California Assembly Passes Historic Earthquake Resilience Bill

[mark handler]

California Assembly Passes Historic Earthquake Resilience Bill, Sending it to Senate
AB 2681 is the first comprehensive effort taken by California to identify seismic risks at the community level since the Legislature passed unreinforced masonry law SB 547 in 1986.
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (June 18, 2018) – For the first time in more than 30 years, a bill to aid communities in identifying buildings at risk of failure or collapse in an earthquake has been passed by the Assembly and is headed to the California Senate for a final vote, the U.S. Resiliency Council announced today.
AB 2681, (Nazarian), passed the Assembly Floor last week by a vote of 51-26It received overwhelming support as it made its way through the state’s Government Organization, Local Government and Appropriations committees.
The bill, which has received the broad support of civic, business and professional organizations, will provide cities with the tools they need to identify dangers to their communities and infrastructure, and the people, services and businesses that are their most important social and economic assets.
“AB 2681 will prove to be a historic piece of legislation because it marks an important first step in building a comprehensive snapshot of seismic resilience in our communities,” said USRC Executive Director Evan Reis. “Growing concern over California’s ability to withstand a major earthquake has prompted leaders from all sides of the political spectrum to support this bill for the sake of our future. We strongly urge the Senate to demonstrate the leadership and foresight necessary to do the same.”
The many benefits of AB 2681 include:
Social well-being: People have a right to be informed about the buildings in which they live and work based on the best information available. Knowing a structure is at-risk of failure in an earthquake is the first step to protecting vulnerable buildings that make up much of the state’s affordable housing stock, and of avoiding widespread homelessness that may result from a major quake.
Economic stability: Small business makes up 99.2 percent of California’s economy. Most of these businesses would not be able to survive even temporary impacts from a loss of building space or workforce availability. Studies indicate that widespread homelessness and resulting joblessness from an earthquake disaster would trigger billions of dollars of economic loss to communities and the state. Many businesses would go bankrupt. Reconstruction costs alone are estimated at up to $113 billion.
Environmental health: Many seismically vulnerable buildings contain asbestos and lead, which, when released into the air and groundwater from crumbled rubble will pose a public health problem of potentially overwhelming impacts. Preventing these structures from damage averts widespread exposure which can impact humans and nature. It also avoids the overburdening of landfills should the state need to dispose of the ruins of a major quake.
“California’s civic leaders are becoming more proactive in advancing emergency preparedness strategies, and that includes assessing risks associated with major earthquakes,” said Tom Robinson, a certified management consultant with 40 years of experience as a city manager and administrator for the cities of La Mirada, La Habra Heights, Cerritos and Commerce. “This bill sets up a process for California cities and counties to work with the State Office of Emergency Services and owners of commercial and multi-family properties to make Californians safer.”
“Earthquakes, in a matter of seconds, can shatter entire communities, leaving large numbers of people homeless and displaced,” said Alisha Wilkins, board member of the Fair Housing Council. “This is important legislation for everyone. It is essential to protecting the social fabric of our communities.”
The legislation has received widespread support from business leaders, who see the bill as an important step in protecting the economic health of communities and the state.
About USRC: The United States Resiliency Council’s mission is to educate, advocate and promote better tools for assessing and communicating building performance; and to refine and implement a meaningful transaction and verified rating system that describes the performance of buildings during earthquakes. www.usrc.org.
Copy of the release: https://www.prweb.com/releases/2018/06/prweb15570917.htm

 

[JCraver]

So what does the bill actually do? That article is a bunch of fluff, and plugs the desired outcomes, but it doesn't say anything about what it will do to reach those outcomes. Is it an additional tax? Are they taking money from somewhere else to give to some new program, or are they putting additional burdens on the towns and/or small businesses? How is it going to be managed? Through an existing state agency, or are they creating something new?

No answers in that article. The law could be a good thing, or could be a bad thing - but with puff pieces like that one, no one will ever be able to form a legit opinion on it..

 

[mark handler]

So what does the bill actually do?

3) Applies to a city or county with at least half of its geographical area located where the peak ground acceleration equals or exceeds 0.3g as determined by the 2008 United States Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model gridded data, based on 10-percent-in-50-year probability of exceedance, and to the Counties of Monterey, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara, and all cities within each of those counties.
4) Requires, on or before January 1, 2021, each building department to develop an inventory of potentially vulnerable buildings within its jurisdiction, based on the age of the building and other publicly available information, including, but not limited to, tax assessors record surveys and online searches. For each potentially vulnerable building, the inventory shall identify which recovery functions, if any, it contains.
5) Requires, on or before June 1, 2021, the building department to notify all owners of any building identified as a potentially vulnerable building.
6) Requires, on or before June 1, 2022, an owner who has received a notification to submit a letter from a licensed professional engineer to the building department stating whether the building meets the definition of a potentially vulnerable building. If the letter states that the building does not meet the definition of a potentially vulnerable building according to the licensed professional engineer, then it will be removed from the inventory.
7) Requires, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to maintain a statewide inventory of potentially vulnerable buildings.
8) Requires, on or before January 1, 2023, each building department to provide Cal OES the inventory of buildings identified as potentially vulnerable buildings. Additionally, the building department shall notify Cal OES if a building on the inventory is seismically retrofitted or replaced and the office shall remove that building from the statewide inventory.
9) Requires, on or before January 1, 2020, Cal OES, prior to law becoming operative, identify funding mechanisms to offset costs to building departments and building owners in complying with this chapter. The funding shall be limited to federal funds, funds from the General Fund of the state, funds from the sale of revenue bonds, local funds, and private grants.
10) Provides immunity from liability for a city, county, employee of a city or county on the basis of any inventory, assessment, or evaluation performed, any ordinance adopted, or any other action taken pursuant to this bill, irrespective of whether that action complies with the terms of this chapter, or on the basis of failure to take any action authorized by this chapter
11) Requires Cal OES to report annually to the Legislature on the compliance of building departments with the requirements of this bill. Requires the annual report to review and assess the effectiveness of building identification and evaluation standards adopted by these building departments
12) Makes various declarations and findings.

 

[conarb]

Economic stability: Small business makes up 99.2 percent of California’s economy. Most of these businesses would not be able to survive even temporary impacts from a loss of building space or workforce availability. Studies indicate that widespread homelessness and resulting joblessness from an earthquake disaster would trigger billions of dollars of economic loss to communities and the state. Many businesses would go bankrupt. Reconstruction costs alone are estimated at up to $113 billion.

After the Napa earthquake our city finally forced all businesses to earthquake-proof their buildings, at first so many moved out that it became a ghost town, even the Bank of America and McDonalds left town. Some stayed through the remodeling including my shoemaker, I was in his shop several times while he moved his equipment around, in the end the landlord raised his rent so high to pay for the remodeling that he had to move out, I talked to him recently and he still hasn't found a location with rents low enough for a shoemaker to survive. The town is gradually coming back but the new businesses are nothing that I would want to patronize, gift shops and places like that, strange that junk stores can afford the new higher rents but valuable productive businesses can't.

 

[Mark K]

The bill does not provide the public with meaningful information regarding risk, instead it classifies all older buildings of specific classes as potentially vulnerable, The only way off of the list is to either upgrade the building or tear it down.

 

[linnrg]

I don't know how I feel about this. I live in earthquake country. My concern is - departments puts widespread numbers of these buildings on that list - the poor owners will now probably find themselves with a structure that can never obtain insurance. And if the public is disclosed as CONARB said the tenants leave and don't come back. Initially this may just become demolition of lots of older structures. I will bet that the rebuild won't be any more affordable

 

[Mark K]

Conarb

There is no such thing as an earthquake proof building. There are some buildings that are more subject to damage in an earthquake.

I believe that you will find that all businesses were not forced to reinforce their building. Buildings that suffered damage needed to be repaired but beyond that I doubt much new was required.

 

[JCraver]

3) Applies to a city or county with at least half of its geographical area located where the peak ground acceleration equals or exceeds 0.3g as determined by the 2008 United States Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model gridded data, based on 10-percent-in-50-year probability of exceedance, and to the Counties of Monterey, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara, and all cities within each of those counties.
4) Requires, on or before January 1, 2021, each building department to develop an inventory of potentially vulnerable buildings within its jurisdiction, based on the age of the building and other publicly available information, including, but not limited to, tax assessors record surveys and online searches. For each potentially vulnerable building, the inventory shall identify which recovery functions, if any, it contains.
5) Requires, on or before June 1, 2021, the building department to notify all owners of any building identified as a potentially vulnerable building.
6) Requires, on or before June 1, 2022, an owner who has received a notification to submit a letter from a licensed professional engineer to the building department stating whether the building meets the definition of a potentially vulnerable building. If the letter states that the building does not meet the definition of a potentially vulnerable building according to the licensed professional engineer, then it will be removed from the inventory.
7) Requires, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to maintain a statewide inventory of potentially vulnerable buildings.
8) Requires, on or before January 1, 2023, each building department to provide Cal OES the inventory of buildings identified as potentially vulnerable buildings. Additionally, the building department shall notify Cal OES if a building on the inventory is seismically retrofitted or replaced and the office shall remove that building from the statewide inventory.
9) Requires, on or before January 1, 2020, Cal OES, prior to law becoming operative, identify funding mechanisms to offset costs to building departments and building owners in complying with this chapter. The funding shall be limited to federal funds, funds from the General Fund of the state, funds from the sale of revenue bonds, local funds, and private grants.
10) Provides immunity from liability for a city, county, employee of a city or county on the basis of any inventory, assessment, or evaluation performed, any ordinance adopted, or any other action taken pursuant to this bill, irrespective of whether that action complies with the terms of this chapter, or on the basis of failure to take any action authorized by this chapter
11) Requires Cal OES to report annually to the Legislature on the compliance of building departments with the requirements of this bill. Requires the annual report to review and assess the effectiveness of building identification and evaluation standards adopted by these building departments
12) Makes various declarations and findings.

Thanks Mark.

Question: What smallish building department is really going to do a legit job at this? If it were me, in my office with my resources (which is me, myself, and I...), if your building was older than the current code then you'd automatically be on "the list" - that's the only possible way I could get it done in the ~2 1/2 years they're giving me to do it.

Also - "federal funds, funds from the General Fund of the state, funds from the sale of revenue bonds, local funds, and private grants" sounds like a tax to me, unless the private grant market is much larger than I think it is. Some other program is going to get cut to fund this, or your taxes/fees are going to go up.



I don't much like the government here in IL, but I am so, soooooooo thankful that we're not (yet!) California.

 

[mark handler]

No that big of a stretch, we, because of other state requirements placed on cities, already have a list of unreinforced masonry buildings, we do not have soft story buildings and the "other" potentially dangerous ones, but can achieve that well within the time alotment.

 

[mark handler]

Not on the books yet but the gov says he will sign it

 

[conarb]

Conarb

There is no such thing as an earthquake proof building. There are some buildings that are more subject to damage in an earthquake.

I believe that you will find that all businesses were not forced to reinforce their building. Buildings that suffered damage needed to be repaired but beyond that I doubt much new was required.

Mark, since this is an old city with a lot of brick buildings they did force the owners to retrofit. Here is the ordinance information

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Shouldn't buildings in CA be watertight too for when the big one comes and CA slips into the ocean.

 

[mark handler]

Shouldn't buildings in CA be watertight too for when the big one comes and CA slips into the ocean.

More likely to slide north.

 

[Paul Sweet]

"More likely to slide north."
Then they will need extra insulation, unless global warming offsets the higher latitude.
Things are just getting too complicated!

 

[Mark K]

Conarb

The ordinance you referred to was passed before the Napa earthquake and compliance would have required the reinforcement of the buildings listed in the ordinance even if there was no earthquake.

In general local jurisdictions are limited in their ability to require existing buildings be reinforced. The California legislature has given local jurisdictions permission to require the upgrading of two classes of existing buildings. These two classes of buildings include unreinforced masonry buildings and certain soft story wood buildings. The City of Martinez obviously decided to exercise the option to require reinforcement of unreinforced masonry buildings.

 

[conarb]

Conarb

The ordinance you referred to was passed before the Napa earthquake and compliance would have required the reinforcement of the buildings listed in the ordinance even if there was no earthquake.

In general local jurisdictions are limited in their ability to require existing buildings be reinforced. The California legislature has given local jurisdictions permission to require the upgrading of two classes of existing buildings. These two classes of buildings include unreinforced masonry buildings and certain soft story wood buildings. The City of Martinez obviously decided to exercise the option to require reinforcement of unreinforced masonry buildings.

Yes they did, this has been going on for years, notably a historic building that housed the local newspaper sat vacant and they wouldn't allow any usage until it was upgraded, eventaully the city bought the building letting it sit vacant. When the Napa earthquake hit they virtually shut the town down until upgrades were done, the other day I had lunch with the mayor again, most of the conversation revolved around the election for the golf course behind me, but we also discussed cleaning up the building department and in the end he pointed out that business was coming back just fine in the upgraded buildings, I pointed out to him that some service businesses will never come back, like my shoemaker, he agreed saying that he used and misses him too. Then we compared it to Walnut Creek where his business is, a long-time brick butcher shop that we went to in the 40s was forced out, to be replaced by a coffee cup business, I made the point that I don't understand how valuable businesses like shoemakers and butcher shops can't afford the higher rents but antique stores and coffe cup companies can. When I walk down most main streets now I look in the windows and see nothing I am even interested in, my barber shop is paying $7,000 a month rent, how long can he last? My auto mechanic sat behind the barber shop, he came up with the bright idea of converting some of his parking to private metering, immediately he was making $6,000 a month for the half the private parking company gave him, the landord found out and evicted him converting the entire space to private parking, I park there now and put 24 quarters into the meters for 2 hours since you never know how long you'll have to wait to get a haircut, again it's more profitable to allow cars to park than it is to provide a valuable business like auto repair.

We are so overpopulated that we are cramming people into every square foot, yet we have sanctuary cities that want to allow even more people into this country, of course I guess more people means more sales taxes on coffee cups, more quarters in meters, nad mor city employees and their pensions and benefits.

 

[mark handler]

Governor Vetoes AB 2681
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes bill that would create list of quake-vulnerable buildings
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-veto-quake-safety-bill-20180928-story.html
Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed an earthquake safety bill that would have asked cities and counties to create lists of buildings that could be at higher risk of major damage or collapse when shaken.
The bill, AB 2681, could have marked a major advance in efforts over the last decade to identify seismically vulnerable buildings in California. A handful of cities, including Los Angeles, have generated lists of potentially vulnerable buildings that face the greatest risk of collapse. Some have ordered owners to retrofit those buildings to make them more secure.
Backers of the bill said creating a list of possibly vulnerable buildings in the state’s most seismically active areas would represent a major step in alerting Californians to whether the buildings they live and work in should receive more study to determine whether they’re at risk in an earthquake.
But the governor wrote that he was concerned the bill “will not provide the greatest value for the significant investment this enterprise requires.”
It was unclear what creating an inventory would have cost; rough estimates published by legislative staffers say it it could be in the tens of millions of dollars. Advocates suggested a far lower cost, perhaps $15 million to $20 million. The bill would have required the inventory to be submitted to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services by Jan. 1, 2021.
“A more suitable approach,” Brown wrote, “is to develop a partnership between the state, local governments and building owners to develop a plan to cost effectively identify collapse-prone buildings and a realistic timeline to develop an inventory.” The governor said he would ask the state Seismic Safety Commission and other seismic experts to recommend “an achievable path toward improving the safety of earthquake-vulnerable buildings.”
The bill’s author, Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian (D-North Hollywood), said he was disappointed by the veto.
“California is not prepared for the staggering cost in lives and property damage when the ‘Big One’ hits. I look forward to working with the California Seismic Safety Commission to identify and improve building safety across California,” Nazarian said in a statement.
Even if the bill had become law, there was a big limitation — it did not provide funding. The law would have taken effect only if state officials found a future source of funding for the project.
The measure was opposed by some groups representing local governments. The League of California Cities as well as California Building Officials — an association of local building officials — said the mandate to create such a list would have been burdensome to small building departments.
“If local government is to be the conduit to recognizing where these vulnerable buildings are, we have to figure out how to pay for that,” Matthew Wheeler, executive director of California Building Officials, said earlier this month.
Supporters of the bill included Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the West Hollywood City Council, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, the Structural Engineers Assn. of California and the U.S. Resiliency Council.
“If you don’t know how sick you are, or how vulnerable you are, to me, it’s a sign of ignorance,” David Khorram, Long Beach’s superintendent of building and safety, said earlier this month. “A mandate like this will help and encourage smaller cities to accomplish what the bigger cities are doing.”
A separate bill on earthquake safety, AB 1857, which passed the Senate 38 to 0 and the Assembly 77 to 0, is still being considered by the governor.
The bill would create a committee to consider whether a tougher building standard should be adopted that would result in more new buildings that could be repaired and reoccupied after a major earthquake instead of having to be torn down.
The panel would also be asked to determine whether that tougher building standard should be made mandatory or voluntary.

 

[Mark K]

AB 2681 was technically flawed. It classified the building as potentially vulnerable if the building was built before a given date. This is too simplistic. In addition there was no way to get off of the list. A building that was seismically retrofitted would still be classified as potentially vulnerable.

From a technical perspective the term potentially vulnerable has no meaning and literally could be applied to all buildings.

Because the criteria is flawed it would not provide any information on the relative vulnerabilities of the buildings. But it could be used to scare people into strengthening of demolishing buildings that are relatively strong.

 

[Mark K]

Reference has been made to local jurisdictions that require certain categories of buildings be strengthened. I would like to understand what they claim as the legal basis for imposing such requirements.

In California the State has preempted the field of building regulation and has adopted the California Building Code. Since 1970 local jurisdictions no longer have the authority to adopt a building code. This means that local modifications to the building code are only allowed to the extent allowed by the state. The courts have consistently ruled that these issues are not municipal affairs and any home rule authority that charter cities might claim do not apply.

The state has given local jurisdictions the authority to require the mandatory strengthening of two classes of buildings, namely unreinforced masonry buildings and certain wood residential buildings with a soft story.

Yes local modifications to he building code are allowed when the local jurisdiction "...finds reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions" The problem is that they ignore the term local and say because they have an earthquake risk that they can do what they want. There is nothing locally unique about the earthquake risk. If they could justify the existence of a nearby earthquake fault that was not considered in the codes they could require higher design forces but it would not justify the mandatory strengthening of buildings. This is not consistent with the way that laws are supposed to be interpreted and is contrary to the intent of the legislature.

California Health and Safety Code Section 17912 would prohibit any mandatory retrofit ordinances applicable to residential structures unless specifically approved by the Legislature.

Thus back to the original question. What is the legal basis for imposing mandatory retrofit requirements?>

Could it be that certain cities in California are in rebellion and are imposing illegal ordinances.

 

[JCraver]

Governor Vetoes AB 2681
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes bill that would create list of quake-vulnerable buildings
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-veto-quake-safety-bill-20180928-story.html
Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed an earthquake safety bill that would have asked cities and counties to create lists of buildings that could be at higher risk of major damage or collapse when shaken.
The bill, AB 2681, could have marked a major advance in efforts over the last decade to identify seismically vulnerable buildings in California. A handful of cities, including Los Angeles, have generated lists of potentially vulnerable buildings that face the greatest risk of collapse. Some have ordered owners to retrofit those buildings to make them more secure.
Backers of the bill said creating a list of possibly vulnerable buildings in the state’s most seismically active areas would represent a major step in alerting Californians to whether the buildings they live and work in should receive more study to determine whether they’re at risk in an earthquake.
But the governor wrote that he was concerned the bill “will not provide the greatest value for the significant investment this enterprise requires.”
It was unclear what creating an inventory would have cost; rough estimates published by legislative staffers say it it could be in the tens of millions of dollars. Advocates suggested a far lower cost, perhaps $15 million to $20 million. The bill would have required the inventory to be submitted to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services by Jan. 1, 2021.
“A more suitable approach,” Brown wrote, “is to develop a partnership between the state, local governments and building owners to develop a plan to cost effectively identify collapse-prone buildings and a realistic timeline to develop an inventory.” The governor said he would ask the state Seismic Safety Commission and other seismic experts to recommend “an achievable path toward improving the safety of earthquake-vulnerable buildings.”
The bill’s author, Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian (D-North Hollywood), said he was disappointed by the veto.
“California is not prepared for the staggering cost in lives and property damage when the ‘Big One’ hits. I look forward to working with the California Seismic Safety Commission to identify and improve building safety across California,” Nazarian said in a statement.
Even if the bill had become law, there was a big limitation — it did not provide funding. The law would have taken effect only if state officials found a future source of funding for the project.
The measure was opposed by some groups representing local governments. The League of California Cities as well as California Building Officials — an association of local building officials — said the mandate to create such a list would have been burdensome to small building departments.
“If local government is to be the conduit to recognizing where these vulnerable buildings are, we have to figure out how to pay for that,” Matthew Wheeler, executive director of California Building Officials, said earlier this month.
Supporters of the bill included Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the West Hollywood City Council, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, the Structural Engineers Assn. of California and the U.S. Resiliency Council.
“If you don’t know how sick you are, or how vulnerable you are, to me, it’s a sign of ignorance,” David Khorram, Long Beach’s superintendent of building and safety, said earlier this month. “A mandate like this will help and encourage smaller cities to accomplish what the bigger cities are doing.”
A separate bill on earthquake safety, AB 1857, which passed the Senate 38 to 0 and the Assembly 77 to 0, is still being considered by the governor.
The bill would create a committee to consider whether a tougher building standard should be adopted that would result in more new buildings that could be repaired and reoccupied after a major earthquake instead of having to be torn down.
The panel would also be asked to determine whether that tougher building standard should be made mandatory or voluntary.

So I was right, and there's no way to pay for it. I'm not a fan of your Governor (nor ours, for that matter..), but kudos to him for recognizing that you can't do it if you can't pay for it. Most pols these days don't even think of such things.

 

[RickAstoria]

Shouldn't buildings in CA be watertight too for when the big one comes and CA slips into the ocean.

Will never happen because it can not physically happen. What can happen is a separation in theory. Only areas below sea level and failure of any shoreline measures to prevent flooding would result in possible flooding but beyond that, it would be practically impossible. It maybe possible for some coastal areas to be effected but that's not something even a 10.0 magnitude earthquake could actually cause. I used to live in southern California. I know you're joking but I've heard people who genuinely believe that b.s.