feasibility strategy, which would give these same buildings the longest deadlines. Current thinking runs mostly in favor of program feasibility. Moving these buildings from the last tier to the first tier would speed their retrofit by one or two years at most. The likelihood of a damaging earthquake striking in that short window, while real, is quite small. Also, any owner or tenant always has the option of addressing her own safety risk as urgently as she desires; the vulnerability of soft story buildings is not new and was not created by the passage of retrofit ordinances. As a public policy matter, the city must also consider the practicality of the program overall. Helping everyone comply over the long term is at least as important as forcing some owners to comply over the short term. Therefore, the model ordinance (again, as an example) addresses urgency by focusing on the total number of units in the building, not on the particular vulnerability of the occupied first story.

San Francisco has (and Oakland is considering) this type of phasing based on the number of units in the building.

But San Francisco also makes a distinction related to the occupancy in the target story. In the San Francisco program, most occupied commercial occupancies are assigned to the last tier for feasibility. Assembly and educational occupancies in the target story are assigned to the first tier for their safety risk (though only a handful of subject buildings were in these categories). Occupied residential units in the target story have no impact on the tier assignment.

Alternatives: Alternatives to the examples provided in Section 302A.40 and Section 302A.50 involve the elimination, addition, or redefinition of the tiers, or revision of the deadlines.

The most basic alternative would eliminate the tiers completely, putting all subject buildings on the same schedule. This is a reasonable approach if the building department can handle the implementation and if the deadlines are fair to owners and tenants. Berkeley’s program, for example, has only one set of deadlines for all 300 or so of its subject buildings. Other than Oakland, most EBCI cities have few enough subject buildings that they would likely not need multiple tiers for purposes of facilitating program management.

As noted above, San Francisco assigns buildings with occupied commercial spaces in the target story to the last of its four tiers. It also allows buildings on liquefiable soil into the last tier. Soil remediation is not required by the San Francisco ordinance, but anticipating that some owners might want to consider voluntary mitigation, the city gave them the later compliance deadline. This approach might also make sense for programs that want to encourage voluntary retrofit (either additional nonstructural mitigation or structural work above the target story) in addition to the mandatory scope.As an alternative to phasing, a city might also consider discretionary deadline extensions for buildings facing especially expensive or disruptive work. Both San Francisco and Oakland have considered either defined phasing or discretionary extensions for:

• Owners and tenants with demonstrated financial hardship. (San Francisco removes the owner’s pass-through allowance for tenants with financial hardship.)

• Buildings with non-profit tenants.

• New owners who inherited the building during the compliance period. Model ordinance Section 302A.50 is generally clear that transfer of title does not warrant

13


a deadline extension, but transfer by inheritance can represent an unanticipated change that merits an extension.

On the other side of the ledger, while Oakland has considered assigning commercial spaces to its last tier for feasibility, it has also considered moving those buildings to the first tier if the commercial spaces are currently vacant, since a vacant space would not need the additional tie afforded by a later compliance tier.

3.1.8. Wouldthecity,owners,andtenantsbenefitfroma preliminary screening phase?

Model ordinance default: One of the three sets of model provisions includes a screening phase, matching the current San Francisco program and the preferences expressed at the EBCI workshop (see Section 2). The current Berkeley retrofit program was preceded by a mandatory evaluation phase, and Oakland has already completed a mandatory screening phase, so the model ordinance is consistent with those cities’ approaches as well.

As noted in Section 2, a screening phase can benefit the building department by confirming the size of the program and by serving as an initial outreach to owners. It can benefit the owners as well, by introducing them to the program – and to local engineers – without an intimidating deadline or expense. San Francisco’s program has shown that screening for thousands of buildings can be done in a year.

The main result of the screening phase is to confirm which buildings are subject to the ordinance and which are exempt. It is possible that the owner of an exempt building will misunderstand the exemption to mean that her building is seismically safe. The city’s screening form should be clear that no such assurance is implied by an exemption. This clarity will help the city, the owners, and the licensed professionals who complete the forms.

Alternatives: If a city has a clear understanding of its inventory and good relationships with its building owners, and is prepared to handle individual exemption requests, a screening phase might not be needed. Appendix B includes a set of provisions for this case as well.

One reason to skip the screening phase, if it does not otherwise seem beneficial, is that screening does cost the city some money and some time to issue the notifications

and track the responses. For a large program, however, this cost is likely more than offset by the benefits of the additional contact with owners and the time the city gains to prepare for later implementation tasks.

For mandatory retrofit with a screening phase, Section 302A.30.A requires the screening form to be signed by a licensed architect or engineer. This does involve some cost to the owner. (In San Francisco, the city did not collect any filing or review fee, but owners had to engage a design professional to complete the form. The typical cost was about $200, but some engineers and contractors offered to complete the screening form for no charge in order to make more contacts with potential clients for the work to follow.) As an alternative to the model ordinance, a city could implement a self-certified screening process that does not require the owner to pay a consultant. After all, if a building is supposed to be exempt from the program, it seems unfair to make the owner incur any expense just to prove it. However, San Francisco’s experience quickly showed the value of requiring a professional. Among the first replies in late 2013 were several that owners completed themselves, incorrectly. As owners learned that the city would only accept forms submitted by a licensed professional (who has her license at stake), the quality of submittals improved dramatically. Ultimately, owners who confirmed their exempt status through the screening process were more than happy to pay a few hundred dollars to do so. Another approach would be to allow owners to claim exemptions based on the age of the building or the number of units – information that should be verifiable from other records – on their own, but require the signature of a design professional for any exemption claim based on the absence of a target story – information that requires technical knowledge and judgment.

3.2 Preparing the ordinance draft

Once the main options have been selected, the text of the model ordinance still needs to be customized with city-specific information. The table in Appendix B provides some instructions for doing this.

Appendix C provides a checklist to assist city staff in converting the model ordinance text from Appendix A or Appendix B into a city-specific ordinance.

14

3.2.1. “Whereas” statements and Findings

The “Whereas” statements and the Findings near the top of the ordinance should be customized for each city. The San Francisco (Lee, 2013), Berkeley (2013), and Alameda (Johnson, 2009) ordinances offer examples. As they show, different cities present this information in different ways, so each city might need to rearrange the model ordinance text as well. The model ordinance uses Whereas statements to record background data and legislative motivation; it uses Findings to record applicable legal precedents.

Whereas statements are sometimes used to record the city council’s basis for enacting the ordinance, as well as city-specific background information. In addition to the generic Whereas statements included in the model ordinance, a city might add references to:

• Data from specific building inventories, demographic studies, loss estimates, or benefit-cost analyses

• Existing policy from the housing or public safety element of the city’s general plan

• Existing policy from the city’s disaster management plan

• Results of preliminary or past mitigation programs.

The model ordinance includes six findings that respond to requirements in the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). The six findings are meant to demonstrate how and why the ordinance is in compliance with state law. To be clear, it is possible that none of the six is actually required, since finding F alone might be sufficient. Finding F references a short provision from the California Building Code that reads as follows:

1.1.8.1 Findings and Filings.

1. The city, county, or city and county shall make express findings for each amendment, addition or deletion based upon climatic, topographical or geological conditions.

Exception: Hazardous building ordinances and programs mitigating unreinforced masonry buildings.

Since the HSC recognizes soft story buildings as potentially seismically hazardous, this exception would exempt a soft story mitigation program from the requirements that findings A through E are otherwise intended to address. Even so, the six findings included in the model ordinance

are still useful as reference points.

In addition to the six findings in the model ordinance, a city might use the Findings section to:

• Make a negative declaration with respect to CEQA requirements.

• Find that all of the subject buildings are “substandard” by the definition in HSC Section 17920.3(o). See also model ordinance Section 306A.20, which addresses the same topic as it relates to building alterations.

• Find that each subject building is a “qualified building” eligible for the new CalCAP program because it is “in danger of collapse in the event of a catastrophic earthquake.” (CalCAP, 2016)

3.2.2. Coordinationwithotherbuildingregulations

Model ordinance Section 306A should be supplemented as needed to ensure that the soft story program is in coordination with other city-specific building regulations.

Section 306A.10 makes the general statement that enforcement of the soft story program is not intended to find unrelated noncompliant conditions, unless those noncompliant conditions are unsafe. In the building code, “unsafe” is a term that allows for building official judgment and discretion. The city and the building official should consider whether to augment this model provision with specific waivers or exceptions for such common noncompliant conditions as:

• Illegal units

• Work done without permits (including water heaters or other equipment installed without proper seismic bracing)

• Missing life safety improvements, such as fire, smoke, or carbon monoxide detectors

• Incomplete repairs or deferred maintenance.

In particular, if the city has its own special programs, either to abate hazards or to provide amnesty, this section of the model ordinance should be supplemented with specific references to those programs. The supplemental provisions should clarify how those requirements will or will not be enforced in the context of the soft story program.

Section 306A.30 makes the general statement that any work not related to the required scope should be done as it would be otherwise, according to the applicable

Section 3 | The Model Ordinance 15


code provisions. The city and the building official should consider whether to augment this model provision with references to city-specific requirements that would apply to a voluntary alteration project. For example, some cities trigger parking requirements, energy upgrades, or other building improvements or fees when alterations are made. Some have pass-through or rent control rules that regulate how the owner’s alteration costs may be shared with tenants. This model ordinance section should be supplemented, or subsections should be added to Section 306A, to specify whether any such triggers will apply or will be waived in the context of soft story retrofit.

Section 306A should also be supplemented with requirements or references to other incentive or assistance programs. If the city is offering any fee waivers or cost subsidies, this section could contain any rules or qualifications for those programs that the building official would enforce. For example, owners who want to participate in the state CalCAP program must receive certification of eligibility from the building official, and a provision to that effect could be added here. Rules enforced by other city or state agencies may be cited or referenced in Section 306A, but since section is part of the building code enforced by the building official, the rules themselves should not be here. As an example of such a program, Alameda’s mandatory evaluation ordinance offers to reduce parking requirements as needed to complete voluntary retrofit work (Johnson, 2009). Similarly, San Francisco passed a separate ordinance waiving certain planning restrictions for accessory dwelling units added to retrofitted buildings; it could have been referenced from the city’s soft story chapter, but enforcement still would have been by the planning department with regulations in the planning code.

Section 306A should also be supplemented as needed to coordinate with current or previous soft story screening or evaluation programs. For example, if the city had a previous screening program and now wants to implement a retrofit program, or if it had a previous voluntary program it now wants to make mandatory, the previous provisions should be clarified or revoked.

It should not be necessary to supplement the model ordinance to address general topics already covered in the city’s building codes, unless special requirements or allowances are deemed appropriate for soft story mitigation. For example, by adopting (and sometimes

amending) the state codes, all EBCI jurisdictions should already have appropriate administrative provisions for:

• The definition of “building official” and the building official’s authorizations

• Enforcement, including penalties

• Fees

• Required submittals, including structural calculations and construction documents

• Design approval

• Recording and maintenance of record documents

• Appeals.

3.2.3. Editorial customization

Finally, each city will need to make some editorial revisions to the model ordinance text:

• The model ordinance includes several blanks (shown as “_____”) where the city’s name is to be inserted.

• The section numbering might need revision. The model ordinance contains provisions to be adopted into the city’s existing building code. By state law, every California jurisdiction must adopt the state building codes, including the California Existing Building Code. The section numbering in the model ordinance presumes that the code language will be adopted as Chapter 3A of the city’s adopted and amended version of the CEBC. Some cities make their code amendments differently, however, so each city should confirm that the numbering in the model ordinance matches the formatting of its building regulations.

• The city attorney and other city council staff will need to supplement and format the model ordinance text in accord with the city’s normal practices. This is likely to include adding legislative boilerplate sections on severability, recording, effective date, and other topics.

3.3 Implementing the ordinance

Once the ordinance is approved, the city will need to take certain steps to comply with state law and to prepare for implementation.

16

3.3.1. Filing requirements

The building code provisions adopted through the ordinance constitute local amendments to the state building code. Since the amendments affect residential buildings, a copy must be filed with the Department of Housing and Community Development, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 19165.

Normally, local amendments to the state building code should also be filed with the California Building Standards Commission, along with “express findings” justifying them. As noted in finding F, discussed in Section 3.2.1 of this report, the California Building Code waives this requirement for “hazardous building ordinances,” so a filing with the BSC should not be necessary. Nevertheless, the city attorney should determine if this filing is necessary or advisable.

If a filing is made, HSC Section 17958.5 calls for justification based on “local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.” While these formal justifications are neither reviewed nor approved by the BSC, they are expected to be specific to the city. A justification statement for a soft story program using this model ordinance might restate the points made in the customized Whereas statements and the findings, specifically:

• The city has vulnerable soft story housing that, if not retrofitted, will jeopardize the city’s earthquake response and recovery goals.

• The CEBC does not itself require or trigger seismic retrofit except in very rare cases, so a proactive mitigation program is needed.

Amendments to the engineering criteria in CEBC Chapter A4 or ASCE 41 need not be filed if they are made through building department bulletins as contemplated by model ordinance Section 301A.70, especially if they are characterized as interpretations that reflect cost-beneficial improvements identified by other Bay Area programs.

3.3.2. Internal coordination and preparation

The lead agency – typically the building department – will need to coordinate work with different city and county agencies before the program becomes effective.

• Model ordinance Section 301A.90 calls for coordination between the building department, which

will track compliance for each building, and the county clerk or recorder. The purpose is to ensure that the status of each notified building (whether ultimately a subject building or not) is available to anyone performing a title search.

• Section 306A (as discussed in Section 3.2.2 of this report) is meant to coordinate between the soft story program and other city programs for regulating or improving existing residential properties. If other city agencies (for example, housing, planning, public works, or the fire department) are responsible for those other programs or for discretionary reviews of alterations to residential buildings, a procedure will be needed to coordinate their involvement in the review and approval process.

• Section 301A.70 contemplates that the building department will develop screening forms, affidavit forms, and other forms or templates to facilitate the program. If the city requires such forms to be approved by other departments (for accessibility, language requirements, etc.), the building department will need to coordinate that involvement.

• Per Section 301A.40, the building official is to notify owners of potential subject buildings within 90 days of the program’s effective date. This will require the development of mailing lists and outreach materials, possibly with the involvement of multiple city departments. See Section 3.3.3 of this report for additional discussion of the notification process.

Most important, the building department itself will need to prepare to implement the program. The process of developing consensus around the ordinance should provide information about the number and type of buildings likely to be subject to the program. Defining the tiers and deadlines in model ordinance Section 302A.40 and Section 302A.50 relies on at least a rough knowledge of the city’s residential building stock. Therefore, staffing and consultant needs should be known before the ordinance is passed, so that resources can be allocated or acquired between passage and the effective date.

Outreach to owners, tenants, engineers, contractors, and lenders will make the building department’s tasks easier.

• Because of the San Francisco and Berkeley programs, and ongoing work by the SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Bay Area engineers and contractors

Section 3 | The Model Ordinance 17


are well versed in soft story mitigation criteria and procedures (though the contractors’ role is still ramping up to the construction surge expected in 2018 and 2019).

• Lenders are also aware of these retrofit programs, but CalCAP, the state program that guarantees banks’ loans to incentivize better terms for borrowers, became effective only in January 2017 (CalCAP, 2016). As noted in Section 3.2.1, any building subject to a soft story program should be eligible for CalCAP, so the building department should prepare the forms and procedures needed for that state program as well.

• Owners and tenants will have questions about the program, and as the lead agency, the building department should prepare outreach materials to assist them. Stakeholder involvement is important during the development of the ordinance, but educational outreach is most effective after it has passed, and even more so after the owners have been notified. See Section 3.3.3 for additional discussion.

The most detailed and most important product to be developed in the lead up to the program’s effective date will be the technical bulletins contemplated by model ordinance Sections 301A.70, 302A.30, 304A, and 305A. San Francisco’s Administrative Bulletin 107 (SFDBI, 2016) and Berkeley’s Framework document (Berkeley BSD, 2014) offer examples of what might be needed, depending on which engineering criteria are selected.

Technical bulletins for a soft story mitigation program should interpret and apply the department’s current procedures to a mandatory mitigation program. Assumptions that apply to new construction might not apply to existing buildings; departments that routinely handle repair, alteration, and retrofit projects should already be familiar with these differences. Less familiar is the fact that conditions that apply to voluntary work, including new construction, might not apply to mandatory work. In general, a building owner forced to perform a retrofit might not have planned or budgeted as she would have for a self-initiated project. While Bay Area engineers and contractors have generally responded professionally to the Berkeley and San Francisco programs, some have begun to offer cut-rate services to accommodate reluctant owners. A building department charged with implementing a mandatory program should anticipate this and use its technical bulletins to ensure consistency and

completeness of the mandated work.

One or more technical bulletins might address the following topics, among others:

• Submittal contents and organization. To ensure consistency and completeness, and to facilitate quick reviews, the bulletin can require calculations and plans to follow certain formats. Checklists are also helpful, both for internal department use and to assist engineers preparing submittals.

• Special review or application routing procedures. To make the program easier for owners, the city might put in place special procedures to expedite reviews and approvals. San Francisco, for example, arranged for quick planning reviews and has attempted to do all structural reviews over the counter (with mixed success). Any special procedures should be spelled out clearly in advance.

• Construction quality assurance. Every California city already has code provisions for testing and inspection that should apply to soft story retrofits. However, most of those provisions are written for new construction or voluntary alteration. Some engineers involved in San Francisco projects have suggested clearer and more complete procedures that account for unusual or difficult building conditions, as well as low design fees and construction budgets.

• Construction-phase revisions. Retrofit projects routinely encounter unknown or unexpected conditions that require revisions to the approved plans, sometimes with supplemental structural calculations. The bulletin should clarify procedures for contractors, engineers, special inspectors, and even the city’s building inspectors, to ensure that the revisions are properly coordinated and approved, with appropriate revisions to the construction documents.

• Interpretation and application notes on the engineering criteria. As discussed in Section 3.1.6, each of the engineering criteria cited by the model ordinance will need to be accompanied by interpretations or regulations. The regulations should anticipate questions about how to apply the soft story criteria, together with the city’s normal building codes, to the special case of a mandatory evaluation or retrofit with limited scope. Among the topics covered by the San Francisco and Berkeley bulletins are:

1818

• Scope, exemptions, limitations, and (where needed) objectives for each set of engineering criteria. See Section 3.1.6.

• Default site classes and adjustment factors, in part to avoid the expense of soil investigation.

• Default material strengths for existing materials.

• Waivers on the use of certain structural systems, such as ordinary steel systems, that are appropriate for retrofit but are not permitted for new construction.

• Caps on the required retrofit strength of the target story, recognizing the benefit provided by FEMA P-807 but not considered by ASCE 41 or CEBC Chapter A4.

The department should expect the technical bulletin to undergo revisions during the course of the program as lessons are learned and innovations are proposed. Since the start of San Francisco’s program, for example, AB 107 has been modified to address questions about diaphragm evaluation and the application of cantilever column systems. As of January 2017, additional amendments are being considered to address issues of combined systems, moment-frame joint bracing, design review procedures, and construction quality control.

3.3.3. Notificationofowners

Model ordinance Section 301A.40 sets a 90-day deadline by which the city must notify owners. Of course, the city may modify this typical deadline.

The notification process is beyond the scope of this report, but the success of the San Francisco program, which achieved nearly 100 percent compliance through its screening phase, suggests some lessons for EBCI cities (ESIP, 2014):

• A mailing list of owners is typically compiled from County Assessor records and from the city’s housing department data. Enough time must be allowed to coordinate data sets to produce a reasonably reliable mailing list.

• It is not the city’s responsibility (nor is it advisable) to determine in advance which buildings are “subject buildings” per model ordinance Section 301A.30. In particular, the available data is unlikely to include the number of stories or the construction materials

and will certainly not include anything about the presence or absence of a “target story.” Instead, the best practice is to notify all owners of buildings that appear to meet the criteria based on age and number of units, and let the screening process in Section 302A.30.A sort out the exempt buildings. In a city with mostly wood frame residential buildings, this approach is unlikely to capture many concrete or masonry buildings improperly. San Francisco initially notified the owners of over 6000 buildings, and by the end of the one-year screening phase had exempted about 20 percent of those.

• Initial notifications should be informal, perhaps just a postcard with contact information.

• The more formal notification should include simplified step-by-step instructions, especially regarding the screening or eligibility confirmation process covered in model ordinance Section 302A.30.A. Of course, if a screening form is used, it must be ready before the first notifications go out, and should be included with the first formal notification.

• Public meetings to present the ordinance requirements and take questions can be very effective, especially if organized in conjunction with local organizations of building owners and tenants. Public meetings are most effective if held after the notifications have been received, so that attendees are motivated to learn and participate.

• Model ordinance Section 301A.90 requires that the list of subject buildings be available to the public, so the city should have that ready when notifications go out.

• Once the list of potential subject buildings is public, the city can expect that the media will publish it and perhaps map the addresses. Therefore, the published list should indicate clearly that it is a list of buildings potentially subject to the ordinance, not a list of hazardous or even potentially hazardous buildings. That is, the hazard, if any, is determined by the owner’s engineer based on a building-specific analysis, not by the city based on tax and housing records.

• Owners are likely to receive marketing from engineers, contractors, and lenders as soon as the ordinance passes. Some of this material will look like official city notices, so the city should be ready to answer questions about it from owners or tenants.

19Section 3 | The Model Ordinance

21References

References ABAG, 2015. East Bay Corridors Initiative: Priorities 2015-

16. Association of Bay Area Governments.

ABAG, 2016. Soft Story Retrofit Program Development. Association of Bay Area Governments, March. Available at http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/projects/soft_story_2016/.

ASCE, 2017 (in development). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-17). American Society of Civil Engineers.

ATC, 2012. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings With Weak First Stories (FEMA P-807). Federal Emergency Management Agency, May.

Berkeley, 2013. “Potentially Hazardous Buildings Containing Soft, Weak, or Open Front Stories” (Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 19.39). Available at https://cityofberkeley.info/softstory/.

Berkeley BSD, 2014. “City of Berkeley Framework Guidelines for Soft, Weak or Open Front Building Retrofit Design.” City of Berkeley, Planning and Development, Building & Safety Division, July 11. Available at https://cityofberkeley.info/softstory/.

Bonowitz, D. and Rabinovici, S., 2013. “Soft Story Risk Reduction: Lessons from the Berkeley Data.” EERI, January. Available at https://www.eeri.org/products-page/other-special-reports/soft-story-risk-reduction-lessons-from-the-berkeley-data/.

BSC, 2016. “Earthquake Risk Reduction in Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak, or Open Front Walls” (Chapter A4, 2016 California Existing Building Code, Title 24 Part 10).

CalCAP, 2016. “Text of Regulations: Title 4. Business Regulations; Division 11. California Pollution Control Financing Authority; Article 7. Capital Access Program for Small Businesses.” December 22. Available at http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cpcfa/calcap/seismic/summary.asp.

EERI-NC, 2003. “Soft Story Fact Sheet.” EERI Northern California Chapter, October. Available at http://www.eerinc.org/?page_id=197.

ESIP, 2014. “Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program: Preliminary Returns.” Earthquake Safety Implementation Program, October 10.

Garcetti, E., 2015. “An ordinance amending Divisions 93 and 95 of Article I of Chapter IX of the Los Angeles Municipal Code .” (Ordinance 183893). Approved October 9. Available at http://www.ladbs.org/services/core-services/plan-check-permit/plan-check-permit-special-assistance/mandatory-retrofit-programs/soft-story-retrofit-program.

Johnson, B., 2009. “Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Article XX (Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Soft-Story Residential Buildings) .” (Ordinance No. 2989). Approved March 18. Available at https://alamedaca.gov/community-development/building/seismic-retrofit.

Kalb, D., 2016. “An ordinance amending the Oakland Municipal Code .” – DRAFT, April 11.

Lee, E., et al., 2013. “Ordinance amending the Building Code to establish a Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program for wood-frame buildings .” (Ordinance No. 66-13). Approved April 18.

Rabinovici, S., 2012. Motivating Private Precaution with Public Programs: Insights from a Local Earthquake Mitigation Ordinance. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

SFDBI, 2016. “Application of Engineering Criteria in SFBC Chapter 34B” (AB-107). City and County of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection, May 19. Available at http://sfdbi.org/administrative-bulletins.

SPUR, 2009. “The Resilient City, Part I: Before the Disaster.” Urbanist, February. Available at http://www.spur.org/featured-project/resilient-city.

REFERENCES

Appendix A | Model Ordinance Provisions for Mandatory Retrofit with Screening 23

Appendix A: Model Ordinance Provisions for Mandatory Retrofit with ScreeningFollowing are the model ordinance provisions for a mandatory soft story retrofit program with a screening phase. They are identical to one of the three versions of the model ordinance presented in a tabular format with commentary in Appendix B.

In order to fully implement this model ordinance, a jurisdiction would need to:

• Confirm or revise the main options, as discussed in Section 3.1 of this report.

• Customize the ordinance text, as discussed in Section 3.2 of this report.

• Take steps to implement the ordinance through a soft story program, as discussed in Section 3.3 of this report.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE _____ BUILDING CODE TO REQUIRE SEISMIC RETROFIT OF CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

Whereas _____ is acknowledged to be subject to severe earthquakes in the foreseeable future; and

Whereas older multi-unit residential wood frame buildings with soft, weak, open, or otherwise vulnerable lower stories are acknowledged to be among the most earthquake collapse-prone structures in _____; and

Whereas the earthquake safety and post-earthquake recovery of housing is acknowledged as a goal of _____’s emergency response and recovery plan; and

Whereas California Health and Safety Code Section 19160(m) encourages _____ “to initiate efforts to reduce the seismic risk in vulnerable soft story residential buildings;” and

Whereas the California Existing Building Code requires seismic retrofit only in exceptionally rare cases;

Whereas it is acknowledged to be in the best interests of _____ building owners, commercial and residential tenants, and all residents to apply retrofit standards that balance the benefits of reduced earthquake losses with the costs and disruptions of seismic retrofit; and

Whereas other Bay Area cities have implemented “soft story” retrofit programs and have identified cost-beneficial improvements and interpretations of existing model codes and standards;

THE COUNCIL OF _____ DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings.

A. California Health and Safety Code Section 19161(a) authorizes _____ to assess its earthquake hazard and to identify potentially seismically hazardous buildings.

B. California Health and Safety Code Section 19161(b) requires such identification to be made by a licensed architect or civil engineer or by the staff of a local building department when supervised by a licensed architect or civil engineer.

C. With reference to California Health and Safety Code Section 19162(b)(1), the California Building Standards Commission has published, but has not adopted, Chapter A4 of the 2016 California Existing Building Code, titled “Earthquake Risk Reduction in Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak or Open Front Walls.” As such, _____ is free to adopt, modify, interpret, and apply Chapter A4.

D. With reference to California Health and Safety Code Section 19162(b)(1), the California Building Standards Commission has adopted Section 317 of the California Existing Building Code, which allows a local jurisdiction to adopt standards for earthquake evaluation and retrofit based on the national standard known as ASCE 41, titled Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.

APPEND

IX A


E. FEMA has published a procedure known as FEMA P-807, titled, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings With Weak First Stories, with model code provisions in its Appendix B. With reference to California Health and Safety Code Section 19163(b), _____ may adopt these provisions with an appropriate performance objective as “substantially equivalent standards” relative to CEBC Chapter A4 or ASCE 41.

F. California Health and Safety Code Section 19161(a)(2) identifies the buildings that are the subject of this ordinance as “potentially hazardous buildings.” California Building Code Section 1.1.8.1 states that local ordinances and mitigation programs for such buildings are exempt from making express findings otherwise required by California Health and Safety Code Section 19163(b) citing Section 17958.5 and Section 17958.7.

SECTION 2. Chapter 3A is hereby created and added to _____’s adopted version of the 2016 California Existing Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 10, as follows.

CHAPTER 3A. MANDATORY SEISMIC RETROFIT OF

CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

SECTION 301A. ADMINISTRATION

301A.10 Title. This chapter shall be known as “Mandatory Seismic Retrofit of Certain Residential Buildings,” may be cited as such, and will be referred to herein as “this chapter.”

301A.20 Intent. This chapter is intended to promote public safety and welfare through a program of mandatory seismic retrofit of certain residential buildings vulnerable to earthquake damage and collapse. The program is intended to reduce earthquake-related deaths and injuries, improve the durability of the existing housing stock, facilitate post-earthquake emergency response, improve community stability, minimize displacement during retrofits and after an earthquake, and reduce the economic impacts of a damaging earthquake.

301A.30 Subject Buildings. This chapter shall apply to buildings constructed or permitted for construction before January 1, 1978 or designed based on an adopted version of the 1976 or earlier edition of the Uniform Building Code, that contain five or more dwelling units, and have a wood frame target story.

301A.40 Notification. Within 90 days of the effective date of this chapter, the building official shall send a written notice to the owner or owners of each known subject building informing the owner of the requirement to comply with this chapter.

Failure of the building official to send or provide a written notice to unidentified owners of subject buildings or to owners of buildings not known to be subject buildings shall not relieve the owner of a subject building from the requirement to comply with this chapter. Failure of an owner to receive a written notice shall not relieve the owner of a subject building from the requirement to comply with this chapter.

301A.50 Design Professionals. Unless specifically noted, all work intended to comply with this chapter shall be performed by appropriately licensed individuals, and all documents submitted for compliance shall be sealed by a California-licensed architect or civil engineer.

301A.60 Submittals. In addition to submittals required by other provisions of this code, the building official is authorized to develop, distribute, and require the use of certain forms, templates, and other tools as needed to facilitate compliance, review, approval, and records maintenance contemplated by this chapter. The building official is authorized to require separate submittals and permit applications for work required for compliance with the chapter and for voluntary work to be performed simultaneously.

301A.70 Technical bulletins and administrative regulations. The building official is responsible for the administration of this chapter and is authorized to develop and require compliance with one or more technical bulletins and/or administrative regulations containing interpretations, clarifications, and commentary to facilitate implementation of the engineering criteria and other requirements set forth in this chapter.

301A.80 Retention of plans. Notwithstanding any provision or exception in this code, including Exception 1 to Section 1.8.4.3.1 of the 2016 California Building Code and its successors, the building official shall retain an official copy of any approved target story evaluation reports and retrofit design plans submitted to comply with this chapter.


301A.90 Public record keeping. The building official shall maintain a listing of buildings subject to this chapter and shall make that listing readily accessible to the public. The building official shall convey that listing with a summary of the compliance status of each subject building and its parcel number to the County Clerk-Recorder once every six months.

301A.100 Conformance Period. No subject building for which permitted retrofit work is completed in compliance with this chapter shall be required by the _____ to undergo additional seismic retrofit of its seismic force-resisting system within a period of 15 years after the effective date of this chapter, except that any provisions in this code related to addition, alteration, repair, or change of occupancy shall still apply. Any such additional seismic retrofit requirements shall apply at the end of the conformance period, with schedule adjustments to be determined by the building official.

SECTION 302A. COMPLIANCE

302A.10. Reserved.

302A.20. Reserved.

302A.30 Scope for each subject building. The owner of each building subject to this chapter shall, in accordance with the schedule given in Section 302A.50, complete the following compliance scope.

A. Complete the screening. The owner shall submit a screening document sealed by a California-licensed architect or civil engineer following procedures to be prescribed by the building official. The document shall either show that the building is not a subject building per Section 301A.30 or shall confirm that the building is a subject building assigned to a certain compliance tier.

B. Complete the structural retrofit. The owner shall:

1. Obtain a building permit to retrofit the subject building in compliance with the criteria given in Section 304A; and

2. Complete or cause to be completed all permitted construction, and obtain a certificate of completion.

Alternatively, the owner may submit to the building official a seismic evaluation report demonstrating compliance of each wood frame target story with the criteria given in Section 304A.

C. Complete the nonstructural retrofit. The owner shall:

1. Obtain a building permit to retrofit the subject building in compliance with the criteria given in Section 305A; and

2. Complete or cause to be completed all permitted construction, and obtain a certificate of completion.

Alternatively, the owner may submit to the building official a seismic evaluation report demonstrating compliance with the criteria given in Section 305A.

D. Submit affidavits of compliance. The owner shall submit one or more affidavits prescribed by the building official confirming compliance with the required scope and with other administrative regulations.

302A.40 Compliance tiers. Each subject building shall be assigned to a compliance tier as follows.

Tier 1. Subject buildings with 16 or more dwelling units shall be assigned to Tier 1, unless eligible for Tier 3.

Tier 2. Subject buildings with 15 or fewer dwelling units shall be assigned to Tier 2, unless eligible for Tier 3.

Tier 3. Subject buildings with legally permitted dwelling units or business, mercantile, or assembly occupancies in a wood frame target story shall be assigned to Tier 3.

302A.50 Schedule. The owner of a subject building shall comply with each of this chapter’s requirements in accordance with the deadlines given in Table 302A.50. Failure to fully comply with any deadline or to receive approval of submitted materials shall not alter other applicable deadlines. In no case shall transfer of title cause any deadline to be extended.


TABLE 302A.50. Compliance deadlines in years after the effective date of this chapter

Compliance Tier Screening Form Retrofit Permits Retrofit Construction Affidavits

Tier 1 1 year 2 years 3 years 3 years



SECTION 303A. DEFINITIONS

303A.10 Supplemental definitions. In addition to or in place of definitions given elsewhere in this code, the following definitions shall apply for purposes of this chapter.

Dwelling unit. A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation; or any individual residential unit in a building with R-1 or R-2 occupancy; or any guestroom, with or without a kitchen, in either a tourist or residential hotel or motel. Any unit occupied as a dwelling unit, whether approved or not approved for such use, shall be counted as a dwelling unit.

Target story. Either (1) a basement story or underfloor area that extends above grade at any point or (2) any story above grade, where the wall configuration of such basement, underfloor area, or story is substantially more vulnerable to earthquake damage than the wall configuration of the story above; except that a story is not a target story if it is the topmost story or if the difference in vulnerability is primarily due to the story above being a penthouse, or an attic with a pitched roof.

Wood frame target story. A wood frame target story means a target story in which a significant portion of lateral or torsional story strength or story stiffness is provided by wood frame walls.

SECTION 304A. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

304A.10 Engineering intent. The structural criteria provided in this section have been selected as appropriate to the intent of this chapter. The structural retrofit criteria are expected to significantly reduce the collapse risk of subject buildings and to increase the likelihood that a subject building will be structurally safe to repair and occupy shortly after an earthquake.

The structural criteria are intended to apply to existing wood frame target stories in order to improve building performance while limiting retrofit costs and impacts. It is not the intent of this chapter to require mitigation of all structural deficiencies, seismic or non-seismic, that might exist within or adjacent to the building. The structural criteria might not achieve the same performance as design requirements for new buildings or any full-building retrofit objective for existing buildings.

304A.20 Structural seismic evaluation. Seismic evaluation of each wood frame target story shall comply with either of the following criteria. Regardless of the criteria applied, the strength of a target story need not exceed that required to develop the strength of stories above.

A. The latest edition of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings [ASCE/SEI 41] with a performance objective of Structural Life Safety with the BSE-1E hazard or Structural Collapse Prevention with the BSE-2E hazard, as interpreted by the building official.

B. The latest edition of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings With Weak First Stories [FEMA P-807] with a performance objective and detailed provisions as provided by the building official.

304A.30 Structural seismic retrofit. Seismic retrofit of each wood frame target story shall comply with any of the following criteria. Regardless of the criteria applied, the strength of a target story need not exceed that required to develop the strength of stories above.

A. Chapter A4 of this code, as interpreted by the building official.


B. The latest edition of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings [ASCE/SEI 41] with a performance objective of Structural Life Safety with the BSE-1E hazard or Structural Collapse Prevention with the BSE-2E hazard, as interpreted by the building official.

C. The latest edition of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings With Weak First Stories [FEMA P-807] with a performance objective and detailed provisions as provided in a Technical Bulletin to be developed by the building official.

D. For subject buildings qualified as historic, alternate building regulations of the 2016 California Historical Building Code.

SECTION 305A. NONSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

305A.10 Engineering intent. The nonstructural criteria provided in this section have been selected as appropriate to the intent of this chapter. The nonstructural retrofit criteria are expected to reduce certain safety and reoccupancy risks and to increase the likelihood that a subject building will be safe to repair and occupy shortly after an earthquake.

The nonstructural criteria are intended to apply to specific conditions in specific areas of the building in order to improve building performance while limiting retrofit costs and impacts. It is not the intent of this chapter to require mitigation of all nonstructural deficiencies, seismic or non-seismic, that might exist within or adjacent to the building. The nonstructural criteria might not achieve the same performance as design requirements for new buildings or any full-building retrofit objective for existing buildings.

305A.20 Nonstructural seismic evaluation. Seismic evaluation of nonstructural components shall comply with at least the “Screening” provisions in the latest edition of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings [ASCE/SEI 41] with a performance objective of Nonstructural Life Safety with the BSE-1E hazard. The building official is authorized to limit the required scope of the evaluation.

305A.30 Nonstructural seismic retrofit. Seismic retrofit of nonstructural components shall comply with the latest edition of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings [ASCE/SEI 41] with a performance objective of Nonstructural Life Safety with the BSE-1E hazard. The building official is authorized to limit the required scope of the retrofit.

SECTION 306A. APPLICATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE

306A.10 Approval. Except for unsafe conditions and new work triggered by the required scope, the building official shall not withhold approval of submitted materials for reasons unrelated to the required scope and the engineering criteria.

306A.20 Alteration provisions. Prior to compliance with this chapter, buildings subject to this chapter shall be considered substandard buildings per California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3(o). When considering the work required by this chapter as an alteration, the building official is authorized to waive Sections 403.4 and 403.4.1 of this code and its successor provisions.

306A.30 Existing building requirements. Unless specified otherwise, work on subject buildings that is neither required by this chapter nor triggered by compliance with this chapter shall comply with all applicable provisions of this code.

Appendix B: Model Ordinance Options and CommentaryThe table below presents three versions of the model ordi-nance, each representing a different mitigation program:

• Mandatory evaluation only

• Mandatory retrofit without a screening phase

• Mandatory retrofit with a screening phase.

In addition, the rightmost column provides guidance to the jurisdiction in terms of nominal instructions and commen-tary explaining the purpose of each provision. Additional commentary and discussion is provided in the body of this report.

The commentary uses these abbreviations:

• CEBC means the 2016 California Existing Building Code, more formally known as Title 24 Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations.

• HCD means the California Department of Housing and Community Development. HCD develops state build-ing code provisions that apply to residential buildings, including those covered by soft story ordinances.

Appendix B | Model Ordinance Options and Commentary 29

APPEND

IX B

• HSC means the California Health and Safety Code. HSC provisions require each California jurisdiction to adopt the CEBC. In addition, HSC Sections 19160 through 19168 address seismically hazardous build-ings and include a number of provisions specifically intended to allow and encourage jurisdictions to address their soft story risk.

In order to fully implement this model ordinance, a juris-diction would need to:

• Select one of the three mitigation program types.

• Confirm or revise the main options, as discussed in Section 3.1 of this report.

• Customize the ordinance text, as discussed in Section 3.2 of this report.

• Take steps to implement the ordinance through a soft story program, as discussed in Section 3.3 of this report.


Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

AN

ORD

INA

NCE

AM

END

ING

TH

E __

___ B

UIL

DIN

G C

OD

E TO

RE

QU

IRE

SEIS

MIC

EVA

LUA

TIO

N

OF

CERT

AIN

RES

IDEN

TIA

L BU

ILD

ING

S

AN

ORD

INA

NCE

AM

END

ING

TH

E __

___ B

UIL

DIN

G C

OD

E TO

REQ

UIR

E SE

ISM

IC R

ETRO

FIT

OF

CERT

AIN

RE

SID

ENTI

AL

BUIL

DIN

GS

Sam

e.In

sert

nam

e of

juris

dict

ion.

Whe

reas

___

__ is

ack

now

ledg

ed to

be

sub

ject

to s

ever

e ea

rthq

uake

s in

th

e fo

rese

eabl

e fu

ture

; and

Whe

reas

old

er m

ulti-

unit

resi

dent

ial

woo

d fr

ame

build

ings

with

sof

t, w

eak,

ope

n, o

r oth

erw

ise

vuln

erab

le

low

er s

torie

s ar

e ac

know

ledg

ed to

be

am

ong

the

mos

t ear

thqu

ake

colla

pse-

pron

e st

ruct

ures

in _

____

; an

d

Whe

reas

the

eart

hqua

ke s

afet

y an

d po

st-e

arth

quak

e re

cove

ry o

f ho

usin

g is

ack

now

ledg

ed a

s a

goal

of

___

__’s

emer

genc

y re

spon

se a

nd

reco

very

pla

n; a

nd

Whe

reas

Cal

iforn

ia H

ealth

and

Sa

fety

Cod

e Se

ctio

n 19

160(

m)

enco

urag

es _

____

“to

initi

ate

effor

ts

to re

duce

the

seis

mic

risk

in

vuln

erab

le s

oft s

tory

resi

dent

ial

build

ings

;”

Sam

e, p

lus:

Whe

reas

the

Calif

orni

a Ex

istin

g Bu

ildin

g Co

de re

quire

s se

ism

ic

retr

ofit o

nly

in e

xcep

tiona

lly ra

re

case

s;

Whe

reas

it is

ack

now

ledg

ed to

be

in th

e be

st in

tere

sts

of _

____

bu

ildin

g ow

ners

, com

mer

cial

and

re

side

ntia

l ten

ants

, and

all

resi

dent

s to

app

ly re

trofi

t sta

ndar

ds th

at

bala

nce

the

bene

fits

of re

duce

d ea

rthq

uake

loss

es w

ith th

e co

sts

and

disr

uptio

ns o

f sei

smic

retr

ofit;

and

Whe

reas

oth

er B

ay A

rea

citie

s ha

ve

impl

emen

ted

“sof

t sto

ry” r

etro

fit

prog

ram

s an

d ha

ve id

entifi

ed

cost

-ben

efici

al im

prov

emen

ts a

nd

inte

rpre

tatio

ns o

f exi

stin

g m

odel

co

des

and

stan

dard

s;

Sam

e.Ed

it, c

usto

miz

e, a

nd/o

r add

whe

reas

st

atem

ents

.

Inse

rt n

ame

of ju

risdi

ctio

n.

Whe

reas

sta

tem

ents

are

som

etim

es

used

to re

cord

the

coun

cil’s

bas

is

for e

nact

ing

the

ordi

nanc

e. T

hey

can

also

be

used

to re

cord

city

-spe

cific

ba

ckgr

ound

info

rmat

ion.

The

stat

emen

ts s

how

n ar

e si

mpl

ified

, gen

eric

ver

sion

s of

le

gisl

ativ

e fin

ding

s in

HSC

Sec

tion

1916

0.

THE

COU

NCI

L O

F __

___

DO

ES O

R-D

AIN

AS

FOLL

OW

S:Sa

me.

Sam

e.In

sert

nam

e of

juris

dict

ion.

SECT

ION

1. F

indi

ngs.

A. C

alifo

rnia

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y Co

de

Sect

ion

1916

1(a)

aut

horiz

es _

____

to

asse

ss it

s ea

rthq

uake

haz

ard

and

to id

entif

y po

tent

ially

sei

smic

ally

ha

zard

ous

build

ings

.

Sam

e, p

lus:

C. W

ith re

fere

nce

to C

alifo

rnia

H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Code

Sec

tion

1916

2(b)

(1),

the

Calif

orni

a Bu

ildin

g St

anda

rds

Com

mis

sion

has

pu

blis

hed,

but

has

not

ado

pted

, Ch

apte

r A4

of th

e 20

16 C

alifo

rnia

nser

t nam

e of

juris

dict

ion.

For e

valu

atio

n-on

ly p

rogr

ams,

H

SC p

uts

no li

mits

on

the

crite

ria

used

, pre

sum

ably

bec

ause

no

cons

truc

tion

wor

k is

invo

lved

.

30

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

B. C

alifo

rnia

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y Co

de S

ectio

n 19

161(

b) re

quire

s su

ch id

entifi

catio

n to

be

mad

e by

a

licen

sed

arch

itect

or c

ivil

engi

neer

or

by

the

staff

of a

loca

l bui

ldin

g de

part

men

t whe

n su

perv

ised

by

a lic

ense

d ar

chite

ct o

r civ

il en

gine

er.

Exis

ting

Build

ing

Code

, titl

ed

“Ear

thqu

ake

Risk

Red

uctio

n in

W

ood-

Fram

e Re

side

ntia

l Bui

ldin

gs

with

Sof

t, W

eak

or O

pen

Fron

t W

alls

.” As

suc

h, _

____

is fr

ee to

ado

pt,

mod

ify, i

nter

pret

, and

app

ly C

hapt

er

A4.

D. W

ith re

fere

nce

to C

alifo

rnia

H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Code

Sec

tion

1916

2(b)

(1),

the

Calif

orni

a Bu

ildin

g St

anda

rds

Com

mis

sion

has

ado

pted

Se

ctio

n 31

7 of

the

Calif

orni

a Ex

istin

g Bu

ildin

g Co

de, w

hich

allo

ws

a lo

cal

juris

dict

ion

to a

dopt

sta

ndar

ds fo

r ea

rthq

uake

eva

luat

ion

and

retr

ofit

base

d on

the

natio

nal s

tand

ard

know

n as

ASC

E 41

, titl

ed S

eism

ic

Eval

uatio

n an

d Re

trofi

t of E

xist

ing

Build

ings

.

E. F

EMA

has

publ

ishe

d a

proc

edur

e kn

own

as F

EMA

P-80

7, ti

tled,

Se

ism

ic E

valu

atio

n an

d Re

trofi

t of

Mul

ti-U

nit W

ood-

Fram

e Bu

ildin

gs

With

Wea

k Fi

rst S

torie

s, w

ith m

odel

co

de p

rovi

sion

s in

its

Appe

ndix

B.

With

refe

renc

e to

Cal

iforn

ia H

ealth

an

d Sa

fety

Cod

e Se

ctio

n 19

163(

b),

____

_ m

ay a

dopt

thes

e pr

ovis

ions

w

ith a

n ap

prop

riate

per

form

ance

ob

ject

ive

as “s

ubst

antia

lly e

quiv

alen

t st

anda

rds”

rela

tive

to C

EBC

Chap

ter

A4 o

r ASC

E 41

.

For r

etro

fit p

rogr

ams,

HSC

set

s so

me

gene

ral r

equi

rem

ents

on

code

pr

ovis

ions

and

des

ign

crite

ria (w

hich

it

colle

ctiv

ely

calls

“sta

ndar

ds”),

but

it

is n

ot e

ntire

ly c

lear

how

the

HSC

ru

les

appl

y to

man

dato

ry m

itiga

tion

prog

ram

s, a

s op

pose

d to

nor

mal

bu

ildin

g co

de p

rovi

sion

s.

Assu

min

g th

e H

SC ru

les

do a

pply

, th

e m

odel

find

ings

sta

te h

ow a

nd

why

the

ordi

nanc

e is

in c

ompl

ianc

e.

The

findi

ngs

draf

ted

here

hav

e no

t be

en re

view

ed b

y an

att

orne

y or

by

any

stat

e ag

ency

.

F. C

alifo

rnia

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y Co

de

Sect

ion

1916

1(a)

(2) i

dent

ifies

the

build

ings

that

are

the

subj

ect o

f thi

s or

dina

nce

as “p

oten

tially

haz

ardo

us

build

ings

.” Ca

lifor

nia

Build

ing

Code



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Sec

tion

1.1.

8.1

stat

es th

at lo

cal

ordi

nanc

es a

nd m

itiga

tion

prog

ram

s fo

r suc

h bu

ildin

gs a

re e

xem

pt fr

om

mak

ing

expr

ess

findi

ngs

othe

rwis

e re

quire

d by

Cal

iforn

ia H

ealth

and

Sa

fety

Cod

e Se

ctio

n 19

163(

b)

citin

g Se

ctio

n 17

958.

5 an

d Se

ctio

n 17

958.

7.

SECT

ION

2. C

hapt

er 3

A is

her

eby

crea

ted

and

adde

d to

___

__’s

adop

ted

vers

ion

of th

e 20

16

Calif

orni

a Ex

istin

g Bu

ildin

g Co

de,

Calif

orni

a Co

de o

f Reg

ulat

ions

Titl

e 24

Par

t 10,

as

follo

ws.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

Inse

rt n

ame

of ju

risdi

ctio

n.

Mod

ify to

acc

omm

odat

e th

e ci

ty’s

orga

niza

tion

of it

s ow

n m

unic

ipal

co

de a

nd b

uild

ing

code

regu

latio

ns.

The

mod

el p

rovi

sion

assu

mes

that

th

e ci

ty’s

build

ing

code

follo

ws

the

chap

ter n

umbe

ring

of T

itle

24, i

nclu

ding

Par

t 10,

the

CEBC

. If

so, t

he m

odel

pro

visi

ons

show

n he

re c

an b

e ad

ded

as C

hapt

er

3A. (

Alte

rnat

ivel

y, th

ey c

an b

e ad

ded

as S

ectio

n 32

4,a

new

fina

l se

ctio

n in

Cha

pter

3, b

ut th

at w

ill

be p

robl

emat

ic if

the

CEBC

sec

tion

num

berin

g ch

ange

s, a

s it

is li

kely

to

do o

ver c

omin

g cy

cles

.)

CHA

PTER

3A

. MA

ND

ATO

RY

SEIS

MIC

EVA

LUA

TIO

N O

F CE

RTA

IN R

ESID

ENTI

AL

BUIL

DIN

GS

CHA

PTER

3A

. MA

ND

ATO

RY

SEIS

MIC

RET

ROFI

T O

F CE

RTA

IN

RESI

DEN

TIA

L BU

ILD

ING

S

Sam

e.

SECT

ION

301

A. A

DM

INIS

TRA

TIO

NSa

me.

Sam

e.Th

e CE

BC a

lread

y co

ntai

ns a

full

set o

f adm

inis

trat

ive

prov

isio

ns.

Thes

e ite

ms

are

spec

ific

to s

oft s

tory

re

trofi

t pro

gram

s.

301A

.10

Titl

e. T

his

chap

ter s

hall

be k

now

n as

“Man

dato

ry S

eism

ic

Eval

uatio

n of

Cer

tain

Res

iden

tial

301A

.10

Titl

e. T

his

chap

ter s

hall

be k

now

n as

“Man

dato

ry S

eism

ic

Retr

ofit o

f Cer

tain

Res

iden

tial

Sam

e.

32

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Build

ings

,” m

ay b

e ci

ted

as s

uch,

and

w

ill b

e re

ferr

ed to

her

ein

as “t

his

chap

ter.”

Build

ings

,” m

ay b

e ci

ted

as s

uch,

and

w

ill b

e re

ferr

ed to

her

ein

as “t

his

chap

ter.”

301A

.20

Inte

nt. T

his

chap

ter i

s in

tend

ed to

pro

mot

e pu

blic

saf

ety

and

wel

fare

thro

ugh

a pr

ogra

m o

f m

anda

tory

sei

smic

eva

luat

ion

of

cert

ain

resi

dent

ial b

uild

ings

. The

pr

ogra

m is

inte

nded

to id

entif

y ce

rtai

n bu

ildin

gs v

ulne

rabl

e to

ea

rthq

uake

dam

age

and

colla

pse.

301A

.20

Inte

nt. T

his

chap

ter i

s in

tend

ed to

pro

mot

e pu

blic

saf

ety

and

wel

fare

thro

ugh

a pr

ogra

m o

f m

anda

tory

sei

smic

retr

ofit o

f cer

tain

re

side

ntia

l bui

ldin

gs v

ulne

rabl

e to

ear

thqu

ake

dam

age

and

colla

pse.

The

pro

gram

is in

tend

ed

to re

duce

ear

thqu

ake-

rela

ted

deat

hs a

nd in

jurie

s, im

prov

e th

e du

rabi

lity

of th

e ex

istin

g ho

usin

g st

ock,

faci

litat

e po

st-e

arth

quak

e em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

, im

prov

e co

mm

unity

sta

bilit

y, m

inim

ize

disp

lace

men

t dur

ing

retr

ofits

and

af

ter a

n ea

rthq

uake

, and

redu

ce th

e ec

onom

ic im

pact

s of

a d

amag

ing

eart

hqua

ke.

Sam

e.

301A

.30

Subj

ect

Build

ings

. Thi

s ch

apte

r sha

ll ap

ply

to b

uild

ings

co

nstr

ucte

d or

per

mitt

ed fo

r co

nstr

uctio

n be

fore

Janu

ary

1, 1

978

or d

esig

ned

base

d on

an

adop

ted

vers

ion

of th

e 19

76 o

r ear

lier e

ditio

n of

the

Uni

form

Bui

ldin

g Co

de, t

hat

cont

ain

five

or m

ore

dwel

ling

units

, an

d ha

ve a

woo

d fr

ame

targ

et s

tory

.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

Adju

st c

ritic

al d

ate,

app

licab

le c

ode,

an

d ot

her c

riter

ia, i

f nec

essa

ry.

HSC

Sec

tion

1916

1(a)

(2) l

ists

“w

oodf

ram

e, m

ultiu

nit r

esid

entia

l bu

ildin

gs c

onst

ruct

ed b

efor

e Ja

nuar

y 1,

197

8” a

s pa

rt o

f its

qua

si-

defin

ition

of t

he s

oft s

tory

type

of

“pot

entia

lly h

azar

dous

bui

ldin

gs.”

Even

so,

eac

h ci

ty m

ay c

hoos

e cu

toff

date

s an

d ot

her b

uild

ing

char

acte

ristic

s th

at fi

t its

ow

n bu

ildin

g st

ock.

See

the

com

men

tary

at 3

03A.

10

rega

rdin

g “d

wel

ling

units

” and

“woo

d fr

ame

targ

et s

tory

.”



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

301A

.40

Not

ifica

tion

. With

in 9

0 da

ys o

f the

effe

ctiv

e da

te o

f thi

s ch

apte

r, th

e bu

ildin

g offi

cial

sha

ll se

nd a

writ

ten

notic

e to

the

owne

r or

ow

ners

of e

ach

know

n su

bjec

t bu

ildin

g in

form

ing

the

owne

r of t

he

requ

irem

ent t

o co

mpl

y w

ith th

is

chap

ter.

Failu

re o

f the

bui

ldin

g offi

cial

to

sen

d or

pro

vide

a w

ritte

n no

tice

to u

nide

ntifi

ed o

wne

rs o

f su

bjec

t bui

ldin

gs o

r to

owne

rs o

f bu

ildin

gs n

ot k

now

n to

be

subj

ect

build

ings

sha

ll no

t rel

ieve

the

owne

r of a

sub

ject

bui

ldin

g fr

om

the

requ

irem

ent t

o co

mpl

y w

ith

this

cha

pter

. Fai

lure

of a

n ow

ner

to re

ceiv

e a

writ

ten

notic

e sh

all

not r

elie

ve th

e ow

ner o

f a s

ubje

ct

build

ing

from

the

requ

irem

ent t

o co

mpl

y w

ith th

is c

hapt

er.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

Adju

st th

e 90

-day

not

ifica

tion

sche

dule

, if n

eces

sary

.

This

will

dep

end

on th

e ca

paci

ty o

f th

e le

ad a

genc

y to

pre

pare

onc

e th

e or

dina

nce

goes

into

effe

ct.

Nin

ety

days

is a

typi

cal t

imef

ram

e.

The

capa

city

of p

rope

rty

owne

rs to

pr

epar

e sh

ould

be

refle

cted

in th

e de

adlin

es in

Sec

tion

302A

.50,

not

he

re.

301A

.50

Des

ign

Prof

essi

onal

s.

Unl

ess

spec

ifica

lly n

oted

, all

wor

k in

tend

ed to

com

ply

with

this

ch

apte

r sha

ll be

per

form

ed b

y ap

prop

riate

ly li

cens

ed in

divi

dual

s,

and

all d

ocum

ents

sub

mitt

ed fo

r co

mpl

ianc

e sh

all b

e se

aled

by

a Ca

lifor

nia-

licen

sed

arch

itect

or c

ivil

engi

neer

.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

HSC

Sec

tion

1916

1(b)

, citi

ng th

e Bu

sine

ss a

nd P

rofe

ssio

ns C

ode,

sp

ecifi

cally

allo

ws

arch

itect

s, c

ivil

engi

neer

s, a

nd s

truc

tura

l eng

inee

rs

to e

valu

ate

thes

e bu

ildin

gs.

It is

not

nec

essa

ry to

spe

cify

that

a

stru

ctur

al e

ngin

eer i

s qu

alifi

ed to

do

this

wor

k. E

very

Cal

iforn

ia-li

cens

ed

stru

ctur

al e

ngin

eer i

s al

so a

civ

il en

gine

er b

y de

finiti

on.

301A

.60

Subm

itta

ls. I

n ad

ditio

n to

sub

mitt

als

requ

ired

by o

ther

pr

ovis

ions

of t

his

code

, the

bui

ldin

g offi

cial

is a

utho

rized

to d

evel

op,

dist

ribut

e, a

nd re

quire

the

use

of

cert

ain

form

s, te

mpl

ates

, and

oth

er

tool

s as

nee

ded

to fa

cilit

ate

301A

.60

Subm

itta

ls. I

n ad

ditio

n to

sub

mitt

als

requ

ired

by o

ther

pr

ovis

ions

of t

his

code

, the

bui

ldin

g offi

cial

is a

utho

rized

to d

evel

op,

dist

ribut

e, a

nd re

quire

the

use

of

cert

ain

form

s, te

mpl

ates

, and

oth

er

tool

s as

nee

ded

to fa

cilit

ate

Sam

e.

34

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

com

plia

nce,

revi

ew, a

ppro

val,

and

reco

rds

mai

nten

ance

con

tem

plat

ed

by th

is c

hapt

er.

com

plia

nce,

revi

ew, a

ppro

val,

and

reco

rds

mai

nten

ance

con

tem

plat

ed

by th

is c

hapt

er. T

he b

uild

ing

offici

al is

aut

horiz

ed to

requ

ire

sepa

rate

sub

mitt

als

and

perm

it ap

plic

atio

ns fo

r wor

k re

quire

d fo

r co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith th

e ch

apte

r and

fo

r vol

unta

ry w

ork

to b

e pe

rfor

med

si

mul

tane

ousl

y.

301A

.70

Tech

nica

l bul

leti

ns a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ive

regu

lati

ons.

The

bu

ildin

g offi

cial

is re

spon

sibl

e fo

r th

e ad

min

istr

atio

n of

this

cha

pter

an

d is

aut

horiz

ed to

dev

elop

and

re

quire

com

plia

nce

with

one

or

mor

e te

chni

cal b

ulle

tins

and/

or a

dmin

istr

ativ

e re

gula

tions

co

ntai

ning

inte

rpre

tatio

ns,

clar

ifica

tions

, and

com

men

tary

to

faci

litat

e im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e en

gine

erin

g cr

iteria

and

oth

er

requ

irem

ents

set

fort

h in

this

ch

apte

r.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

Tech

nica

l bul

letin

s ar

e co

mm

on

and

usef

ul. T

hey

allo

w in

evita

ble

and

nece

ssar

y in

terp

reta

tions

to b

e m

ade

as th

e pr

ogra

m is

dev

elop

ed

and

impl

emen

ted,

with

out t

he n

eed

to a

men

d ap

prov

ed le

gisl

atio

n or

cod

e pr

ovis

ions

. Offi

cial

ly,

thes

e m

ust b

e ch

arac

teriz

ed a

s in

terp

reta

tions

, sin

ce lo

cal b

uild

ing

code

mod

ifica

tions

or a

men

dmen

ts

mus

t be

appr

oved

by

ordi

nanc

e.

This

pro

visi

on re

flect

s th

e as

sum

ptio

n th

at th

e bu

ildin

g de

part

men

t will

be

the

lead

age

ncy.

The

term

“bui

ldin

g offi

cial

,” as

use

d he

re, i

s al

read

y de

fined

in C

alifo

rnia

Bu

ildin

g Co

de S

ectio

n 20

2 to

incl

ude

the

build

ing

offici

al’s

desi

gnee

or

“dul

y au

thor

ized

repr

esen

tativ

e.”

Thus

, “bu

ildin

g offi

cial

” effe

ctiv

ely

mea

ns “b

uild

ing

depa

rtm

ent s

taff.

”

301A

.80

Rete

ntio

n of

pla

ns.

Not

with

stan

ding

any

pro

visi

on o

r ex

cept

ion

in th

is c

ode,

incl

udin

g Ex

cept

ion

1 to

Sec

tion

1.8.

4.3.

1 of

th

e 20

16 C

alifo

rnia

Bui

ldin

g Co

de

and

its s

ucce

ssor

s, th

e bu

ildin

g offi

cial

sha

ll re

tain

an

offici

al c

opy

of

any

appr

oved

targ

et s

tory

eva

luat

ion

301A

.80

Rete

ntio

n of

pla

ns.

Not

with

stan

ding

any

pro

visi

on o

r ex

cept

ion

in th

is c

ode,

incl

udin

g Ex

cept

ion

1 to

Sec

tion

1.8.

4.3.

1 of

th

e 20

16 C

alifo

rnia

Bui

ldin

g Co

de

and

its s

ucce

ssor

s, th

e bu

ildin

g offi

cial

sha

ll re

tain

an

offici

al c

opy

of

any

appr

oved

targ

et s

tory

eva

luat

ion

Sam

e.Th

e ci

ted

exce

ptio

n ge

nera

lly

exem

pts

a bu

ildin

g de

part

men

t fr

om re

tain

ing

plan

s fo

r any

re

side

ntia

l bui

ldin

g up

to tw

o st

orie

s ov

er a

bas

emen

t. Th

at e

xcep

tion

shou

ld b

e se

t asi

de fo

r pur

pose

s of

trac

king

and

man

agin

g th

is

prog

ram

.



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

repo

rts

subm

itted

to c

ompl

y w

ith

this

cha

pter

.re

port

s an

d re

trofi

t des

ign

plan

s su

bmitt

ed to

com

ply

with

this

ch

apte

r.

301A

.90

Publ

ic r

ecor

d ke

epin

g.

The

build

ing

offici

al s

hall

mai

ntai

n a

listin

g of

bui

ldin

gs s

ubje

ct to

this

ch

apte

r and

sha

ll m

ake

that

list

ing

read

ily a

cces

sibl

e to

the

publ

ic.

The

build

ing

offici

al s

hall

conv

ey

that

list

ing

with

a s

umm

ary

of th

e co

mpl

ianc

e st

atus

of e

ach

subj

ect

build

ing

and

its p

arce

l num

ber t

o th

e Co

unty

Cle

rk-R

ecor

der o

nce

ever

y si

x m

onth

s.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

This

pro

visi

on is

inte

nded

to h

elp

pote

ntia

l buy

ers

and

tena

nts

dete

rmin

e w

heth

er a

bui

ldin

g is

in

com

plia

nce

with

the

ordi

nanc

e.

Each

city

will

nee

d to

coo

rdin

ate

with

the

Coun

ty A

sses

sor r

egar

ding

pr

oced

ures

for c

onve

ying

upd

ated

in

form

atio

n.

Om

it.30

1A.1

00 C

onfo

rman

ce P

erio

d.

No

subj

ect b

uild

ing

for w

hich

pe

rmitt

ed re

trofi

t wor

k is

com

plet

ed

in c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith th

is c

hapt

er

shal

l be

requ

ired

by th

e __

___

to

unde

rgo

addi

tiona

l sei

smic

retr

ofit

of it

s se

ism

ic fo

rce-

resi

stin

g sy

stem

w

ithin

a p

erio

d of

15

year

s af

ter

the

effec

tive

date

of t

his

chap

ter,

exce

pt th

at a

ny p

rovi

sion

s in

this

co

de re

late

d to

add

ition

, alte

ratio

n,

repa

ir, o

r cha

nge

of o

ccup

ancy

sh

all s

till a

pply

. Any

suc

h ad

ditio

nal

seis

mic

retr

ofit r

equi

rem

ents

sha

ll ap

ply

at th

e en

d of

the

conf

orm

ance

pe

riod,

with

sch

edul

e ad

just

men

ts

to b

e de

term

ined

by

the

build

ing

offici

al.

Sam

e.In

sert

nam

e of

juris

dict

ion.

This

pro

visi

on in

crea

ses

publ

ic b

uy-

in b

y as

surin

g ow

ners

that

they

will

no

t be

subj

ect t

o m

ultip

le p

rogr

ams

one

afte

r ano

ther

. As

show

n he

re,

the

defe

rral

wou

ld a

pply

onl

y to

re

trofi

ts, n

ot to

eva

luat

ions

.

The

prov

isio

n is

con

sist

ent w

ith H

SC

Sect

ion

1916

6, w

hich

pro

vide

s th

e 15

-yea

r wai

ver t

o an

y se

ism

ical

ly

haza

rdou

s bu

ildin

g re

trofi

tted

with

H

SC-c

onsi

sten

t crit

eria

. How

ever

, th

is p

rovi

sion

is re

com

men

ded

to c

larif

y th

ree

poin

ts a

bout

the

15-y

ear p

erio

d on

whi

ch th

e H

SC

prov

isio

n is

unc

lear

– w

hen

it st

arts

, whe

ther

oth

er b

uild

ing

code

re

gula

tions

app

ly th

roug

hout

, and

w

hat i

s re

quire

d w

hen

it en

ds.

The

conf

orm

ance

per

iod

repr

esen

ts

a te

mpo

rary

def

erra

l, no

t a

perm

anen

t wai

ver.

Any

addi

tiona

l

36

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

retr

ofit m

anda

ted

durin

g th

e co

nfor

man

ce p

erio

d w

ould

stil

l ap

ply

but w

ould

be

defe

rred

to th

e en

d of

the

conf

orm

ance

per

iod.

SECT

ION

302

A. C

OM

PLIA

NCE

Sam

e.Sa

me.

302A

.10

Scop

e fo

r ea

ch n

otifi

ed

owne

r. E

ach

owne

r not

ified

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith S

ectio

n 30

1A.4

0 sh

all s

ubm

it do

cum

enta

tion

dem

onst

ratin

g th

at th

e bu

ildin

g is

no

t a s

ubje

ct b

uild

ing

per S

ectio

n 30

2A.2

0 or

sha

ll co

mpl

y w

ith th

e sc

ope

for a

sub

ject

bui

ldin

g pe

r Se

ctio

n 30

2A.3

0.

Sam

e as

Eva

luat

ion

Onl

y.O

mit.

A pr

ogra

m w

ith a

scr

eeni

ng p

hase

do

es n

ot n

eed

this

item

, sin

ce th

e sc

reen

ing

itsel

f is

man

dato

ry a

nd

will

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

the

build

ing

is a

sub

ject

bui

ldin

g.

302A

.20

Scop

e fo

r ea

ch n

on-

subj

ect

build

ing.

The

ow

ner

of e

ach

build

ing

thou

ght t

o be

ex

empt

from

this

cha

pter

may

su

bmit

docu

men

tatio

n sh

owin

g th

at th

e bu

ildin

g is

not

a s

ubje

ct

build

ing

per S

ectio

n 30

1A.3

0. T

he

docu

men

tatio

n sh

all b

e se

aled

by

a Ca

lifor

nia-

licen

sed

arch

itect

or

civi

l eng

inee

r and

sha

ll co

mpl

y w

ith

proc

edur

es to

be

pres

crib

ed b

y th

e bu

ildin

g offi

cial

. The

bui

ldin

g offi

cial

sha

ll tim

ely

notif

y th

e ow

ner

of a

ppro

val o

r non

-app

rova

l of t

he

exem

ptio

n.

Sam

e as

Eva

luat

ion

Onl

y.O

mit.

A pr

ogra

m w

ith a

scr

eeni

ng p

hase

do

es n

ot n

eed

this

item

, sin

ce th

e sc

reen

ing

itsel

f is

man

dato

ry a

nd

will

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

the

build

ing

is a

sub

ject

bui

ldin

g. S

ee S

ectio

n 30

2A.3

0.A.

Sect

ion

301A

.70

allo

ws

the

build

ing

depa

rtm

ent t

o cr

eate

form

s an

d pr

oced

ures

for t

his

decl

arat

ion,

an

d Se

ctio

n 30

1A.5

0 re

quire

s th

e su

bmitt

al to

be

seal

ed b

y a

licen

sed

prof

essi

onal

.

Ther

e is

no

need

for a

dea

dlin

e fo

r ex

empt

ions

.

302A

.30

Scop

e fo

r ea

ch s

ubje

ct

build

ing.

The

ow

ner o

f eac

h bu

ildin

g su

bjec

t to

this

cha

pter

sha

ll,

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e sc

hedu

le

give

n in

Sec

tion

302A

.50,

com

plet

e th

e fo

llow

ing

com

plia

nce

scop

e.

Sam

e.Sa

me.



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

A. D

emon

stra

te e

ligib

ility

for

a la

ter

com

plia

nce

tier

. Thi

s sc

ope

item

is o

ptio

nal.

The

owne

r m

ay s

ubm

it do

cum

enta

tion

dem

onst

ratin

g th

at a

bui

ldin

g is

el

igib

le fo

r a la

ter c

ompl

ianc

e tie

r pe

r Sec

tion

302A

.40.

The

bui

ldin

g offi

cial

sha

ll tim

ely

notif

y th

e ow

ner

of th

e ap

prov

ed c

ompl

ianc

e tie

r.

Sam

e as

Eva

luat

ion

Onl

y.A

. Com

plet

e th

e sc

reen

ing.

The

ow

ner s

hall

subm

it a

scre

enin

g do

cum

ent s

eale

d by

a C

alifo

rnia

-lic

ense

d ar

chite

ct o

r civ

il en

gine

er

follo

win

g pr

oced

ures

to b

e pr

escr

ibed

by

the

build

ing

offici

al.

The

docu

men

t sha

ll ei

ther

sho

w th

at

the

build

ing

is n

ot a

sub

ject

bui

ldin

g pe

r Sec

tion

301A

.30

or s

hall

confi

rm

that

the

build

ing

is a

sub

ject

bui

ldin

g as

sign

ed to

a c

erta

in c

ompl

ianc

e tie

r.

For E

valu

atio

n O

nly

and

Man

dato

ry

Retr

ofit w

ithou

t Scr

eeni

ng: O

mit

if on

ly

one

com

plia

nce

tier i

s us

ed.

For M

anda

tory

Ret

rofit

with

Scr

eeni

ng

Phas

e: E

dit a

s ne

eded

if o

nly

one

com

plia

nce

tier i

s us

ed.

B. C

ompl

ete

the

stru

ctur

al

eval

uati

on. T

he o

wne

r sha

ll su

bmit

a w

ritte

n se

ism

ic e

valu

atio

n re

port

bas

ed o

n th

e cr

iteria

giv

en in

Se

ctio

n 30

4A.

Om

it.O

mit.

This

mod

el p

rovi

sion

pre

sum

es th

e ev

alua

tion

repo

rt w

ill b

e su

bjec

t to

revi

ew a

nd a

ppro

val b

y th

e bu

ildin

g offi

cial

. How

ever

, in

an e

valu

atio

n-on

ly p

rogr

am, t

he c

ity h

as n

o au

thor

ity to

com

pel r

etro

fit, s

o an

y ac

tual

risk

redu

ctio

n is

left

to th

e ow

ner’s

dis

cret

ion.

The

refo

re, i

f the

ci

ty d

oes

not h

ave

the

capa

city

or

the

desi

re to

revi

ew a

nd a

ppro

ve

each

repo

rt, t

he w

ordi

ng o

f thi

s pr

ovis

ion

mig

ht b

e ch

ange

d to

“The

ow

ner s

hall

com

mis

sion

and

rece

ive

a w

ritte

n se

ism

ic e

valu

atio

n re

port

ba

sed

on .

” Com

plia

nce

wou

ld th

en

be a

chie

ved

by a

ffida

vit (

scop

e ite

m

D),

not b

y re

view

and

app

rova

l.

C. C

ompl

ete

the

nons

truc

tura

l ev

alua

tion

. The

ow

ner s

hall

subm

it a

writ

ten

seis

mic

eva

luat

ion

repo

rt b

ased

on

the

crite

ria g

iven

in

Sect

ion

305A

.

Om

it.O

mit.

Om

it if

nons

truc

tura

l sco

pe is

not

co

nsid

ered

.

See

the

com

men

tary

for s

cope

item

B.

Om

it.B.

Com

plet

e th

e st

ruct

ural

re

trofi

t. T

he o

wne

r sha

ll:

1. O

btai

n a

build

ing

perm

it to

re

trofi

t the

sub

ject

bui

ldin

g in

The

eval

uatio

n al

tern

ativ

e al

low

s an

ow

ner t

o av

oid

retr

ofit b

y sh

owin

g th

at th

e bu

ildin

g al

read

y co

mpl

ies.

Th

is a

ltern

ativ

e ap

plie

s bo

th to

38

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

com

plia

nce

with

the

crite

ria g

iven

in

Sect

ion

304A

; and

2. C

ompl

ete

or c

ause

to b

e co

mpl

eted

all

perm

itted

co

nstr

uctio

n, a

nd o

btai

n a

cert

ifica

te

of c

ompl

etio

n.

Alte

rnat

ivel

y, th

e ow

ner m

ay s

ubm

it to

the

build

ing

offici

al a

sei

smic

ev

alua

tion

repo

rt d

emon

stra

ting

com

plia

nce

of e

ach

woo

d fr

ame

targ

et s

tory

with

the

crite

ria g

iven

in

Sect

ion

304A

.

build

ings

orig

inal

ly c

onst

ruct

ed w

ith

adeq

uate

str

engt

h an

d to

bui

ldin

gs

rece

ntly

retr

ofitt

ed. B

y ap

plyi

ng a

lso

to re

cent

retr

ofits

, thi

s pr

ovis

ion

is

cons

iste

nt w

ith H

SC S

ectio

n 19

166,

w

hich

gra

nts

any

retr

ofitt

ed b

uild

ing

a 15

-yea

r wai

ver w

ith re

spec

t to

new

re

trofi

t ord

inan

ces.

Om

it.C.

Com

plet

e th

e no

nstr

uctu

ral

retr

ofit.

The

ow

ner s

hall:

1. O

btai

n a

build

ing

perm

it to

re

trofi

t the

sub

ject

bui

ldin

g in

co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith th

e cr

iteria

giv

en in

Se

ctio

n 30

5A; a

nd

2. C

ompl

ete

or c

ause

to b

e co

mpl

eted

all

perm

itted

co

nstr

uctio

n, a

nd o

btai

n a

cert

ifica

te

of c

ompl

etio

n.

Alte

rnat

ivel

y, th

e ow

ner m

ay s

ubm

it to

the

build

ing

offici

al a

sei

smic

ev

alua

tion

repo

rt d

emon

stra

ting

com

plia

nce

with

the

crite

ria g

iven

in

Sect

ion

305A

.

Sam

e.O

mit

if no

nstr

uctu

ral s

cope

is n

ot

cons

ider

ed.

D. S

ubm

it a

ffida

vits

of

com

plia

nce.

The

ow

ner s

hall

subm

it on

e or

mor

e affi

davi

ts

pres

crib

ed b

y th

e bu

ildin

g offi

cial

co

nfirm

ing

com

plia

nce

with

the

requ

ired

scop

e an

d w

ith o

ther

ad

min

istr

ativ

e re

gula

tions

.

D. S

ubm

it a

ffida

vits

of

com

plia

nce.

The

ow

ner s

hall

subm

it on

e or

mor

e affi

davi

ts

pres

crib

ed b

y th

e bu

ildin

g offi

cial

co

nfirm

ing

com

plia

nce

with

the

requ

ired

scop

e an

d w

ith o

ther

ad

min

istr

ativ

e re

gula

tions

.

Sam

e.O

mit

if no

affi

davi

ts a

re u

sed.

Affida

vits

can

be

used

to c

olle

ct

addi

tiona

l inf

orm

atio

n or

to

confi

rm c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith a

dditi

onal

re

gula

tions

. For

exa

mpl

e, s

uch

regu

latio

ns m

ight

requ

ire th

e ow

ner t

o ac

know

ledg

e th

e lim

its

of th

e re

trofi

t, or

to re

ceiv

e ce

rtai

n in

form

atio

n fr

om th

e ci

ty, o

r to



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

mak

e di

sclo

sure

s to

cur

rent

or

pros

pect

ive

tena

nts.

Com

plia

nce

by a

ffida

vit c

an a

lso

be u

sed

whe

re

the

city

pre

fers

not

to re

view

an

d ap

prov

e ce

rtai

n su

bmitt

als,

in

clud

ing

even

the

man

dato

ry

eval

uatio

n re

port

s.

E. P

osti

ng. F

or a

ny s

ubje

ct b

uild

ing

that

doe

s no

t sat

isfy

the

crite

ria

give

n in

Sec

tion

304A

, the

ow

ner

shal

l pos

t a s

ign

not s

mal

ler t

han

8 in

ches

by

8 in

ches

in a

cle

arly

vis

ible

lo

catio

n w

ithin

10

feet

of e

ach

mai

n en

tran

ce s

tatin

g, in

at l

east

30-

poin

t ty

pe, t

he fo

llow

ing:

“Ear

thqu

ake

War

ning

. Thi

s bu

ildin

g is

pro

ne

to c

olla

pse

or li

fe-th

reat

enin

g st

ruct

ural

dam

age

in th

e ev

ent o

f an

eart

hqua

ke.”

Om

it.O

mit.

Post

ing,

or p

laca

rdin

g, is

onl

y ap

prop

riate

for e

valu

atio

n-on

ly

prog

ram

s.

302A

.40

Com

plia

nce

tier

s. E

ach

subj

ect b

uild

ing

shal

l be

assi

gned

to

a co

mpl

ianc

e tie

r as

follo

ws.

Tier

1. S

ubje

ct b

uild

ings

with

16

or m

ore

dwel

ling

units

sha

ll be

as

sign

ed to

Tie

r 1, u

nles

s el

igib

le

for T

ier 3

.

Tier

2. S

ubje

ct b

uild

ings

with

15

or fe

wer

dw

ellin

g un

its s

hall

be

assi

gned

to T

ier 2

, unl

ess

elig

ible

fo

r Tie

r 3.

Tier

3. S

ubje

ct b

uild

ings

with

le

gally

per

mitt

ed d

wel

ling

units

or

busi

ness

, mer

cant

ile, o

r ass

embl

y oc

cupa

ncie

s in

a w

ood

fram

e ta

rget

sto

ry s

hall

be a

ssig

ned

to

Tier

3.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

Om

it if

only

one

com

plia

nce

tier

is u

sed.

Rev

ise

as n

eede

d if

mor

e or

few

er th

an 3

tier

s ar

e us

ed.

Cust

omiz

e tie

r defi

nitio

ns.

Com

plia

nce

tiers

are

use

ful f

or la

rge

prog

ram

s. T

hey

allo

w th

e ci

ty to

pr

iorit

ize

cert

ain

build

ings

and

to

give

mor

e tim

e to

com

plex

cas

es.

Mos

t im

port

ant,

they

spr

ead

the

wor

k ov

er a

long

er ti

me,

eas

ing

the

man

agem

ent e

ffort

for t

he

build

ing

depa

rtm

ent a

nd h

elpi

ng to

av

oid

spik

es in

dem

and

for o

wne

rs,

engi

neer

s, a

nd c

ontr

acto

rs.

The

tier d

efini

tions

sho

wn

are

mer

ely

exam

ples

. Eac

h ci

ty s

houl

d cu

stom

ize

its o

wn

tier d

efini

tions

.

40

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Mul

tiple

com

plia

nce

tiers

are

less

im

port

ant f

or e

valu

atio

n-on

ly

prog

ram

s, b

ut th

is m

odel

ord

inan

ce

incl

udes

the

optio

n.

302A

.50

Sche

dule

. The

ow

ner o

f a

subj

ect b

uild

ing

shal

l com

ply

with

ea

ch o

f thi

s ch

apte

r’s re

quire

men

ts

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e de

adlin

es

give

n in

Tab

le 3

02A.

50. F

ailu

re to

fu

lly c

ompl

y w

ith a

ny d

eadl

ine

or

to re

ceiv

e ap

prov

al o

f sub

mitt

ed

mat

eria

ls s

hall

not a

lter o

ther

ap

plic

able

dea

dlin

es. I

n no

cas

e sh

all t

rans

fer o

f titl

e ca

use

any

dead

line

to b

e ex

tend

ed.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

TABL

E 30

2A.5

0. C

ompl

ianc

e de

adlin

es in

yea

rs a

fter t

he e

ffect

ive

date

of t

his

chap

ter

• St

ruct

ural

eva

luat

ion

Tier

1: 1

yea

rTi

er 2

: 2 y

ears

Tier

3: 3

yea

rs•

Non

stru

ctur

al e

valu

atio

nTi

er 1

: 1 y

ear

Tier

2: 2

yea

rsTi

er 3

: 3 y

ears

• Affi

davi

tsTi

er 1

: 1 y

ear

Tier

2: 2

yea

rsTi

er 3

: 3 y

ears

• Po

stin

gTi

er 1

: 1 y

ear

Tier

2: 2

yea

rsTi

er 3

: 3 y

ears

TABL

E 30

2A.5

0. C

ompl

ianc

e de

adlin

es in

yea

rs a

fter t

he e

ffect

ive

date

of t

his

chap

ter

• Re

trofi

t per

mits

Tier

1: 2

yea

rsTi

er 2

: 3 y

ears

Tier

3: 4

yea

rs•

Retr

ofit c

onst

ruct

ion

Tier

1: 3

yea

rsTi

er 2

: 4 y

ears

Tier

3: 5

yea

rs•

Affida

vits

Tier

1: 3

yea

rsTi

er 2

: 4 y

ears

Tier

3: 5

yea

rs

TABL

E 30

2A.5

0. C

ompl

ianc

e de

adlin

es in

yea

rs a

fter t

he e

ffect

ive

date

of t

his

chap

ter

• Sc

reen

ing

form

All t

iers

: 1 y

ear

• Re

trofi

t per

mits

Tier

1: 2

yea

rsTi

er 2

: 3 y

ears

Tier

3: 4

yea

rs•

Retr

ofit c

onst

ruct

ion

Tier

1: 3

yea

rsTi

er 2

: 4 y

ears

Tier

3: 5

yea

rs•

Affida

vits

Tier

1: 3

yea

rsTi

er 2

: 4 y

ears

Tier

3: 5

yea

rs

Edit

into

tabl

e fo

rmat

. [N

arro

w

colu

mns

in th

is do

cum

ent m

ake

tabl

e fo

rmat

diffi

cult.

]

Edit

for n

umbe

r of t

iers

Edit

for s

truc

tura

l-onl

y sc

ope.

Edit

for a

ffida

vits

per

302

A.30

.D.

Edit

for p

refe

rred

dea

dlin

es.

Dea

dlin

es s

houl

d be

set

to a

chie

ve

the

bene

fits

inte

nded

by

the

tier d

efini

tions

. As

note

d ab

ove,

th

ose

bene

fits

shou

ld b

alan

ce

conv

enie

nce,

feas

ibili

ty, a

nd u

rgen

cy

for o

wne

rs, t

enan

ts, a

nd th

e bu

ildin

g de

part

men

t. Th

e de

adlin

es

show

n he

re a

re m

erel

y ex

ampl

es.

Eval

uatio

n ca

n be

don

e m

ore

quic

kly

than

retr

ofit a

nd re

quire

s m

uch

less

bu

ildin

g de

part

men

t inv

olve

men

t. Se

e al

so th

e co

mm

enta

ry a

t Sec

tion

302A

.40.

SECT

ION

303

A D

EFIN

ITIO

NS

Sam

e.Sa

me.



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

303A

.10

Supp

lem

enta

l de

fini

tion

s. In

add

ition

to o

r in

plac

e of

defi

nitio

ns g

iven

els

ewhe

re

in th

is c

ode,

the

follo

win

g de

finiti

ons

shal

l app

ly fo

r pur

pose

s of

this

ch

apte

r.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

Sinc

e th

is o

rdin

ance

lang

uage

is

mea

nt to

bec

ome

build

ing

code

la

ngua

ge, “

this

cod

e” re

fers

to th

e ju

risdi

ctio

n’s

build

ing

code

.

Dw

ellin

g un

it. A

sin

gle

unit

prov

idin

g co

mpl

ete,

inde

pend

ent

livin

g fa

cilit

ies

for o

ne o

r mor

e pe

rson

s, in

clud

ing

perm

anen

t pr

ovis

ions

for l

ivin

g, s

leep

ing,

ea

ting,

coo

king

, and

san

itatio

n; o

r an

y in

divi

dual

resi

dent

ial u

nit i

n a

build

ing

with

R-1

or R

-2 o

ccup

ancy

; or

any

gue

stro

om, w

ith o

r with

out

a ki

tche

n, in

eith

er a

tour

ist o

r re

side

ntia

l hot

el o

r mot

el. A

ny u

nit

occu

pied

as

a dw

ellin

g un

it, w

heth

er

appr

oved

or n

ot a

ppro

ved

for s

uch

use,

sha

ll be

cou

nted

as

a dw

ellin

g un

it.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

The

first

par

t, th

roug

h “…

san

itatio

n,”

is th

e 20

16 C

alifo

rnia

Bui

ldin

g Co

de d

efini

tion.

The

bal

ance

of t

he

defin

ition

, fol

low

ing

exam

ples

from

Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

and

Oak

land

, ext

ends

th

e de

finiti

on to

incl

ude

hote

ls,

dorm

itorie

s, fr

ater

nitie

s, o

r oth

er

com

mun

al h

ousi

ng u

nits

.

Targ

et s

tory

. Eith

er (1

) a b

asem

ent

stor

y or

und

erflo

or a

rea

that

ex

tend

s ab

ove

grad

e at

any

poi

nt

or (2

) any

sto

ry a

bove

gra

de, w

here

th

e w

all c

onfig

urat

ion

of s

uch

base

men

t, un

derfl

oor a

rea,

or s

tory

is

sub

stan

tially

mor

e vu

lner

able

to

eart

hqua

ke d

amag

e th

an th

e w

all

confi

gura

tion

of th

e st

ory

abov

e;

exce

pt th

at a

sto

ry is

not

a ta

rget

st

ory

if it

is th

e to

pmos

t sto

ry o

r if

the

diffe

renc

e in

vul

nera

bilit

y is

pr

imar

ily d

ue to

the

stor

y ab

ove

bein

g a

pent

hous

e, o

r an

attic

with

a

pitc

hed

roof

.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

This

is th

e te

rm n

ow u

sed

by S

an

Fran

cisc

o, B

erke

ley,

and

Oak

land

. W

hile

it re

quire

s so

me

judg

men

t, it

is p

refe

rabl

e to

the

term

“sof

t sto

ry.”

“Sof

t sto

ry” h

as c

ome

to m

ean

cert

ain

woo

d fr

ame

resi

dent

ial

build

ing

type

s, b

ut it

is a

ctua

lly a

te

rm a

lread

y de

fined

in th

e bu

ildin

g co

de to

mea

n so

met

hing

diff

eren

t. Th

eref

ore,

to a

void

con

fusi

on, t

hese

m

odel

cod

e pr

ovis

ions

do

not u

se

the

term

“sof

t sto

ry.”

42

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Woo

d fr

ame

targ

et s

tory

. A w

ood

fram

e ta

rget

sto

ry m

eans

a ta

rget

st

ory

in w

hich

a s

igni

fican

t por

tion

of

late

ral o

r tor

sion

al s

tory

str

engt

h or

st

ory

stiff

ness

is p

rovi

ded

by w

ood

fram

e w

alls

.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

This

is th

e ke

y de

finiti

on, a

s us

ed

to id

entif

y th

e su

bjec

t bui

ldin

gs in

Se

ctio

n 30

1A.3

0.

SECT

ION

304

A. S

TRU

CTU

RAL

ENG

INEE

RIN

G C

RITE

RIA

Sam

e.Sa

me.

For a

ny o

f the

list

ed c

riter

ia, S

ectio

n 30

1A.7

0 co

ntem

plat

es th

at th

e bu

ildin

g de

part

men

t will

pro

duce

a

tech

nica

l bul

letin

or o

ther

doc

umen

t th

at in

terp

rets

the

base

doc

umen

t.

304A

.10

Engi

neer

ing

inte

nt.

The

stru

ctur

al c

riter

ia p

rovi

ded

in

this

sec

tion

have

bee

n se

lect

ed a

s ap

prop

riate

to th

e in

tent

of t

his

chap

ter.

The

stru

ctur

al e

valu

atio

n cr

iteria

are

exp

ecte

d to

iden

tify

subj

ect b

uild

ings

that

are

esp

ecia

lly

pron

e to

col

laps

e du

e to

the

pres

ence

of a

woo

d fr

ame

targ

et

stor

y.

It is

not

the

inte

nt o

f thi

s ch

apte

r to

requ

ire id

entifi

catio

n of

all

pote

ntia

l st

ruct

ural

defi

cien

cies

, sei

smic

or

non-

seis

mic

, tha

t mig

ht e

xist

with

in

or a

djac

ent t

o th

e bu

ildin

g.

304A

.10

Engi

neer

ing

inte

nt.

The

stru

ctur

al c

riter

ia p

rovi

ded

in

this

sec

tion

have

bee

n se

lect

ed a

s ap

prop

riate

to th

e in

tent

of t

his

chap

ter.

The

stru

ctur

al re

trofi

t cr

iteria

are

exp

ecte

d to

sig

nific

antly

re

duce

the

colla

pse

risk

of s

ubje

ct

build

ings

and

to in

crea

se th

e lik

elih

ood

that

a s

ubje

ct b

uild

ing

will

be

str

uctu

rally

saf

e to

repa

ir an

d oc

cupy

sho

rtly

afte

r an

eart

hqua

ke.

The

stru

ctur

al c

riter

ia a

re in

tend

ed

to a

pply

to e

xist

ing

woo

d fr

ame

targ

et s

torie

s in

ord

er to

impr

ove

build

ing

perf

orm

ance

whi

le li

miti

ng

retr

ofit c

osts

and

impa

cts.

It is

no

t the

inte

nt o

f thi

s ch

apte

r to

requ

ire m

itiga

tion

of a

ll st

ruct

ural

de

ficie

ncie

s, s

eism

ic o

r non

-se

ism

ic, t

hat m

ight

exi

st w

ithin

or

adj

acen

t to

the

build

ing.

The

st

ruct

ural

crit

eria

mig

ht n

ot a

chie

ve

the

sam

e pe

rfor

man

ce a

s de

sign

re

quire

men

ts fo

r new

bui

ldin

gs o

r an

y fu

ll-bu

ildin

g re

trofi

t obj

ectiv

e fo

r ex

istin

g bu

ildin

gs.

Sam

e.Se

para

te fr

om th

e ge

nera

l int

ent o

f th

e or

dina

nce

and

of n

ew C

hapt

er

3A, t

his

prov

isio

n he

lps

engi

neer

s an

d co

de o

ffici

als

unde

rsta

nd th

e ba

sis

for t

he s

elec

ted

crite

ria a

nd

prov

ides

wor

ding

the

engi

neer

can

us

e to

com

mun

icat

e w

ith c

lient

s.



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

304A

.20

Stru

ctur

al s

eism

ic

eval

uati

on. S

eism

ic e

valu

atio

n of

ea

ch w

ood

fram

e ta

rget

sto

ry s

hall

com

ply

with

eith

er o

f the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

. Reg

ardl

ess

of th

e cr

iteria

ap

plie

d, th

e st

reng

th o

f a ta

rget

st

ory

need

not

exc

eed

that

requ

ired

to d

evel

op th

e st

reng

th o

f sto

ries

abov

e.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

This

sec

tion

is n

eces

sary

eve

n fo

r re

trofi

t pro

gram

s be

caus

e, p

er

scop

e ite

m 3

02A.

30.B

, the

ow

ner

has

the

optio

n of

sho

win

g th

at

the

build

ing

alre

ady

com

plie

s by

ev

alua

tion

and

is th

eref

ore

exem

pt

from

retr

ofit.

A. T

he la

test

edi

tion

of S

eism

ic

Eval

uatio

n an

d Re

trofi

t of E

xist

ing

Build

ings

[ASC

E/SE

I 41]

with

a

perf

orm

ance

obj

ectiv

e of

Str

uctu

ral

Life

Saf

ety

with

the

BSE-

1E h

azar

d or

St

ruct

ural

Col

laps

e Pr

even

tion

with

th

e BS

E-2E

haz

ard,

as

inte

rpre

ted

by

the

build

ing

offici

al.

B. T

he la

test

edi

tion

of S

eism

ic

Eval

uatio

n an

d Re

trofi

t of M

ulti-

Uni

t W

ood-

Fram

e Bu

ildin

gs W

ith W

eak

Firs

t Sto

ries

[FEM

A P-

807]

with

a

perf

orm

ance

obj

ectiv

e an

d de

taile

d pr

ovis

ions

as

prov

ided

by

the

build

ing

offici

al.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

Om

it FE

MA

P-80

7 if

the

city

is n

ot

prep

ared

to d

evel

op c

usto

miz

ed

perfo

rman

ce o

bjec

tives

and

cod

e-la

ngua

ge p

rovi

sions

requ

ired

by th

at

docu

men

t.

Sect

ion

301A

.70

cont

empl

ates

that

in

terp

reta

tions

and

app

licat

ion

note

s fo

r the

list

ed c

riter

ia w

ill b

e ne

eded

and

will

be

deve

lope

d an

d pu

blis

hed

by th

e le

ad a

genc

y.

ASCE

41

need

s in

terp

reta

tion

to

sim

plify

its

use

and

to a

llow

it to

be

app

lied

to a

targ

et s

tory

-onl

y ev

alua

tion.

FEM

A P-

807

need

s bo

th c

ode

lang

uage

pro

visi

ons

and

a sp

ecifi

ed

perf

orm

ance

obj

ectiv

e ta

ilore

d to

th

e lo

cal s

eism

icity

and

bui

ldin

g st

ock,

as

expl

aine

d in

App

endi

x B

of

that

FEM

A do

cum

ent.

CEBC

Cha

pter

A4

is n

ot a

ppro

pria

te

for e

valu

atio

n.

Om

it.30

4A.3

0 St

ruct

ural

sei

smic

re

trofi

t. S

eism

ic re

trofi

t of e

ach

woo

d fr

ame

targ

et s

tory

sha

ll co

mpl

y w

ith a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

. Reg

ardl

ess

of th

e cr

iteria

ap

plie

d, th

e st

reng

th o

f a ta

rget

Sam

e.

44

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

stor

y ne

ed n

ot e

xcee

d th

at re

quire

d to

dev

elop

the

stre

ngth

of s

torie

s ab

ove.

Om

it.A

. Cha

pter

A4

of th

is c

ode,

as

inte

rpre

ted

by th

e bu

ildin

g offi

cial

.

B. T

he la

test

edi

tion

of S

eism

ic

Eval

uatio

n an

d Re

trofi

t of E

xist

ing

Build

ings

[ASC

E/SE

I 41]

with

a

perf

orm

ance

obj

ectiv

e of

Str

uctu

ral

Life

Saf

ety

with

the

BSE-

1E h

azar

d or

St

ruct

ural

Col

laps

e Pr

even

tion

with

th

e BS

E-2E

haz

ard,

as

inte

rpre

ted

by

the

build

ing

offici

al.

C. T

he la

test

edi

tion

of S

eism

ic

Eval

uatio

n an

d Re

trofi

t of M

ulti-

Uni

t W

ood-

Fram

e Bu

ildin

gs W

ith W

eak

Firs

t Sto

ries

[FEM

A P-

807]

with

a

perf

orm

ance

obj

ectiv

e an

d de

taile

d pr

ovis

ions

as

prov

ided

in a

Tec

hnic

al

Bulle

tin to

be

deve

lope

d by

the

build

ing

offici

al.

D. F

or s

ubje

ct b

uild

ings

qua

lified

as

his

toric

, alte

rnat

e bu

ildin

g re

gula

tions

of t

he 2

016

Calif

orni

a H

isto

rical

Bui

ldin

g Co

de.

Sam

e.O

mit

ASCE

41

and

FEM

A P-

807

if on

ly m

ore

cons

erva

tive

code

-bas

ed

prov

ision

s ar

e ac

cept

able

.

Om

it FE

MA

P-80

7 if

the

city

is n

ot

prep

ared

to d

evel

op c

usto

miz

ed

perfo

rman

ce o

bjec

tives

and

cod

e-la

ngua

ge p

rovi

sions

requ

ired

by th

at

docu

men

t.

In it

em A

, “th

is c

ode”

mea

ns th

e CE

BC, T

itle

24 P

art 1

0. C

EBC

Chap

ter

A4 n

eeds

inte

rpre

tatio

n to

refle

ct

less

ons

lear

ned

by lo

cal e

ngin

eers

fr

om w

ork

on th

e Be

rkel

ey a

nd S

an

Fran

cisc

o pr

ogra

ms.

As n

oted

abo

ve, S

ectio

n 30

1A.7

0 co

ntem

plat

es th

at in

terp

reta

tions

an

d ap

plic

atio

n no

tes

for t

he li

sted

cr

iteria

will

be

need

ed a

nd w

ill b

e de

velo

ped

and

publ

ishe

d by

the

lead

age

ncy.

SECT

ION

305

A. N

ON

STRU

CTU

RAL

ENG

INEE

RIN

G C

RITE

RIA

Sam

e.Sa

me.

Om

it if

nons

truc

tura

l sco

pe is

not

co

nsid

ered

.

For a

ny o

f the

list

ed c

riter

ia, S

ectio

n 30

1A.7

0 co

ntem

plat

es th

at th

e bu

ildin

g de

part

men

t will

pro

duce

a

tech

nica

l bul

letin

or o

ther

doc

umen

t th

at in

terp

rets

the

base

doc

umen

t.

305A

.10

Engi

neer

ing

inte

nt. T

he

nons

truc

tura

l crit

eria

pro

vide

d in

th

is s

ectio

n ha

ve b

een

sele

cted

as

appr

opria

te to

the

inte

nt o

f thi

s ch

apte

r. Th

e no

nstr

uctu

ral

305A

.10

Engi

neer

ing

inte

nt. T

he

nons

truc

tura

l crit

eria

pro

vide

d in

th

is s

ectio

n ha

ve b

een

sele

cted

as

appr

opria

te to

the

inte

nt o

f thi

s ch

apte

r. Th

e no

nstr

uctu

ral r

etro

fit

Sam

e.Se

para

te fr

om th

e ge

nera

l int

ent o

f th

e or

dina

nce

and

of n

ew C

hapt

er

3A, t

his

prov

isio

n he

lps

engi

neer

s an

d co

de o

ffici

als

unde

rsta

nd th

e ba

sis

for t

he s

elec

ted

crite

ria a

nd



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

eval

uatio

n cr

iteria

are

exp

ecte

d to

iden

tify

cert

ain

safe

ty a

nd

reoc

cupa

ncy

risks

.

The

nons

truc

tura

l crit

eria

are

in

tend

ed to

app

ly to

spe

cific

co

nditi

ons

in s

peci

fic a

reas

of t

he

build

ing.

It is

not

the

inte

nt o

f thi

s ch

apte

r to

requ

ire id

entifi

catio

n of

all

pote

ntia

l non

stru

ctur

al

defic

ienc

ies,

sei

smic

or n

on-s

eism

ic,

that

mig

ht e

xist

with

in o

r adj

acen

t to

the

build

ing.

crite

ria a

re e

xpec

ted

to re

duce

ce

rtai

n sa

fety

and

reoc

cupa

ncy

risks

an

d to

incr

ease

the

likel

ihoo

d th

at

a su

bjec

t bui

ldin

g w

ill b

e sa

fe to

re

pair

and

occu

py s

hort

ly a

fter a

n ea

rthq

uake

.

The

nons

truc

tura

l crit

eria

are

in

tend

ed to

app

ly to

spe

cific

co

nditi

ons

in s

peci

fic a

reas

of t

he

build

ing

in o

rder

to im

prov

e bu

ildin

g pe

rfor

man

ce w

hile

lim

iting

retr

ofit

cost

s an

d im

pact

s. It

is n

ot th

e in

tent

of t

his

chap

ter t

o re

quire

m

itiga

tion

of a

ll no

nstr

uctu

ral

defic

ienc

ies,

sei

smic

or n

on-s

eism

ic,

that

mig

ht e

xist

with

in o

r adj

acen

t to

the

build

ing.

The

non

stru

ctur

al

crite

ria m

ight

not

ach

ieve

the

sam

e pe

rfor

man

ce a

s de

sign

re

quire

men

ts fo

r new

bui

ldin

gs o

r an

y fu

ll-bu

ildin

g re

trofi

t obj

ectiv

e fo

r ex

istin

g bu

ildin

gs.

prov

ides

wor

ding

the

engi

neer

can

us

e to

com

mun

icat

e w

ith c

lient

s.

305A

.20

Non

stru

ctur

al s

eism

ic

eval

uati

on. S

eism

ic e

valu

atio

n of

no

nstr

uctu

ral c

ompo

nent

s sh

all

com

ply

with

at l

east

the

“Scr

eeni

ng”

prov

isio

ns in

the

late

st e

ditio

n of

Se

ism

ic E

valu

atio

n an

d Re

trofi

t of

Exis

ting

Build

ings

[ASC

E/SE

I 41]

w

ith a

per

form

ance

obj

ectiv

e of

N

onst

ruct

ural

Life

Saf

ety

with

the

BSE-

1E h

azar

d. T

he b

uild

ing

offici

al

is a

utho

rized

to li

mit

the

requ

ired

scop

e of

the

eval

uatio

n.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

This

sec

tion

is n

eces

sary

eve

n fo

r re

trofi

t pro

gram

s be

caus

e, p

er

scop

e ite

m 3

02A.

30.C

, the

ow

ner

has

the

optio

n of

sho

win

g th

at

the

build

ing

alre

ady

com

plie

s by

ev

alua

tion

and

is th

eref

ore

exem

pt

from

retr

ofit.

See

the

com

men

tary

at S

ectio

n 30

5A.3

0 re

gard

ing

the

scop

e of

ev

alua

tion.

Om

it.30

5A.3

0 N

onst

ruct

ural

sei

smic

re

trofi

t. S

eism

ic re

trofi

t of

nons

truc

tura

l com

pone

nts

shal

l co

mpl

y w

ith th

e la

test

edi

tion

of

Sam

e.Th

is p

rovi

sion

, as

wel

l as

Sect

ion

305A

.20,

con

tem

plat

es th

at th

e ju

risdi

ctio

n w

ill d

efine

its

item

s of

in

tere

st in

a te

chni

cal b

ulle

tin o

r

46

Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Seis

mic

Eva

luat

ion

and

Retr

ofit o

f Ex

istin

g Bu

ildin

gs [A

SCE/

SEI 4

1]

with

a p

erfo

rman

ce o

bjec

tive

of

Non

stru

ctur

al L

ife S

afet

y w

ith th

e BS

E-1E

haz

ard.

The

bui

ldin

g offi

cial

is

aut

horiz

ed to

lim

it th

e re

quire

d sc

ope

of th

e re

trofi

t.

othe

r int

erpr

etat

ion

of A

SCE

41.

The

nons

truc

tura

l sco

pe m

ay b

e se

t to

mat

ch a

defi

ned

perf

orm

ance

le

vel i

n AS

CE 4

1 or

may

be

limite

d,

perh

aps

to e

spec

ially

com

mon

and

ha

zard

ous

item

s or

to it

ems

with

in

the

stru

ctur

al w

ork

area

.

SECT

ION

306

A. A

PPLI

CATI

ON

O

F O

THER

PRO

VISI

ON

S O

F TH

IS

COD

E

Sam

e.Sa

me.

In a

dditi

on to

the

prov

isio

ns s

how

n,

juris

dict

ion-

spec

ific

wai

vers

or

clar

ifica

tions

rega

rdin

g cu

rren

t (th

at is

, alre

ady

exis

ting)

bui

ldin

g or

pla

nnin

g re

gula

tions

sho

uld

be

adde

d he

re.

This

sec

tion

may

als

o be

use

d to

re

vise

or c

oord

inat

e w

ith p

revi

ous

seis

mic

miti

gatio

n pr

ogra

ms

that

aff

ecte

d th

e su

bjec

t bui

ldin

gs.

306A

.10

App

rova

l. Ex

cept

for

unsa

fe c

ondi

tions

and

new

wor

k tr

igge

red

by th

e re

quire

d sc

ope,

the

build

ing

offici

al s

hall

not w

ithho

ld

appr

oval

of s

ubm

itted

mat

eria

ls fo

r re

ason

s un

rela

ted

to th

e re

quire

d sc

ope

and

the

engi

neer

ing

crite

ria.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

This

pro

visi

on is

inte

nded

to

reas

sure

ow

ners

that

the

prog

ram

w

ill n

ot b

e us

ed to

hun

t for

m

isce

llane

ous

nonc

ompl

ianc

e.

306A

.20

Alt

erat

ion

prov

isio

ns.

Prio

r to

com

plia

nce

with

this

ch

apte

r, bu

ildin

gs s

ubje

ct to

th

is c

hapt

er s

hall

be c

onsi

dere

d su

bsta

ndar

d bu

ildin

gs p

er C

alifo

rnia

H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Code

Sec

tion

1792

0.3(

o). W

hen

cons

ider

ing

the

wor

k re

quire

d by

this

cha

pter

as

an a

ltera

tion,

the

build

ing

offici

al is

au

thor

ized

to w

aive

Sec

tions

403

.4

and

403.

4.1

of th

is c

ode

and

its

succ

esso

r pro

visi

ons.

Sam

e.Sa

me.

The

first

sen

tenc

e av

oids

a p

ossi

ble

chal

leng

e to

this

ord

inan

ce o

n gr

ound

s th

at H

SC S

ectio

n 17

958.

8 (a

s re

flect

ed in

CEB

C Se

ctio

n 40

3.1.

1) p

rohi

bits

ord

inan

ces

that

re

quire

upg

rade

s to

resi

dent

ial

build

ings

. Tha

t sec

tion

mak

es

an e

xcep

tion

for “

subs

tand

ard”

bu

ildin

gs, w

hich

incl

ude

seis

mic

ally

de

ficie

nt b

uild

ings

.



Legi

slat

ive

/ Cod

e La

ngua

geIn

stru

ctio

ns a

nd C

omm

enta

ry

Man

dato

ry E

valu

atio

n O

nly

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

hout

a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

Man

dato

ry R

etro

fit

wit

h a

Scre

enin

g Ph

ase

mea

ns th

ose

sect

ions

of t

he C

EBC

as a

dopt

ed a

nd m

odifi

ed b

y th

e ci

ty.

Om

it.30

6A.3

0 Ex

isti

ng b

uild

ing

requ

irem

ents

. Unl

ess

spec

ified

ot

herw

ise,

wor

k on

sub

ject

bui

ldin

gs

that

is n

eith

er re

quire

d by

this

ch

apte

r nor

trig

gere

d by

com

plia

nce

with

this

cha

pter

sha

ll co

mpl

y w

ith

all a

pplic

able

pro

visi

ons

of th

is c

ode.

Sam

e.Th

is p

rovi

sion

mak

es c

lear

that

all

othe

r cod

e pr

ovis

ions

for e

xist

ing

build

ings

stil

l app

ly re

gard

less

of

the

prev

ious

allo

wan

ces.

Thi

s w

ill

beco

me

an is

sue,

for e

xam

ple,

if

an o

wne

r int

ends

to m

ake

othe

r al

tera

tions

, rep

airs

, or a

dditi

ons

durin

g th

e co

mpl

ianc

e pe

riod.

48

Appendix C | Checklist for Preparing the Ordinance Draft 49

Appendix C: Checklist for Preparing the Ordinance DraftThe following checklist is intended as an aid to jurisdictions seeking to convert the model ordinance text from Appendix A or Appendix B into a city-specific ordinance. The section numbering corresponds to the model ordinance text as presented in Appendices A and B. The Reference Section refers to the section of the body of this report where the topic is discussed.

For each listed item, the user should either check the box in the Model Ordinance column to indicate that the model provision is acceptable or should check the box in the Alternative column and describe the city’s preferred approach there.

Model Ordinance Section and Model Provision Alternative Reference Section

Program type (select one)

Mandatory evaluation only

Mandatory retrofit without a screening phase

Mandatory retrofit with a screening phase

Preferred program scope and mode of enforcement:

3.1.2

3.1.3

3.1.8

Include nonstructural scope Exclude nonstructural scope

3.1.5

Legislative editing Add: 3.2.3

Ordinance Title

3.2.3

Whereas statements

Revise

Add:

3.2.1

3.3.1

Findings

Findings A and B

Findings C – F (for retrofit programs)

Revise

Add:

3.2.1

3.3.1

Section numbering

CEBC Chapter 3A

3.2.3

301A.10 Title

301A.20 Intent

301A.30 Subject Buildings

Constructed or permitted before January 1, 1978

Designed with a code earlier than the 1976 UBC

Five or more dwelling units

Wood frame target story

Age

Design code

Number of units

Potential deficiency

Number of stories

Preferred definition:

3.1.1

APPEND

IX C



301A.40 Notification

90-day deadline

Failure to send or receive

90-day deadline

Failure to send/receive

Preferred provision:

3.3.2

3.3.3

301A.50 Design Professionals

301A.60 Submittals

301A.70 Technical bulletins and administrative regulations

3.3.2

301A.80 Retention of plans

301A.90 Public record keeping

Public listing of subject buildings

Coordination with county clerk-recorder

Public listing

Coordination

Preferred provision:

3.3.2

3.3.3

301A.100 Conformance period (for retrofit programs only)

Appx B

302A.10 Scope for each notified owner (no screening)

302A.20 Scope for each non-subject building (no screening)

302A.30 Scope for each subject building

3.1.8

3.3.2

302A.30.A Eligibility for later tier (no screening)

3.1.8

3.3.3

302A.30.A Complete the screening (n/a if no screening)

3.1.8

3.3.3

302A.30.B Complete the structural evaluation

Submit report for approval

Commission a report but submit only affidavit of compliance

302A.30.C Complete the nonstructural evaluation

Submit report for approval

Commission a report but submit only affidavit of compliance

302A.30.B Complete the structural retrofit

302A.30.C Complete the nonstructural retrofit

302A.30.D Submit affidavits of compliance


302A.30.E Posting

General requirement

Sign details

General requirement

Sign details

3.1.2

302A.40 Compliance tiers

Three tiers

Tier definitions

Number of tiers

Tier definitions

Preferred number and definitions:

3.1.7

302A.50 Schedule

Three tiers

Deadlines

Number of tiers

Deadlines

Preferred deadlines:

3.1.7

3.1.8

303A.10 Supplemental definitions

Dwelling unit

Target story


Dwelling unit

Target story


Other:

Preferred definitions:

304A.10 Engineering intent

3.1.4

304A.20 Structural seismic evaluation

Main provision; cap on required strength

A. ASCE 41, LS in BSE-1E or CP in BSE-2E

B. FEMA P-807, PO to be determined

Other criteria: 3.1.6

3.3.2

304A.30 Structural seismic retrofit

Main provision; cap on required strength

A. CEBC Chapter A4

B. ASCE 41, LS in BSE-1E or CP in BSE-2E

C. FEMA P-807, PO to be determined

D. California Historical Building Code


3.3.2

305A.10 Engineering intent (nonstructural)

3.1.5

305A.20 Nonstructural seismic evaluation

ASCE 41, LS in BSE-1E


3.1.6

3.3.2

305A.30 Nonstructural seismic retrofit

ASCE 41, LS in BSE-1E


3.1.6

3.3.2

Appendix C | Checklist for Preparing the Ordinance Draft 51



306A.10 Approval

Add exceptions:

3.2.2

306A.20 Alteration provisions

3.2.1

Appx B

306A.30 Existing building requirements

Add:

Waivers

Incentives

References to related programs

3.2.2

5252

Appendix D | EBCI Soft Story Workshop Worksheet 53

Appendix D: EBCI Soft Story Workshop Worksheet

The following eight pages comprise the worksheet used at the September 29, 2016 ABAG-EBCI workshop discussed in Section 2 of this report.

EBCI Soft Story Worksheet

Name City

Years living in/near your city Agency

Years working for your city Position

Expertise with housing issues

Expert Comfortable Novice

Expertise with recovery or emergency planning

Expert Comfortable Novice

1. The status quo in your community

Do you... Are you confident?

Disagree ? Agree? Not at all Very

Our city is about as well prepared for a big earthquake as our residents and businesses can reasonably expect.

Notes:

Our city is doing everything to prepare for a big earthquake that our residents and businesses can reasonably expect.

Notes:

When a big earthquake comes, our city will respond better and recover faster than most other East Bay cities.

Notes:

Our housing is in pretty good shape, so any dislocations or emergency housing needs will be manageable.

Notes:

Our “soft story” multi-unit buildings are a small enough part of our housing stock that the associated losses will be acceptable.

Notes:

Our “soft story” buildings are not one of our top earthquake readiness problems.

Notes:

Our unreinforced masonry mitigation program went pretty smoothly.

Notes:

David Bonowitz, S.E

APPEND

IX D



2. Policy DriversAssume:

In your city, “soft story” buildings (collapse-prone wood-frame multi-family housing) pose a risk that merits a public policy initiative.

Question:

Why? What is your city lacking that you, as a city leader, want to achieve?

Rank the top 3 of the following as policy drivers for you (1 = strongest driver):

____ Safety, primarily for tenants

____ Asset protection, primarily for owners

____ Housing stability, primarily for tenants

____ Protection for vulnerable groups

____ Recovery for the city (preserving revenue, resources, services)

____ Coordination with long-term planning (neighborhood development, revitalization)

____ Economic stimulus (new construction spending for retrofit)

____ Good will (Get good publicity, avoid bad publicity)

____ Compliance with existing city policy or plans

____ Responsiveness to stakeholder demands/actions

____ East Bay policy coordination

____ Other: ___________________________________________

Basis (evidence, experience, existing policy, etc.):

David Bonowitz, S.E


3. Policy obstaclesAssume:

In your city, “soft story” buildings (collapse-prone wood-frame multi-family housing) pose a risk that merits a public policy initiative.

Question:

In your city, what is most likely to block that policy initiative?

Rank the top 3 of the following as policy obstacles in your city (1 = toughest obstacle):

____ Disbelief among city leaders (they do not accept the assumption above)

____ Disbelief among stakeholders (owners or tenants)

____ Lack of a legislative champion, or general legislative backlog

____ Owner cost objection

____ Tenant cost objection (owners’ costs raise rents)

____ Owner liability objection (especially pre-retrofit)

____ Low prioritization, bad political timing

____ Technical complication or uncertainty (engineers, scientists, contractors at odds)

____ Inconsistency with neighboring cities

____ Over-regulation of housing or buildings in general

____ Mistrust of government programs or city’s competence

____ Perception of unfairness to certain owners (some buildings affected, others not)

____ Perception of unfairness to certain tenants

____ Other: ___________________________________________

Basis (evidence, experience, etc.):

Comments on possible mitigating strategies for:

Disbelief/low prioritization:

High owner costs:

High tenant costs:

Disruption during construction:

Mistrust of government:David Bonowitz, S.E




4. Policy opportunitiesQuestion:

What is your city lacking that key stakeholders – owners, tenants, citizens – want to achieve? What priorities will generate their support?

Rank the top 3 of the following as policy drivers for your stakeholders (1 = strongest driver):

Your rank Stakeholders’ priorities(from Part 2)

____ ____ Safety, primarily for tenants

____ ____ Asset protection, primarily for owners

____ ____ Housing stability, primarily for tenants

____ ____ Protection for vulnerable groups

____ ____ Recovery for the city (preserving revenue, resources, services)

____ ____ Coordination with long-term planning (n’bhd development, revitalization)

____ ____ Economic stimulus (new construction spending for retrofit)

____ ____ Good will (Get good publicity, avoid bad publicity)

____ ____ Compliance with existing city policy or plans

____ ____ Responsiveness to stakeholder demands/actions

____ ____ East Bay policy coordination

____ ____ Other: __________________________________________

Basis (evidence, experience, existing policy, etc.):

David Bonowitz, S.E

56


5. Policy-making logisticsFollowing are the basic steps for creating a local seismic mitigation program. For a likely “soft story” program for multi-family residential buildings in your city, indicate:

• How smoothly your city tends to execute these tasks

• Whether you tend to rely on model legislation or routinely amend the model code

• Which step you think you might complete after 6 months of work, and after 12 months.

Often Worksstalls great

Never Alwayscustomize customize Timeline

Generate background data (e.g. inventory)

Notes:

Encourage and collect community input

Notes:

Study issues and options with city agencies, departments

Notes:

Develop basic consensus among city leadership

Notes:

Develop ordinance language, including code provisions

Notes:

Introduce, pass, and sign legislation

Notes:

Start implementing program through lead agency

Notes:

Implementation steps will vary with different programs. Typically, they include developing procedures and tools to:

• Educate stakeholders about the legislation

• Identify affected buildings and owners

• Send official notice to affected owners or tenants

• Ensure consistent technical understanding

• Ensure complete and consistent submittals

• Track and review submittals

• Assure quality in design (plan check)

• Assure quality in construction (field inspection)David Bonowitz, S.E




6. Policy optionsWhat is the likelihood of recognizing and prioritizing “soft story” mitigation in the next update of your city’s general plan and hazard mitigation plan?

Very Alreadyunlikely done

Do you need ABAG assistance with this?

Update General Plan (Public safety element, Housing element)

Notes:

Update hazard mitigation plan

Notes:

Given the policy drivers, obstacles, opportunities, and logistics described above for a “soft story” mitigation program in your city, indicate the top 2 or 3 combinations of program type (voluntary, triggered, or mandatory) and program scope (from notice to retrofit) that you would like to move forward. 1 = strongest preference or recommendation

Less effort

More effort

Less effective More effective

Voluntary Triggered Mandatory

Notice to owners NA

Placarding only

Evaluation only

Target story structural retrofit only

Target story structural retrofit, selective nonstructural mitigation

Full building structural retrofit and nonstructural mitigation

Full building structural, nonstructural, and geologic

mitigation

Comments on:

Incentives:

Triggers:

Subsidies:David Bonowitz, S.E

58


7. Program characteristics & criteriaAssume: Your city is going forward with your top recommendation from Part 6.

Question: Considering political feasibility, ease of implementation, and effectiveness, how important are these aspects of the program to your city?

Awful Greatidea idea

All the program’s technical details are in the ordinance.

Notes:

One city department has responsibility for the program.

Notes:

The lead department can change or interpret the basic requirements.

Notes:

Owners and engineers have technical options for how to comply.

Notes:

The technical criteria are uniform from building to building.

Notes:

The program seeks high performing buildings, with higher costs.

Notes:

The program minimizes cost, allows low performance (but not collapse).

Notes:

The program seeks simplicity, with possibly higher costs.

Notes:

The resulting performance (safety, collapse rate) is quantified.

Notes:

The scope of work is based on practicality, cost-effectiveness.

Notes:

The program allows lower performance to minimize impact on tenants.

Notes:

The program rules are the same (or close) from city to city.

Notes:

Implementing the program requires no new staffing.

Notes:

The “soft story” program leads to programs for other buildings.

Notes:

David Bonowitz, S.E


375 Beale Street, Suite 700San Francisco, CA 94105

415…820…7900 PHONEinfo@abag…ca…gov E-MAILwww.abag.ca.gov WEB

and handbook - californiaresilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/softstory/soft story...

Documents