Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law 2006 Progress Report to the Legislature Seismic Safety Commission SSC 2006-04 Seismic Safety Commission Gary McGavin Commission Chairman Architecture & Planning Jeff Sedivec Commission Vice Chairman Fire Protection Andrew A. Adelman Cities/Building Official Richard Alarcon Alternate: Chris Modrzejewski State Senate Mark Church Local Government Dr. Bruce R. Clark Geology Lawrence Klein Utilities Carol Liu Alternate: Don Manning State Assembly James Wattenburger Counties Government Celestine Palmer Insurance Daniel Shapiro Structural Engineering Dennis Mileti Social Services Dr. Lucile M. Jones Seismology Keith Wheeler Emergency Services Arul Arulmoli Geotechnical Engineering Seismic Safety Commission Staff Richard J. McCarthy Executive Director Bob Anderson Veronica Ramires Sue Celli Karen Cogan Henry Reyes Fred Turner URM Program Manager Adopted November 9, 2006 by the California Seismic Safety Commission 1755 Creekside Oaks Dr., Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95833 © California Seismic Safety Commission All Rights Reserved Cover Photo Credits: Commissioner Patricia Snyder provided the top two photos from the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake. Josh Marrow, a member of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Reconnaissance Team, took the bottom image after the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake. 2006 Progress Report to the Legislature Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law California Seismic Safety Commission 1755 Creekside Oaks Dr., Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95833 November 9, 2006 SSC 2006-04 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface................................................................................................... 1 Introduction: Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings.................. 2 The URM Law.......................................................................... 2 The Scope of the URM Law .................................................... 2 Measures of Implementation .............................................................. 3 Types of Programs ................................................................... 3 Standards for Retrofitting....................................................... 3 Current Status of Implementing the URM Law ................... 5 Loss Reduction Program Effectiveness.................................. 6 Effectiveness of Incentives in Voluntary Strengthening Programs. 8 New State Laws Effecting URM Buildings........................................ 8 Conclusions........................................................................................... 9 Commission Recommendations.......................................................... 9 Acknowledgments ................................................................................ 10 References............................................................................................. 11 Table A: Statewide Summary of the URM Law Implementation... 12 Appendix A – Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts ......... A1 Appendix B – Selected State Laws Relevant to URM Buildings ..... B1 STATUS OF CALIFORNIA’S UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING LAW PREFACE In 1986, California enacted a law that required local governments in Seismic Zone 4 to inventory unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, to establish a URM loss reduction program and report progress to the state by 1990. Each local government was allowed to tailor their program to their own specifications. On the surface, the level of compliance with this law has been quite high with over 98 percent of the 25,900 URM buildings now in loss reduction programs. But so far, only about 70 percent of the owners have reduced earthquake risk by retrofitting in accordance with a recognized building code or by other means. Significant progress has occurred, yet many URM programs are ineffective in reducing future earthquake losses. What lessons can be drawn from California’s experience with URM buildings and how can they be applied to future loss reduction efforts? This report summarizes the status of local government and building owner efforts to comply with this law. The Seismic Safety Commission has adopted this report to the State Legislature with its recommendations on improving this law: • Mandate the strengthening of all unreinforced masonry bearing buildings including stateowned buildings in accordance with the state’s model building code. • Recommend that local governments with little or no retrofit progress provide incentives to encourage owners to retrofit. • Adopt the International Existing Building Code as the State’s model building code so that future alterations to existing buildings trigger seismic retrofits to the latest standards. • Establish retrofit standards and mitigation programs for other types of collapse-risk buildings such as soft-story apartments, tiltups and older concrete buildings. • Chapter 308 of the Statutes of 2004 prohibits local governments from imposing additional building or site conditions such as parking, other onsite or offsite requirements or fees on or before the issuance of a building permit for seismic retrofits. The Commission does not recommend the extension of its sunset date of January 1, 2009. 1 INTRODUCTION: URM BUILDINGS Most unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings possess features that can threaten lives during earthquakes. These include unbraced parapets, walls and roofs that are not well attached to each other, and walls that are poorly constructed. When earthquakes occur, inadequate connections in these buildings can allow masonry to fall. Floors and roofs may collapse leaving occupants and passers-by in harm’s way. These risks to life can be significantly reduced with seismic retrofits. The URM Law California’s main effort to reduce these earthquake losses is the URM Law. Passed in 1986, this state law requires 365 local governments in the highest Seismic Zone 4 (ICBO, 1985) to do three things: • Inventory URM buildings within each jurisdiction • Establish loss reduction programs for URM buildings by 1990 • Report progress to the California Seismic Safety Commission In addition, the law recommends that local governments: • Establish seismic retrofit standards • Adopt mandatory strengthening programs • Enact measures to reduce the number of occupants in URM buildings. This law can be found in Section 8875 et seq, of California’s Government Code (CA, 1986). It allows each local government to choose its own type of loss reduction program. This leeway is, in part, intended to allow for each jurisdiction to take political, economic, and social priorities into account. The evidence suggests that individual communities pursued earthquake loss reduction programs best suited to their own local priorities reflecting the local balance of safety versus economy (CSSC, 1995-05). California’s Seismic Safety Commission monitors local government efforts to comply with this law and reports to the state’s Legislature. This report updates the Commission’s prior Year 2004 status report (SSC, 2005-02). The Scope of the URM Law Seismic Hazard Zone 4 is a region defined in the California Building Code nearest historically active faults. In 1986, it included the major metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco, roughly 28 million people, or more than three fourths of the state’s population. When the law was passed, the city of San Diego was not considered to be in Zone 4 (ICBO, 1985). Since then, San Diego has been added to Zone 4 and has now voluntarily adopted a URM loss reduction program (ICBO, 1997). Approximately 25,900 URM buildings with an average size of 10,000 square feet have been inventoried in Zone 4’s 365 jurisdictions. This is a relatively small percentage of California’s 2 total building stock of 12 million or so buildings, but this law impacts many cultural icons and historical resources in older parts of the state. In the 1980’s, it was estimated that the URM Law would result in roughly $4 billion in retrofit expenditures with activity well into the new century. This cost, although large, pales in comparison with several hundred billion dollars in anticipated damage from one major urban earthquake in California. Future earthquake losses can be greatly reduced by carrying out effective URM programs. For more information about the pioneering efforts before the passage of the URM Law, early progress, social and economic issues, refer to an earlier status report (CSSC, 1995-05). MEASURES OF IMPLEMENTATION Types of Programs There are four basic types of URM programs that cities and counties have adopted. They are explained below in Table 1. Later in this report, their popularity and relative effectiveness is further described. Few jurisdictions rely on demolition to eliminate their relatively few hazardous buildings. Most local governments regard demolition as a last resort, and far more URM buildings statewide are being retrofitted rather than torn down. Standards for Retrofitting California requires all jurisdictions to enforce the 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation Appendix Chapter 1 (UCBC) as a model building code although local governments may adopt amendments under certain circumstances (ICBO, 2001). For historical buildings, the California Historical Building Code also refers to the UCBC (ICBO, 2001). The UCBC contains technical standards that are intended to significantly reduce but not necessarily eliminate the risk to life from collapse. The statewide standards contain no administrative or retroactive triggers for retrofitting other than the issuance of permits. Each local government can tailor its own triggers for compliance. A significant amount of retrofitting was performed in accordance with local ordinances that preceded the UCBC. These earlier retrofits may only partially comply with the latest UCBC. Since the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) merged with other model code organizations to form the International Code Council (ICC), the UCBC is no longer being maintained and updated. ICC has since published the first and second editions of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC, ICC 2006), which contains an updated chapter of retrofit requirements for unreinforced masonry buildings. The State’s Building Standards Commission is in the process of adopting new model building codes and is proposing that the state adopt applicable portions of the 2006 IEBC. 3 Table 1. Types of URM Loss Reduction Programs Ranked by General Effectiveness From Most to Least (CSSC, 1995). Program Type Summary Mandatory Strengthening These programs require owners to strengthen or otherwise reduce risks in their buildings within times prescribed by each local government. Time schedules vary and generally depend on the number of occupants. Programs are based upon the City of Los Angeles’ Division 88 ordinance (LA, 1981) which is also the historic basis for the Uniform Code For Building Conservation (UCBC) Appendix Chapter 1 (ICBO, 2001) and the Seismic Safety Commission’s Recommended Model Ordinance (CSSC, 1995). Triggers for the Model Ordinance were developed in 1991 in cooperation with the California Building Officials. This is the most effective program type. Voluntary Strengthening These programs establish seismic retrofit standards and require owners to evaluate the seismic risks in their buildings. Owners then write publicly available letters to their local governments indicating when they intend to retrofit (CSSC, 1990). This type of program is somewhat more effective than Notification Only. Other Types Variations of the other program types with unique requirements and ranges of effectiveness. (CSSC, 1995) Notification Only Local governments write letters to owners stating that their building type has been known to perform poorly in earthquakes. This is typically the least effective type of program. Most jurisdictions have adopted more comprehensive measures than this. 4 Current Status of Implementing the URM Law The California Seismic Safety Commission periodically contacts local governments affected by the URM Law and asks them to summarize their efforts to date. In the summer of 2006, the Commission contacted 283 jurisdictions in Seismic Zone 4 with URM buildings. As of December 2006, 134 responded to the survey, a rate of 47 percent, compared to a 39 percent response rate in 2004 and a 65 percent rate in 2003. Considering that 51 other jurisdictions already have 100 percent mitigation rates, the Commission has not received recent progress reports from 98 jurisdictions or 35 percent of those affected by the URM Law. Table 2. Status of Compliance with the URM Law in 2004 Cities & Counties • with inventories not complete Number Percent Population Percent URM’s Percent 6 2% 115,789 <1% 55 <1% 17 5% 594,687 2% 354 1% • with no URM buildings 82 22% 2,937,420 10% 0 0% • With URM programs 260 71% 24,729,760 87% 25,536 98% 365 100% 28,377,656 100% 25,945 100% • with inventories complete, but no URM programs Totals The URM Law continues to gain effectiveness in 2006. While there weren’t dramatic changes from the 2004 data, most of the changes depict the continued efforts of local governments and owners to carry out the URM Law. 70 percent of the buildings have been mitigated so far - an increase of 715 buildings or 2.8 percent since 2004. However, the total number of URM buildings inventoried also increased 2.1 percent since 2004. In the past three years: • The number of cities and counties with URM buildings in compliance with the law increased from 256 to 260. • The number of URM buildings that are in communities that don’t have earthquake loss reduction programs decreased slightly from 500 to 409 (Less than 2 percent of those inventoried). • 340 more URM buildings were reported by local governments as retrofitted since 2004 to bring the total to 14,203 or 55 percent of those inventoried. • 375 more URM buildings have been demolished since 2004 to bring the total to 3,941 or 15 percent of those inventoried. The numbers of each type of loss reduction program are summarized in Table 3. Most local governments chose to adopt mandatory strengthening programs that are more effective than other 5 types even though the state didn’t require them. The remaining jurisdictions not included in this Table 3 either do not have URM buildings or have yet to comply with the law. For more information on them see Table A on Page 12. Table 3. Number and Scope of URM Loss Reduction Programs in California’s Zone 4 as of October 2006 Type of Loss Reduction Programs Entities Percent Population Percent URM’s Mandatory 134 52% 15,829,977 64% 19,043 75% Voluntary 39 15% 2,593,002 10% 1,269 5% Notification Only 46 18% 2,630,043 11% 1,487 6% Other 41 15% 3,676,738 15% 3,737 14% 260 100% 24,729,760 100% 25,536 100% TOTALS Percent Since 2004, there has not been a significant change in the types of loss reduction programs. The numbers of jurisdictions with mandatory, notification-only and other programs each increased by one or two, while the number of jurisdictions with voluntary strengthening programs decreased by two. Overall, this fluctuation corresponds to an increase in the total number of jurisdictions with loss reduction programs from 256 to 260. Loss Reduction Program Effectiveness Several simplifying assumptions were made to monitor the relative effectiveness of different types of mitigation programs. Tables 4 and 5 below are predicated on the assumption that most loss reduction programs have had sufficient time to cause substantial retrofit activity. Most programs were initiated around 1990 and have had about 16 years of seismic evaluation and retrofit activity. However, there are major exceptions to this generalization. Some programs are still just getting started and others started much before 1990 and were completed years ago. So the data may be subject to other interpretations, particularly since some programs are still in progress. In many ways, each jurisdiction’s as well as each building owner’s situations are unique. The Commission has attempted to generalize with simplistic interpretations and statewide averages of the data below. Appendix A summarizes the significant variations in progress among jurisdictions. Readers should note that many strengthening programs have unique time schedules for compliance and that local economies vary widely from those with high property and rental rates to others facing high vacancy rates, low rents and property values. These variations are not captured by the information below. 6 Nevertheless, one way to gauge the effectiveness of different types of programs is by comparing average rates of retrofit and demolition. Table 4 shows percentages of buildings retrofitted in substantial compliance of Appendix Chapter 1 of the UCBC or demolished since their original inventories. This information is based on the partial responses from the 2006 survey as well as responses in prior years from other jurisdictions that did not respond in 2006. It is interesting to note that jurisdictions with URM Notification Only Programs currently have lower retrofit and demolition rates than jurisdictions that have not established URM programs. Table 4. Average Rates for URM Retrofits and Demolitions Type of Program Retrofitted to UCBC or an equivalent Retrofitted to different local standards Total Retrofit Rates Demolition Rates Retrofit Plus Demolition Rates Mandatory Voluntary Notification Other Only Numbers and Rates for URM Buildings Within Programs 10,747 52% 16% 7% 12% 42% 3,441 18% N/A N/A 3% 16% 7% 15% 56% 3,831 17% 8% 6% 11% 15% 18,019 87% 24% 13% 26% 963 1,298 2,776 15 4% N/A 13% 14,188 70% Numbers and Rates for URM Buildings Not In Programs 71% 10,762 41% 3,441 13% 15 4% 110 27% 125 31% 55% 3,941 15% 18,144 70% 2,480 Total Number of URMs 19,043 1,269 1,487 3,737 25,536 409 25,945 134 39 46 41 260 23 283 Cities & Counties 76% 87% 7 74% 29% 284 14,203 Unretrofitted URM’s 13% 7,517 Total Numbers and Rates for URM Buildings In Zone 4 75% 7,801 30% Effectiveness of Incentives in Voluntary Strengthening Programs Although data is limited, it appears that economic incentives may encourage voluntary retrofits by owners albeit at a slower pace than Mandatory Strengthening Programs. Eight cities with voluntary programs and economic incentives have an average 20% rate for retrofits compared to a 14% rate for the 31 jurisdictions without incentives. Demolition rates are also higher in jurisdictions without incentives. So it appears that economic incentives coupled with URM programs seem to encourage owners in Voluntary Strengthening Programs to retrofit. These observations about the relative effectiveness of program types and financial incentives should be tempered with the unique characteristics that the state’s URM Law confronts - relatively high cost retrofits on buildings constructed before the mid 1930’s in a high seismic region. Other types of retrofit and incentive programs will produce different results. (EERI, 1998) New State Laws Effecting URM Buildings In 2004, new laws were enacted that effect unreinforced masonry buildings. AB 2533 (Salinas), Chapter 659 of the 2004 Statutes, adds teeth to the state’s existing law that requires warning placards to be posted at the entrances to URM buildings. Prior to January 1, 2004, the state’s placard law had no enforcement mechanism. Jurisdictions had reported that owners of only 276 buildings had posted warning placards in 2004 – about one percent of those inventoried. After January 1, 2004 new signs are required to be a somewhat larger 8” x 10”. New penalties and civil action can be pursued against owners that do not post signs. They state: Earthquake Warning. This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near unreinforced masonry buildings during an earthquake. In 2006, URM owners have posted 758 signs, a 175 percent increase since 2004. AB 3033 (Yee), Chapter 308 of the 2004 Statutes, prohibits local governments from imposing additional building or site conditions such as parking spaces, other onsite or offsite requirements or fees on or before the issuance of a building permit for seismic retrofits. The Seismic Safety Commission is required to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of this new law by 2007. 72 percent of the jurisdictions that replied in 2006 reported that they are aware of this new law’s restrictions. However, only six percent indicated that this new law made an impact their jurisdictions. Less than half of the responding local governments recommended that the state extend the January 1, 2009 sunset for this law. Based on this feedback, this new law has not appreciably made an impact on retrofit progress. Several jurisdictions commented that time extensions for the new law would likely have little effect since most of the retrofits triggered by the state’s current URM Law have already occurred. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the legislature not extend this new law’s sunset date. 8 CONCLUSIONS Over 98 percent of the 25,945 unreinforced masonry buildings are now in mitigation programs in California’s highest seismic region as a result of the state’s laws. About 70 percent or 18,144 of these buildings have reportedly either been retrofitted or demolished. The remaining buildings are still at significant risk of collapse and life loss. 87 percent of the unreinforced masonry buildings in Mandatory Strengthening Programs have either been retrofitted or demolished compared to 13 to 31 percent in other less effective program types. These differences in rates demonstrate that Mandatory Strengthening Programs are considerably more effective than other program types. Voluntary Strengthening Programs have not been as effective because current economic incentives are typically not sufficient to create market-driven willingness to retrofit. The Commission has proposed additional retrofit incentives in its California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan (CSSC, 2002). That plan recommends that state and local governments “encourage economic incentives, such as improved mortgage terms, reduced insurance rates, and positive tax benefits, for upgrading structural and non-structural elements in buildings.” Still much remains to be done with respect to the URM Law since the public continues to be exposed to life-threatening risks: California has 23 remaining jurisdictions with 409 URM buildings that are not in compliance with the law. In addition, 7,801 buildings remain unretrofitted and at significant risk of collapse in the state’s high seismic regions because of ineffective or non-existent local mitigation programs and a lack of economic incentives. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The Legislature should revisit the state’s Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Law and consider the following actions: • Mandate the strengthening of all unreinforced masonry bearing buildings including stateowned buildings in accordance with the state’s model building code. • Recommend that local governments with little or no retrofit progress provide incentives to encourage owners to retrofit. • Adopt the International Existing Building Code as the State’s model building code so that future alterations to existing buildings trigger seismic retrofits to the latest standards. • Establish retrofit standards and mitigation programs for other types of collapse-risk buildings such as soft-story apartments, tiltups and older concrete buildings. • Chapter 308 of the Statutes of 2004 prohibits local governments from imposing additional building or site conditions such as parking spaces, or other onsite or offsite requirements or fees on or before the issuance of a building permit for seismic retrofits. The Commission does not recommend the extension of its sunset date of January 1, 2009. 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Commission wishes to thank all of the local governments that responded to the 2006 URM Survey. Without their efforts, this report would not have been possible. 10 REFERENCES California Legislature. “The URM Law,” Section 8875 et seq., Government Code, California Statutes of 1986, see Appendix B. California Seismic Safety Commission. “California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan.” SSC 2002-02, 2002. California Seismic Safety Commission. “Incentives to Improve California’s Earthquake Safety: An ‘Agenda in Waiting’”, SSC 99-02. California Seismic Safety Commission. “2004 Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law.” SSC 2005-02, 2005. California Seismic Safety Commission. “Status of the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law.” SSC 1995-05, 1995. California Seismic Safety Commission. “Earthquake Hazard Identification and Voluntary Mitigation: Palo Alto’s City Ordinance,” SSC 90-05, 1990. International Code Council. “International Existing Building Code,” 2006 Edition. International Conference of Building Officials. “Uniform Building Code,” 1985 Edition, Seismic Zone Map in effect at the time of the passage of the 1986 URM Law. International Conference of Building Officials. “Uniform Code for Building Conservation, Appendix Chapter 1,” 1997 Edition, California Building Standards Commission, Part 10, Title 24, “California Code for Building Conservation,” California Code of Regulations, 2001. International Conference of Building Officials. “California Historical Building Code,” 2001, California Building Standards Commission, Part 8, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, 2001. International Conference of Building Officials. “Uniform Building Code,” 1997 Edition, California Building Standards Commission, California Building Code, Part 2, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, 2001. Los Angeles, City of. “Division 88 - Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings,” February 13, 1981. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, “Incentives and Impediments to Improving the Seismic Safety Performance of Buildings,” EERI, 1998. 11 Table A Percentages URM’s Percentages Population* Percentages Jurisdictions 2006 State Summary of the URM Law Implementation Cities without inventories started 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Cities with inventories not completed 5 1% 97,625 <1% 49 <1% Cities with inventory completed—No mitigation program started 15 4% 455,415 2% 330 1% Cities with no URMs 77 21% 2,420,464 8% 0 0% Cities with mitigation programs 239 65% 20,822,301 73% 24,488 94% Cities in Zone 4 affected by the URM Law 336 92% 23,795,805 84% 24,867 96% Counties without inventories started 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Counties with inventories not completed 1 <1% 18,164 <1% 6 <1% Counties with inventory completed—No mitigation program started 2 1% 139,272 <1% 24 <1% Counties with no URMs 5 1% 516,956 2% 0 0% Counties with mitigation programs 21 6% 3,907,459 14% 1048 4% Counties in Zone 4 affected by the URM Law 29 8% 4,581,851 16% 1078 4% Cities and counties without inventories started 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Cities and counties with inventories not completed 6 2% 115,789 <1% 55 <1% Cities and counties with inventory completed—No mitigation program started 17 5% 594,687 2% 354 1% Cities and counties with no URMs 82 22% 2,937,420 10% 0 0% Cities and counties with mitigation programs 260 71% 24,729,760 87% 25,536 98% Total cities and counties in Zone 4 365 100% 28,377,656 100% 25,945 100% 134 52% 15,829,977 64% 19,043 75% Types of mitigation programs established Mandatory Strengthening Program Voluntary Strengthening Program 39 15% 2,593,002 10% 1,269 5% Notification Only 46 18% 2,630,043 11% 1,487 6% Other 41 15% 3,676,738 15% 3,737 14% Total cities and counties with mitigation programs 260 100% 24,729,760 100% 25,536 100% Cities and Counties replying to 2004 URM Survey 134 47% 17,707,402 70% 19,111 74% * Based on 2000 Census Data 12 Appendix A 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts in Seismic Zone 4 Average Mitigation Rate 70% Statewide 1 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued No UCBC Compliance 12 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Adelanto Yes 0 Yes 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: 10 2 Mitigation Rate: 92 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Agoura Hills Yes 1 0 Yes 1 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: City completed strengthening of the historic. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 74 17 16 33 37 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: State Historic Building Code Progress and Remarks: Alameda Yes 24 50 Yes 2 59 1 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Parapet, wall anchorage, and wall slenderness limits only. 0 3 0 Mitigation Rate: 7 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Seismic Safety Commission (SSC) Model Ordinance partially referenced. Progress and Remarks: Alameda County Yes 0 16 No Yes 2 n/a unko wn 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: 0 1 0 unkno wn Mitigation Rate: 19 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Albany Yes 0 37 Yes 4 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 adopted 1/95. Progress and Remarks: The 1997 survey said that there were no significant changes since 1995. 1999 survey reported change of staff. Unable to verify no. of URMs in compliance with UCBC. No mitigation code was adopted. No. of URM slated for demolition unknown. No. of URM with posted warnings unknown. Alhambra Yes 6 164 Yes Yes 150 150 6 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 6 5 Mitigation Rate: 91 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code. Progress and Remarks: -A 2- 3 170 No Mitigation Progress 0 0 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Yes UCBC Compliance 16 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Anaheim Yes 0 13 13 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 3 0 16 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: In 1988, the city believed that they only had 1 URM which was demolished, subsequent inventories identified more buildings. The City's mitigation program was in full compliance with the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1. Antioch Yes 0 25 No Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Requested a copy of the model ordinance in 1995. Apple Valley Yes 0 14 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, retrofits triggered upon alterations or additions. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 26 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: None. Arcadia Yes 0 22 Yes 0 19 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 3 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Arcata Yes 1 0 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1973 UBC with 1975 Amendments Progress and Remarks: The URM was retrofitted in 1977. There is no need to establish a formal mitigation program. Arroyo Grande Yes 1 25 Yes Yes 26 26 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Reduced permit fees, extended time limits, and non-conforming building use permitted. -A 3- 0 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts No Mitigation Progress 0 12 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Artesia Yes 0 4 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Arvin Yes 0 16 yes 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: 3 3 1 19 Mitigation Rate: 19 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: uniform code for building conservation Progress and Remarks: The building official will bring a draft mitigation program to the City Council for its consideration in October 1997. Atascadero Yes 2 30 Yes Yes 19 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 2 2 4 8 Mitigation Rate: 66 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Atherton No 0 1 No Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Avalon Yes 0 19 Yes 2 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 3 12 Mitigation Rate: 11 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Avenal No 0 8 No Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 4- 32 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 27 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Azusa Yes 1 Yes 15 15 1 11 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 0 28 26 26 190 0 0 49 20 33 42 Mitigation Rate: 93 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1982 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: Bakersfield Yes 0 190 Yes Yes 6 122 0 0 2 Mitigation Program Type: Partial Strengthening - Wall & Parpet Anchors only 6 30 0 Mitigation Rate: 19 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1991 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Baldwin Park Yes 0 5 Yes 4 4 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1982 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: 1955 program of parapet bracing and wall anchors Banning Yes 0 49 Yes Yes 29 29 2 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening, Notices to Owners 1 16 1 Mitigation Rate: 92 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Barstow Yes 1 41 No Yes 1 0 0 1 0 Mitigation Program Type: 1 6 0 Mitigation Rate: 17 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: 1997 Status : 1 Completely retrofitted (Harvey House-Hist.), 1 Vacant, 3 demolitions of URM's, 8 determined not URM and removed from list, 80 URM's notified (ttl. 93) Beaumont Yes 0 37 Yes 16 16 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 1 0 Mitigation Rate: 46 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1988 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: -A 5- 0 0 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 56 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Bell Yes 0 41 0 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: 1 1 12 56 Mitigation Rate: 75 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Bell Gardens Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Bellflower Yes 0 22 Yes 18 18 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening 0 4 0 0 22 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Belmont Yes 0 2 Yes 2 2 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 as amended to reflect the 1990 SHBC Draft Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Belvedere Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Benicia Yes 18 21 Yes Yes 1 38 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners Historic building owners were not notified, notices to tenants, semiannual progress reports by building official Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: -A 6- Mitigation Rate: 3 percent 2 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 5 37 31 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Berkeley Yes No data availa ble No data availa ble Yes Yes 542 8 No Data Availa ble 4 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory, nonbearing walls and veneers. Ordinance requires posting until building is retrofit. 1 591 Mitigation Rate: 92 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: City provides prescriptive standards for tall veneers, parapets and simple one or two story buildings. SEAOC/CALBO recommended retrofit provisions with modifications for bearing wall URMs. Local standards are UCBC with some amendments to that standards exceed UCBC. Progress and Remarks: Year 2000 reported: City established a one-time fee of $22 on all business licenses to recover city's program startup costs. City directed its staff to develop a hazards evaluation ordinance to be followed by a mandatory strengthening ordinance pending the availability of state and federal financing. 587 Buildings, All Pre-1976 Assembly, Business, Educational, Hazardous, and Resident with 5 or more units. Year 2002 reported: City establishe compliance project and updated ordinance in January, 2001 including adopting 1997 UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 with certain amendments to maintain standards at least as strong as originally adopted. *** We will be surveying buildings still on the list to determine numbers with posted placards. As part of compliance project, owners were sent self-stick signs. Year 2006: Identified and added four buildings to inventory since last reporting period. Beverly Hills Yes 0 95 Yes 91 95 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 4 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to the 1991 edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Big Bear Lake No 0 24 No 6 0 Mitigation Program Type: 9 34 Mitigation Rate: 38 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: In year 2000, 7 damaged commercial buildings and 2 damaged fire stations have been demolished after the 1992 quake, 33 are left and some of those are residential, 4 are commercial. In year 2002, reported that all buildings previously identified as URM structures have been abated in compliance with state law applicable to URM structures trhough demolition, repair, and/or substantiation that the structures were no of un-reinforced masonry construction. Bishop Yes 0 1 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1988 UCBC State Historical Building Code Progress and Remarks: -A 7- 95 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Blue Lake Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Bradbury Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Brawley Yes 0 32 Yes Yes 10 3 3 Mitigation Program Type: A Combination of a Mandatory Strengthening Program and a Voluntary Strengthening Program 2 14 32 0 0 3 5 3 7 2 0 4 Mitigation Rate: 9 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Brea Yes 1 2 Yes Yes 3 0 0 0 1 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Brentwood Yes 0 7 Yes Yes 4 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 57 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: City put together a funding program in 1992. Brisbane Yes 0 4 Yes Yes 0 2 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 1 1 Mitigation Rate: 25 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 UBC and the City of Los Angeles Division 88; for tiltup concrete buildings Section 2314 of the 1973 UBC upon major alterations, additions, or changes of use. Progress and Remarks: Ordinance also covers tiltup buildings. -A 8- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Buena Park Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: The latest survey as of 11-17-99 indicates that none of the 5 buildings orginally inventoried were URM. Burbank Yes 0 53 Yes Yes 31 1 1 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 22 0 0 0 53 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1982 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: Burlingame Yes 0 63 Yes 54 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 9 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to the February 1990 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Applicants are given the choice to update to UCBC or SSC Model Ordinance-all chose UCBC. 2 URMs with no progress have expired plan checks and 2 are in probate. Overall progress has been outstanding. Final deadline for compliance (completion of retrofit) is July 1, 1996. Anticipate problems in getting 2 (of the original 54 properties) to comply by deadline. Calexico Yes 0 19 Yes 2 5 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, structural reports, wall anchors, and demolition. 0 0 2 1 Mitigation Rate: 11 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: "LA Model Ordinance" Progress and Remarks: California City Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Calipatria Yes 0 6 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1988 Edition of the County of Los Angeles Chapter 96 Progress and Remarks: -A 9- 0 9 19 No Mitigation Progress 0 33 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program No UCBC Compliance 20 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Calistoga Yes 17 2 2* 1 0 1 Mitigation Program Type: 0 0 0 37 Mitigation Rate: 5 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: The 37 URM's are potentially hazardous. *Denotes that the two buildings in Substantial Compliance are the same as in Chapter 1. Progress and Remarks: Camarillo Yes 0 37 Yes 37 37 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 37 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: February 1990 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Campbell Yes 7 5 Yes Yes 1 1 0 0 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 0 0 1 12 8 12 Mitigation Rate: 8 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Complete 1985 Edition of the UCBC including the Appendices Progress and Remarks: An earlier 1989 program of mandatory strengthening was relaxed in 1993. In 2006, 3 properties were added to Campbell's URM List. Capitola Yes 0 1 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Demolition Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Carlsbad Yes 0 9 Yes Yes 8 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 18 25 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Carmel-by-the-Sea Yes 1 25 Yes 0 6 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary Strengthening 1 0 1 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 for URM Bldgs, 1973 Edition of the UCBC for NonURM Buildings, 1985 UCBC Progress and Remarks: 20 Bldgs were removed from the inventory after seismic hazard evaluation reports were submitted to the City June 17, 1991.26 Bldgs URM, Pre-1935 with 100+ Occupants Pre-1976 with 300+ Occupants -A 10- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Carpinteria Yes 3 1 Yes Yes 4 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Reported Progress and Remarks: Carson Yes 0 32 Yes Yes 32 32 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Cathedral City Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Cerritos Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Chino Yes 2 25 Yes Yes 3 9 15 Mitigation Program Type: Posting, however most buildings will be demolished due to downtown redevelopment. Technical Mitigation Standards: 1991 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: -A 11- 0 Mitigation Rate: 67 percent 9 27 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 0 0 0 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Claremont Yes 32* 1 Yes Yes 8 23 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening for Non-Historic NonCompliant Historic Buildings 0 0 2 33 Mitigation Rate: 30 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Full Compliance with IEBC or UCBC Appendix Chapter A1 for non-historic URM buildings, and historic URM buildings not strengthened under provisions of Ordinance #91-7, and historic URM buildings that undergo major renovation, addition, or more restrictive change in use or occupancy. Progress and Remarks: In full compliance with City's URM ordinances. Most of the City's historic URM buildings strengthened under provisions of wall anchorage, parapet bracing, floor and roof diaphragm and height-to-thickness limit requirements of Ordinance #91-7. City provided financial incentives. Clayton Yes 0 1 Yes 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Notification only Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: A draft ordinance, which will include adoption of UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 with a three year period for compliance, is being proposed for adoption in 1995. Contra Costa County contracts for Clayton, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. Clearlake Yes 1 4 Yes 4 4 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, historic buildings are exempt. Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, modified, SHBC Progress and Remarks: Seismic evaluation reports, posting, bracing of parapets and veneer, full strengthening required at time of major remodel or repairs. Cloverdale Yes 0 1 No Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: 1 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Progress and Remarks: Ordinance being written in 1995. Coachella Yes 0 1 yes 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Demolition Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Originally inventoried 14 URMs but metal detectors found 13 reinforced. The remaining single URM was destroyed in a fire in 1994. -A 12- 1 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued No UCBC Compliance 66 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Coalinga Yes 0 2 64 Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Colma yes 0 0 N/A 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, seismic hazard evaluation reports Mitigation Rate: percent required Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Reports indicate that none of the buildings have been determined to be hazardous. City is reviewing the engineering reports. Colton Yes 0 20 Yes 0 5 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 0 1 0 14 20 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Commerce Yes 0 9 Yes 4 4 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 3 1 Mitigation Rate: 78 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Compton Yes 0 18 Yes 4 8 0 Mitigation Program Type: 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 56 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Concord Yes 2 12 Yes 9 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening within 5 years 3 Mitigation Rate: 79 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: The remaining 3 URM's may not be URM's. Design of existing masonry block walls is being investigated as of 8/04. -A 13- No Mitigation Progress 0 0 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Contra Costa County Yes 0 55 Yes 6 46 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notification only 0 3 0 55 Mitigation Rate: 16 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: none Progress and Remarks: A draft ordinance, which will include adoption of UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 with a three year period for compliance, is being proposed for adoption in 1995. Contra Costa County contracts for Clayton, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. Previous updates inadvertently dropped the original building count as retrofits and/or demolitions occurred. This 2004 status report corrects these changes in order to maintain an accurate accounting on future reports. Corona Yes 0 14 Yes Yes 14 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening 0 4 1 0 11 0 14 12 74 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Corte Madera Yes 0 3 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Notices to Owners Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Costa Mesa Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Cotati Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Covina Yes 0 74 Yes 4 45 8 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to Owners and Voluntary Strengthening Program Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: -A 14- 1 4 Mitigation Rate: 7 percent Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Cudahy Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Culver City Yes 0 65 Yes 0 65 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 3 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1982 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: Cupertino Yes 0 1 Yes 1 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1990 Edition SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Cypress Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Daly City Yes 0 3 Yes Yes 3 3 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Technical mitigation standard updated to the current edition of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, Appendix Chapter 1. Dana Point Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 15- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Danville Yes 4 1 Yes 5 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: City of Los Angeles building code. 1985 Edition, Division 88, "Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Exsisting Buildings" Progress and Remarks: A mandatory strengthening program was adopted in May 1991.1 Non-historic 4 Historic URM, all retrofits are completed Davis Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Del Rey Oaks Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Delano Yes 0 38 Yes 1 1 37 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners Mitigation Rate: 3 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Desert Hot Springs Yes 0 8 Yes 2 Mitigation Program Type: Demolition 1 3 0 Mitigation Rate: 38 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Diamond Bar Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 16- 2 38 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 1 2 7 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 14 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Dixon Yes 0 Yes 0 0 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, seismic retrofits are triggered upon alteration or change of occupancy. 4 14 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: In 2006, one URM had a seismic retrofit design completed and one URM has submitted for a retrofit permit. The City of Dixon requests that it be removed from the list of cities in Zone 4 since it claims it is located in Zone 3. Downey Yes 0 14 Yes 0 12 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 2 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 20% gravity for walls, 15 lb. wind load, 50% gravity for parapets, diaphragms 1/2 of current code. Progress and Remarks: Inventory not complete.14 Pre-1957 URM buildings except one and two family dwellings Duarte Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Dublin Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: East Palo Alto Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 17- 14 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 6 0 17 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 55 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction El Centro Yes 0 Yes 5 7 13 0 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory parapet bracing, additional strengthening at the time of remodel. 0 6 55 Mitigation Rate: 20 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1991 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Progress is slow, difficult to obtain financing. Construction cost is more that the value of the structures. Estimated cost of compliance was approximately $5,700,000 in 1993. 1989 Program: Owner notification. 1991 Program: Active/passive program based on occupancy. El Cerrito Yes 0 32 Yes Yes 0 2 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 0 1 0 0 29 32 Mitigation Rate: 3 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: El Cerrito is in the proces of providing placards to be installed by the building owners. The City Council is considering a plan for mandatory retrofit or demolition. Redvelopment Agency is Putting together a plan to provide loan assistance. Owners in violation guilty of misdemeanor. El Monte Yes 0 25 Yes Yes 25 25 0 Mitigation Program Type: Analysis required under a facade improvement ordinance. 25 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: El Segundo Yes 0 14 Yes 0 14 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Emeryville Yes 0 101 Yes 26 24 8 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening, Structural analysis and report and mitigation by 8/93. Technical Mitigation Standards: Ordinance Progress and Remarks: They noted no changes since the 1995 survey. -A 18- 3 2 12 3 Mitigation Rate: 38 percent 19 101 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued yes UCBC Compliance 20 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Encinitas Yes 0 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Notification 20 20 24 57 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Notification of Owners Progress and Remarks: Completed Escondido Yes 51 6 Yes Yes 5 28 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary Strengthening and Triggered upon Changes in Occupancy 0 0 0 6 Mitigation Rate: 9 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Floor to wall & roof to wall ties, parapet bracing.Section 502, 1991 UBC is being utilized to require retrofits on changes of occupancy Progress and Remarks: Voluntary with sunset date of 2015, incentives such as Mills Act & Fee Waivers Eureka Yes 6 21 Yes Yes 15 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, structural analysis, hardship time extensions 1 0 3 1 8 6 27 Mitigation Rate: 67 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1997 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 as modified Progress and Remarks: Time extensions increased in September 1999. Ordinance amended 2/5/02 extending deadlines and requiring annual progress reports. A workshop is proposed for 11/04 to evaluate progress. Fairfax Yes 0 4 Yes Yes 4 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary Strengthening 4 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: All four of the URM's have been sieismically strengthened. Fairfield Yes 0 3 Yes Yes 1 2 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening, historical buildings are exempt. 2 3 Mitigation Rate: 33 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None included in the ordinance, although Division 88 is referenced in the report to the Commission. Progress and Remarks: 3 URM, Pre-1935 with 100+ Occupants Pre-1976 with 300+ Occupants. Owners of the two remaining URM buildings are working with design engineers. Structural upgrades should begin early 2008. -A 19- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Ferndale Yes 0 1 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Demolition After Earthquake Damage Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: All except one URM building demolished after the 1906 EQ damaged them beyond repair. Last URM demolished after the April 1992 earthquakes. Fillmore Yes 1 51 Yes 13 3 Mitigation Program Type: Partial: only URM buildings damaged in the 1/17/94 earthquake, some buildings remain vacant with future unknown 18 2 16 Mitigation Rate: 60 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC as applicable to damaged buildings only Progress and Remarks: List of surveyed structures re-evaluated and totals corrected in 2004 resulting in additional structures that must be addressed. Fontana Yes 0 85 Yes Yes 17 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 68 85 Mitigation Rate: 20 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: 45 Bearing Wall URM, 32 Nonbearing Wall URM Fort Bragg Yes 1 1 Yes Yes 1 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Notice to owners 1 Mitigation Rate: 50 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: State Historical Building Code Progress and Remarks: Contracts with Mendocino County for code enforcement. Fortuna Yes 0 1 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, structural analysis, hardship time extensions. Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 as modified. Progress and Remarks: Building damaged in April 25, 1992, earthquake and subsequently demolished. Foster City Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 20- 2 Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Fountain Valley Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Fremont Yes 7 21 Yes Yes 26 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 28 Mitigation Rate: 93 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1991 UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 and subsequent additions. Progress and Remarks: 1990 program notified owners. Fremont adopted a voluntary retrofit ordinance #2363 for soft story apartments in November 1999. Fremont created a loan program to assist owners with retrofits. Fremont waives fees, parking requirements and other concerns identified under its URM program. Fresno County Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Fullerton Yes 43 82 Yes Yes 124 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 1 0 0 125 (all) Mitigation Rate: 99 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance for URM buildings, Certain 1988 UCBC sections referenced for tiltup construction. Progress and Remarks: A separate ordinance requires retrofit of pre-1973 tiltup buildings. A grant and deferred loan program was created with redevelopment funds - up to $100,000 loans due on sale with no interest. The 1997 survey says that they are 99 percent done and will be presenting to the City Council a pre '73 masonry building.82 Nonhistoric URM 43 historic URM 220 Tiltup Concrete Garden Grove Yes 0 11 Yes Yes 3 0 0 3 4 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 6 23 Mitigation Rate: 27 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, State Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Gardena Yes 0 23 Yes Yes 11 8 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 6 Mitigation Rate: 74 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Latest UCBC and/or 1990 SSC model ordinance Progress and Remarks: 23 URM, 1 accessory garage to 2-resident units not under mandatory mitigation program, deleted from list. -A 21- Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Yes UCBC Compliance 27 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Gilroy Yes 6 Yes 5 33 4 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening, Mandatory Strengthening Proposed for Adoption in November 2006 Unkn own 4 3 17 34 2 703 1 9 3 1 3 14 10 14 Mitigation Rate: 27 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, flat base shear of 10% g, ABK Method. Progress and Remarks: $1.3 million in Fee Waivers provided as of November 2005 in the Redevelopment District. Glendale Yes 7 696 Yes 0 494 0 2 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 207 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 13.3% Base Shear Progress and Remarks: Glendora Yes 0 9 Yes 8 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 89 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to Division 88 City of Los Angeles code Progress and Remarks: Gonzales Yes 0 3 Yes Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 1 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1988 (sic) Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 1985 UCBC Progress and Remarks: Grand Terrace Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Greenfield Yes 0 14 Yes Yes 4 14 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 29 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1988 (sic) Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 1985 UCBC Progress and Remarks: -A 22- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 1 2 0 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Grover Beach Yes 0 2 Yes 0 0 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 2 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1991 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance. Progress and Remarks: Building for building replacement allowed without having to meet parking standards. One of the buildings was previously subdivided into three units and reported as three buildings on previous surveys, but is truly a single structure. Guadalupe Yes 0 40 Yes 1 1 2 5 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 19 27 Mitigation Rate: 3 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: An earlier 1989 program notified owners. Half Moon Bay Yes 0 2 Yes 1 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening Mitigation Rate: 50 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 1985 UCBC Progress and Remarks: Owners were notified by 6/90. All work complete November 1993. Hawaiian Gardens Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Hawthorne Yes 0 4 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, seismic retrofits triggered only upon change of use or alterations. Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1990 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Hayward Yes 0 48 Yes Yes 33 46 2 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 15 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to Division 88 City of Los Angeles Code, 1973 UBC for Tiltup Retrofits Progress and Remarks: 48 URM 130 Tiltup Status: Tiltups are all retrofitted -A 23- 0 48 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 1 10 0 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 11 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Healdsburg Yes 1 Yes 11 11 4 1 Mitigation Program Type: As of 7/6/04: City Ordinance #968, adopted 10/2/02, requires that plans be submitted, a seismic retrofit permit issued by September 21, 2002, and the work completed by September 21, 2004 0 1 0 12 Mitigation Rate: 92 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC 1991 edition and subsequent editions Progress and Remarks: There were ten buildings on the URM list at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. 112 Matheson (Healdsburg Inn on the Plaza) was added to the list after the adoption of the ordinance. The following eleven buildings were subject to the seismic retrofit requirements of the ordinance. 243 Center St., 310-316 Center St., 225 Healdsburg Ave. 328/330 Healdsburg Ave., 420 Hudson Street, 412 Healdsburg Ave., 425 Healdsburg Ave., 845 Healdsburg Ave., 107 Plaza St., 112 Matheson St. Since the adoption of the ordinance, four buildings have had an engineer's analysis performed, which showed that they did not fall within the scope of the ordinance. (225, 412 and 425 Healdsburg Avenue and 310 Center Street). 845 Healdsburg Avenue (Gallo Building) was declared a storage warehouse due to its current use and infrequent occupancy and was determined not be within the scope of the ordinance. 107 Plaza (Cubby House) and 420 Hudson Street (Old Roma Station) have completed seismic retrofits and have been taken off the URM list. There are three buildings that remain on the URM list. These are: 243 Center Street: Seismic retrofit permit issued August 28, 2003. This permit was for an occupancy change from a B (Office Use) Occupancy Classification to an R-3 (Residence). By converting this building to a residence, the owners are not required to seismically retrofit. The building is being used as a residence at this time, however the work authorized by the permit has not started. The final date for compliance (September 21, 2004) is still in effect for this project. 328 - 330 Healdsburg Ave: Seismic retrofit permit issued June 2, 2003. The owners began the retrofit construction process on June 2, 2003. The owners are currently in the process of revising the approved plans for a different construction method. As of this date, revised plans have not been submitted and the final date for compliance (September 21, 2004) is still in effect for this project. 112 Matheson Street: Seismic retrofit permit was issued on November 7, 2003 and construction has began. **This building was identified as URM after the ordinance was adopted, therefore the final date for compliance (September 21, 2004) will be extended for this project. Hemet Yes 3 9 Yes Yes 3 N/A 4 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory- City paid for engineering and plans for 10 buildings. 2 Unkn own 3 12 Mitigation Rate: 42 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Adoption of a Mandatory program considered 3/92. In 2006, one city-owned building is currently undergoing environmental testing. Hercules Yes 0 3 Yes Yes 3 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Two bldgs are slated for demolition. One is unoccupied and fenced off. -A 24- 0 3 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 0 0 0 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Hermosa Beach Yes 0 66 Yes 65 65 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 1 66 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Program now complete. An earlier ordinance in 1989 notified owners. Hesperia Yes 1 0 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Discussions with owners Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: State Historical Building Code Progress and Remarks: City plans to develop a Historical Structure/Site Ordinance. Hidden Hills Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Highland Yes 0 12 Yes Yes 2 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening with mandatory retrofitting upon changes in use, modifications or reoccupancy of vacant buildings. 0 0 1 5 0 4 Mitigation Rate: 25 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1997 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 for URM Bldgs, 1973 Edition of the UBC for NonURM Buildings, 1985 UCBC Progress and Remarks: We have four URM's currently occupied, five URM's are vacant, 1 demolition, and 2 are retrofit. Our mitigation program provides for mandatory retrofit when the vacant URM's apply for reoccupancy. Hillsborough Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Hollister Yes 0 9 Yes Yes 2 2 7 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to Owners Mitigation Rate: 22 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Status for all categories remains unchanged. Council will not mandate upgrade of structures. -A 25- 12 No Mitigation Progress 0 0 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program No UCBC Compliance 4 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Holtville Yes 0 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: 3 1 Mitigation Rate: 75 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Humboldt County Yes 0 7 Yes 6 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Earthquake damaged URM buildings shall be repaired and retrofitted to comply with UCBC. Some progress on one URM. Huntington Beach Yes 0 52 Yes 0 16 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 52 0 2 132 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1976 UBC, with modified allowable stresses for existing materials Progress and Remarks: Majority of structures attained compliance through demolition. Huntington Park Yes 0 132 Yes Yes 130 130 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 2 0 2 Mitigation Rate: 98 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code, and the Los Angeles' Rules for General Application RGA #1-87. Progress and Remarks: As of March 1995, 5 URMs have not fully complied. As of October 30, 2002, 2 URM's have not fully complied & buildings are vacant. Imperial Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Imperial County Yes 0 0 N/A 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 26- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Indian Wells Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Indio Yes 0 48 Yes 48 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Industry Yes 1 0 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Other 1 1 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: One historic building, unoccupied, permit issued, out to bid as of July 2004 Inglewood Yes 0 56 Yes 51 51 1 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 4 Mitigation Rate: 98 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to Division 88 City of Los Angeles Code Progress and Remarks: City reimburses up to $3000 of the cost of engineering studies, 100% of plan check fees, permits, and taxes, using redevelopment money. 80% compliance. Inyo County Yes 4 0 yes Yes 2 4 4 Mitigation Program Type: Other Mitigation Rate: 50 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Uniform Building Code (Deep Springs College). Title 24 Part 2-12 Progress and Remarks: Furnace Creek and Ranch indicated that there was reinforcing of concrete masonry unit with adobe fill. Three owners in Big pine were not responsive and were multiunit residential. The Inyo County Department of Building and Safety performed tests on all of the original six URM buildings and determined that two buildings were indeed reinforced and removed from the inventory leaving 4 remaining URM buildings. Two have been retrofitted according to UCBC Appendix Chapter 1. Irvine Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 27- Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Yes UCBC Compliance 2 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Irwindale Yes 0 2 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Kern County Yes 0 141 Yes Yes 1 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 0 4 18 0 0 118 141 Mitigation Rate: 13 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: * Kern County mitigation program was notification only. Alll have been notified. County staff is available to provide guidance concerning measures to retrofit buildings. The inventory has been reduced by two buildings which were annexed into the City of Bakersfield. King City Yes 0 7 Yes Yes 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening Mitigation Rate: 29 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1991 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Kings County Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: La Canada Flintridge Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: La Habra Yes 0 15 Yes 7 8 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: -A 28- 5 5 7 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction La Habra Heights Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: La Mirada Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Adopted with Los Angeles County Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: La Palma Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Working with property owners on a voluntary compliance program for pre-1973 tiltup concrete buildings, but do not have any URM buildings. La Puente Yes 0 21 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: La Quinta Yes 7 0 Yes 5 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 7 2 11 Mitigation Rate: 71 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: La Verne Yes 11 0 Yes 9 9 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, Voluntary Posting Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: City budgeted $100,000 to fund facade / URM program for seismic retrofit in fiscal year 92/93 with goal of completing 2 URM buildings this next fiscal year. One building was completed in 90/91 (funded 92/93=1, 93/94=1) with agency funding leaving 9 URM buildings remaining. -A 29- Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Yes UCBC Compliance 5 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Lafayette Yes 0 4 1 Mitigation Program Type: Notification only 5 Mitigation Rate: 20 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: A draft ordinance, which will include adoption of UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 with a three year period for compliance, is being considered. Contra Costa County contracts for Clayton, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. Laguna Beach Yes 0 29 Yes Yes 29 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to Division 88 City of Los Angeles Code Progress and Remarks: All known URM in the city have been strengthened per the city's mandatory strengthening ordinance. Lake County Yes 11 Yes 9 10 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, historic buildings are exempt. 1 2 Mitigation Rate: 82 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 as modified, latest edition of the Uniform Building Code, seismic evaluation reports, posting, bracing of parapets and veneer, full strengthening required at time of major remodel or repairs. Progress and Remarks: Of the eleven inventoried, 1 URM was exempted since it is historic. 6 URMs were found to be reinforced. Lake Elsinore Yes 33 54 Yes 81 6 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners Mitigation Rate: 7 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 as modified Progress and Remarks: Lakeport Yes 0 33 Yes 1 27 2 1 Mitigation Program Type: Seismic evaluation reports, posting, bracing of parapets and veneer, full strengthening required at time of major remodel or repairs, historic buildings are exempt 33 Mitigation Rate: 3 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 as modified, 1985 UBC Progress and Remarks: Lakewood Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 30- 2 33 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts No Mitigation Progress 0 0 12 1 4 0 48 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Lancaster Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Larkspur Yes 0 12 Yes Yes 5 5 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 2 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 42 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Lawndale Yes 0 3 Yes Yes 3 3 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Livermore Yes 30 18 Yes Yes 37 0 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 2 9 2 2 Mitigation Rate: 96 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Modified 1990 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Two remaining buildings are vacant and therefore in compliance with the city's ordinance. Loma Linda Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 for URM Bldgs, 1973 Edition of the UBC for NonURM Buildings, 1985 UBC Progress and Remarks: All of these were residential : 8 Non-historic URM, 50 Historic URM Pre-1935 with 100+ Occupants Pre-1976 with 300+ Occupants.The 1997 Survey response said that there were no non-residential URM's in the City of Loma Linda. Had a mitigation code 2 before the correction - voluntary strenghening. Lomita Yes 0 17 Yes Yes 15 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 Mitigation Rate: 94 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: -A 31- No Mitigation Progress 2 2 21 0 936 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Yes UCBC Compliance 21 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Lompoc Yes 0 Yes 14 1 2 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary Strengthening 1 1 Mitigation Rate: 71 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC App. Ch. 1 Progress and Remarks: In November 2002, the Lompoc City Council revised Article 9 of Lompoc Municipal Code, entitled "Unreinforced Masonry Buildings," changing the mitigation program to Voluntary Strengthening. Long Beach Yes 49 887 Yes 559 3 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 2 0 370 2 0 Mitigation Rate: 99 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1970 Edition of the UBC, proposed ordinance changes are based on the latest proposed ICBO code change for URM bldgs, and a base shear not to exceed 13 percent but varies with period, building type and occupant load. Progress and Remarks: In 1959, the building official was given the authority to abate parapet and appendage falling hazards; in 1971 a mandatory strengthening ordinance was passed, which was amended in 1976 and updated again in 1990. City created a special assessment district to issue bonds for seismic retrofit financing based on the 1911 Bond Act.936 URM bearing and nonbearing wall bldgs all pre-1934 Los Alamitos Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Los Altos Yes 0 0 N/A 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: 0 0 Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None. Progress and Remarks: Consideration was given to a more restrictive mandatory strengthening program. After further study, review of plans, and inspections, we have found only one building that may be a URM. The others provided adequate proof that they do not have a URM or their building is not a URM. The placard posted on one URM has disappeared. A later 1997 survey said that the recent inspections revealed no URM's in the city due to verified steel reinforcements in the walls. The city had a Notification Only Program, with a request for voluntary upgrades before the recent correction. Los Altos Hills Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 32- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Slated for Demolition Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress Owners Notified Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction 0 0 1123 9211 Los Angeles Yes 255 8956 Yes Yes URM (Div 88)2/81, URM infills3/93 6144 6144 2 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening for bearing wall URM bldgs, notices to owners for non-bearing wall URM bldgs ,and development of seismic retrofit guidelines for voluntary rehabilitating of steel frame with URM infill buildings. Div. 95 was passed on 8-30-96 for the voluntary strengthening of non-ductile concrete buildings, including URM infill. 0 1942 Mitigation Rate: 88 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1988 edition of Division 88, City of Los Angeles Code with technical amendments which require parts of the ABK Method, in particular demand/capacity and displacement checks for roof diaphragms, Rules for General Application RGA#1-87 are also allowed (based on the ABK Method). Progress and Remarks: 8079 Buildings have been identified as subject to the Bearing Wall Ordinance Division 88 effective February 1981: 1942 demolished, 6133 retrofitted, 4 remain to be demolished or retrofitted. 194 were exempted from Division 88. 1132 Buildings have been identified as subject to the URM Infill Ordinance of March 1993: 11 have been retrofitted 1121 remain to be retrofitted. Los Angeles County Yes 3 294 Yes Yes 0 274 2 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 18 0 0 3 297 Mitigation Rate: 98 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1992 Edition Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code - similar to Division 88 of the Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: 278 non-historic URM, 3 historic URM all bearing wall Los Gatos Yes 14 10 Yes Yes 17 3 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 3 24 Mitigation Rate: 75 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1991 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 75% of the 91 UBC for the repair of earthquakedamaged non-URM bldgs, Chapter 37 of the 91 UBC for chimney repair Progress and Remarks: Revocation of occupancy for buildings that do not comply with deadline. City allows replacement of damaged buildings without providing more parking. Letters regarding placarding will be sent in October 2006. City anticipates compliance with placarding law within 60 to 90 days. Lynwood No 0 15 No Yes 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: The City of Lynwood does not have a mitigation program established for URM buildings at this time. -A 33- Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Mammoth Lakes Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Manhattan Beach Yes 0 12 Yes 12 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to Division 88 Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: All mandatory strengthening was implemented and completed12 URM commercial one story buildings Maricopa Yes 0 14 Yes Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to Owners 13 14 Mitigation Rate: 7 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Maricopa's Mitigation Program requires notification only. All building owners have been notified. County staff is available to provide guidance concerning measures to retrofit buildings. Marin County Yes 0 1 Yes Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Notice to owner with an order to strengthen or demolish. Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Marina Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Martinez Yes 0 58 Yes 6 8 9 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 2 Mitigation Rate: 14 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Standards are planned to be adopted. Progress and Remarks: -A 34- 33 58 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 25 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Maywood Yes 0 13 13 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 12 0 25 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to 1982 Edition of Division 88 of the Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: McFarland Yes 0 13 Yes Yes 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to Owners 0 0 0 0 13 Yes Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: City contracts with Kern County for code enforcement. Kern County notified the owners and states it and City staff are available to provide guidance concerning measures to retrofit buildings. Mendocino County Yes 0 7 Yes Yes 0 7 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory 1 0 0 7 8 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: California Historical Building Code Progress and Remarks: Section 18.30.060 (B) Mitigation Program When the valuation of any modification, alteration, repair, improvement, conversions, remodel or addition to the potentially hazardous building exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) of the current assessed value of the building, the potentially hazardous building shall be brought into compliance with the structural provisions of the State Historical Code. The collective valuation of multiple applications for permits submitted within any threeyear period on the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered when determining if the valuation exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) of the assessed value of the building. August 2004 - Sent letters to owners requiring warning placards per Ordinance 4088 effective March 2002. Menlo Park Yes 0 2 Yes 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, State Historical Building Code Progress and Remarks: Mill Valley Yes 0 24 Yes Yes 24 24 24 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: -A 35- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 0 0 0 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Millbrae Yes 0 3 Yes 3 3 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 0 0 0 3 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of Division 88 of the Los Angeles City Code as modified, 1985 UBC Progress and Remarks: All buildings upgraded. No further actions needed. Milpitas Yes 0 3 Yes 3 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance, 1988 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Progress and Remarks: Strengthening deadline is negotiable depending on owner's financial situation. Only 1 building classified as URM left. This building is city owned, a complete seismic retrofit has been recently completed. Mission Viejo Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Mono County Yes 8 No 1 7 Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Building Official reported trying to establish a mitigation program in August 2003 Monrovia Yes 0 75 Yes 75 75 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Wall anchorage, parapet bracing and height to thickness requirements only. Progress and Remarks: Montclair Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 36- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Monte Sereno Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Montebello Yes 0 20 Yes 20 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to the 1985 Edition of Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Monterey Yes 22 40 Yes Yes 38 All 1 2 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening, historical buildings are exempt. 4 1 23 16 62 Mitigation Rate: 68 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to the 1987 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 1988 UBC for base shear. Progress and Remarks: Monterey County Yes 0 2 Yes Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Demolition/retrofit 1 2 Mitigation Rate: 50 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: More Progress and Remarks: Demolished - Historic Spreckels Building Monterey Park Yes 0 26 Yes Yes 20 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening 2 4 2 Mitigation Rate: 92 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to 1987 Edition SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: 18 of the 20 URM buildings were retrofitted prior to the state's adoption of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1. They were designed based on a local ordinance that was equivalent to UCBC requirements. Moorpark Yes 0 7 Yes 5 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory? Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 37- 26 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Moraga Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: A draft ordinance, which will include adoption of UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 with a three year period for compliance, is being proposed for adoption in 1995. Contra Costa County contracts for Clayton, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. A draft ordinance is being considered. Moreno Valley Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Morgan Hill Yes 2 6 Yes Yes 1 7 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1982 Edition of the Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: This emergency ordinance was passed to repair and retrofit earthquake damaged URM buildings. Morro Bay Yes 0 13 Yes Yes 4 2 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, being reconsidered (12/95) 2 1 0 10 7 13 Mitigation Rate: 38 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1991 UCBC Progress and Remarks: 46 buildings were originally inventoried and 33 were found to be reinforced. Mountain View Yes 0 25 Yes Yes 25 25 25 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: -A 38- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 1 4 17 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Yes Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued 36 UCBC Compliance Mitigation Program Established 10 Replied to 2006 Survey Number of NonHistoric URMs Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Napa Yes Yes 28 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening 46 Mitigation Rate: 61 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Or Unique City-Specific Criteria Progress and Remarks: City Ordinance #020061 was passed by the City Council on March 21, 2006 requiring mandatory strengthening of URM buildings within 3 years. The City of Napa Community Redevelopment Afency offers a reimbursement incentive program for the preparation of seismic retrofit architectural and engineering plans. Since the initial inventory of 46 URM structures, 29 have completed seismic retrofit projects and/or have been removed from the city's URM inventory due to investigations by engineers indicating reinforcing or non-URM construction. Napa County Yes 1 6 Yes 3 0 1 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Other 1 0 0 1 1 7 Mitigation Rate: 43 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Ch I for occupancy changes and structural upgrades. Progress and Remarks: Newark Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Newport Beach Yes 3 124 Yes Yes 125 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 1 1 127 Mitigation Rate: 99 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Current Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Of the Retrofit permits issued, building permits have since expired and retrofit work has not been started. The 1 building slated for demolition is reported unoccupied. Norco Yes 0 3 Yes 3 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening Program Technical Mitigation Standards: Based on Los Angeles, Division 88 Progress and Remarks: All buildings (3) have been retrofitted. -A 39- Mitigation Rate: 100 percent 3 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 0 0 11 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 11 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Norwalk Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: 0 0 11 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: LA County's Chapter 96 was adopted on Dec 5, 1989, and again in 1992. In 1995, the City adopted the California's Uniform Code for Building Conservation, Appendix Chapter 1. Progress and Remarks: Owners have been notified. Building official is preparing a legal notice to record against the respective titles and is planning to pursue enforcing mandatory strengthening via the UCBC appendix Chapter 1 as of 8//27/97. Novato Yes 0 1 No 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Retrofit proposal was rejected due to local historical design review issues. Oakland Yes 277 1335 Yes 222 1107 121 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory exterior falling hazard mitigation program. Voluntary structural upgrade program. 3 1 106 2 50 1612 Mitigation Rate: 20 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Bearing wall buildings: Mandatory standard - bolts plus tie roof and floors to exterior walls, brace parapets, remove or fix other exterior falling hazards; Voluntary standard - UCBC Appendix Chapter 1; Note - buildings complying with the mandatory standards only will remain on the list of potentially hazardous URM buildings until they are upgraded to comply with the voluntary standard. Frame structures with URM infill walls: Mandatory standard - Parapet plus brace parapets and remove or fix other exterior falling hazards. An earlier program notified owners. Progress and Remarks: Included a list of updates on the deadlines for completing URM upgrade work. Priority B1 - 2/1/97; B2 2/1/97; B3 - 2/1/98; N1-2/1/99; N2 - 2/1/2000; N3 - 2/1/2001......1182 bearing wall type and 435 frame structures with URM infill walls Oceanside Yes 9 69 Yes Yes 17 1 1 0 59 Mitigation Program Type: Parapet bracing & wall anchorage; time limit 11 Mitigation Rate: 23 percent years from effective date of ordinance, or when remodeling occurs exceeding 50% of the value of the building. Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, February 1991 Edition, SSC Model Ordinance, State Historic Building Code Progress and Remarks: 11/02/05 Deadline extended to 2016. Services of order to be sent to all URMs per revised ordinance. Mitigation adoption: 5/24/91 mandatory strengthening; 8/12/92 revised timelines; 3/1/95 revised mandatory strengthening ordinance to require only parapet bracing & wall anchorage. -A 40- 78 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 29 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Ojai Yes 0 16 2 3 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 8 Mitigation Rate: 55 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Yes-type not reported Progress and Remarks: A 1990 program notified owners. Ontario Yes 45 13 No Yes 2 0 1 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notification Only 1 9 0 0 45 58 49 78 Mitigation Rate: 19 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: CA Historical Building Code and UCBC Progress and Remarks: The inventory of building is being rechecked Orange Yes 43 35 Yes 29 29 49 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners Mitigation Rate: 37 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: URM ordinance 7-92 Progress and Remarks: Orange County Yes 1 4 Yes Yes 0 0 4 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Division 88 City of Los Angeles code Progress and Remarks: Orinda Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: A draft ordinance, which will include adoption of UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 with a three year period for compliance, is being proposed for adoption in 1995. Contra Costa County contracts for Clayton, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. (4/97) The city is exploring a mandatory strengthening program or possibky a voluntary one. Oxnard Yes 14 24 Yes Yes 7 38 Mitigation Program Type: Notification Only 31 Mitigation Rate: 18 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: City is in the process of developing the URM ordinance and conducting public hearings. No enforcement at this time other than to notify owners. A more detailed review of these buildings was completed last year. Some of the previous buildigns were incorrectly identified as URM's. One addition non-retrofitted building is redtagged due to fire. With repair, building will be retrofitted. -A 41- 38 Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Pacific Grove Yes 8 3 Yes 1 3 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening, including all pre-1976 occupancy buildings 7 11 Mitigation Rate: 9 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Division 88 City of Los Angeles Code Progress and Remarks: Pacifica Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Palm Desert Yes 0 3 Yes 3 Mitigation Program Type: Other, Unknown Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Palm Springs Yes 15 11 Yes 23 23 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 2 26 Mitigation Rate: 96 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Modified 1987 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Palmdale Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Palo Alto Yes 4 43 Yes Yes 20 47 4 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 0 2 9 1 4 26 47 Mitigation Rate: 62 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 for URM buildings, 1973 UBC for non-URM buildings Progress and Remarks: Additions to strengthened buildings are allowed, parking requirements are waived. According to the 1997 Survey : -All buildings have a structural evaluation report on file which is required by ordinance, the "reduced occupancy" is vacated due to collapse potential, "and "warning placards" are not enforced by this department.....47 URM, 28 Pre-1935 bldgs with 100 or more occupants, 21 pre-76 bldgs with 300 or more occupants -A 42- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Palos Verdes Estates Yes 0 2 Yes 2 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Paramount Yes 0 7 Yes 7 7 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 35 759 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Chapter 96 County of Los Angeles Progress and Remarks: An earlier 1990 program provided notices to owners. Inventory not officially completed. Pasadena Yes 131 628 Yes Yes 691 691 1 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Other 0 31 1 Mitigation Rate: 95 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC 1994 Edition Progress and Remarks: 125 URM's are possibly elegible for the "Historic" label. Paso Robles Yes 0 60 Yes Yes 15 12 8 6 Mitigation Program Type: 0 15 4 18 58 Mitigation Rate: 50 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Perris Yes 1 16 Yes 2 16 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notification Only 0 0 2 10 0 17 Mitigation Rate: 12 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Uniform Codes Progress and Remarks: C.MC.#1069 Sec. 3 Mitigation occurs when ownership or occupancy changes. Two buildings have plans underway. Petaluma Yes 32 66 Yes Yes 48 39 1 Mitigation Program Type: Partial strengthening-bolts only 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 Mitigation Rate: 49 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: A 1989 program notified owners and tenants....62 Non-historic URM 32 Historic URM 5 pre-1934 concrete bldgs 12/11/89 -A 43- 98 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Pico Rivera Yes 0 7 Yes Yes 7 7 7 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 1987 Edition Progress and Remarks: Piedmont Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Pinole Yes 0 4 No 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: 2 1* see remar ks 1 Mitigation Rate: 75 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: * Voluntary Notification. Engineering has been done and retrofit will be completed in 2003. The City of Pinole is as of January 2000 drafting a Seismic Ordinance for adoption by the city council and will provide for mandatory strengthening program. Owners "voluntarily notified" in 2002. Two buildings previously listed as URM were later found to not be URM and removed frm the list. The Redevelopment Agency offers grants of up to $50,000 for seismic structural improvements such as new foundations or other support for unreinforced masonry buildings. Pismo Beach Yes 0 39 Yes 14 14 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 24 39 Mitigation Rate: 38 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Deadlines for strengthening extended to July 11, 1995.The mitigation program was ammended in early 1996 from a Manditory to a Notification only system. Pittsburg Yes 20 15 Yes 3 Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 9 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 44- 35 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 16 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Placentia Yes 0 Yes 6 3 3 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening, owner notification not specified. Seismic retrofit is mandatory upon change in use, application for any building permit or use permit, or development plan. 4 16 0 38 Mitigation Rate: 56 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: City is requesting additional commercial rehabilitation loan funds . Pleasant Hill Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Pleasanton Yes 0 38 Yes Yes 36 (34) 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 2 Unkn own Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC, Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Point Arena No No Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Indicated inventory started but not completed in 1992 survey. No activity reported since. Pomona Yes 2 90 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary Strengthening 1 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: 1992 ordinance tied into a special assessment district or similar financing. Port Hueneme Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 45- 90 Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Portola Valley Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Poway Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Rancho Cucamonga Yes 18 4 Yes 17 0 0 3 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 2 22 Mitigation Rate: 91 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1982 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code, State Historical Building Code as modified Progress and Remarks: A pamphlet was developed explaining various options and incentives, encourages Mills Act. Rancho Mirage Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Rancho Palos Verdes Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Redlands Yes 10 67 Yes 0 20 2 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 1 0 1 0 54 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Changed mitigation code from (3) to (2) or from Notification Only to a Voluntary Strengthening Program. Redondo Beach Yes 0 20 Yes 20 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: -A 46- 0 0 20 Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Redwood City Yes 4 23 Yes Yes 6 14 1 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 2 2 0 2 27 Mitigation Rate: 30 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: City encourages Mills Act agreements for historical buildings to preserve facades. * City said that they were not responsible for enforcement on the "warning placards". Rialto Yes 0 19 Yes 4 4 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 19 Mitigation Rate: 21 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Adoption of UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 considered in 1992. Richmond Yes 0 70 Yes 4 4 0 Mitigation Program Type: 0 1 0 1 0 Mitigation Rate: 7 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Ridgecrest Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Rio Dell Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: No URM buildings have been identified. All structures in the city are wood frame contruction. Rio Vista yes 0 10 No Yes Mitigation Program Type: 10 0 156 200 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: City has notified all owners. Riverside Yes 82 118 Yes Yes 16 28 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening Mitigation Rate: 22 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to 1991 UCBC Progress and Remarks: Building Official does not know the status of the inquired URMs. -A 47- No Mitigation Progress 0 3 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Riverside County Yes 0 4 Yes Yes 0 0 1 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners. Retrofit plans required in 180 days. 0 0 0 4 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Rohnert Park Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Rolling Hills Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Rolling Hills Estates Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Rosemead Yes 0 7 Yes 5 5 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 3 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of Chapter 96 Los Angeles County Progress and Remarks: All URM structures in Rosemead have been strengthened or demolished. One structure from the original list had been incorrectly classified as a URM and was removed 1-19-2005. Ross Yes 0 1 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: -A 48- 7 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Saint Helena Yes 32 1 Yes 18 18 4 0 3 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory seismic retrofit ordinance adopted June 1998 8 all Mitigation Rate: 55 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1998 California Code for Building Conservation, Appendix Chapter 1 with local ammendments. Progress and Remarks: St. Helena's ordinace requires mandatory seismic retrofitting within 10 years of ordinace adoption. An incentive program was incorporated to encourage commencement of structural upgrades within the first 3 years of the program. As of January 2000, we are 1-1/2 years into the program with half of our URM buildings are in some stage of retrofitting. Incentives include A&E rebates, building permit fee waivers, creation of a National Registrar Historic District that allows owners to take advantage of a 20% federal tax credit for certified work, adoption of the Mills Act, permit renewal extensions, and a streamlined design review process. Salinas Yes 0 55 Yes Yes 44 44 9 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 2 0 0 55 Mitigation Rate: 96 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1997 Edition of the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: The City Council is considering options to relax their URM program particularly since it triggers compliance with federal American with Disabilities Act requirements. San Anselmo Yes 0 21 Yes 21 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, State Historical Building Code Progress and Remarks: San Benito County No 0 6 No Yes 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: The County Building Department is considering a re-inventory of its URM buildings in the County's unincorporated areas in 2006. -A 49- 21 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 25 22 72 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Replied to 2006 Survey UCBC Compliance Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction San Bernardino Yes 0 170 Yes Yes 14 1 0 Mitigation Program Type: Formerly Mandatory Strengthening, currently posting of warning signs and retrofitting required if vacant greater than 1 year 1 3 55 170 Mitigation Rate: 41 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 1991 edition. Progress and Remarks: 1990 ordinance required seismic hazard evaluations. The 1993 Retrofit Ordinance requires retrofits within 4 to 11 years starting on April 15, 1994. In September 1996, the City Council adopted an ordinance which provides a three year extension to prior deadlines for compliance. The City adopted an ordinance in February 2006 to codify within the Municipal Code the provisions of AB2533 (Govt Code 8875.8) and has started a program to enforce the posting requirements. This ordinance also requires retrofitting of URM buildings prior to reoccupancy if they become vacant for a period of 1 year or more, and requires retrofitting or demolition if the vacancy extends beyond 3 years. The current ordinance declares vacant URM buildings to be public nuisances and provides for their abatement. Currently, 25 vacant URM buildings are facing abatements actions. San Bernardino County Yes 0 21 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: San Bruno Yes 0 5 Yes 4 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Update of status in process. New building official (Thomas Leonard) will start 3-6-00. San Carlos Yes 0 12 Yes Yes 10 2 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Division 88 Los Angeles City Code 1985 Edition, UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 is also allowed on a case by case basis. Progress and Remarks: Three (3) remaing. Of the three, two are vacated and awaiting demolition. We issued a building permit for strengthening per UCBC, Appendiz Chapter 1, for the last building. -A 50- 12 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts No Mitigation Progress 1 2 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction San Clemente Yes 0 2 Yes Yes Mitigation Program Type: Notices to Owners 2 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Building Owners have been recontacted by the City. Continued communication with owners will continue until responses from building owners are received. The one remaining building owner that has not posted warning placards has been once again notified of this requirement. San Diego Yes Yes Yes 24 232 144 Mitigation Program Type: Parapet strengthening 328 Mitigation Rate: 23 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Inventory started prior to 1992 survey. San Diego was in Seismic Zone 3 at the time of the enactment of the URM Law and is not strictly bound to comply with the law. Since then, San Diego's Seismic Zone has been revised to Zone 4. The City of San Diego, Development Services Department identified and noticed a total of 850 suspect URM buildings. Since the enactment of the City of San Diego URM Ordinance on January 1, 2001 to date (September 15, 2006): 242 URM buildings have been seismically strengthened (retrofitted) either partially or completely, 144 URM buildings have been demolished, 122 URM buildings have been determined not to be a URM building as defined by the ordinance, 14 URM buildings have been exempted, as permitted by the ordinance. 24 URM buildings have been fully retrofitted to comply with UCBC Appendix Chapter 1. 168 out of 728 URM buildings have been mitigated for a rate of 23 percent. A total of 328 URM buildings still remain to comply with the mandatory seismic strengthening provisions of the San Diego Municipal Code [SDMC], Chapter 14, Article 5, Division 4 [or commonly known as seismic retrofit ordinance]. The compliance enforcement of seismic retrofit ordinance for remaining URM buildings is currently underway. We expect the remaining URM buildings to be either retrofitted or demolished by the end of year 2007. You may find additional information regarding the City of San Diego URM Program on the City's website at http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/industry/urm.shtml San Diego County Yes 26 15 Yes Yes 12 1 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 0 2 2 unkno wn 23 35 Mitigation Rate: 34 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: February 1990 Edition SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Now 4 URMs are incorporated in Solana Beach, which replied to 1995 survey. 5 buildings were removed from the inventory because they were found to be outside the scope of the ordinance (i.e. reinforced). -A 51- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction San Dimas Yes 3 4 No 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: 0 5 0 Mitigation Rate: 14 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: San Fernando Yes 0 12 Yes 11 1 3 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 92 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Revised Edition of Division 88 City of Los Angeles Code with ABK Modifications Progress and Remarks: Wall anchors and parapet repairs were required after the 1971 Sylmar Earthquake. San Francisco Yes 516 1469 Yes Yes 0 1555 163 20 61 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening for Bearing Wall Buildings per Earthquake Hazard Reduction Ordinance 225-92, which was incorporated as Chapters 16B and 16C of the 2001 San Francisco Building Code. 0 158 0 Unkn own 28 1976 Mitigation Rate: 86 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: The URM building ordinance is based on the 1991 UCBC Appendix chapter 1 with modifications. The most significant change is the allowance of a seismic upgrade to "Bolts Plus" level for certain types of buidings: 1) Bolts-Plus Level; 2) Special Procedure (UCBC Appendix Chapter 1; 3) General Porcedure (UCBC Appendix Chapter 1); 4) Retrofit for Essential & Hazardous Facilities; 5) Retrofit for Qualified Historical Buildings; 6) URM Builidngs requiring Sections 3403.6 and 1605.4.3upgrade of the 2001 San Francisco Building Code. The Bolts-plus procedure is essentially a Special Procedure upgrade without a demand capacity ration diaphragm check and an in-plane/shear check of the wall. There are eight requirements specified in Section 1609C.2 exception 1 that must be satisfied before a building may be retrofitted to a "Bolts-Plus" level of upgrade. Qualified Historical Buildings may be upgraded to provisions of the State Historical Building Code. Essential and Hazardous Buildings: For these buildings, a modified form of General Procedure is used (I=1.25; V=1.25 X 1991 UBC force level). URMs requiring Section 3403.6 upgrade are equal to 75% of the 2001 CBC level of design force. Progress and Remarks: The Dept. of Building Inspection is working together with the City Attorney's Office to abate the noncomplying UMB cases. The URM retrofit program started on February 15, 1993. Buildings with risk level 1 are required to be retrofitted in 3 1/2 years from that date. Other buildings with risk levels 2, 3 and 4 respectively have 5, 11 and 13 years from February 15, 1993, to complete their hazard mitigation programs levels of upgrade. In 1992, issuance of $350 million in bonds was authorized to make loans available to URM building owners. San Gabriel Yes 0 61 Yes Yes 41 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 2 17 Mitigation Rate: 70 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: Additional field inspection resulted in revising the number of URM buildings from 72 to 61 in 2006. -A 52- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 15 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction San Jacinto Yes 0 Yes 3 10 Mitigation Program Type: 2 3 Mitigation Rate: 33 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: In June 2005, two buildings were reported to not have URM walls and were taken off the inventory. San Joaquin County Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: San Jose Yes 74 73 Yes Yes 113 8 11 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening. 3 12 8 147 Mitigation Rate: 85 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1997 UBC or newer. Progress and Remarks: 100% of the 147 identified buildings are in compliance with the 1991 San Jose Ordinance. Compliance options included: retrofit, vacating the builiding or demolition. Warehouses were exempt. Program details are as follows: 113 Buildings retrofitted, 12 buildings demolished, 7 are vacant and secure pending retrofit, 11 have active construction, 2 buildings are exempt as warehouse use and one determined not a URM. Financial assistance for retrofit continues to be available through the City's Redevelopment Agency. San Juan Bautista Yes 0 13 No Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: San Juan Capistrano Yes 16 3 Yes 19 19 19 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: -A 53- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 0 0 0 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction San Leandro Yes 1 39 Yes 0 27 1 0 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 11 40 Mitigation Rate: 95 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: The 1997 Survey said that the City has formed an assessment district to fund a low interest loan program to assist b uilding owners with retrofit costs. Five buildings were demolished prior to the 2/93 program date. Three buildings previously retrofitted have since been demolished. Owner renotification in progress as of 1/2005 subsequent to changes in state placard laws. San Luis Obispo Yes 37 89 Yes Yes 37 0 13 66 0 Mitigation Program Type: Other - Structural report required by 11/4/94. Strengthening required when alterations exceed 50% of building value or if change of occupancy classification. Strengthening at roof level required as condition of reroof. All buildings to be fully strengthened by 2017 0 9 1 76 0 127 Mitigation Rate: 37 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: 2 buildings in the city are subject to county program. New mitigation requires that all URM's be strenghthened by 1/1/2017. Financial incentives offered to owners to strengthen as soon as possible, including grant up to $25,000, and waiver of permit fees. $5000 offered toward retrofits to owners from a City fund. Free downtown parking for contractors. San Luis Obispo County Yes 2 24 Yes Yes 12 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory 1 0 7 4 0 Mitigation Rate: 73 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC, Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: San Marcos Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: An earlier survey tentatively identified 1 Concrete Masonry Unit building that was later found to be reinforced. San Marino Yes 0 13 Yes 13 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, required engineering inspection, written report, City reserves right to impose standards. Technical Mitigation Standards: SSC 1987 Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Program consists of a resolution -A 54- Mitigation Rate: 100 percent 2 26 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Warning Placards Posted No Mitigation Progress 0 0 2 Owners Notified Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 14 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction San Mateo Yes 7 0 17 0 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 21 Mitigation Rate: 81 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Category II buildings are not yet required to submit. All category I buildings have achieved some level of compliance. Provides Grants and Loans. San Mateo County Yes 4 3 Yes Yes 3 5 1 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening, engineer's structural report, notices to owners, change of use/occupancy, demolition 0 0 1 1 0 1 Mitigation Rate: 57 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of Division 88, 1973 UBC for non bearing wall URM buildings, State Historical Building Code Progress and Remarks: Program does not include an ordinance, recommends strengthening within three years otherwise a mandatory strengthening ordinance will be considered. San Pablo Yes 0 60 Yes 60 Mitigation Program Type: Notification Only 60 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1998 CA Building Conservation Progress and Remarks: 60 Owners have been notified by mail 3rd quarter of 2002. We are not monitoring the number of URM buildings in substantial compliance with the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1. A Mitigation program is "in progress." The new Building Official plans to review this program. San Rafael Yes 0 44 Yes 44 44 Mitigation Program Type: Partial mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1990 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance, partial compliance with the UCBC Progress and Remarks: A 1990 ordinance was voluntary strengthening. San Ramon Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 55- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts No Mitigation Progress 0 2 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Sand City Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Santa Ana Yes unkno wn 211 Yes Yes 146 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 59 63 209 Mitigation Rate: 99 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to Division 88, 1982 Edition Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: City used Marks Bond Act funds for historical buildings.* Included in #2, Based upon our 1980 Ordinance. 59 Buildings have reduced occupancy and are in substantial compliance with the program . Two buildings are discovered to be URM in 2004. Santa Barbara Yes 80 183 Yes Yes 249 262 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, implemented in a district by district manner. 13 1 1 256 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: City lent $25 million to more than 25 properties through a bond program. Court action for non-compliance of (1) one structure. Santa Barbara County Yes 2 21 Yes 23 23 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, mitigation required based on occupant load and time frame established in UCBC. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Progress and Remarks: The county passed a mandatory strengthening ordinance based on the 1991 UCBC. Santa Clara Yes 0 24 Yes Yes 0 10 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening - first of three phases. 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 33 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: 3% interest loans to fund engineering analysis with a 5 year payback. -A 56- 8 0 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Santa Clara County Yes 2 58 Yes Yes 60 60 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, except for owners of more Mitigation Rate: 100 percent than two buildings who may set their own time frames for compliance. Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Exception was made for Stanford University which can establish its own time frames for compliance. 7 retrofits are currently under design. Santa Clarita Yes 0 4 Yes 0 4 4 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition Chapter 96 Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Santa Cruz Yes 24 27 Yes 22 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners of undamaged buildings, a second ordinance established standards for repair of damaged URM buildings. Mitigation Rate: 43 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 1970 UBC for non-URM buildings for the repair ordinance. These standards do not apply to undamaged URM buildings. Progress and Remarks: Loma Prieta Earthquake damage prompted passage of two ordinances, a 1987 hazard reduction ordinance failed to pass.....24 Historic URM, 22 Non-historic URM were demolished, 5 others were severely damaged in Loma Prieta Earthquake. Santa Cruz County Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Santa Fe Springs Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 57- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 24 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Santa Maria Yes 0 Yes 10 12 Mitigation Program Type: Partial mandatory strengthening. originally only applicable to a certain district of the city, affecting 8 buildings, of those 6 were retrofitted. 1 1 25 Mitigation Rate: 46 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1989 Ordinance is based on the 1987 Edition of the SSC Model Ordinance Original ordinance specified 75% of Division 88 City of Los Angeles Code Design Forces Progress and Remarks: Santa Monica Yes 0 265 Yes Yes 92 59 0 2 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening for all URMs 0 71 0 0 41 265 Mitigation Rate: 62 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 standards by ordinance 1992. Wall anchors required by 1981 ordinance per 1915/21 Santa Monica codes. Upgrades for termination of the 1978 city recorded potentially hazardous building notices per UCBC standards. Progress and Remarks: URM inventory was done in 1977 and notice of potentially hazardous buildings recorded all URMs in 1978. Wall anchor certification required by ordinance in 1981. Engineer's seismic evaluation report ordinance in 1989. As of 1/1/95 about 80% of Santa Monica's total 1978 URM inventory has been resolved per ordinances. The majority of the remaining URMs will be retrofitted by 1996/97. Currently 20+ are in the retrofit process. All owner/public opposition to this city URM upgrade program ended with the clear significant "lucky" effects of the Northridge EQ on the city's URMs. Mitigation program process: 1975-78, Inv and recorded "notice potentially hazardous building"; 1981, required anchors ordinance; 1989, required SE report ordinance; 1992, mandatory strengthening ordinance....256 total city URM's id/noticed - 6 voided as non URM buildings, 27 demolished for redevelopment, 14 demolished from 1/94 earthquake damage. 209 remaining city URMs (144 upgrade work done, 65 upgrade work not done). Note: Repair and upgrade work is in progress on 12 of the city's URM buildings. Over 60 had major damage from the 1/94 EQ and 5-7 are still pending demolition. Santa Paula Yes 2 109 Yes Yes 106 106 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 1 0 0 4 111 Mitigation Rate: 96 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Owners may analyze URM buildings according to 2001 California UCBC Appendix Chapter 1. Progress and Remarks: OES Hazard Mitigation Grant is in progress. In 2006, staff is working on a report to present to City Council for direction to bring the four last buildings into URM compliance. Santa Rosa Yes 0 70 Yes Yes 48 48 2 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening, required preliminary review, property owner review, retrofit or demolition. 0 1 13 0 0 8 70 Mitigation Rate: 87 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1955 UBC Progress and Remarks: Mike Enright is the Supervising Plan Check Engineer. He started 5/01 with the city. 70 URM were reported in 1997 and 1999 on previous updates 70 is the number of buildings identified on the next page. Michael Whitaker became the Building Official in April 2005. Bruce Reink is a Plan Check Engineer working for the city since April 1989. -A 58- No Mitigation Progress 0 0 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Saratoga Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Sausalito Yes 9 3 Yes Yes 1 11 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Other-Building owners are required to perform an Earthquake Hazard Analysis of their building. Compliance with 1997 UCBC Appendix 1 is required when additions, alterations or repairs are made, the cost of which exceeds 50% of the replacement value of the building (Ord 1079). 0 0 0 12 Mitigation Rate: 8 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: To date one building has been retrofit (731 Brideway). Two building owners have yet to comply with the seismic risk evaluation requirements of Ord 1079 by performing an Earthquake Hazard Analysis: 675 Bridgeway- Bijan Petri, and 667/669 Bridgeway--Scott & Judith Hanson. Scotts Valley Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Seal Beach Yes 0 10 No 2 2 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: None. 0 0 6 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 80 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Seaside Yes 0 25 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening, Posting Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to the 1987 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Sebastopol Yes 1 27 Yes Yes 27 0 Mitigation Program Type: Council Policy 11A Lottery for building owners 1 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Retrofit program completed. All buildings required to be in compliance with policy 11-A have been retrofit. -A 59- 28 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts 25 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted 0 No Mitigation Progress Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 26 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Shafter Yes 0 Yes 1 25 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners & posts signs 0 1 25 Mitigation Rate: 8 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Sierra Madre Yes 0 27 Yes 25 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 27 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Division 88 1985 Edition Progress and Remarks: Please be advised that 27 of the original 51 notified property owners were determined to be URM buildings. Two of the twenty were demolished. Alll of the remaining 25 URM buildings have been retrofitted in compliance with the Division 88 adopted standards. Signal Hill Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Simi Valley Yes 2 0 Yes Yes 1 1 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 Mitigation Rate: 50 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Solano County Yes 0 1 Yes Yes 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notification Only 0 0 1 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: One of the structures identified to be the old county jail has since been demolished. The second structure is no longer under our jurisdiction as it has been annexed into the city of Vacaville. The exact location of this structure is unknown to the County of Solano. Soledad Yes 0 8 Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 1987 Edition Progress and Remarks: Updated Report provided 9-21-2005 -A 60- 2 7 8 Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Yes UCBC Compliance 2 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Solvang Yes 0 Yes 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening 2 2 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 2003 International Existing Building Code Progress and Remarks: One building was determined to have reinforcing and removed from the inventory. A City Ordinance was adopted in 2005. Sonoma Yes 28 28 Yes Yes 49 1 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 1 5 0 0 0 56 284 315 Mitigation Rate: 96 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to the Santa Rosa Program or UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, or SHBL if applicable. Progress and Remarks: $2 per square foot reimbursement to owner for cost of developing upgrading plans. Community redevelopment agency pays for cost of URM upgrading permits. Sonoma County Yes 18 297 Yes Yes 8 315 11 2 2 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 0 6 2 8 Mitigation Rate: 4 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Draft ordinance being reviewed. South El Monte Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: South Gate Yes 0 47 Yes 41 41 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 6 2 3 47 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1987 Edition of SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: South Pasadena Yes 3 38 Yes 32 32 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 3 1 Mitigation Rate: 80 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1982 Edition of Division 88 City of Los Angeles Code Progress and Remarks: -A 61- 3 32 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction South San Francisco Yes 0 14 Yes 10 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening, Complete retrofit within 7 years or at time of sale, whichever comes first. 1 0 3 14 7 19 10 10 Mitigation Rate: 79 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: Stanton Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Suisun City Yes 0 19 Yes Yes 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 5 5 Mitigation Rate: 32 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Sunnyvale Yes 10 0 Yes Yes 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, educational material, voluntary engineering reports, review by city after one year. 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Staff proposed to present the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 for adoption by the City Council in June 1992. An earlier survey listed 86 bldgs and 10 were found to be URM. Owners were notified about the state's warning placard laws. Taft Yes 0 40 No 2 Mitigation Program Type: 2 40 2 1 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Tehachapi Yes 0 4 Yes Yes 3 Mitigation Program Type: Notification Only Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1; Engineered Design Progress and Remarks: The Building Official surveyed the City in 2006 to verify this information and notify the owners regarding posting of URM's. The URM portions of buildings are vacated or secured, or have reduced occupancy (such as storage). -A 62- 4 No Mitigation Progress 0 0 0 0 0 50 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Compliance with Jurisdiction Program UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Temple City Yes 0 6 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code 1985 Edition Progress and Remarks: Thousand Oaks Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Tiburon Yes 0 1 Yes 0 1 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notification Only 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 0 Progress and Remarks: Owner retrofitted in 1991 to a standard not recorded. Torrance Yes 0 50 Yes 0 43 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 7 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1982 Edition of Division 88 Los Angeles City Code Progress and Remarks: City funded a subsidy to pay for the engineering analysis at $0.50/Sq. Ft. Formed $679,000 assessment district for owners who choose to join. Tustin Yes 0 8 Yes 8 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1990 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Community Development Block Grants for up to $2000 provided for engineering costs. Twentynine Palms Yes 0 27 Yes 2 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening, engineer's structural report, letters of intent, demolition for unsatisfactory progress, historical buildings are exempt. 8 9 7 Mitigation Rate: 4 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1985 Edition of Division 88 as modified for URM buildings, 1973 UBC for non-URM bearing wall buildings Progress and Remarks: -A 63- Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts No Mitigation Progress 40 48 48 0 0 5 35 58 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 48 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Ukiah Yes 0 48 Mitigation Program Type: Engineer's structural report, posting, structural upgrade if voluntary structural work exceeds 50% of building value on any one permit. Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: State Historical Building Code Progress and Remarks: Earlier loan program is no longer available. Union City Yes 0 5 Yes 0 4 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening 0 1 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Upland Yes 10 55 Yes Yes 26 26 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening requires engineering reports, and letters of intent. 0 4 0 unkno wn Mitigation Rate: 46 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Latest Edition of Division 88 of the Los Angeles City Code, the 1973 UBC for non-URM buildings, and City Ordinance #1470 January 1990. Progress and Remarks: The updated 2006 changes reflect a comprehensive review of the seismic survey completed in 1987, current site visits, and City Building Permit Records. $2 million Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program - loans at market rate, architectural engineering and loan packaging.....58 URM, Pre-1935 with 100 + Occupants Pre-1976 with 300 + Occupants Vacaville Yes 14 7 Yes 21 6 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to Owners 0 1 1 0 13 Mitigation Rate: 5 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Complete load paths with current code loads applied. Progress and Remarks: 3% redevelopment matching loan program over 25 years for retrofits. Offers facade loans. Vallejo Yes 8 56 Yes Yes 16 16 9 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening 25 20 Mitigation Rate: 25 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to the UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: $40,000 per building maximum CDBG loan. 19 buildings removed from list. -A 64- 21 Appendix A- 2006 Survey of City and County Mitigation Efforts Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued Yes UCBC Compliance 134 Replied to 2006 Survey Mitigation Program Established Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Ventura Yes 11 Yes 5 134 6 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory parapet strengthening. Voluntary Strengthening to UCBC Seismic Zone 2B Compliance Recommended by City. 139 145 Mitigation Rate: 8 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Progress and Remarks: Environmental Impact Study done. 2 ordinances adopted and 1 policy resolution. Notice of non-compliance noted on deed to property. Ventura County Yes 2 11 Yes Yes 9 0 2 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening 0 0 0 13 63 59 79 Mitigation Rate: 85 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: February 1990 SSC Model Ordinance Progress and Remarks: Vernon Yes 0 105 Yes 8 Ordin ance refers to UCBC 3 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary Strengthening 0 35 2 Mitigation Rate: 41 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: The number of URM buildings that were originally reported in 1995 was incorrect. The actual number of URM buildings was 105. Since 1995 there have been 35 URM buildings demolished leaving a total of 70 remaining URM buildings. Victorville Yes 0 37 Yes Yes 8 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners, owners are requested to voluntarily upgrade their buildings upon changes of occupancy or no later than 2 years. 6 2 3 3 0 13 37 Mitigation Rate: 30 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 Progress and Remarks: 14 buildings have been contracted out to architects/engineers for seismic retrofit design. Building reduction is a result of further investigation of the structural elements and as a result they are no longer classified as URM (15 total). Villa Park Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 65- No Mitigation Progress 1 1 0 0 Owners Notified Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Reduced Occupancy Plans Submitted/Pancheck Underway Retrofit Permit Issued Partial Compliance/Under Construction Yes Compliance with Jurisdiction Program 2 UCBC Compliance Mitigation Program Established 0 Replied to 2006 Survey Number of NonHistoric URMs Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Vista Yes Yes 1 Mitigation Program Type: Voluntary strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None reported Progress and Remarks: Walnut Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Walnut Creek Yes 0 18 Yes 18 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory Strengthening 0 0 0 18 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Modified Version of the 1987 SSC Model Ordinance used for administrative requirements. UCBC Appendix Chapter 1, 1997 edition used for structural requirements. Progress and Remarks: Wasco Yes 0 11 Yes Yes 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 0 2 0 0 9 11 Mitigation Rate: 18 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: In May of 2000, we hired Mark Maxey (Original surveyor) to resurvey URM Buildings. Eleven were found URM, out of the eleven, two were demolished. In 2006, the Building Official plans to notify owners in writing about the state's placard laws before taking the matter back to City Council for them to consider adopting a more effective mitigation program. Watsonville Yes 0 60 Yes 16 0 2 0 1 Mitigation Program Type: 0 4 0 0 27 Mitigation Rate: 33 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Adopted a Voluntary and Notification Only System (2 and 3) according to the 1997 Survey response. Progress and Remarks: Inventory started, but not completed or reported to the Commission. West Covina Yes 0 1 Yes 1 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Notice to owner, engineer's report 0 0 0 0 0 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Not indicated Progress and Remarks: Plans were prepared in 1992 and were being reviewed. Costs were being looked at. -A 66- 0 0 1 Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction West Hollywood Yes 20 81 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1988 Edition of Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code as modified, also accepts the 1984 ABK Methodology Report Progress and Remarks: Amended the rent control program to allow rent increases, $7100 per building Community Development Block Grant funds, housing rehabilitation program of $10,000 per building, reduction or waiver of fees, zoning incentives. Westlake Village Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Westminster Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Westmorland Yes 0 2 Yes Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: 1988 Edition of Chapter 96 of the Los Angeles County Code Progress and Remarks: Whittier Yes 0 12 Yes Yes 10 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening. 12 Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Draft Model Ordinance (Division 88) Progress and Remarks: Notices served 5/92. Willits Yes 2 7 Yes 1 1 Mitigation Program Type: Engineer's report, notices to owners, posting of buildings. 1 Mitigation Rate: 11 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: Woodside Yes 0 0 N/A Mitigation Program Type: Mitigation Rate: percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Progress and Remarks: -A 67- 5 7 Owners Notified No Mitigation Progress Warning Placards Posted Slated for Demolition Demolished Plans Submitted /Plancheck Underway Reduced Occupancy Compliance with Jurisdiction Program Partial Compliance/Under Construction Retrofit Permit Issued UCBC Compliance Replied to 2006 Survey Survey Results (numbers of URMs) Mitigation Program Established Number of NonHistoric URMs Number of Historic URMs Inventory Completed Jurisdiction Yorba Linda Yes 0 2 Yes 2 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening analysis required by structural engineer. Mitigation Rate: 100 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: Similar to 1982 Edition of Division 88 Progress and Remarks: Yountville Yes 5 5 Yes 2 4 Mitigation Program Type: Notices to owners 4 10 0 14 Mitigation Rate: 20 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Yucaipa Yes 0 14 Yes Yes 11 0 0 Mitigation Program Type: Mandatory strengthening requiring evaluations by June 1994 0 0 0 3 15 Mitigation Rate: 0 percent Technical Mitigation Standards: None Progress and Remarks: Draft ordinance proposes adoption of UCBC Appendix Chapter 1 and a voluntary strengthening plan. Ordinance adopted in 1992, requires mandatory strengthening.They are now considering revising it to a voluntary program. Original surveys identified 45 buildings, 30 of which were later determined to be reinforced and were removed from the inventory. 15 URM's remain in Yucaipa. -A 68- Appendix B -Selected State Laws Relevant to URM Buildings Selected State Laws in the Government Code Relating to URM Buildings – The URM Law and Placard Laws: 8875. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the construction of this chapter: (a) "Potentially hazardous building" means any building constructed prior to the adoption of local building codes requiring earthquake resistant design of buildings and constructed of unreinforced masonry wall construction. "Potentially hazardous building" includes all buildings of this type, including, but not limited to, public and private schools, theaters, places of public assembly, apartment buildings, hotels, motels, fire stations, police stations, and buildings housing emergency services, equipment, or supplies, such as government buildings, disaster relief centers, communications facilities, hospitals, blood banks, pharmaceutical supply warehouses, plants, and retail outlets. "Potentially hazardous building" does not include warehouses or similar structures not used for human habitation, except for warehouses or structures housing emergency services equipment or supplies. "Potentially hazardous building" does not include any building having five living units or less. "Potentially hazardous building" does not include, for purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 8875.2, any building which qualifies as "historical property" as determined by an appropriate governmental agency under Section 37602 of the Health and Safety Code. (b) "Local building department" means a department or agency of a city or county charged with the responsibility for the enforcement of local building codes. 8875.1. A program is hereby established within all cities, both general law and chartered, and all counties and portions thereof located within seismic zone 4, as defined and illustrated in Chapter 2-23 of Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, to identify all potentially hazardous buildings and to establish a program for mitigation of identified potentially hazardous buildings. 8875.2. Local building departments shall do all of the following: (a) Identify all potentially hazardous buildings within their respective jurisdictions on or before January 1, 1990. This identification shall include current building use and daily occupancy load. In regard to identifying and inventorying the buildings, the local building departments may establish a schedule of fees to recover the costs of identifying potentially hazardous buildings and carrying out this chapter. (b) Establish a mitigation program for potentially hazardous buildings to include notification to the legal owner that the building is considered to be one of a general type of structure that historically has exhibited little resistance to earthquake motion. The mitigation program may include the adoption by ordinance of a hazardous buildings program, measures to strengthen buildings, measures to change the use to acceptable occupancy levels or to demolish the - B1 - building, tax incentives available for seismic rehabilitation, low-cost seismic rehabilitation loans available under Division 32 (commencing with Section 55000) of the Health and Safety Code, application of structural standards necessary to provide for life safety above current Code requirements, and other incentives to repair the buildings which are available from federal, state, and local programs. Compliance with an adopted hazardous buildings ordinance or mitigation program shall be the responsibility of building owners. Nothing in this chapter makes any state building subject to a local building mitigation program or makes the state or any local government responsible for paying the cost of strengthening a privately owned structure, reducing the occupancy, demolishing a structure, preparing engineering or architectural analysis, investigation, or design, or other costs associated with compliance of locally adopted mitigation programs. (c) By January 1, 1990, all information regarding potentially hazardous buildings and all hazardous building mitigation programs shall be reported to the appropriate legislative body of a city or county and filed with the Seismic Safety Commission. 8875.3. Local jurisdictions undertaking inventories and providing structural evaluations of potentially hazardous buildings pursuant to this chapter shall have the same immunity from liability for action or inaction taken pursuant to this chapter as is provided by Section 19167 of the Health and Safety Code for action or failure to take any action pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 19160) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. 8875.4. The Seismic Safety Commission shall report annually to the Legislature on the filing of mitigation programs from local jurisdictions. The annual report required by this section shall review and assess the effectiveness of building reconstruction standards adopted by cities and counties pursuant to this article and shall, commencing on or before January 1, 2007, include an evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of Section 8875.10. 8875.5. The Seismic Safety Commission shall coordinate the earthquake-related responsibilities of government agencies imposed by this chapter to ensure compliance with the purposes of this chapter. 8875.6. On and after January 1, 1993, the transferor, or his or her agent, of any unreinforced masonry building with wood frame floors or roofs, built before January 1, 1975, which is located within any county or city shall, as soon as practicable before the sale, transfer, or exchange, deliver to the purchaser a copy of the Commercial Property Owner's Guide to Earthquake Safety described in Section 10147 of the Business and Professions Code. This section shall not apply to any transfer described in Section 8893.3. 8875.7. If the transferee has received notice pursuant to Section 8875.8, and has not brought the building or structure into compliance within five years of that date, the owner shall not receive payment from any state assistance program for earthquake repairs resulting from damage during an earthquake until all other applicants have been paid. - B2 - 8875.8. (a) An owner who has received actual or constructive notice that a building located in seismic zone 4 is constructed of unreinforced masonry shall post in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building, on a sign not less than 5 X 7 the following statement, printed in not less than 30-point bold type: "This is an unreinforced masonry building. Unreinforced masonry buildings may be unsafe in the event of a major earthquake." (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), unless the owner of a building subject to subdivision (a) is in compliance with that subdivision on and after December 31, 2004, an owner who has received actual or constructive notice that a building located in seismic zone 4 is constructed of unreinforced masonry and has not been retrofitted in accordance with an adopted hazardous building ordinance or mitigation program shall post in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building, on a sign not less than 8 X 10 the following statement, with the first two words printed in 50-point bold type and the remaining words in at least 30-point type: "Earthquake Warning. This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near unreinforced masonry buildings during an earthquake." (c) Notice of the obligation to post a sign, as required by subdivisions (a) and (b), shall be included in the Commercial Property Owner's Guide to Earthquake Safety. (d) Every rental or lease agreement entered into after January 1, 2005, involving a building subject to the requirements of subdivision (b) shall contain the following statement: This building, which you are renting or leasing, is an unreinforced masonry building. Unreinforced masonry buildings have proven to be unsafe in the event of an earthquake. Owners of unreinforced masonry buildings are required to post in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building, the following statement: "Earthquake Warning. This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake." (e) An owner who is subject to subdivision (b) and who does not comply with subdivision (a) may be subject to an administrative fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to be levied by the local building department no sooner than 15 days after the local building department notifies the owner that the owner is subject to the administrative fine. If the owner does not comply with the requirements of that subdivision within 30 days of the first administrative fine, the owner may be subject to an additional administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). (f) If an owner who is subject to subdivision (b) does not comply with subdivision (b), any person may bring a civil action for injunctive relief if all of the following have been met: (1) He or she has made a request to an appropriate authority for administrative enforcement of this section at least 90 days prior to the action. (2) An administrative fine has not been levied since the request was made pursuant to paragraph (1). - B3 - (3) At least 15 days prior to the filing of the action, the person has served on each proposed defendant a notice containing the following statement: "You are receiving this notice because you are alleged to be in violation of Section 8875.8 of the Government Code, which requires that the owner of an unreinforced masonry building post a sign, not less than 8 X 10, in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building with the following statement, with the first two words printed in 50-point boldface type and the remaining words in at least 30-point type: "Earthquake Warning. This is an unreinforced masonry building. You may not be safe inside or near unreinforced masonry buildings during an earthquake. Failure to post the sign in compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 8875.8 within 15 days of receipt of this notice entitles the sender of the notice to file an action against you in a court of law for injunctive relief.'" (4) The owner has failed to post the sign in accordance with the requirements of subdivision (b) within 15 days of receipt of the notice served pursuant to this subdivision. (g) The prohibitions and sanctions imposed pursuant to this section are in addition to any other prohibitions and sanctions imposed by law. A civil action for injunctive relief pursuant to this section shall be independent of any other rights and remedies. 8875.9. Section 8875.8 shall not apply to either one of the following: (a) Unreinforced masonry construction if the walls are nonload bearing with steel or concrete frame. (b) A building that has been retrofitted in accordance with an adopted hazardous buildings ordinance or mitigation program, in which case the local jurisdiction may authorize the owner to post in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the building, on a sign not less than 5 X 7 the following statement, printed in not less than 30-point bold type: "This building has been improved in accordance with the seismic safety standards of a local building ordinance that is applicable to unreinforced masonry buildings." 8875.95. No transfer of title shall be invalidated on the basis of a failure to comply with this chapter. 8875.10. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city or county may not impose any additional building or site conditions including, but not limited to, parking or other onsite or offsite requirements, fees, or exactions, on or before the issuance of a building permit that is necessary for the owner of a potentially hazardous building to conduct seismic-related improvements to that building in order for that building to meet the requirements of a mitigation program established pursuant to Section 8875.1 and adopted pursuant to Section 8875.2, if the building or site conditions do not relate to, or further the purpose of, seismic improvements to the building and the improvements comply with applicable building codes and meet or exceeds the requirements of state and federal law and regulations that would otherwise apply. - B4 - (b) This section shall not apply to any changes in use, design, or other building features that are unrelated to the seismic improvements. This section shall also not apply to a request for other entitlements for the project, including, but not limited to, a general plan amendment, zone change, or approval pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2009, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2009, deletes or extends that date. Selected State Housing Laws in the Health and Safety Code Relating to URM Buildings 17922. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5, and the other rules and regulations that are contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as adopted, amended, or repealed from time to time pursuant to this chapter shall be adopted by reference, except that the building standards and rules and regulations shall include any additions or deletions made by the department. The building standards and rules and regulations shall impose substantially the same requirements as are contained in the most recent editions of the following uniform industry Codes as adopted by the organizations specified: (1) The Uniform Housing Code of the International Conference of Building Officials, except its definition of "substandard building." (2) The Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of Building Officials. (3) The Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. (4) The Uniform Mechanical Code of the International Conference of Building Officials and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. (5) The National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association. (6) Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation of the International Conference of Building Officials. (b) In adopting building standards for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 for publication in the California Building Standards Code and in adopting other regulations, the department shall consider local conditions and any amendments to the uniform Codes referred to in this section. Except as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901), in the absence of adoption by regulation, the most recent editions of the uniform Codes referred to in this section shall be considered to be adopted one year after the date of publication of the uniform Codes. (c) Except as provided in Section 17959.5, local use zone requirements, local fire zones, building setback, side and rear yard requirements, and property line requirements are hereby - B5 - specifically and entirely reserved to the local jurisdictions notwithstanding any requirements found or set forth in this part. (d) Regulations other than building standards which are adopted, amended, or repealed by the department, and building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5, governing alteration and repair of existing buildings and moving of apartment houses and dwellings shall permit the replacement, retention, and extension of original materials and the continued use of original methods of construction as long as the hotel, lodging house, motel, apartment house, or dwelling, or portions thereof, or building and structure accessory thereto, complies with the provisions published in the California Building Standards Code and the other rules and regulations of the department or alternative local standards adopted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13143.2 or Section 17958.5 and does not become or continue to be a substandard building. Building additions or alterations which increase the area, volume, or size of an existing building, and foundations for apartment houses and dwellings moved, shall comply with the requirements for new buildings or structures specified in this part, or in building standards published in the California Building Standards Code, or in the other rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this part. However, the additions and alterations shall not cause the building to exceed area or height limitations applicable to new construction. (e) Regulations other than building standards which are adopted by the department and building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of Part 2.5 governing alteration and repair of existing buildings shall permit the use of alternate materials, appliances, installations, devices, arrangements, or methods of construction if the material, appliance, installation, device, arrangement, or method is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this part, the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this part in performance, safety, and for the protection of life and health. Regulations governing abatement of substandard buildings shall permit those conditions prescribed by Section 17920.3 which do not endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupant thereof. (f) A local enforcement agency may not prohibit the use of materials, appliances, installations, devices, arrangements, or methods of construction specifically permitted by the department to be used in the alteration or repair of existing buildings, but those materials, appliances, installations, devices, arrangements, or methods of construction may be specifically prohibited by local ordinance as provided pursuant to Section 17958.5. (g) A local ordinance may not permit any action or proceeding to abate violations of regulations governing maintenance of existing buildings, unless the building is a substandard building or the violation is a misdemeanor. 17922.1. Notwithstanding Section 17922, local agencies may modify or change the requirements published in the State Building Standards Code or contained in other regulations adopted by the department pursuant to Section 17922 if they make a finding that temporary housing is required for use in conjunction with a filed mining claim on federally owned - B6 - property located within the local jurisdiction and that the modification or change would be in the public interest and consistent with the intent of the so-called Federal Mining Act of 1872 (see 30 U.S.C., Sec. 22, et seq.), relating to the development of mining resources of the United States. 17922.2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, ordinances and programs adopted on or before January 1, 1993, that contain standards to strengthen potentially hazardous buildings pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 8875.2 of the Government Code, shall incorporate the building standards in Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation of the International Conference of Building Officials published in the California Building Standards Code, except for standards found by local ordinance to be inapplicable based on local conditions, as defined in subdivision (b), or based on an approved study pursuant to subdivision (c), or both. Ordinances and programs shall be updated in a timely manner to reflect changes in the model Code, and more frequently if deemed necessary by local jurisdictions. (b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), and notwithstanding the meaning of "local conditions" as used elsewhere in this part and in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901), the term "local conditions" shall be limited to those conditions that affect the implementation of seismic strengthening standards on the following only: (1) The preservation of qualified historic structures as governed by the State Historical Building Code (Part 2.7 (commencing with Section 18950)). (2) Historic preservation programs, including, but not limited to, the California Mainstreet Program. (3) The preservation of affordable housing. (c) Any ordinance or program adopted on or before January 1, 1993, may include exceptions for local conditions not defined in subdivision (b) if the jurisdiction has approved a study on or before January 1, 1993, describing the effects of the exceptions. The study shall include socioeconomic impacts, a seismic hazards assessment, seismic retrofit cost comparisons, and earthquake damage estimates for a major earthquake, including the differences in costs, deaths, and injuries between full compliance with Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation or the Uniform Building Code and the ordinance or program. No study shall be required pursuant to this subdivision if the exceptions for local conditions not defined in subdivision (b) result in standards or requirements that are more stringent than those in Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. (d) Ordinances and programs adopted pursuant to this section shall conclusively be presumed to comply with the requirements of Chapter 173 of the Statutes of 1991. - B7 - Selected State Building Safety Laws in the Health and Safety Code Relating to URM’s 18938. (a) Building standards shall be filed with the Secretary of State and codified only after they have been approved by the (Building Standards) Commission and shall not be published in any other title of the California Code of Regulations. Emergency building standards shall be filed with the Secretary of State and shall take effect only after they have been approved by the commission as required by Section 18937. The filing of building standards adopted or approved pursuant to this part, or any certification with respect thereto, with the Secretary of State, or elsewhere as required by law, shall be done solely by the commission. (b) The building standards contained in the Uniform Fire Code of the International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire Chiefs Association, Inc., the Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of Building Officials, Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation of the International Conference of Building Officials, the Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, the National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association, and the Uniform Mechanical Code of the International Conference of Building Officials and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, as referenced in the California Building Standards Code, shall apply to all occupancies throughout the state and shall become effective 180 days after publication in the California Building Standards Code by the California Building Standards Commission or at a later date after publication established by the commission. 19160. The Legislature finds and declares that: (a) Because of the generally acknowledged fact that California will experience moderate to severe earthquakes in the foreseeable future, increased efforts to reduce earthquake hazards should be encouraged and supported. (b) Tens of thousands of buildings subject to severe earthquake hazards continue to be a serious danger to the life and safety of hundreds of thousands of Californians who live and work in them in the event of an earthquake. (c) Improvement of safety to life is the primary goal of building reconstruction to reduce earthquake hazards. (d) In order to make building reconstruction economically feasible for, and to provide improvement of the safety of life in, seismically hazardous buildings, building standards enacted by local government for building reconstruction may differ from building standards which govern new building construction. 19161. (a) Each city, city and county, or county, may assess the earthquake hazard in its jurisdiction and identify buildings subject to its jurisdiction as being hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake if those buildings were constructed prior to the adoption of local building codes requiring earthquake resistant design of buildings, are constructed of unreinforced masonry wall construction, and exhibit any of the following characteristics: - B8 - (1) Exterior parapets or ornamentation that may fall. (2) Exterior walls that are not anchored to the floors or roof. (3) Lacks an effective system to resist seismic forces. (b) Structural evaluations made pursuant to this section shall be made by an architect as defined in Section 5500 of the Business and Professions Code, or a civil or structural engineer registered pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, or a building inspector of the enforcing agency, as described in Section 17960, supervised by an architect or civil or structural engineer authorized by this subdivision to make the structural evaluations. 19162. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 19100 or 19150 or any other provision of law, the governing body of any city, city and county, or county may, by ordinance, establish building reconstruction standards applicable to the reconstruction of any buildings identified by the city, city and county, or county as being hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake, pursuant to Section 19161. Such building reconstruction standards may be applied uniformly throughout the city, city and county, or county, or may be applied in specific areas designated by the city, city and county, or county. 19163. Any local ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 19162 shall require that: (a) Any reconstruction of any building identified as being hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake shall provide for the reasonable adequacy of: (1) Unreinforced masonry walls to resist normal and in-plane seismic forces, (2) The anchorage and stability of exterior parapets and ornamentation, (3) The anchorage of unreinforced masonry walls to the floors and roof, (4) Floor and roof diaphragms, (5) The development of a complete bracing system to resist earthquake forces. (b) Reconstruction of any building or portions of any building shall be designed to resist and withstand the seismic forces from any direction as set forth in the building reconstruction standards using the allowable working stresses adopted pursuant to this article. (c) The governing board of any city, city and county, or county may establish, by ordinance, standards and procedures to fulfill the intent of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) without regard to the remainder of the requirements specified above. 19163.5. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 12.5, an ordinance adopted by a city, city and county, or county pursuant to Section 19163, may establish higher standards for the reconstruction of those structures or buildings which are needed for emergency purposes - B9 - after an earthquake in order to preserve the peace, health, and safety of the general public, including but not limited to, hospitals and other medical facilities having surgery or emergency treatment areas, fire and police stations, government disaster operations centers, and public utility and communication buildings deemed vital in emergencies. 19164. Any city, city and county, or county may assign allowable working stresses to existing materials based on substantiating research data or engineering judgment. Such allowable working stresses shall be limited by a safety factor which is reasonably commensurate with the importance of the element in which the material is used. In the event the local jurisdiction does not have the ability to assign such allowable working stresses, it may employ as a consultant the office of the State Architect. Allowable working stresses prepared by the office of the State Architect for any city, city and county, or county shall be subject to approval by the Seismic Safety Commission. 19165. Any city, city and county, or county adopting an ordinance establishing seismically hazardous building reconstruction standards applicable to the reconstruction of buildings identified as being hazardous to life in the event of an earthquake, shall file for informational purposes with the Department of Housing and Community Development a copy of such standards and all subsequent amendments. 19166. Any building identified as being a seismic hazard to life and reconstructed in compliance with building reconstruction standards adopted pursuant to this article and properly maintained, shall not, within a period of 15 years, be identified as a seismic hazard to life pursuant to any local building standards adopted after the date of the building reconstruction unless such building no longer meets the seismically hazardous building reconstruction standards under which it was reconstructed. 19167. No city, city and county, or county, nor any employee of any such entity, shall be liable for damages for injury to persons or property, resulting from an earthquake or otherwise, on the basis of any assessment or evaluation performed, any ordinance adopted, or any other action taken pursuant to this article, irrespective of whether such action complies with the terms of this article, or on the basis of failure to take any action authorized by this article. The immunity from liability provided herein is in addition to all other immunities of the city, city and county, or county provided by law. 19168. Nothing in this article shall apply to those buildings and structures governed by the provisions of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 12.5 of this code or Article 3 (commencing with Section 39140) of Chapter 2 of Part 23 of the Education Code or Article 7 (commencing with Section 81130) of Chapter 1 of Part 49 of the Education Code or any state-owned buildings or structures located in any city, city and county, or county. - B10 -