From: Housing and Community Development Commission 10 <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 4:17 PM
Subject: Fw: CED 3/25 Meeting Soft Story Seismic Retrofit - HCDC Ad Hoc Committee Finds Faulty Assumptions & Recommends Preservation Approach
Dear CED Commissioners,
Attached is the HCDC Committee report and presentation I made at the November HCDC meeting on a Soft Story Retrofit Mandate after considerable research. They highlight the major pitfalls of the proposed mandate and recommend a more effective methodology to preserve affordable housing and target those buildings most at risk.
Finding highlights include:
Mandate based on Faulty Assumptions
San Jose's Natural Hazard Zones are not addressed in the mandate. The most damage caused by an earthquake are in soft story buildings also in liquefaction or landslide zones. Look at the data in the attached report and presentation. • The soft story buildings that were damaged in the 2 big earthquakes were ALSO in a liquefaction or landslide zone.
• This mandate is based on FUD & Scary Media Highlights – Rather than real data.
• Note: HCDC was not allowed to vote on this at either meeting even though I attempted to make a motion both times.
Targets Too Many of the Wrong Properties based on FALSE CLAIM After the attached findings were presented, the Consultant found a map from the Department of Conservation and the City presentation falsely claimed that all of San Jose is in a liquefaction zone. A copy of the slide from the City's presentation claiming the "NEW" map puts all of San Jose in a liquefaction zone. • This is not the map used by the Natural Hazard Disclosure companies for real estate sales, building or insurance purposes.
• According to my Title Rep, "Identifying liquefaction zone is mandated by the State of California. Only certain areas in San Jose are in liquefaction zones." Puts Affordable Housing at Risk
Focusing on buildings not in the liquefaction and landslide zones puts too many affordable units at risk of being removed from the market and wastes funds that could be use to focus on protecting those buildings most at risk. Many concerns about the impact on affordable housing were mentioned at both HCDC meetings where the City's Soft Story Mandate was presented. Again, I was not able to make a motion. Here is feedback received at the HCDC meetings:
• There are too many expensive government regulations (Seismic, Electrification, Balcony) putting undue burden on these affordable units. Most mom and pop housing providers can not afford another mandate. • Most can not get financing to pay for this because they do not qualify for a more expensive loan even though they have equity.
• What’s going to happen to these units and our renters when we are unable to comply?
• This policy will ensure only major investors and nonprofits can own these buildings. They charge higher rents.
This mandate as written will do more harm than good. It is another example of the City claiming to "preserve housing" but creating regulations that will have the opposite impact. The City can not vote for this proposed mandate and then claim it won't eliminate the small mom and pop housing providers . . who provide THE MOST AFFORDABLE housing in San Jose.
Recommendation
A thoughtful phased approach designed to both protect people most at risk and preserve affordable housing also most at risk of being lost is included in the attached report on pages 6 & 7.
Please read the attached documents to make an informed decision. Among other things, it recommends starting with a small group of larger buildings also in real liquefaction or landslide zones according to the Natural Hazards reports based on the GIS.
Regards,
Roberta Moore
This is my personal opinion and is not meant to reflect the opinion of or speak for any person, commission or organization to which I belong.
HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Soft Story..................................................................................................................................... 2 Risk of Earthquakes..................................................................................................................... 2 Housing Units at Risk .................................................................................................................. 3 ARO Units Lost ............................................................................................................................ 3 Barriers to Retrofitting ................................................................................................................ 3 Conclusion / Recommendation....................................................................................................... 5 Policy Framework............................................................................................................................ 6 Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 1: Buildings to Target......................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: City Policies.................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix 1: Catastrophic Earthquakes....................................................................................... 9 Appendix 2: Earthquake Risk Mill Valley..................................................................................... 9 Appendix 3: Fragile Housing Types........................................................................................... 10 Appendix 4: Retrofit Cost Estimate........................................................................................... 10 Additional Sources of Information................................................................................................ 11 Ad Hoc Committee
Roberta Moore, Chair
HCDC D10, Housing Provider Representative
Jen Beehler, Vice Chair
HCDC D6 Representative
Roma Dawson
HCDC D1 Representative
Barry Del Buono
HCDC D3 Representative
Ryan Jasinsky
HCDC Chair & Mobilehome Resident Representative
Staff Liaison
Rachel VanderVeen, Assistant Director
HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Overview
FEMA and the City of San Jose want to minimize their risk and their cost from a catastrophic earthquake. A seismic retrofit program must be mandated to receive FEMA funds. Significant resource limitations (engineers, materials, and cost) will hinder smooth roll-out of a program that targets all buildings at once.
Every building is vulnerable to an earthquake in California including steel buildings. The buildings to be considered most at risk of significant damage during a catastrophic earthquake are any wood buildings built on a hillside, in a liquefaction zone, and/or with a soft story, as well as single-family homes built with a cripple wall.
Tens of thousands of buildings were damaged during the 1994 Northridge earthquake including buildings built with steel that cracked. Steel is not a guarantee of protection. Only 200 of these buildings were soft story buildings. Almost half of the buildings lost during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake were soft story buildings. San Francisco’s buildings sustained more soft story damage than other cities likely because these buildings were also built on a hill, which is another major factor for damage. While the 1989 Loma Prieto earthquake killed 63 people and caused $6 billion in property damage, there were no multi-unit soft story buildings reported as damaged. In San Jose, the housing units today either withstood this significant earthquake activity or have already been rebuilt with the new standards.
Purpose
The purpose of this recommendation is to balance protection of residents and property in the event of a catastrophic earthquake with preservation of affordable housing stock today and tomorrow given the current barriers to retrofitting.
Strategy
A seismic retrofit mandate will have the most success with a strategic phased roll-out targeting the most at risk buildings first and applying FEMA funds and City assistance to these buildings. A policy framework for this strategic roll-out is recommended herein.
Soft Story
The City has defined a soft story building as any 3+ unit wood-frame building built before 1990.
The accurate definition of a soft story building is a building that has a large opening on the first floor, such as a carport, so it is unable to carry the weight of the stories above the carport during a catastrophic event. This applies to single family homes as well as multi-unit homes.
Risk of Earthquakes
Earthquakes, even significant ones, are a regular occurrence in California. There have been 54 significant earthquakes in California since the 1906 earthquake. In the past 112 years, given the number of deaths and damage, 7 of these (6%) may warrant a seismic retrofit ordinance and HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
only 3 achieved public notoriety. See Appendix 1. For example, there were two significant earthquakes in Alum Rock since 2022 without damage to property or life. One was a 5.2 in magnitude. There were also significant foreshocks along the San Andreas fault in 1988 and 1989 that occurred without public notice.
The risk varies due to several factors especially if a building is on bedrock or clay.
Some cities, such as Mill Valley, made the effort to identify the degree of risk in establishing their retrofit policies. Refer to Appendix 2 for more information.
San Jose is on the North American Plate of the San Andreas Fault. 31%+ chance of an earthquake magnitude of 6.7+Some areas are more at risk for severe damage than others.
According to ABAG, San Jose is most impacted by the San Andreas fault, liquefaction zones, and hillsides. Refer to Appendix 3 for ABAG’s list of type of buildings at risk.
Housing Units at Risk
ABAG estimates there are 2,630 soft story (multi-unit) buildings in Santa Clara County. A subset of these are located in San Jose.
“Based on the collected damage information from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, the Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG) estimates
San Jose can expect 30,000 living units damaged or vacated.”* ABAG’s estimate means 9.5% of San Jose’s 313,944 households are at risk and most of these buildings are single family homes. Less than ½ of 1% of San Jose’s units are in a soft story multiunit building. The reality is all structures, even those built with steel, are at risk.
ARO Units Lost
While most housing units at risk are single family homes, this retrofit mandate only targets Apartment Rent Ordinance multi-unit buildings (ARO) which is a small percentage of San Jose’s households. ARO owners do not have the funds to pay the $20,000+ per unit for these retrofits.
Singling out these properties puts San Jose’s most affordable units at risk of being taken off the market and converted to condominiums. ARO units are the last of San Jose’s affordable housing stock where rents are lower than market rents. Keeping these units on the market may be more important than retrofitting them.
Barriers to Retrofitting
Skyrocketing Inflation, cost of construction, and rising interest rates have increased retrofit costs significantly since San Francisco implemented their policy making. Today, the actual costs of retrofitting a building are unpredictable. San Francisco’s owners were able to refinance the funds and keep their monthly costs the same. San Jose owners will not be able to do this.
HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
For example, the cost per unit in SF averaged $12,000 and the interest rates were 3%. Today, these costs are estimated at $20,000 per unit and interest rates are closer to 8% which will more than triple the cost to retrofit.
Resources are constrained and costs to all parties are high. Following are the four most important reasons for a strategic phased approach should San Jose choose to implement a seismic retrofit mandate:
1. Most ARO mom and pop providers (who are the primary target of this proposed mandate) will not be able to afford this price, nor will they be able to get loans to finance it. Therefore, more of these affordable housing units will become uninhabitable.
2. Resource availability is constrained. There are:
• Lack of engineers, contractors, and other trades people to perform the retrofits. • Limited city resources for processing retrofit compliance applications. • Shortages of raw materials (steel) world-wide for completing the job.
3. The cost to renters and owners is high. Following are estimates given current information received:
• Cost of retrofit to owner: $20,000+ per unit. (Refer to Appendix 4 for another cost estimate.)
• Cost of loan per unit: $155 per month
• Interest rates: 8%+
• Cost to get an exemption waiver: $15,000+ per building. • Cost to renter through current Capital-improvement Pass-through: $166.67+ per month.
4. The City, County, and State continue to add one set of burdens after another on ARO Housing Providers, as follows:
• Eviction Moratorium: Lost Rent and Administrative Burden • Electrification Mandate: $250,000+ per building
• Seismic Retrofit Mandate: $20,000+ per unit
• Balcony and Staircase Retrofit Mandate
• Rent Stabilization Program: Administrative Burden and Fees HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Conclusion / Recommendation
A soft story retrofit program would provide benefit to FEMA, the City of San Jose, and a select number of people in the event of a catastrophic earthquake. The cost of this program will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars if not closer to the $1.3 Billion already spent in Los Angeles.
Soft story multi-unit housing represents the smallest fraction of those buildings at risk during a catastrophic earthquake. It does not address the 99.58% of houses at risk. Targeting a small group of property owners puts an unfair burden on those providing affordable housing to San Jose’s residents while protecting very few people.
Every mandate that goes into place costs housing providers time and money without the ability to recover these costs. Many ARO owners have not recovered from the Eviction Moratorium, yet more “mandates” are on the near horizon. These mandates are being implemented without regard to survival of these crucial allies in providing affordable housing. Bottom line:
• Most ARO owners will not be able to refinance or get loans to do the retrofit. Therefore, most buildings targeted will not be able to comply.
• The stigma of a building being identified/tagged as a soft story decreases the property value and hinders the sale of such buildings. For example, sales of multi-unit buildings with possible soft story structures have come to a halt in San Jose just with the threat of this mandate. Soft story multi-family is now on a check list of what not to buy in San Jose.
How much can the city put on one type of business and expect it to survive? The City should not rely on a broad sweeping mandate that requires property owners to pay for an expensive waiver to be removed. Instead, a strategic approach targeting the most at risk buildings, utilizing FEMA funding, city assistance, and capital pass through will be crucial to preserving the limited affordable housing stock in San Jose. If implemented, the assessment process and phased approach as outlined in the policy framework is most important to success. This won’t take 25 years, but it is unrealistic to require that compliance on all units will be completed in 10 years.
HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Policy Framework
The purpose of this policy framework recommendation is to begin to protect properties that most need it, while preserving as much of the affordable housing stock as possible should City Council decide to proceed with this mandate.
Strategy
Here is a strategic phased approach to prioritize the buildings by risk factors to preserve affordable housing stock in the short term and in the long term:
Phase 1
1. Identify all qualifying “soft story” structures per state law.
2. Assess all qualifying “soft story” structures for vulnerability utilizing FEMA funding.
3. Assign a designation A, B, or C:
• A are most vulnerable structures (refer to criteria for most vulnerable structures in Table 1: Buildings to Target).
• B structures have some vulnerability.
• C structures have little or no vulnerability.
4. Determine City Policies (refer to programs in Table 2: City Policies) Phase 2
1. Conduct a risk / benefit analysis for the target buildings selected.
2. Establish costs of retrofitting per unit.
3. Identify funding available for Category “A” structures.
4. Identify sufficient qualified contractors, architects, engineers, and raw materials exist to complete all Category “A” structures.
5. Identify the timeframe in which all Category “A” structures must be retrofitted.
6. Roll-out program.
Phase 3
1. Evaluate impact on consequences of retrofit mandate:
• Rent Increases
• Loss of Units
• Renter Displacement
• Housing Provider and Renter Complaints
2. Conduct a risk /benefit analysis based on the true impact. (Determine how many units “protected” versus how many units were removed from the market.) Weigh the risks against the benefits of proceeding and make a go-no go decision.
3. If proceed, with retrofit mandate, then implement Phase 2, steps 2 through 6 with Category B units.
HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Table 1: Buildings to Target
Some areas are more at risk for severe damage. There are specific criteria for identifying the most at risk buildings. All criteria must be met to for retrofit to be required, as follows:
Criteria Most Vulnerable Structures for Category A
Landslide, and Liquefaction Risk Conduct an evaluation of this like Mill Valley.
Target buildings on hills & liquefaction zones.
Years Built
-Pre 1970 had higher building standards and
better-quality materials.
-1980 Soft-story laws advised and building
practices improved.
-1990 Soft-story Laws enacted.
Category A: Target buildings built 1970 to
1979)
(Phase 3: Category B: Target larger multi-unit
buildings built 1950 to 1969 when soft story
buildings were built. After completion and
evaluation of Category A in Phase 2.)
Soft story over carport Target multi-unit buildings with a carport under the living space.
(Do not expand to wood construction with
cripple walls as most properties needing
retrofitting would be single-family homes.)
Number of Stories and Configuration
(Hardest to escape)
Target multi-unit buildings with 2+ stories
that do not have direct egress from the unit,
i.e., when unit entry is on the 2
nd floor +.
Number of Units Category A: 12+ Units
(Phase 3: Category B: 5+ Units. After
completion and evaluation of Category A in
Phase 2.)
Type of Structure Target buildings built with wood construction.
Steel construction is already reinforced.
HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Table 2: City Policies
San Jose’s Building Department expects to get recoup their costs of implementation. Equity would dictate that the Housing Providers get to do the same. The city needs to do its part to contribute to this program so as many buildings as possible are retrofitted. This diagram includes are what other cities, including Oakland, San Francisco, Fremont, and Alameda offered.
We Recommend San Jose adopt the following:
Program Recommendation
From other City’s Programs
Funding Available per Unit from City and
FEMA
TBD
Permit Fee Waivers Waive 5% of permit fees from total cost of retrofitting to owners who comply with the
ordinance within the given timeline.
Capital Improvement Pass Through Streamline the pass-through application.
Allow 5% increase over 10 years.
Do not allow renter to block this capital pass
through.
Any grants or reimbursements owner
receives for project will be deducted from the
actual cost of project when calculating passthrough.
Permitting Process Streamline permit process including:
• Give official approval without requiring
plans or calculations prepared by an
architect or engineer for 2 story buildings.
• Expedite approval.
• Do not require the owner to submit
plans.
Pre-existing Conditions Waive mandate to upgrade of the plumbing, mechanical, electrical and fire life/safety
system unless they constitute a material
hazard to life or property.
Tiered Approach
Considering adding years for completion for
the smaller buildings and to allow for
resource availability.
For each Category (A, B, C):
Tier 1: Give up to 4 Years for buildings with
more than 20 units.
Tier 2: Give up to 6 Years for buildings with
fewer than 20 units.
Post Warning Earthquake warning. This is a soft-story
building. Occupants and visitors may not be
safe inside or near this building during an
earthquake.
HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Appendix
Appendix 1: Catastrophic Earthquakes
Date Magnitude Area Loss of Life and Property
1906, April 18 7.8
Great San Francisco
Earthquake (and
Fire)
3,000 dead; $524 million in property damage;
includes damage from fire
1971, February 9 6.6 San Fernando
65 dead; more than 2,000 injured; $505
million in losses
1989, October 17 6.9 Loma Prieta
63 dead; 3,737 injured; $6 billion in property
damage
1992, April 25 7.2 Cape Mendocino
356 injured; $48.3 million in property damage.
Followed the next day by two aftershocks of
magnitude 6.6 and 6.5
1992, June 28 7.3 Landers & Bear
1 dead; 402 injured; $91.1 million in property
damage
1994, January 17 6.7 Northridge
57 dead; more than 9,000 injured; about $40
billion in property damage
2019, July 5 7.1 Ridgecrest
1 dead; estimate of economic losses $5.3
billion. Preceded by M6.4 foreshock on July 4.
Source: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/big Appendix 2: Earthquake Risk Mill Valley
Source: https://www.cityofmillvalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/3345/Soft-Story-Mitigation-ProgramPresentation-By-David-Bonowitz-SE?bidId= HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Appendix 3: Fragile Housing Types
Source: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/soft_story_report_web_version_v2.pdf Appendix 4: Retrofit Cost Estimate
Here is another estimate of the potential cost from 2022 when prices were lower:
Due to variations in building size and conditions, there is a wide range of potential costs.
New steel and foundation elements will drive costs higher. Including design and construction, costs may be:
• Between $35,000 and $70,000 for a 3-unit or 4-unit building • Between $40,000 and $130,000 for a larger building.
Source: David Bonowitz, S.E., based on Berkeley and San Francisco mandatory programs.
Values are in 2022 dollars and do not include any costs for geohazard mitigation, temporary tenant relocation, or tenant compensation for loss of housing services.
HCDC Ad Hoc Seismic Retrofit Committee
Preserve Affordable Housing Short Term and Long Term
Overview & Policy Framework Recommendation, November 1, 2023
Additional Sources of Information
• Oakland, San Francisco, Fremont, Mill Valley, and Alameda’s Seismic Retrofit Program • https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/20200202193400%21Shake_Map_Northridge_1994.j pg
• https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/California-Earthquake-Risk/California-Earthquake-HistoryTimeline#CAEarthquake5 • https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=number+of+housing+units+in+san+jose&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8 • *https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/Blog/2020/Earthquake-Risk-in-SanJose#:~:text=San%20Jose%20earthquake%20risk%20is,%2C%20Calaveras%2C%20and%20San%20Andreas. • https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/big
• https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/dataresearch/earthquake#:~:text=Earthquake%3A%20Risks%20%26%20Resources&text=Currently%2C%20there% 20is%20a%2072,related%20risks%20in%20this%20region
• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-20/l-a-hits-1-billion-earthquake-milestone-8-000- buildingsretrofitted#:~:text=Kehl%20Tonga%20of%20Cal%2DQuake,story%20apartment%20building%20in%20Hollywo od.&text=In%20the%201994%20Northridge%20earthquake,in%20which%2016%20people%20died. • https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/soft_story_report_web_version_v2.pdf • https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/17/16871368/earthquake-apartments-safe-northridge • https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-codeenforcement/building-division/soft-story-retrofit • https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-codeenforcement/building-division/soft-story-retrofit/soft-story-ordinance-retrofit-program-faq Seismic Retrofit
Overview &
Policy
Framework
Report
Prepared by Commissioner Moore
D10 & Housing Provider Representative
For HCDC, November 9, 2023
Ad Hoc Committee
Process
9/18 Ad Hoc Committee held first meeting to create purpose, strategy, and next steps. Commissioners Moore, Dawson, Beehler, Del Buono, and Staff Rachel VanderVeen attended.
10/2 Ad Hoc Committee meeting held to review information gathered.
Commissioners Moore, Dawson, Beehler, Del Buono, and Staff Rachel VanderVeen attended Lisa Joyner (City Building Department) and Anil Babbar (CAA) presented.
10/23 Ad Hoc Committee meeting held to discuss report and policy framework. Commissioners Moore and Staff Rachel VanderVeen attended. 10/25 Comissioner Moore wrote draft report and e-mailed to Ad Hoc Committee for feedback. No feedback received.
10/30. Ad Hoc Committee meeting held to discuss feedback on report and policy framework. Commissioner Moore and Staff Rachel VanderVeen attended.
10/30 Commissioner Moore sent revised draft report with changes requested to committee for feedback. No feedback received. 10/31 Staff Rachel VanderVeen sent final report to all Commissioners. 11/6 Ad Hoc Committee meeting held to review presentation Commissioner Moore created. Commissioners Moore and Dawson and Staff Rachel VanderVeen attended.
11/6 Commissioner Moore e-mailed revised presentation with changes requested to Ad Hoc Committee and Staff Rachel VanderVeen for distribution to HCDC.
HCDC AD Hoc Committee
Roberta Moore, Chair
HCDC D10, Housing Provider Representative
Jen Beehler, Vice Chair
HCDC D6 Representative
Roma Dawson
HCDC D1 Representative
Barry Del Buono
HCDC D3 Representative
Ryan Jasinsky
HCDC Chair & Mobilehome Owner Representative
Staff Liaison
Rachel VanderVeen, Assistant Director
Overview
PURPOSE STRATEGY
Living Units Identified at
Risk
AT RISK
Hillside
Single family cripple wall
Single family house over garage
Multi-family soft story
PROPOSED
30,000 Living Units in San Jose = 9.5%
2,630 Soft Story Santa Clara County.
ANALYSIS
<1% of San Jose’s Living Units ARO Multi-family Soft Story. (Source: ABAG, Census, ARO Study) Source: ABAG
0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1
1.2 ARO SFR
# of Units
Every Structure Vulnerable
1989 Loma Prieta
63 Deaths
$6 Million in Property Damage
including Roads, Bridges, Steel
Structures.
Most Damaged where in San
Francisco on Hillside and in
Marina District: Landfill and
Liquefaction Zones.
1994 Northridge
57 Deaths
$15.3 Billion in Property
damage including Tens of
Thousands Buildings and Steel
Structures.
200 Soft Story.
25 Evaluated for Structural
Damage. Likely in Landfill and
Liquefaction Zones.
Barriers/Challenges
Cost
• Affordability:
$20k+ per unit
• Inflation &
Interest Rates:
8%+
• Cost of Loan:
$155 per Unit
• Cost to Renter:
$167 per Unit
• Lack of
Financing: Small
Housing Providers
Burden ARO Providers
• Eviction Moratorium: Lost Rent
and Administrative Burden
• Electrification Mandate:
$250,000+ per building
• Seismic Retrofit Mandate:
$20,000+ per unit
• Balcony and Staircase Retrofit
Mandate
• Rent Stabilization Program:
Administrative Burden and Fees
Materials & People
• Shortages of Steel
• Lack of Engineers,
Architects,
Contractors, etc.
• Limited City
Resources for
Processing Permits
Policy Framework
Phase 1
Identify
Phase 2
Roll-out
Phase 3
Expand
Buildings Target
Hazard Zones
• Compressible
Soils, Fault,
Landslide,
Liquefaction
Units
• Phase 2: 12+
• Phase 3: 5+
Age
• Phase 2:
1970-’79
• Phase 3:
1950-‘69
How Built
• Soft Story
over Carport
or Garage,
Wood
Construction
Source: City of Mill Valley Source: Natural Hazards Disclosure City
Incentives
Permit Fee Waivers
(5%)
100% Capital
Improvement Pass
Through preApproved
Streamline Permit
Process
Waive Pre-existing
Conditions
Tiered Approach:
•20+ Units = 4 Years
•Less than 20 Units =
6 Years
Post Earthquake
Warning
Risk/Benefit
Assessment
• RISKS
• Loss of Property & Life
• BENEFICIARIES
• Government: FEMA & City
• Owners & Residents: <1%
CATASTROPHIC
EARTHQUAKE
• INVESTMENT: Hundreds of millions
to $1.3 Billion Los Angeles.
• LOST UNITS: Affordable habitable
units become uninhabitable or
converted to condo because
can’t be retrofitted or sold.
MANDATE RISKS
Commission Discussion
Mandate Phased
Approach
Buildings to
Target
City
Incentives
New Sources of Information
Area of San Francisco that suffered the most damage was the Marina district where four buildings were destroyed by fire and several others collapsed, many of which were apartment buildings common in the area. (Karl 12) To understand why this was the case a brief history of the Marina district is required. https://ivypanda.com/essays/analysis-of-damage-to-apartment-buildings-in-the-1989-loma-prietaearthquake/#:~:text=(Karl%2012)%20This%20was%20the,destroyed%20and%203%2C530%20businesses%20damaged.
Major property damage in San Francisco's Marina District 60 mi (97 km) from the epicenter resulted from liquefaction of soil used to create waterfront land. Other effects included sand volcanoes, landslides and ground ruptures. Some 12,000 homes and 2,600 businesses were damaged Marina 70 buildings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake#:~:text=Major%20property%20damage%20in%20San,and%202%2C600%20businesses%20were%20damaged .
The term “soft story” as used throughout this report refers specifically to older, wood-frame multi-story buildings with an especially weak, flexible, or otherwise vulnerable ground story. Often (but not always), the soft story deficiency is indicated by large openings in the ground story walls, typically due to garage doors, open parking stalls, or large storefront windows. These buildings, built before current building codes, have ground stories that have a tendency to collapse when shaken hard enough.
https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/soft_story_report_web_version_v2.pdf The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690-2699.6) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to earthquake hazards of liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to reduce the threat to public safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating these seismic hazards. The SHMA was passed by the legislature following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/sh/seismic-hazard-zones#:~:text=The%20easiest%20way%20is%20to,your%20city%20or%20county%20office.
Other:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-25/apartment-landlords-bleeding-cash-imperil-47-billion-of-loans#xj4y7vzkg https://bayarearetrofit.com/wp-content/uploads/ABAG-Shaken-Awake.pdf City of San Jose: Housing Provider Meetings, Real Estate Agents, Housing Providers, SCCAOR, CAA